1 Thursday, 5 November 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around the
8 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
10 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
11 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 Good morning to you, Mr. Albiston. I would like to remind you
14 that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you have given at the
15 beginning of your testimony.
16 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Mr. President, yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, are you ready to continue your
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honours.
20 If we could have P509 brought up, please.
21 WITNESS: CHRISTOPHER ALBISTON [Resumed]
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Gustafson: [Continued]
23 Q. Mr. Albiston, this is a document that you were shown on Tuesday
24 and you were asked to provide your observations about this document and
25 you stated:
1 "Well, in this document, General Cermak is giving permission or
2 agreeing that people can move freely."
3 And that was at page 23.809.
4 I would like to go through this one step at a time with you.
5 And, first, on its face in this document, General Cermak is not
6 agreeing or giving permission. He is, in fact, ordering the civilian
7 police and the military police to allow the free movement of civilians.
8 Is that right?
9 A. Yes, the text of paragraph 1 is granting permission for
10 unhindered entry, yeah.
11 Q. I take it from the word "yes" that you agree with me that it is
12 an order?
13 A. Well, it says "order" on it. We discussed -- or I offered a view
14 on its qualities as an order earlier on, and there was some discussion
15 also, I think, on Tuesday about who actually had authority in relation to
16 the granting of passes and permissions and free movement and so on.
17 Q. Well, again, my question was about this document on its -- on its
18 face, and I think --
19 A. On its face it says "order." I accept that, yes.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: Now, could we move into private session, please.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
22 [Private session]
11 Pages 23955-23969 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON:
21 Q. And then in paragraph 3.88 you state that this document cannot
22 simply be ignored. And you conclude:
23 "It should, in my opinion, be interpreted in the light of
24 General Cermak's acknowledged role in relation to the international
25 community and to UNCRO in particular and his desire to be seen to be
1 assisting them."
2 And I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean by this. And
3 I'd like to ask you: Is the view here that you viewed General Cermak as
4 issuing these orders pretending to have more authority that he has, in
5 fact, and due to his desire to be assisting the internationals. Is that
6 what you're getting at here?
7 A. Yes, I think to say that he's pretending to have more authority
8 than he has, may be to imply, if I were to accept that, would be to imply
9 that I thought there was something improper about General Cermak's
10 conduct in relation to this matter. My interpretation of it is that it
11 is -- he is acting with goodwill, attempting to achieve objectives which
12 will be to the benefit of the international community and to the benefit
13 of the reputation of the Republic of Croatia
14 He has written an order, and you see my comments, that whilst I
15 am taking a view in my report that General Cermak did not have the legal
16 constitutional authority to issue orders to the civilian police,
17 nevertheless, it is a document which I have to address and not omit. And
18 if I am to stand by my judgement, then I have to offer some explanation
19 as to where this document fits.
20 Now, it says "order" on it, and I say in my report that the
21 phraseology in the document is consistent with what you would expect in
22 an order in a disciplined hierarchical organisation. And it says "order"
23 at the top. And it has a rubric, an introductory paragraph, which gives
24 the explanation, the rational, for the order.
25 I think it's fair to say just by writing the word "order" on a
1 piece of paper it doesn't, in fact, give the piece of paper the status of
2 an order any more than if I wrote on a piece of paper "royal
3 proclamation" it would be a royal proclamation. But it does require
4 respondents to notify me immediately when the vehicles are found.
5 Unfortunately, it is undermined a little bit by not actually having an
6 addressee --
7 Q. Sorry, Mr. Albiston, I think are you moving a little bit away
8 from my question which was --
9 A. Sorry.
10 Q. Seeing this document in the light of General Cermak's
11 international role, and I think you answered that at the beginning --
12 A. Oh, right, okay.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Higgins.
14 MS. HIGGINS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. This is an important
15 document in the case, and I would ask that, Mr. Albiston, be allowed to
16 finish the complete answer in respect of this. It is useful to the
17 parties; and I submit it is useful to the Chamber. I can go back to it
18 in re-examination, but he should be allowed to finish his answer in its
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: He testified at length on this document in
21 examination-in-chief, Your Honour, I just wanted him to focus on my
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson is entitled to guide the witness to
24 focused answers on what she specifically asked. And if there is any
25 matter still remaining, then, of course, in re-examination, Ms. Higgins,
1 have you an opportunity to hear what the witness would, apart from the
2 focus of this question, would be able to tell us.
3 Please proceed.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Now, --
6 A. Yes, I'm sorry. To address, specifically, the element of the
7 question concerning the international community and whether
8 General Cermak was being dishonest, I'm not imputing dishonesty to
9 General Cermak in relation to his choice of words on the order. I think
10 he was trying to do his best to get a result on behalf of the
11 international community.
12 Q. And would you agree - would you not? - that this order has very
13 similar format as P509, the one we just looked at a few moments ago?
14 A. Yes, I would.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could, please, have D504 on the screen,
17 Q. And this is the order from General Cermak transferring MUP
18 officers to another building. And this document also has a very similar
19 format to D303 that we just looked at. Doesn't it?
20 A. Yes it does. I don't know whether it's important, but it says at
21 the bottom that it's addressed to individuals rather than copied to --
22 or, rather, addressed to addressees rather than copied to addressees.
23 But I entirely accept the Prosecution's suggestion that this is similar
24 in its format and layout.
25 Q. In light of the similar format between this order and the D303
1 and -- P509 and D303 and the fact that those two orders have nothing to
2 do with the international community, I'd like you to explain why it is
3 you think that D303 should be viewed in a unique way in terms of
4 General Cermak's international role.
5 A. Sorry, is this -- it's not D303 that's on the screen, is it?
6 Q. No, D303 was the one we just looked at. If you'd like to see it
7 again, we can go back to --
8 A. Yes, please.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 A. Yes, the question is: Why do I think this is an important
12 Q. No. My question is why you view this as having to be interpreted
13 in light of General Cermak's international role when he issued other
14 orders in a very similar format that had nothing to do with his
15 international role.
16 A. I'm not sure that I -- I understand fully the implications of why
17 it is you think that this document should be viewed in a unique way in
18 view of General Cermak's international role. I'm sorry.
19 Q. I base that on paragraph 3.88 -- 3.88 of your report where you
21 "It should, in my opinion, be interpreted in the light of General
22 Cermak's acknowledged role in relation to the international community and
23 UNCRO in particular."
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So I'm basing it on what you say in your report.
1 A. But I'm not sure whether it's being suggested that this -- this
2 is a -- why the word "unique" is here.
3 Q. Well --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see whether I can get things on track again.
5 Mr. Albiston, it seems that you are, in 3.88, saying that the
6 order should be "interpreted in the light of General Cermak's
7 acknowledged role in relation to the international community."
8 And you then give -- refer to some details of that document:
9 "It's important to note that the order did not specify which
10 individuals or how many individuals should be allocated to the task. It
11 made no attempt to give guidance on how any inquiry should be carried out
12 and is, in my opinion, consistent with General Cermak's role as a
14 You say that is his role. And I see -- in the format of this
15 order, I see weak spots, at least you see flaws, which, apparently, are a
16 reason or are among the reasons why you interpret this document in a
17 certain way.
18 What Ms. Gustafson does at this moment, she presents to you an
19 order in which she says, There's not much difference, as far as the
20 format elements you refer to in relation to the other order, but the
21 substance of it has got nothing to do with international relations, and,
22 therefore, she is exploring how sound the format basis for your
23 conclusions is.
24 And that's why she puts the two documents in sequence to you.
25 Ms. Gustafson, have I understood your intention?
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think mostly, Your Honour. I wasn't so much
2 focused on what the perceived flaws were in the order were; it was more
3 the statement that it should be viewed in light of the --
4 General Cermak's ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you referred to the format, and you say
6 this order in its format is much similar but the substance is quite
8 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour. And I was -- aimed at the --
9 exploring the answer that this was an effort by General Cermak to get a
10 result on behalf of the international community and comparing that to
11 orders with a very similar structure that have nothing to do with the
12 international community.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well it could not be the aim that -- to satisfy
14 the international community.
15 Mr. Albiston, is it clear now what Ms. Gustafson asks you?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, I think I understand the point. And I accept
17 the point that this order refers to a matter in which General Cermak is
18 seeking to assist the international community. And Ms. Gustafson wants
19 to draw my attention to other documents which might be considered by the
20 Chamber to be orders, depending on their view, which don't relate to the
21 international community.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, if you have any follow-up questions.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: No, Your Honour, I think I'll just move to the
24 next question.
25 Q. Now, on Tuesday, you provided some testimony about this document,
1 and you stated that you thought the meaning was clear at page 23833, but
2 you said that:
3 "In my experience, in a hierarchical situation, it is very
4 difficult to address an order to two different individuals without
5 specifying how you expect that order to be complied with."
6 Now, these -- this order is addressed to two different
7 individuals in two different hierarchical structures. But, to me, it is
8 clear that General Cermak expected this order to be complied with. He
9 expected the military police commander and the civilian police commander
10 to form a joint team to find this equipment, and he left it up to those
11 commanders who are, after all, the experts in policing matters, to figure
12 out how to implement that task.
13 Now, is that not a reasonable interpretation of this order?
14 A. Yes, I think in part it is reasonable. But it doesn't -- it
15 doesn't contradict the proposition which I put on Tuesday, which is that
16 this would be a difficult order for people in two separate hierarchical
17 chains to comply with. I don't say "impossible," because common sense
18 and goodwill can achieve an awful lot in the absence of proper
19 constitutional, legal, hierarchical arrangements.
20 Q. Well, that's something that's inherent in issuing an order to
21 people in different hierarchical organisations, isn't it?
22 A. Well, in my experience, in military and policing hierarchies,
23 orders from one to another simply don't exist.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see whether I understand you.
25 Mr. Albiston, you said this is a funny order because it's
1 addressed to two different people and they are even in different --
2 Now, could you tell us, if I, for whatever reason, think that I'm
3 authorised to bridge a gap or to create a link between two persons in two
4 hierarchical situations, well, let's say, I want A to meet with B to do
5 something. How would you phrase that order? Just to A, just to B, or
6 would you address the order to A and B and say, Please meet, or you have
7 to meet and do together something?
8 I mean, I see, in general, the point that you shouldn't say to
9 A and B -- give them similar instructions. But if the specific content
10 of what you want to achieve is that you want A to meet with B and to do
11 something together, wouldn't it be totally logical to address that to
12 both A and B? If you do it only to A, then B wouldn't know about it; if
13 you only do it to B, A would say I'm not addressed by it.
14 It sounds so logical to me that for the specific purpose here
15 that the general observation that you shouldn't issue orders to two
16 different persons, because that creates confusion, that, here, it
17 perfectly makes sense and is logical.
18 THE WITNESS: I don't think, with respect, that that is the way
19 that police and military organisations work. I entirely accept that
20 common sense and goodwill can make things work without always having to
21 refer back up the line of command to the very top for authority to do
22 things, and it's not just a question of the organisations that I've
23 worked in and with. It might be more relevant to these proceedings if I
24 were to cite an example in relation to this place and this time. And
25 what I have in mind - it may not be a direct parallel, but it may help
1 the Court - is the agreement reached between the United Nations and the
2 Republic of Croatia
3 the Croatian civilian police. And there's a document which is, I think,
4 cited in my report, and it's certainly known to the Chamber, which, at
5 the highest level, sets out the mechanisms for that coordination. And it
6 shows that the coordination will start at the bottom. And that in the
7 event of a disagreement at the bottom level, there will be referral
8 upwards and so on.
9 So these sort of arrangement can work. I don't say that
10 different agencies can't work together; all I say is that police, in
11 particular, always look for authority in the law or the constitution for
12 the actions which they take. Police are trained to enforce the law and
13 to obey the law, and it is a part of their culture always to look for a
14 specific authority for what they do. And, I think, that is what gives
15 rise to occasions in witness testimony, for example, when we have heard
16 about various witnesses saying that they didn't take orders from
17 General Cermak, and yet, counsel for Prosecution is saying, Well,
18 actually, they may not have taken orders, but we see things happening
19 which suggests that what General Cermak was suggesting to them, that
20 passing on information from the international community or discussing the
21 situation, actually produced some sort of concrete results.
22 I think those are entirely consistent positions.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Please proceed, Ms. Gustafson.
25 MS. GUSTAFSON:
1 Q. I'd like to move, now, to paragraph 3.90 of your report, where
2 you discuss General Cermak's 12th of August, 1995, request to
3 General Gotovina to inform HV unit commanders in the
4 Split Military District of the need to urgently return missing vehicles
5 and equipment. And that's D304.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could have that brought up, please.
7 Q. And you note in your report that the letter states that
8 General Cermak has attempted to find and return these vehicles through
9 the assistance of the civilian police and military police and has had no
10 success to date.
11 And you conclude that this is:
12 "A persuasive indicator of the severe limitations on
13 General Cermak's authority and influence over the police and army."
14 And on Tuesday, you testified about this document as well at page
15 23835 and you stated:
16 "It seems to me, from the text of the document, that it is
17 tantamount to an admission by General Cermak that actually he is not
18 getting anywhere with the steps which he has taken and that he realizes
19 that if he wants action from the military, in relation to recovery of the
20 vehicles, then it's to the Military Command that he needs to go."
21 Now, in relation to the police, General Cermak is not asking
22 General Gotovina to assist him in having the civilian police or the
23 military police act in relation to this matter. It is clear, as you
24 stated, that he is asking General Gotovina to take steps through his
25 operational command.
1 And this document certainly indicates that the missing equipment
2 has not yet been recovered. But there's no indication in this document
3 that either the civilian police or the military police have not acted on
4 General Cermak's order, is there?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And if General Cermak had considered that what was needed here
7 was to have the military police and the civilian police take some further
8 action that he thought they were not taking, then he would have requested
9 assistance from somebody who he thought could initiate further action by
10 the military police or the civilian police, wouldn't you think?
11 A. Yes, I think I -- I think I see the point.
12 Q. In other words --
13 A. The --
14 Q. Go ahead.
15 A. Yeah. The document does not suggest that -- if Prosecution is
16 saying the document doesn't suggest that General Cermak has simply given
17 up on the civilian police as a vehicle for finding the stolen vehicles,
18 no. I entirely accept that.
19 Q. Doesn't this document simply indicate that General Cermak is
20 attempting to employ another avenue in order to find this equipment that
21 hasn't yet been recovered?
22 A. Yes, I think he is.
23 Q. Perhaps this is outside of your expertise, and if it is, please
24 indicate that. But the fact that General Gotovina acts immediately on
25 General Cermak's request is an indication of a significance influence
1 that General Cermak is able to excerpt at the level of the
2 Military District Command. Don't you think?
3 And, again, if you don't feel capable of answering that, that's
5 A. I hesitate to comment on the relationship between the two
6 Generals, who, as I understand, were of equal rank within the -- within
7 the army. But I think -- I mean, if it helps, then, there is another
8 document, which I cite in my report, which shows General Gotovina taking
9 immediate action in response to General Cermak's request, yes.
10 Q. Now, you state in paragraph 3.90 that stolen vehicles should be a
11 police matter.
12 Now, I -- it's certainly outside the scope of this report, and I
13 would think outside of the scope of your expertise to assess the extent
14 to which the duties of military commanders might be triggered here in
15 relation to equipment in the hands of their subordinates. Is that right?
16 A. Yes. The remark in my report is simply intended to mean that,
17 when Brigadier Forand reported this matter to General Cermak, he was
18 complaining that his vehicles had been stolen. And that's a crime, and
19 that's why -- well, one of the reasons, I think, why General Cermak
20 involved the civilian police.
21 Q. Now, also in paragraph 3.90 you refer to Exhibit D500 and D502
22 which are documents that the Knin police chief Mr. Mihic wrote to
23 neighbouring police station chiefs seeking the assistance to recover
24 stolen vehicles and referring to a criminal complaint from the Knin
1 And you were asked some questions about these documents on
2 Tuesday, and I would just like to read some of those questions and
3 answers to you.
4 In relation to D500, you were asked:
5 "What I'm interested in is its relevance in terms of the
6 authority or not of the original orders which you saw from Mr. Cermak."
7 And you answered, and this is page 23836 and following:
8 "The way I read this document is that Mr. Mihic, the commander of
9 the Knin police station, is ensuring that information he has received
10 from General Cermak regarding the stolen vehicles is available to the
11 other police stations so that, should these vehicles be found, they can
12 be returned accordingly."
13 And then you were asked:
14 "Does it tell you anything about Milos Mihic's attitude towards
15 the original order or not?"
16 And you answered:
17 "He uses the expression gathered information. He doesn't suggest
18 that he is acting on the instructions of the garrison commander."
19 And in relation to D502, you were asked again about its relevance
20 to the issue of authority of Mr. Cermak, and also how Milos Mihic
21 interprets the information as best you can say, if at all, that he
22 received in respect of the order.
23 And you answered:
24 "In part, Mr. Mihic is regarding General Cermak as the vehicle
25 for conveying information about a crime from the complainant and into the
1 civilian policing system."
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could please move into private session
3 for my next question.
4 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
5 [Private session]
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
18 MS. GUSTAFSON:
19 Q. Now, in paragraph 3.93 of your report, you refer to
20 General Forand's letter to General Gotovina, the 26th of August, which is
21 D150. And you state in bold highlighted text:
22 "Brigadier Forand had come to the conclusion that General Cermak
23 did not have the authority to deal effectively with this problem."
24 And you refer to General Forand's statement in that letter:
25 "I am sure that he is very frustrated to find that his authority
1 is limited in certain areas."
2 My question for you is: Are you aware of the specific facts and
3 circumstances that formed the basis for General Forand's conclusion that
4 he was sure General Cermak was frustrated to find his authority limited?
5 Do you know the basis for that conclusion in his letter?
6 A. I don't know what -- what you're alluding to, no.
7 Q. So I take it you didn't review General Forand's testimony in that
9 A. I read General Forand's testimony. I don't remember the
10 particular issue, in relation to this.
11 Q. So you didn't -- that's not something that you incorporated,
12 certainly not explicitly, but even implicitly in your report and the
13 conclusions that you draw?
14 A. I don't cite any testimony from General Forand. No, that's
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: I would just refer the Court to transcript pages
18 4235, to 36 here.
19 Q. Now, these written orders from General Cermak to the civilian
20 police span a period beginning in early to mid August and extend into
22 Now, that suggests - does it not? - that General Cermak held the
23 belief and continued to hold the belief that he had the authority, in
24 fact, to issue orders to the civilian police. Does it not?
25 A. I'm not sure that that argument can be sustained from all the
1 evidence. Certainly, during the period to which you refer,
2 General Cermak continued to carry out his duties. And the number of
3 documents which are addressed or copied to the civilian police and could
4 reasonably be argued as orders are -- is pretty small, in my view.
5 I don't dispute the dates which you're suggesting for
6 General Cermak's period in office, no.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: Now, could we move to P34, please.
8 Q. Now, this is a Human Rights Action Team report for the
9 29th of August.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to page 2 in both the English
11 and the B/C/S, under point five.
12 Q. And it describes a meeting that the team had with General Cermak.
13 And starting in the -- the first paragraph under point five.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: Perhaps we could blow that up. It's not very
16 Q. Starting in the middle of the paragraph the report states:
17 "While denying that anyone is being urged to leave their homes,
18 the HRAT stressed to the general the necessity of providing a stronger
19 Croatian police presence in outlying areas. The general stated he is
20 giving an order to that effect today to Knin chief of police Romanic."
21 My question here is similar to one I asked you yesterday: Do you
22 think this statement reflects a genuine believe on the part of
23 General Cermak that was, in fact, able to issue orders to the civilian
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Higgins.
1 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, my concern is that we are going to
2 documents and questions are being posed in respect of Mr. Albiston's view
3 of what other individual believed at the time. And I think we have to be
4 very careful about drawing conclusions about other individual's beliefs.
5 There's only a certain extent that one can draw from this documentation.
6 One can look at the actions that were taken, but it doesn't necessarily
7 mean that an individual believed or didn't believe. And, therefore, I'd
8 ask that caution be exercised in asking Mr. Albiston his view on
9 Mr. Cermak's beliefs.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: Well, Your Honour, the witness has been opining
12 as to General Cermak's intentions with respect to certain statements he's
13 made, so I think it's a fair question in that light.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, in view of the content of the report, the
15 Chamber certainly allows you to ask the witness to draw conclusions but,
16 at the same time, that some caution is well placed here is -- is true as
18 Please proceed.
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
20 Q. Mr. Albiston, if could you please answer the question.
21 A. Yes. It certainly reflects a desire on the part of
22 General Cermak to persuade the people whom he is addressing that he will
23 take strong executive action. Whether that reflects his inner state of
24 mind, I'm not sure that I do agree with that. It's right to tell the
25 Chamber that my views may be influenced by having read what
1 General Cermak said in interview with the officials of the OTP. But,
2 nevertheless, as Document P34 stands, it seems to me to be an indication
3 of what General Cermak wanted the people he was with to believe rather
4 than what he believed himself.
5 Q. Just to go back to something you said. I'd just like to confirm
6 that you have, in the course of preparing your report, read
7 General Cermak's interviews with the OTP and his statements in those
8 interviews have influenced your views as they're expressed in your
9 report. Is that right?
10 A. Well, they haven't influenced my views in relation to what did or
11 did not happen. But there are a couple of paragraphs within the report
12 which suggest what General Cermak wanted to tell the
13 Office of the Prosecutor at the time of the interviews, and that -- I
14 mention that to the Chamber in case they want to draw any conclusions
15 about my view of General Cermak's position from that.
16 Q. So you accepted the views that General Cermak expressed in his
17 interviews with the Prosecution, as to what he wanted and desired at the
19 A. No, no. I'm not making a judgement about what General Cermak
20 said. I'm indicating to the Chamber that I'm aware of what he said.
21 Q. And they influenced your views?
22 A. Well, in the sense that I took them into consideration along with
23 all the other material which I studied, yes, I suppose they did influence
24 my views.
25 Q. Now, Mr. Albiston, I'd like to ask you a question based on your
1 personal experience as a police officer, police official.
2 Now, if you were in a situation where you were working in
3 coordination or cooperation with another person who you considered not to
4 have the authority to issue orders to you, and that person tried to issue
5 orders to you, would you take that up with your chain of command? Would
6 you raise it with your superior officer, for example.
7 A. Yes, I would.
8 Q. And you haven't seen any evidence of anyone in the Knin Police
9 Administration complaining or questioning General Cermak's authority to
10 issue orders to them, have you?
11 A. No, I haven't.
12 Q. And are you aware that Mr. Cetina recently testified and stated
13 that neither Mr. Romanic nor Mr. Mihic complained to them about
14 General Cermak orders or sought his advice as to how to deal with them?
15 I'm referring to pages 23526 of the transcript.
16 A. I am aware that Mr. Cetina gave evidence recently, but I
17 haven't -- I didn't watch him giving evidence, and I haven't seen any
18 indication of the evidence. And, of course, I accept what counsel says
19 about what he said.
20 Q. And, from my reading of your report, you have not considered this
21 as a factor, this evidence of a lack of complaints or queries regarding
22 General Cermak's ability or authority to issue orders. Is that right?
23 A. It's right that I haven't addressed the issue of what certain
24 witnesses or concern officers said about this matter at the time. There
25 are issues about chain of command which are addressed in relation to
1 other matters, but not specifically to the Knin police station.
2 Q. I'd like to move now to paragraph 3.50 of your report. And this
3 is where you begin to discuss the issue of the -- General Cermak's role
4 in the issuing of passes and freedom of movement.
5 And in the second half of that paragraph, you rely on document
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could bring that up on the screen,
9 Q. And you've concluded:
10 "This document shows that the MUP considered that General Cermak
11 had no authority over the movement of civilians."
12 That's the last sentence of paragraph 3.50 of your report.
13 And I'd like to ask you what, specifically, in this document,
14 caused you to conclude that the MUP considered that General Cermak had no
15 authority over the movement of civilians?
16 A. Well, the authority for that, on this particular document, taking
17 it in isolation, although I don't think it's best to read the document in
18 isolation, but taking this document in isolation and the way that you
19 have put it to me, then I rely on the last part of the handwritten
20 section, which says:
21 "It must come in writing" -- in translation it says:
22 "It must come in writing from the MORH, Ministry of Defence of
23 the Republic of Croatia
24 In other words, General Cermak should annul what he said
1 Q. In relation to the movement of civilians, this document indicates
2 that General Cermak has the authority to issue an order for the free
3 movement of civilians - does it not? - in particular, the handwriting.
4 A. Well, I've interpreted this in the light of other documents as
5 meaning that he is cancelling that, because the Ministry of the Interior
6 is saying, Well, We don't really accept that he has got this authority.
7 And certainly in relation to civilians.
8 Q. Now, you -- the person who wrote this by hand -- and I assume you
9 don't know who that is?
10 A. I don't know, no.
11 Q. That person, at least on the face of this document, appears to
12 consider that General Cermak has the authority to order the free movement
13 of civilians, does it not?
14 A. Well, it's not clear to me what form any order would take.
15 Q. Well, we've seen, in fact, that that very day, General Cermak did
16 issue an order for the free movement of civilians, than was P509 that we
17 looked at a few moments ago. And there's no evidence - is there? - that
18 anyone in the MUP thought that General Cermak didn't have the authority
19 to issue P509 at the time, is there?
20 A. Well, we did look at the evidence of a discussion on what the
21 views of the MUP were about General Cermak's authority in this area, and
22 I don't -- I don't want to repeat what I said then.
23 What I can say is that I do not know what is the statutory
24 authority for anybody to issue passes or to restrict movement. I can't
25 tell this Chamber what that statutory basis is.
1 Q. Well, I was just asking you whether the -- to confirm that you
2 haven't seen any evidence that anyone in the MUP thought that
3 General Cermak didn't have the authority to issue P509 at the time. Is
4 that right?
5 A. I don't -- I'm not sure that I can relate the subsequent material
6 concerning the MUP's views of freedom of movement with the document which
7 you suggest, yes. That's right.
8 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'd like to look at other documents now, so
9 perhaps it would be a good time to have a break.
10 JUDGE ORIE: It is, Ms. Gustafson.
11 We'll have a break, and we'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.
12 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I explained yesterday, under
16 what conditions the Chamber was considering to -- to adapt the scheduling
17 next week.
18 Has there been any commitment or any --
19 Mr. Hedaraly.
20 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, Mr. President, Your Honours, good morning.
21 Yes, we have -- I have discussed with all parties involved, and
22 there definitely is a commitment. There is also an expectation that the
23 testimony of the witness will be completed by Wednesday. And it seems
24 that it could even start tomorrow, given current estimates. And if that
25 is the case, then it is even likely that we will not need for the Chamber
1 to consider sitting pursuant to Rule 15 bis just with the approximate
2 five sessions on Monday, the approximate five sessions on Tuesday, and
3 the, perhaps, extra session on Wednesday will be sufficient to cover the
4 examination of all parties.
5 If I have misspoken or misrepresented anything, I'm sure my
6 colleagues across the well will correct me.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no corrections. I think the Chamber spoke
8 about commitment, and you spoke about exceptions, which is not exactly
9 the same, although with a firm commitment. Of course, we would expect
10 then that it would -- and, of course, I'm aware that a commitment is
11 always to some extent, conditional, that you never know what happens in a
12 courtroom. But I understand the exceptions and also giving up the 15 bis
13 time as a commitment by all parties, that, unless, totally unexpected
14 things will happen, that the parties have divided the time in such a way
15 that we can be confident that the testimony of Mr. Deverell will be
16 finished by Wednesday, not later than 4.00.
17 Then, Mr. Registrar, I think we still need a number to be
18 assigned to the statement of Witness AG-10 for which protective measures
19 were granted yesterday.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1782.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted -- no, was, I think -- yes, I think
22 it was already admitted by written decision of the 16th of September,
23 so -- but the statement now has got a number as well.
24 The Chamber understands that, in relation to the issue of the
25 admission of Milosevic and Martic material, that there's an ongoing
1 discussion with the OTP.
2 Are there any results to be reported already?
3 Mr. Kay.
4 MR. KAY: Not any further than when we were last time,
5 Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Which was on the 28th of October.
7 MR. KAY: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. KAY: I think the project is being considered by the OTP as
10 to -- how best to manage it and provide the information. That's where we
11 are, and Mr. Waespi is dealing with it.
12 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, is he not here right now. But we have looked
13 at it, and I think there has been some exchanges in dealing with the --
14 with the volume of information and how best to admit those without having
15 all the witness statements. And I think there is an agreement that has
16 been reached on principle, it's just a matter of sorting out the
17 mechanics of the filing and how to resubmit the matter which, hopefully,
18 we will be able to complete shortly.
19 MS. HIGGINS: Can I assist the Chamber as well --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MS. HIGGINS: -- as to say that in terms of the motions that the
22 Chamber received concerning the Martic and the Milosevic material, the
23 text has now been agreed, in a table form, and it just needs to be
24 effectively tidied up. But we have reached agreement on that part.
25 We are still, as Mr. Kay says, awaiting further disclosure in
1 relation to witness statements which we have not referred to from our own
2 searches but will be coming, I hope and anticipate, from the Prosecution.
3 So we are still in discussions with the Prosecution on that
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's on disclosure rather than on admission?
6 MS. HIGGINS: It is, Your Honour, yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If there are any obstacles to be expected, of
8 course, the Chamber would like to be informed about it. Because we are
9 reaching stages of these proceedings in which we cannot afford anymore to
10 say that we are dealing with matters. Matters are at a point that they
11 have to be resolved.
12 So the Chamber is -- we'll hear from the parties both on a table
13 of facts and on any possible problem in relation to disclosure of
14 statements from these cases.
15 MR. KAY: Your Honour, it's not in relation to those cases; it's
16 the wired disclosure that is outstanding.
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 MR. KAY: The Martic/Milosevic has all been taken care of. It's
19 the other, wider information.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- yes, misspoke, Mr. Kay --
21 MR. KAY: Sorry, yeah.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- and I appreciate your correction.
23 Then we can continue the cross-examination of Mr. Albiston.
24 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
1 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, if I may be excused.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Hedaraly, you are.
3 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: While the witness is brought, Your Honour, I
5 should just put on the record that I misspoke at page 32 of today's
6 transcript. I had attempted to refer the Court and the parties to
7 General Forand's testimony at pages 4325 to 26, and my colleague,
8 Mr. Kehoe, helpfully pointed out that I had made a mistake. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE ORIE: I'm a bit surprised because I still have on my
12 screen, because I'm used to checking all the references, I still have
13 4325 on my screen. So that apparently was the -- what you referred to at
14 the time.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour. My dyslexia persists. I meant
16 to refer to 4235 to 36, thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: 4235, 4236, which makes any questions as to the page
18 I have on my screen superfluous. Let me just check.
19 Ms. Gustafson, are you ready to continue the cross-examination of
20 Mr. Albiston?
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
22 If we could have D499 brought up on the screen, please.
23 Q. Mr. Albiston, this is an order that you testified about on
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could move to page 2 in the English.
1 Q. It's an order from Mr. Moric to the police administrations, dated
2 the 17th of August. And, among other things, it states:
3 "Do not restrict the movement of European Union monitors,
4 UNCIVPOL members, or UNHCR members."
5 And on Tuesday you stated at page 23818:
6 "In my opinion, it demonstrates that the assistant minister for
7 the interior, Mr. Moric, is the man who is making and communicating
8 decisions about the requirements for passes, freedom of movement, and
9 those sorts of issues within this area."
10 And the contents of this order are similar to the contents of
11 General Cermak's 15th of August order, except that this order relates to
12 members of international organisations, and General Cermak's order
13 relates to civilians.
14 And right before the break, you confirmed that there was no
15 evidence that the -- anyone in the MUP had thought, at the time, that
16 General Cermak didn't have the authority to issue his order. And I'm
17 wondering how you've concluded that it was Mr. Moric rather than
18 General Cermak who was the man making decisions about freedom of
19 movement, in light of these two distinct, rather similar, orders, albeit
20 dealing with different subjects in terms of the people?
21 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, I wonder, if were being asked to
22 compare the two documents, if Mr. Albiston could be given a chance to
23 just see just, again, the General Cermak 15th of August order, please.
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: Certainly, if that will help the witness.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Albiston, I -- Ms. Higgins protects you
1 carefully. If would you have any need to look at any document - and I
2 think earlier you expressed your wish to see a certain document again -
3 you are invited to directly address Ms. Gustafson or the Chamber so that
4 we would never receive an answer by -- you would feel that you would have
5 had insufficient opportunity to review a document again.
6 THE WITNESS: Well, of course, Mr. President, I'm grateful for
7 Ms. Higgins' protection. But, actually, in relation to the question, as
8 I understood it, put by counsel, I would refer to yet another document.
9 And it may that be that I can assist the Chamber without necessarily
10 having the documents up on the screen, and the document to which I'm
11 referring is one which was mentioned in the Chamber previously during the
12 course of my evidence. I think during the course of my evidence in
13 chief. And that was a document of, I think, the 3rd of August and it was
14 from Mr. Moric and it described the roles of Mr. Tolj and Mr. Rebic in
15 the arrangements for the issuing of passes.
16 And earlier this morning, in answer to a question from
17 Ms. Gustafson, I confirmed that I cannot refer to any constitutional
18 order or legislation or authority of the type, which I have referred to
19 in many parts of my report, which would establish exactly who has what
20 authority to deal with this issue.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I appreciate your evidence in this respect.
22 I do not know exactly whether this was an answer to your
23 question, Ms. Gustafson. If not, please repeat your question.
24 MS. GUSTAFSON:
25 Q. I take it - please correct me if I'm wrong, because I may have
1 misunderstood your answer - that the reason you conclude that it's
2 Mr. Moric rather than General Cermak is based on the formal legal
3 structures in place at the time. Is that -- is that a correct
5 A. Yes, it is. Except that, as I say, I can't refer this Chamber to
6 a law which says it's the Ministry of the Interior and not the
7 Ministry of Defence which deals with this issues. I don't know what the
8 law is about passes in areas which have been the subject of a military
9 campaign and the restoration of civil law and order.
10 Q. Okay. Well, then -- then maybe I would like to ask my question
11 again, which is, how did you come to the conclusion that it was Mr. Moric
12 rather than General Cermak who was the man responsible for freedom of
13 movement in light of the fact that each of them had issued an order in
14 this respect?
15 A. Yes. The basis on which I draw that conclusion is that the
16 3rd August document, if that is, indeed, the correct date, to which I
17 referred, shows activity at Zagreb
18 which includes reference to officials from the Ministry of Defence, so
19 that that is the basis on which I say the documents from Mr. Moric carry
20 greater authority.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Now I'd like to go to document P957.
23 Q. It's another document you looked at on Tuesday.
24 And this was the ECMM report, referring to a complaint to
25 General Cermak regarding a restriction of movement. And it's the
1 paragraph 2 that's relevant here.
2 And on Tuesday, at page 23817, you stated:
3 "I think what that indicates to us is that at the time of this
4 incident, General Cermak is recognizing the role of the -- what he
5 describes or what the author of this document ... describes as the
6 minister of internal affairs, in other words, the MUP hierarchy, as the
7 authority which should have been dealing with this matter."
8 And my first question to you is: Based on your experience and
9 knowledge, in your jurisdiction, how many people do you know who are
10 outside the formal Ministry of Interior structure who are able to call
11 the minister of the interior directly to have an intervene in a policing
12 complaint, and if you know who they are, if you could name them or
13 identify them.
14 A. No, I don't know any.
15 Q. So, based on your experience from your jurisdiction, you would
16 agree that this document illustrates significant influence and access on
17 the part of General Cermak over the MUP leadership. Is that fair?
18 A. I think that's exactly right. Influence and access, certainly.
19 Q. And there's nothing in this document that indicates that
20 General Cermak could not have intervened directly with the Knin police in
21 respect of a restriction on movement, is there?
22 A. No, I -- I accept this document at face value.
23 Q. Now, the Chamber has heard quite a lot of evidence of General --
24 of international monitors being stopped at police check-points and being
25 able to call General Cermak who would intervene directly to stop the
2 Did you see evidence of that in the material you reviewed?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. And you don't refer to any of this material in your report. And
5 I take it from that, that you didn't consider any of that to be relevant
6 to General Cermak's factual authority over freedom of movement issues.
7 Is that fair?
8 A. Well, if -- if you say that there's no reference to any of that
9 in my report, I have to accept that, yes.
10 Q. And did you consider it irrelevant, then, to the issues you were
12 A. No, I don't think I did consider it irrelevant.
13 Q. And how, then, did you decide -- what process caused you to
14 decide not to address any of this material in your report, given that you
15 thought it was relevant, or at least not irrelevant?
16 A. Well, I accept that some of these incident may have a bearing on
17 judgements about what you call informal authority that General Cermak may
18 or may not have exercised. But I think, if there is no reference to this
19 in my document, it was because I was trying to address the de jure
20 position in relation to the matters we are discussing.
21 Q. Okay. I would now look to move to the part of report entitled:
22 "The Investigation of Crimes and Other Irregular Acts."
23 And that's beginning at paragraph 3.56.
24 And, in this section, you have focused largely on a number of the
25 applicable legal provisions, and you have concluded that the garrison had
1 no role in the enforcement of law and order or the investigation and
2 punishment of crimes. And that's at paragraph 3.69.
3 And at paragraph 3.70, you conclude that:
4 "According to law, the only duty General Cermak had in relation
5 to crimes coming to his notice was to ensure they were reported through
6 the appropriate channels."
7 And you gave evidence to that effect, as well, on Tuesday at page
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, first, in relation to General Cermak's duties, you have
11 referred to his responsibilities as a senior representative of a state
12 body and a citizen. And the laws that you refer to are the
13 Law on Criminal Procedure and the Basic Criminal Law of Croatia. And
14 that's at paragraph 3.71.
15 And I take it from this that you have not considered it to be
16 within the scope of your report or at least have you not addressed any
17 powers, responsibilities, or duties that General Cermak may have had in
18 relation to the military justice system and under the military hierarchy
19 as a garrison commander and a senior HV officer.
20 Is that --
21 A. That's correct. I considered that that was a matter for a
22 military expert to address.
23 Q. And from your answers yesterday to my questions about
24 General Cermak's appointment and tasks from President Tudjman, you have
25 not considered any duties that may have arisen from the tasks and
1 assignment he was given directly by the president. Is that right?
2 A. With not -- well, I saw no evidence that he was given any tasks
3 in relation to this issue.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Higgins.
5 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, in respect of the last question which
6 my learned friend has asked, she states:
7 "Have you not considered any duties that may have arisen from the
8 tasks and assignments that he was given directly by the president. Is
9 that right."
10 I would ask - we've seen one document which my learned friend
11 referred to as an example yesterday which was P1144 - if my learned
12 friend has any other evidence to support her question, I would ask that
13 it be shown to this witness, who has reviewed between 2 to 4.000
14 documents, that he be given the opportunity to see the evidence that my
15 learned friend says exists.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: The witness made clear from his evidence
18 yesterday that this was an area that he did not address at all in his
19 report. And I don't think it is reasonable or practical for me to try
20 and have him look at all of the relevant evidence and draw conclusions
21 when this is an area he has never turned his mind to. I think my
22 question was a fair one in that context.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Higgins.
24 MS. HIGGINS: The Prosecution is alleging that an authority was
25 given by the president to Mr. Cermak over the civilian police.
1 Now, I ask that my learned friend follow through on her
2 obligation to put her case and to allow this witness to see that or other
3 documents, if they exist.
4 It's a very simply point, and this witness should be given the
5 opportunity, Your Honour.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I put that case yesterday. It's
7 very clear that this is something the witness did not address in his
8 report. It is not my obligation to educate this witness on all the
9 material and have him draw conclusions afresh.
10 MS. HIGGINS: Well, I'd ask that -- sorry.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Higgins, you have objected. Ms. Gustafson has
12 responded. You had an opportunity to reply. Ms. Gustafson now has given
13 her view again.
14 Let me see whether the Chamber can rule on the matter.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Before the Chamber rules on the matter,
17 Mr. Albiston, I would have a question for you.
18 As far as the authority of Mr. Cermak is concerned, is it correct
19 to say that you focused on the position of a garrison commander as you
20 find it in legal instruments of different kinds and that you did not
21 include, in your analysis of the situation, any authority assigned beyond
22 those instruments, for example, by the president, whatever they may have
24 THE WITNESS: That's absolutely correct, Mr. President, because
25 if my review of the documents I didn't see any additional authorities
1 ascribed to General Cermak. I understand the Prosecution's line of
2 questioning, but I'm unable to assist, because I'm not aware of any
3 documents which would provide that additional authority to which
4 Ms. Gustafson appears to be alluding.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, yesterday, a document, P1144 - I think it
6 was page 4, Ms. Higgins - was shown to you. That is a later conversation
7 of President Tudjman with Mr. Cermak - I think it was 1999, if I'm not
8 mistaken - in which they look back --
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- to what happened at the time. There a --
11 Mr. Cermak mentions with what mission he was sent or at least what tasks
12 he was assigned by the president, and then the president adds one element
13 to that.
14 Ms. Gustafson --
15 Let me first ask you: You have no other knowledge about the
16 assignment of the task, further to what was shown to you yesterday, or do
17 you have?
18 THE WITNESS: No, I don't. And I remember the document which was
19 shown to me yesterday, but I have seen nothing else which suggests the
20 sort of authority which, clearly, Ms. Gustafson is suggesting to me.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 Now, is it clear to you that the position of the Office of the
23 Prosecution, is that due to this, let's say, personal assignment, if I
24 could call it that, by the president, that the authority of Mr. Cermak
25 went beyond what is written in legal instruments and that they interpret
1 the behaviour and the acts and conduct of Mr. Cermak in that broader
3 Is that clear to you.
4 THE WITNESS: It has become clear to me in the last two days.
5 Yes, certainly, sir.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 And, Ms. Gustafson, in view of what the witness has told us he is
8 familiar with and what he has no knowledge about, I think that you could
9 phrase your questions in such a way that -- and the Chamber certainly
10 does not encourage you to do that, without any specific need as to give
11 this witness all of the evidence, that is, not only documents, documents
12 that might not be that much, as a matter of fact, but other witnesses
13 telling the chamber about the background of why Mr. Cermak was chosen for
14 the job, what his specific qualities were. I think there's no need to
15 put that to the witness at this moment.
16 But, the Chamber will carefully listen to your questions, and the
17 Chamber will also consider whether, due to the formulation of that
18 question -- of your questions, that position will change.
19 Ms. Higgins.
20 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, arising from the comments that
21 Your Honour has made, I don't want to prejudice the evidence that this
22 witness is giving, but an important issue does arise, and I would ask,
23 just for a couple of moments, that the witness be removed from the
24 courtroom so that can I address you and Your Honours at the Bench in his
25 absence, please.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then we would follow your wish.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Higgins.
5 MS. HIGGINS: I'm grateful, Your Honour. I will are brief.
6 The point that Your Honour refers to about the evidence that has
7 been given before this Chamber from various witnesses as to how
8 Mr. Cermak was appointed and what the remit of those roles, that I am not
9 concerned with. What I am concerned is the specific allegation that has
10 been put by my learned friend that a specific authority over the civilian
11 police was given by the president to Mr. Cermak.
12 Now my learned friend, Your Honour, has an obligation to put her
13 case. She also has obligation to have a foundation, an evidential
14 foundation, for the questions that she asks. And if it's not going to be
15 raised with this witness, for the purposes of transparency, which I know
16 Your Honour is inherently concerned about, I would ask that the Chamber
17 ask Ms. Gustafson to provide me and my team with the documents that she
18 refers to in relation to that specific point, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first, perhaps, try to find out what
20 Ms. Gustafson was exactly referring to.
21 Were you referring to more than this -- what we find in this
22 conversation between President Tudjman and Mr. Cermak?
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I'm referring to the whole body of
24 evidence, indicating factual authority by General Cermak over the
25 civilian police --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, now we have to carefully make a
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: But --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Whether that authority was or was not part of or
5 included in what is described in a rather general way in this
6 conversation, if you are referring to the exercise of -- well, just to
7 say, You see here Mr. Cermak signs an order. That's something different
8 from, Look, the president has assigned specific authority over the
9 civilian police to Mr. Cermak.
10 Now, finally, the Chamber, of course, will have to look at the
11 evidence in its entirety, including what was said in this conversation,
12 what happened on the ground, how persons receiving orders were
13 interpreting them. There's a lot of evidence there. But I think that
14 the primary concern of Ms. Higgins seems to that be, in the formulation
15 of your question, it is suggested, more or less, that the assignment for
16 specific tasks follows from documentary evidence, which the witness has
17 not seen.
18 Ms. Higgins, is that correctly understood?
19 MS. HIGGINS: That's absolutely right, Your Honour. It's that
20 specific point, not the body of evidence, that my learned friend referred
22 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Ms. Gustafson, if you would -- I do not know to
23 what extent for your line of questioning it is needed to refer to
24 evidence or documents in which the president assigns an authority over
25 the civilian police to Mr. Cermak, rather than, that, as we have seen in
1 this conversation, the tasks assigned to Mr. Cermak, at least from the
2 words spoken, seem to go beyond what is the -- the task of a garrison
3 commander as laid down in legal, written instruments.
4 Again, if you need a specific reference to documents in which an
5 authority over the civilian police, in those words, is assigned, then
6 have you to give it to the witness. If, however, you want to refer to
7 the broader tasks assigned, often they're summarized internationals and
8 restoration of order, in this conversation we find a bit more details in
9 1999. If you need to go any further, and, nevertheless, want to stick to
10 assignment of authority over the police, then you'll have to show it to
11 the witness.
12 Is that clear?
13 And perhaps we now go back to your question exactly. Could
14 you ...
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, it's --
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- tell me exactly where --
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'm not sure exactly where in the transcript, but
18 the question was to have the witness confirm that he didn't consider, in
19 the scope of his report, any duties arising from the tasks assigned to
20 him personally by President Tudjman.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just see.
22 Again, page and line, could you assist me.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: I ...
24 Page 48, line 20.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's of some concern that we have to go back
1 six pages to find where the question is.
2 Yes. I think the matter is clear at this moment, isn't it,
3 Ms. Higgins?
4 MS. HIGGINS: It does clarify one point, although if I could
5 raise the following issue:
6 Yesterday, my learned friend asked the witness whether he had any
7 reason do doubt that President Tudjman could have assigned General Cermak
8 authorities, significant authorities, in any informal way rather than a
9 statutory or legal procedural way, and she was clearly referring,
10 although didn't put it directly, to the assignment to Mr. Cermak by the
11 president in respect of authority de facto, de jure, whatever to
12 Mr. Cermak from the president.
13 And, again, I reiterate my request to the Bench that
14 Ms. Gustafson, in the interests of transparency, indicates to this team
15 what she is referring to beyond P1144.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I think that what -- Mr. Kay is looking at the
18 MR. KAY: If I can assist my learned friend because I've found
19 the question.
20 MS. HIGGINS: The precise question was:
21 "... from your answers yesterday to my questions about
22 General Cermak's appointment and tasks from President Tudjman, you have
23 not considered any duties that may have arisen from the tasks and
24 assignment that he was given directly by the president. Is that right?"
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, that means -- that's the same question.
1 MS. HIGGINS: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: The witness apparently has considered the authority
3 of Mr. Cermak in the context of the -- of the legal framework in which he
4 was appointed and not anything outside that.
5 Let's not now speculate. Because yesterday we see in P1144,
6 nothing specifically is said about authority over the civilian police.
7 That may be clear.
8 So, therefore, if this was put to the witness yesterday, there
9 was no specific reference to the civilian police. And under those
10 circumstances -- but if you phrased the questions in such a way that a
11 suggestion from that assignment, from the text used there, that that
12 would include civilian police, apart from what happened on the ground
13 later on, but also any suggestion whether it would be excluded, there's
14 no way it's about tasks. It's about areas that President Tudjman and
15 Mr. Cermak are talking about.
16 Ms. Higgins.
17 MS. HIGGINS: Very briefly, Your Honour.
18 Again, for the purposes of transparency - and I'm looking further
19 down the line to the final brief stage - my concern was the words that
20 were put "keeping order," "preventing disorder" and as Your Honour
21 rightly says, there's nothing in here about authority over the civilian
23 JUDGE ORIE: No, but it's also not excluded --
24 MS. HIGGINS: Well --
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- that the civilian police would play a role in --
1 I mean, the text doesn't say anything. But apparently Mr. Cermak,
2 with -- who is appointed as a garrison commander, has, at least that's
3 what they say at that time that in -- in 1995 that he was tasked, that's
4 at least how I understand this line, tasked with a role in preventing
5 or -- how do you say the ...
6 MS. HIGGINS: The words are "keeping order,"
7 "preventing disorder," which are, of course, open to interpretation and,
8 finally, conclusion by the Bench.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MS. HIGGINS: But I raise the point because it is one that I
11 know, further down the line, will be an issue between the parties. And I
12 want it to be put to the witness fairly if there's any other document
13 that is relied on than this. Surely I'm entitled --
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]... he did -- he did not -- I
15 do understand that he did not even consider -- he did not consider P1144,
16 and he did, as I asked him, he did not consider the authority of
17 Mr. Cermak beyond the scope of what a garrison commander, under the
18 existing legal instruments, is tasked with.
19 MS. HIGGINS: Yes, I agree, Your Honour. My point is a separate
20 and distinct one, which is whether I can be given the documents that my
21 learned friend is referring to when she puts her position --
22 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- that was the second --
23 MS. HIGGINS: That's what I would like, yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the first thing you asked is that
25 Ms. Gustafson would put to the witness certain documents.
1 Now the second thing is that, Ms. Gustafson, if there is any
2 document which is not yet in evidence because that's -- or not yet
3 disclosed on which you rely for the authority granted, not under the
4 legal instruments but by the president, to Mr. Tudjman [sic], anything
5 which is not in evidence or not disclosed or where it could be unclear
6 for Ms. Higgins that this was disclosed material which she would not have
7 expected to deal with this matter, then could you tell us what it is.
8 MS. GUSTAFSON: No, Your Honour, there's nothing that is not
9 already in evidence. And if it assists Ms. Higgins, I'm relying on the
10 large body of evidence that General Cermak's role was -- part of that
11 role was the normalisation of life within the garrison which, in the
12 Prosecution's submission, is not limited to turning on the lights and the
13 water. And I would also refer, for example, to the interview he gave at
14 P2355. If that assists my colleague, then --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Higgins, apparently there is not anything
16 which you are not already not supposed to know in this context.
17 MS. HIGGINS: I'm grateful. And final, without wishing to repeat
18 myself, even if it is in evidence, it is certainly unclear to me, and I
19 give the commitment to knowing as best as anybody can know the documents
20 in this case, what exhibited material my learned friend is relying on for
21 the single proposition that President Tudjman assigned tasks to
22 Mr. Cermak an authority over the civilian police.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That was not part of the question. Because the
24 question did not specifically, if I -- I will check it again --
25 specifically refer to authority over the civilian police.
1 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour authority over the civilian police,
2 that's fine. I would still like to know what exhibited material my
3 learned friend is relying upon, because it's certainly unclear to me.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that she's relying, written
5 material, primarily on P1144, and, of course, there's other evidence
6 which explains why and for what purposes Mr. Cermak was chosen by the
8 And I do understand that the Prosecution wants to interpret what
9 these tasks assigned to Mr. Cermak really meant by looking at what then
10 happened on the ground, on paper, or in meetings, or under whatever
11 circumstances, in interviews, in -- et cetera.
12 That's how I understand the position of the Prosecution in this
13 respect. If I'm wrong, please, correct me, Ms. Gustafson.
14 But there's not a document somewhere where it says, Mr. Cermak,
15 don't forget to keep tight control over the civilian police or don't let
16 them off the hook if they're not performing well or --
17 There's nothing of the kind.
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: No, Your Honour. Not that I am aware.
19 MS. HIGGINS: Thank you very much.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think that the matter has been sufficiently
21 further explored.
22 And Madam Usher is invited to escort the witness into the
23 courtroom again.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 JUDGE ORIE: If the flow of evidence could be interrupted as
2 little as possible, that would be highly appreciated.
3 MS. HIGGINS: Of course, Your Honour. And I'm grateful.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Albiston, we'll continue.
5 Ms. Gustafson, perhaps you should repeat the question which was
6 put to the witness or -- in the same wording or in a slightly different
7 wording, because I wouldn't expect him to have a recollection of so many
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Certainly, Your Honour. And perhaps I could
10 preface it by referring the witness to his answers yesterday.
11 Q. When I was asking you about whether you were in a position to say
12 whether President Tudjman couldn't have granted General Cermak authority,
13 in fact, in an informal way, of General Cermak over the civilian police,
14 and you stated that you didn't know about the relationship between -- the
15 informal relationship between the president and General Cermak and that
16 you weren't, on the informal side, you said:
17 "I'm not qualified to say" --
18 When I asked you whether you could opine on President Tudjman's
19 informal authority over the structures of government, you said:
20 "I'm not qualified to say."
21 And I would just like to follow up on that. You have not
22 considered it within the scope of your report or expertise to consider
23 whether or not any duties may have arisen on the part of General Cermak
24 arising from any informal tasks -- or tasks he was assigned in an
25 informal way by President Tudjman.
1 Is that fair?
2 A. Yes, that is entirely fair.
3 Q. And is it right that, in this section of your report on the
4 investigation of crime, that you have only considered General Cermak's
5 formal legal role within the MUP structure in relation to investigating
6 crime, and have not addressed whether or not General Cermak could, in
7 fact, initiate an investigation into a criminal incident?
8 A. No, I wouldn't put it that way. I looked at the de jure
9 situation and also at the de facto situation, where I conclude that he
10 didn't have the resources at his disposal to deal with these matters.
11 But I think it's quite clear from the law that garrison commanders don't
12 play a role within the criminal justice system.
13 Q. And when you refer to "resources at his disposal," you consider
14 that he didn't have a sufficient personnel within the garrison unit to
15 conduct an investigation. Is that what you're referring to?
16 A. The garrison command itself, yes, doesn't have the resources to
17 do that and isn't designed for it. Although, of course, it is probably
18 better to hear an expert opinion on that from a military man.
19 But so far as the relationship between the civilian police and
20 the criminal justice system is concerned, I think can I say that, yes.
21 Q. Okay.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could we move into private session, please.
23 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
24 [Private session]
11 Pages 24018-24022 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON:
6 Q. I'd like to move, now, Mr. Albiston, to paragraph 3.71 of your
7 report. And, in particular, the last sentence where you refer to
8 documents indicating that General Cermak was passing and receiving
9 information as part of his liaison role.
10 And we looked at a couple of those documents yesterday, and I
11 won't repeat that.
12 I'd like to look at another of those documents that you cite
13 here, which is D505.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could bring that up, please.
15 Q. And while that's coming up, if I could also just direct your
16 attention to paragraph 3.95 of your report where you refer again to this
17 document. And you conclude that this document is an unambiguous
18 declaration by General Cermak that, in the absence of any requirement to
19 assist internationals in a liaison capacity, he did not deal with crime.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: And is it possible to just bring up the English
21 initially of this document.
22 Is it possible to just show the English, initially. Thank you.
23 Q. And you've stated that this -- the language in this document is
24 not the language of a senior member of a hierarchical chain of command,
25 issuing orders to subordinates.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And the tone of this letter is very different from the tone of
3 General Cermak's written orders to the police. Is that right?
4 A. Certainly.
5 Q. Okay. Now, do you know if General Cermak signed this letter?
6 A. No, I don't.
7 Q. You don't know one way or the other?
8 A. No, I don't. I see commander of the Knin garrison at the bottom.
9 But I haven't seen -- I don't have the original document.
10 Q. Okay. We can look at the B/C/S as well.
11 So you weren't provided with the original documents, just the
12 translations. Is that right?
13 A. No, I have no Croatian, I'm afraid.
14 Q. Now, if we look at the B/C/S, if I suggested to you that that's
15 not General Cermak's signature, you don't have any reason to disbelieve
17 A. Indeed, not. I'm not familiar with what General Cermak's
18 signature looks like, no.
19 Q. And you would agree that, in light of the fact that
20 General Cermak didn't sign this letter, there's no indication that he
21 necessarily chose those particular words or necessarily even saw the
22 letter. Is that fair?
23 A. Well, this is it new information for me. And certainly it would
24 be true that if General Cermak didn't sign the letter, then I'm not in a
25 position to say what General Cermak's attitude to the language of the
1 letter would be.
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to a split screen again.
3 Q. And you can see that it relates to the theft of material from a
4 factory in village called Srb.
5 Do you know where Srb is?
6 A. I couldn't place it on the map, no.
7 Q. So don't know whether it's inside or outside of the Knin garrison
9 A. No, I don't.
10 Q. And it is, in fact, in the municipality of Donji Lapac, which is
11 outside the Knin garrison area.
12 And did you notice that it was -- oh, I guess you didn't receive
13 this document in the original, just the English translation. Is that
15 A. Just the English translation, yes.
16 Q. Well, in fact, it's a two-page document in the original. And the
17 letter that's being -- there's another letter attached to the English and
18 I would just like do bring that up.
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: Which can 2D04-0153 ET. That's the doc ID
21 Q. And this is the letter that was originally sent to
22 General Cermak, describing the incident.
23 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, counsel. I believe we addressed this
24 during one of our sessions, but this is the document that is misstated
25 that hasn't been uploaded yet. We see that the original letter was
1 September 19th, whereas the translation is August 19th.
2 I may be mistaken, but I do recall we discussed this,
3 Mr. President, or you brought it up, I think.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think I paid attention to a difference, and that
5 difference in the date, and that I asked the whole of the document to be
6 reviewed for translation, where, apparently such a mistake was made here.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour, I -- my understanding was that
8 it was a Cermak Defence document and that they would be look into the
9 translation, but perhaps I'm mistake.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think, as a matter of fact, it was. But I'm
11 not concern about that anymore.
12 MS. HIGGINS: Yes, it was, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and have you reviewed the translation in other
14 respects apart from the month?
15 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, I can do it within the next minute or
16 so if it helps the Chamber. I'm afraid my --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, at this moment I asked to you do it.
18 MS. HIGGINS: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed in the following way:
20 At this moment, we understand that the English version gives a
21 date which does not correspond with the other -- with the original.
22 We'll proceed on the basis that -- we'll proceed on the basis that there
23 are no other mistakes. But -- otherwise, we would have to wait and stop,
24 which is not what I'd like to do at this moment.
25 Let's proceed on the basis that the translation in every other
1 respect is accurate, but if there will be any doubts, we will then here,
2 within this one minute, from you, Ms. Higgins.
3 MS. HIGGINS: I appreciate that. I understand it's the
4 15th of September that's the correct date. And we will check the rest of
5 the document.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON:
7 Q. Mr. Albiston, are you able to read this document?
8 A. Ms. Gustafson, I have on my screen now an English translation of
9 a document which starts off:
10 "According to the information at the disposal of our
11 association ..."
12 Q. Okay. If you could read through that. And this is a document
13 that has been sent to General Cermak from Zagreb, and it describes the
14 alleged incident of equipment that was supposed to be taken from the
15 factory in Srb to Zagreb
16 private company in Pozega.
17 A. Yes, I have seen that. Thank you.
18 Q. And Pozega is in -- it's not in Sector South; it's not in the
19 Zadar-Knin Police Administration; not in the Knin garrison area; it's in
20 North-East Croatia
21 this complaint is coming from Zagreb
22 outside the garrison area, and that the property is alleged to now be in
23 a municipality in North-East Croatia, nowhere near General Cermak's area
24 of authority, those would be relevant factors to consider in -- before
25 drawing any inferences, in a general way, about whether General Cermak
1 dealt with crime or had any command, in fact, over the civilian police
2 within his area of responsibility. Wouldn't it?
3 A. Certainly in relation to this crime, I entirely accept that
4 proposition, although the previous document says - and I will try to
5 quote from memory because it's not up. It says, We have no authority in
6 this and similar matters. Which I read, in my reading of the document's
7 English translation, to suggest that General Cermak was saying, Look, I
8 don't deal with crime.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, a very practical matter: This
10 document apparently is uploaded in e-court in, as it says, original
11 language, English. I do not see any translation uploaded in e-court. Is
12 there any ...
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: No, Your Honour, in fact, I was about to request
14 that it be added to D505, which in -- D505 contains this letter in the
15 original, and it was not translated in D505. So I would just like to add
16 this to --
17 JUDGE ORIE: And then also have the date, perhaps, be verified,
18 because it seems very much a 5 to me rather than a 3 in --
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: Certainly.
20 And, Your Honour, if I could request that that document be added
21 to the exhibit, and we will verify the date.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which means that we complete the translation
23 of D505 so that it covers the whole of the document, rather than only one
24 page of it.
25 Mr. Registrar, is that clear?
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: If the translation of the second page of D505 is
3 uploaded, then it will become the second page of the translation. And
4 then we have - and that's new for us - then we have two pages with both
5 problems with the date, in translation or in transcription.
6 Please proceed.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Mr. Albiston, I would like to turn, now, to the part of your
9 report entitled:
10 "The Garrison Commander and the Prevention of Crime."
11 And that begins at paragraph 3.72.
12 And in that paragraph you conclude, in relation to
13 General Cermak's subordinates:
14 "... that his actual subordinates never exceeded ten in number;
15 and there is no suggestion that any of [those] individuals were involved
16 in any crime [sic]."
17 Now, in -- you're referring here to his formal subordinates
18 within the garrison; is that right?
19 A. Yes, I'm referring to the small number, the handful of people,
20 directly subordinated to General Cermak according to the documents that
21 have I read. Although I understand that the Prosecution's view of who
22 might be subordinated to General Cermak is rather different.
23 Q. And the -- you've not addressed and, again, I would think that it
24 would be outside the scope of your expertise to consider the extent to
25 which units within the garrison might be considered General Cermak's
1 subordinates pursuant to the provision of the service regulations that
2 all units and institutions within the garrison are subordinate to the
3 garrison commander as regards the issue of order, discipline, and
5 Is that right?
6 A. I touch on that tangentially in my introduction, but I leave firm
7 conclusions and a more detailed examination to a military expert.
8 Q. Now, I'd like to go to the next paragraph of your report where
9 you say, at 3.73:
10 "An examination of the documents in the case reveals that
11 responsibility for the prevention of crime lay with the
12 Ministry of the Interior."
13 And then at paragraph 3.76, you make a similar conclusion. You
15 "Several documents demonstrate the serious approach which was
16 taken to the problems of torching and looting."
17 And you say:
18 "This was considered to be primarily a matter for the
19 Ministry of the Interior."
20 Now, you do not appear to address in your report, and -- the
21 existence or function of the military justice system, and I presume
22 that's something that you considered also to be outside of your
23 expertise. Is that right?
24 A. That's correct, ma'am, yes.
25 Q. Now, in terms of the conclusion that the responsibility for the
1 prevention of crime lay within the Ministry of Interior, I'd like to look
2 at a couple of documents that you refer to in your report, and the first
3 is D46.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: If that could be brought up.
5 Q. And just so you're aware, I'm going to look at a number of
6 document with you, and I'll just have you familiarize yourself with them
7 and then ask you a couple of questions.
8 And you can see here, this is -- Mr. Moric's 10th August letter
9 to Mr. Lausic where he informs Mr. Lausic of cases being noted of
10 "individual Croatian army members on liberated territory, stealing
11 movable property, burning houses, and killing the cattle ..."
12 And in the last paragraph:
13 "While understanding the size and nature of the tasks that you
14 have to contend with, we kindly ask you to take measures to eliminate
15 these things."
16 And the next document is D48. And this is
17 Mr. Moric's 17 August letter to Mr. Lausic.
18 And, again, he notes the problem of burning and looting, and he
20 "The perpetrators," in the second paragraph, "the perpetrators of
21 these acts, in most cases, are persons wearing Croatian army uniforms.
22 Our information points to these persons who are formally and in effect
23 members of the HV but that there are also persons who are not members of
24 the HV."
25 Then in the next paragraph he says:
1 "The fact that the perpetrators wear HV uniforms completely
2 blocks the work of the civilian police."
3 And the next document is D49.
4 And this is Mr. Moric's order to the police administrations.
5 Again, noting the problem of looting and burning. And in the second
6 paragraph stating that:
7 "Most of these acts are perpetrated by individuals in Croatian
8 army uniforms and the facts indicate that these individuals are formally
9 and actually members of the army, but there are also individuals
10 wrongfully wearing Croatian army uniforms."
11 And on the next page he lists a number of measures including
12 having the police administration chiefs meet with military police,
13 battalions, requesting mixed barrier check-points with civilian and
14 military police.
15 And in point 5 stating that if military police cannot perform the
16 task mentioned in item 4, which is to process the crimes, the civilian
17 police will do it alone, irrespective of whether the perpetrator wears a
18 Croatian army uniform?
19 Now, I would like to briefly review the evidence of a few of the
20 witness in this case, including Mr. Lausic, who testified that, in
21 practice, after Operation Storm, the MUP would contact the military
22 police at the first sign of a uniform. That's P2159, paragraphs 48 to
23 49, 55 to 59, and 62.
24 And Mr. Buhin, whose testimony I understand you have reviewed,
25 who stated that if someone in uniform was suspected of killing or
1 looting, they could be arrested by the civilian police but then would
2 have to be handed over to the military police. That's at 9922 to 23.
3 And then stated that in practice detaining military personnel was
4 impossible. He explained that the situation was very tense and
5 dangerous, at page 9942, and that the civilian police were frightened
6 that the military police would shoot at them if they interfered. That's
7 P963 and page 9942.
8 And he agreed with the statement of Mr. Moric in D48 that the
9 fact that the perpetrators wear HV uniforms completely blocks the work of
10 the civilian police.
11 Now, my question for you is how you concluded that the problem of
12 looting and burning lay -- the primary responsibility lay with the
13 civilian police, when the information you cite and the evidence that you
14 reviewed indicates that most of the incidents are being perpetrated by HV
15 members in HV uniforms and that the MUP had a limited ability to
16 effectively act to stop these -- or process these perpetrators?
17 A. Yes, the primary responsibility for dealing with civilian --
18 civil -- civilian law and order issues rests with the MUP. I don't think
19 it's in dispute that in many of the crimes which were being reported, the
20 persons who were suspected of involvement were either HV members or
21 persons wearing HV uniforms, particularly in the early stages of the
22 period that we're looking at. And that, therefore, it was necessary to
23 invoke the assistance of the VP in order to address these issues.
24 I accept that, yes.
25 Q. So when you say "an examination of the documents in the case
1 reveals that responsibility for the prevention of crime lay with the
2 MUP," would it be better to clarify that to be civilian crime?
3 A. Well, yes, the investigation of crime, until such time as it's
4 demonstrated, that in fact it doesn't involve elements over which the
5 civilian police can exercise that authority.
6 Q. Such as the fact that the persons is wearing a uniform?
7 A. Well, such as the fact that the -- there is a suspicion that the
8 person might be involved -- might be a military man, yes.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'm going move to another topic now, so if this
10 is a convenient time for the Chamber for a break ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will have a break, and we will resume at
12 ten minutes to 1.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 12.56 p.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, you may proceed.
16 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
17 Q. Now, Mr. Albiston, I'd like to go back to paragraph 3.76 of your
18 report, near the middle of the page, where you state:
19 "When it became apparent that there were serious problems in the
20 area, Assistant Minister Josko Moric turned on 17 August 1995 to the
21 chief of the military police administration, General Mate Lausic."
22 And we've just looked at the series of correspondence between --
23 from Mr. Moric to Mr. Lausic, D46 on the 10th of August, D48 on the
24 17th of August.
25 And my question is: What specifically did you consider to be the
1 serious approach taken to the problem of torching and looting by
2 Mr. Moric between the 10th of August and the 17th of August, the two
3 dates on which he complained to General Lausic about the looting and
5 A. I'm not quite sure that I follow the -- the question.
6 Mr. Moric had, as I suggested previously, anticipated that there
7 might be problems and had set in motion arrangements to deal with them,
8 going back to, I think, the 3rd, possibly the 4th, but I think the
9 3rd of August. And the correspondence which I cite here is part of a
10 continuing liaison between Mr. Moric and Major-General Lausic.
11 Q. I'm asking because you said "when it became apparent that there
12 were serious problems in the area." And D46, Mr. Moric's
13 10th of August letter to Mr. Lausic, indicates serious problems in the
14 area. And then there is a letter on the 17th of August, again, to
15 Mr. Lausic, complaining.
16 Again, are you aware of any step Mr. Moric took in between those
17 dates to deal with the serious problem of looting and burning?
18 A. Well, Mr. Moric had made -- given the directions in the -- in the
19 matter that I -- in the document to which I referred to, to civilian
20 police to cooperate with the military police to deal with issues.
21 Q. Those are the documents from before the operation. Is that -- is
22 that right?
23 A. Well, there is an document from before the operation, the
24 3rd of August, yes.
25 Q. And there is no evidence that you've seen of Mr. Moric
1 instructing his subordinates to take steps to deal with the serious
2 looting and burning that had become apparent in the area after the
3 operation, until the 18th of August, in D49. Is that right?
4 A. Well, I'd need to look back at the documents again. But I
5 thought we had discussed earlier documents. Wasn't there a mention of a
6 10th of August document?
7 Q. Well, that was a complaint to Mr. Lausic. But in terms of taking
8 steps, instructing his subordinates to take steps, your not aware of any
9 steps he took in that regard until the 18th. Is that right?
10 A. Well, I think the 10th of August document indicates that
11 Mr. Moric was familiar, to some extent, with what was going on,
12 presumably on the basis of information that was coming through his chain
13 of command which generated the action which he took on the 10th August in
14 relation to seeking the assistance of Major-General Lausic. Because, if
15 I recall accurately the document which we were looking at earlier, that
16 discusses some of the problems in the area and indicates that some of the
17 problems are connected with people in uniform and attempts to address it
18 through seeking the VP assistance.
19 Q. Now, I'd like to go to paragraph 3.82 of your report where you
21 "General Cermak had no legal duty or role in relation to the
22 prevention of crime, a matter which clearly fell to the MUP."
23 And my first question, again: You have not considered or
24 addressed, here, the role of the military police or military justice
25 system in the prevention of crime. Is that right?
1 A. I have left that to the military experts. My view on it, insofar
2 as it relates to civilian policing it that it was secondary, that the
3 primary responsibility for crime matters lay with the civilian police.
4 Clearly, as I think is understood here, where suspects were in the
5 military organisations or, indeed, wearing military uniforms and
6 purporting to be members of the HV, then, of course, yes, there was a
7 role for the military machinery, the VP, and so on.
8 Q. And in terms of General Cermak's duties, it's not expressed here,
9 but I -- I understand, once again, you're referring to those duties that
10 you consider to have arisen from his position as a citizen and senior
11 representative of a state body, as you've stated in paragraph 3.71.
12 Is that --
13 A. Yes, that's fair.
14 Q. And now I'd like to go to the section of your report, titled:
15 "The Garrison Commander and the Punishment of Criminal
17 And that begins at paragraph 3.83.
18 And we've already gone into Cermak's role and ability in relation
19 to the investigation of crimes, so I'm not going ask you any more
20 questions about that here.
21 I would just like to ask you a couple of questions about your
22 conclusions on the Code of Military Discipline that you draw in
23 paragraph 3.84. And you seem to implicitly conclude here that
24 General Cermak could not impose disciplinary measures under the
25 Code of Military Discipline for incidents that amount to a crime. And if
1 I'm correct in my understanding, if you could explain the basis for that
2 in the evidence and your expertise. Thank you.
3 A. Now, what I'm doing in this paragraph is acceding to the military
4 expert the responsibility for dealing with the code of military
5 discipline and alluding to it in passing because I think there may be
6 parallels with the civilian police, disciplinary mechanisms, and, really,
7 the point that I'm trying to get across is that the matters which I was
8 considering were the grave crimes which were taking place in this area at
9 the time and not really matters which could be dealt with as minor
10 disciplinary matters. We're not talking about minor instances of
11 drunkenness or falling asleep on duty by either policemen or soldiers.
12 We're talking about completely different matters.
13 Q. But, again, do you or don't you seek to opine as to whether or
14 not General Cermak could impose disciplinary measures for crimes?
15 A. Not in relation to the civilian police he couldn't, no.
16 Q. I'm not asking about the civilian police. I'm asking generally.
17 A. Well, I think that question is better for the military expert. I
18 see that he had powers of discipline, and I put that in this report.
19 Q. I would just like to be clear that -- on this, you do not seek to
20 opine as to whether or not General Cermak could impose disciplinary
21 measures for crimes under the Military Discipline Code. Is that right?
22 A. Well, what I said in my report is that he had powers of
23 discipline, and I take it no further than that.
24 Q. Thank you. Now, in various places in your report you have
25 discussed the performance of the Croatian criminal justice system after
1 Operation Storm in the areas affected by that operation. And I would
2 just like to ask you a few questions about that.
3 And in terms of your -- what you, in fact, looked at, I'd just
4 like to ask you one question about that.
5 In paragraph 1.5 of your report, you refer to your -- the purpose
6 of your report, and you state that you were:
7 "Invited to comment upon Croatian Ministry of Interior structures
8 and any difficulties which might have faced the police at this time."
9 Were you asked to about -- to address any specific difficulties,
10 or were you just asked to look at the documents and see if you saw any
12 A. No. The invitation was non-specific. It was based, as I recall,
13 on my experience of policing in circumstances which are outside the
14 normal civilian policing conditions.
15 Q. And, when you did that, were you operating under the assumption
16 that the police and the Ministry of Interior were genuinely attempting to
17 address the problems of looting and burning and killing after
18 Operation Storm, and then, just look at the obstacles that may have been
19 present in -- genuinely undertaking that task, or did you address whether
20 or not the police and the military -- Ministry of the Interior were, in
21 fact, genuinely attempting to address the crimes in the area?
22 A. Well, the first invitation to me was, as I indicated a moment
23 ago, very general, to consider the situation. In -- as a sort of
24 post-conflict reconstruction period, what are the policing issues. Then,
25 when I was provided with the documents, one of the documents or some of
1 the documents I was provided with set out the nature of the indictment
2 and the Prosecution pre-trial brief from which it became clear that the
3 Prosecution took a certain view about the performance of the criminal
4 justice system. So I was looking at documents which might either give
5 substance to that view or contradict that view.
6 Later on, I tried to focus more on how the documents, which might
7 support or contradict that view, actually related to General Cermak and
8 his dealings with the civilian police, because, obviously, the range of
9 the documents is quite significant.
10 Q. Now, just -- I take it from your answer - and correct me if I'm
11 wrong - that you did address or you did consider the issue as to whether
12 or not the Croatian authorities were genuinely attempting to address
13 crime and that if you had seen evidence that they weren't, that would be
14 something that you would have covered in your report. Is that right?
15 A. I think that's fair, yes.
16 Q. Now in paragraph 3.59, you refer to the crime police. And you
17 state that:
18 "The minutes of the crime police departmental chiefs on
19 6 and 7 August 1995
20 with the dead bodies, including finger-printing and the arrangements for
21 the admission of international observers to collection centres."
22 Now, on the issue of the procedure to be undertaken with dead
23 bodies, you are aware - are you not? - based on the evidence that you
24 have reviewed, that a procedure was implemented after Operation Storm
25 whereby dead bodies were treated as if they were combat victims, no
1 on-site investigations were carried out in most cases, and the corpses
2 were collected; identified, where possible; and buried without conducting
3 an investigation to determine the cause of death.
4 Is that right? Did you learn that?
5 A. It seems clear to me from the documents that that happened on a
6 significant number of occasions, yes.
7 Q. Now, wouldn't that be something that would be significant, in
8 terms of the performance of the Croatian authorities in investigating and
9 punishing crime, the fact that large numbers of dead bodies were simply
10 picked up off the ground and buried without an investigation?
11 A. Well, I think that there are various reasons why that might have
12 taken place to do with health, the heat, and so on. But as a
13 professional policeman, I would certainly say that it would be highly
14 desirable, in the event of finding bodies where there is a suspicion that
15 the persons died through violence, to be able to conduct an investigation
16 at the scene and a subsequent post mortem examination in controlled
18 The presumption in most police establishments is that where
19 somebody has died through an unexplained cause, the case should be
20 treated as a suspicious death and should be handled accordingly until
21 such time as it can be shown to be something else.
22 That is the ideal. In these circumstances, I think the ideal was
23 not achieved as regularly as, from a policeman's point of view, it ought
24 to have been. But that is the fact of the matter.
25 There are examples, of course, which we can see where bodies were
1 found and the procedures of which I, as a policeman sitting in an
2 armchair hundreds of miles away, would approve; and there are other
3 examples which seem not to meet the desired standards.
4 Q. And in light of your answer, why didn't you mention the fact that
5 killing victims were not being investigated when you assessed the
6 performance of the Croatian authorities in investigating and punishing
7 crime after Operation Storm?
8 A. Because when I came to draft my report, I had focused my review
9 and the areas about which I thought it appropriate for me to write on the
10 direct locus, which I believed, from the documents, General Cermak to
11 have had, in relation to these matters.
12 Q. Well, you've also mentioned in several places of your report
13 resource constraints on the Croatian authorities. For example, in
14 paragraph 3.115, you refer to an entry in the Knin police log that the
15 police could not attend a reported fire in a house for want of a vehicle.
16 And you've got a whole section on civilian police establishment and
17 strength and another section on other police resource issues.
18 Now, again, can you explain why you focused on issues such as
19 deficiency of equipment and deficiency of manpower in assessing the
20 performance of the Croatian authorities and didn't mention the fact that
21 they weren't investigating killings?
22 A. Well, as can you see from those sections which deal with these
23 sorts of general issues, the sections are very short. I tried to set
24 context for the other areas of the report which I thought were specific
25 to General Cermak's role. And whilst I haven't gone into significant
1 detail about the performance of the police, because I think, if I had
2 gone down that road, there would have been several volumes to this
3 report. I think I have tried to provide background information which is
4 of assistance to the Chamber which shows that, in summary, there was a
5 system that was gradually being established. I think I have been fair in
6 describing some of the ways in which that system achieved successes in
7 some of the investigations and prosecutions that were undertaken. And I
8 think I have also drawn the attention of the Chamber to what I
9 considered, from my professional perspective, to be some of the defects
10 in that system.
11 Q. And would you agree, now, that not investigating killing victims
12 is a defect in that system?
13 A. Well, as I stated in evidence, in ideal circumstances, every
14 death which does not have a doctor's medical certificate and an
15 explanation, should be treated by the police as a suspicious death and
16 investigated accordingly until such time as it is found to be otherwise.
17 I'm not sure that that was entirely practical in these circumstances, but
18 I do accept your suggestion that there were bodies buried in
19 circumstances which I, as a police officer, would wish had not happened,
20 because I think even bodies with some element of decomposition may yield
21 information to investigators.
22 Q. Mr. Albiston, you said:
23 "In ideal circumstances, every death which does not have a
24 doctor's medical certificate ... should be treated as a suspicious
1 I mean, you've seen the evidence. We're not talking about people
2 being found dead in their beds without any sign of visible injury; we are
3 talking about people on the ground with bullet-holes in their heads. Do
4 you think it's a defect in the Croatian system at the time not to
5 investigate deaths like that?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. And another -- at paragraph 3.62 of your report, you've concluded
9 "... significant and serious crime there was. There were also
10 significant detections, mostly of ethnic Croats and including soldiers
11 and policemen as well as civilians."
12 Now, just in terms of your -- the phrase "significant
13 detections," you haven't conducted a comprehensive review of the evidence
14 showing the actual commission of crime versus the investigation and
15 punishment of crime that would allow you to make any reliable assessment
16 as to the actual numbers of crimes committed in the area Sector South or
17 the liberated area or the area of the indictment in this case, versus the
18 number of cases that were dealt with appropriately by the authorities and
19 detected, are you?
20 A. Well, the volume of material which I have seen is such, in terms
21 of its magnitude, that I think it is difficult to make conclusions from
23 And, of course, in terms of the more serious crimes, in some
24 cases there is a dispute as to whether deaths were death through combat
25 or deaths which arose after combat clearly had ceased in the area to
1 which it refers.
2 So, I think, in relation to these matters, there was difficulty
3 with figures, which is why I have sought to assist the Chamber by judging
4 that clearly there was a lot of crime going on, clearly there was a
5 serious problem. There were different interpretations of how fires were
6 caused; there were different interpretations of when and how people had
7 died; but I don't think anyone is disputing that there was a lot wrong in
8 what was happening here.
9 And that, indeed, if we look at the activities of the courts, the
10 prosecutors, the investigating judge, as well as the civilian police, we
11 will see that action was taken in a number of these cases.
12 Q. And the document you cite in support of that conclusion is P600.
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: And I'd like to look at that, please.
14 Q. And this a document produced by Mr. Granic, the minister of
15 foreign affairs, at a meeting on the 2nd of February, 1996.
16 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to page 4 of that document in
17 the English and the B/C/S. And it's at the bottom of both pages of
18 this -- sorry, the bottom of the page in both the English and B/C/S.
19 Q. And is it states:
20 "The accusations against the Croatian Army, to the effect that it
21 has committed excessive human rights violations, are unfounded ...
22 violations that occurred were not systematic, nor were such violations
23 tolerated by government bodies. On the contrary, it must be point out
24 that in" --
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: And the pagination is out of order in this
1 document, so we have to go to the following page in the English and the
2 next page in the B/C/S as well.
3 Q. "... in accordance with a highly developed awareness of the
4 importance of the rule of law, criminal proceedings have been instituted
5 against 80 members of the armed forces of the Republic of Croatia
6 Now, do you have any idea whether instituting proceedings against
7 80 members of the armed forces of the Republic of Croatia
8 crimes committed following the liberation of occupied territories up
9 until January 1996, is either significant or insignificant, in terms of
10 the overall number of violations of crime by HV members?
11 A. Well, in my judgement, which I suppose is subjective, it's
12 significant. And I say that because not only does it involve 80 members
13 of the Croatian armed forces, but investigations which would generate
14 that sort of criminal justice activity will compass significantly more
15 people. And if the argument is about well, Were the Croatian authorities
16 taking this matter seriously or not? I suppose that must be --
17 ultimately that must be a judgement for this Chamber or even a political
19 But what I can say from the perspective of a -- from a policing,
20 civilian policing perspective, is that the sort of investigations which
21 would lead to 80 members of the armed forces being tried will produce
22 significant ripple effects, and that means that a lot of investigation
23 must have taken place, a lot of people must have been looked at; and,
24 therefore, in my view, the figure of 80 could be considered to be
1 Q. Well, it doesn't say they've been tried. It says:
2 "Criminal proceedings have been instituted against."
3 And I'm wondering how you can conclude that that will produce
4 significant ripple effects.
5 What's the basis for that?
6 A. Well, you cannot -- if you're going to start criminal proceedings
7 against 80 people, you have to ask a lot more than 80 people a lot of
8 questions and conduct significant inquiries to generate the sort of
9 evidence which you need to start proceedings against 80 people. There
10 are only three people in the dock in this Chamber, but an awful lot of
11 people have been impacted by the activities which led to the current
13 Q. But you can't say whether these 80 people were just 80 HV members
14 who were stopped at a check-point with looted goods and a criminal report
15 was filed and possibly an indictment issued. I mean, you don't know the
16 extent of --
17 A. [Overlapping speakers]... I -- no -- counsel, you're quite right.
18 I don't know the individual circumstances of the cases of these
19 80 people. That's quite right.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could look at the bottom of this page.
21 Q. In the last paragraph it states:
22 "With respect to the report by the secretary-general concerning
23 the killings of civilians, the government of the Republic of Croatia
24 should like to point out that, in most cases, these were casualties of
25 military activities. This has been established by on-site inspection and
1 the subsequent forensic investigation of corpses that were discovered."
2 Now, this statement about on-site inspection and subsequent
3 forensic investigation, that's not consistent with the evidence you've
4 reviewed and the large volume of evidence received by this Trial Chamber
5 that, in most cases, there were no such on-site investigations or
6 forensic investigations. Is that right?
7 A. I would certainly agree that that paragraph, which you've just
8 quoted, exaggerates the position, significantly, from the perspective of
9 the government.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to the next page of this
11 document. If we could move down the page a little bit. That's great.
12 Q. You can see the paragraph near the bottom of the page that
13 states -- begins:
14 "Regarding the murder of five civilians in the village of Grubor
15 the site of the crime was inspected by police on the same day on which it
16 was reported by the UN Human Rights Action Team on 25 August 1995.
17 However, the perpetrators have yet to be identified."
18 Now, the evidence that you have reviewed indicated that the
19 police did not inspect the crime scene at Grubori and the victims' bodies
20 were sanitised and no investigation took place. Right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, I'm wondering, in light of the contradictions between what's
23 stated in this document and the evidence you reviewed, why it is that you
24 chose to rely on this document to support your conclusion about
25 significant detections. What was the methodological basis for that?
1 A. Well, there is significant material on the killings at Grubori.
2 If I had decided to concentrate on that issue as a feature for my report,
3 I feel it would have required significant detail. And it was my
4 judgement, when I was compiling my report, that the Grubori incident did
5 not impact sufficiently on the issues which I was addressing - namely,
6 the connections between General Cermak and civilian policing - to warrant
7 such an examination.
8 Q. That wasn't exactly my question. And I will try to make it
10 From what I have read to you - and it appears you agree
11 with me - that there are indications in this document that it's not
12 reliable, on certain issues, in contrast to other evidence that you have
13 reviewed, and I'm wondering, in light of those indicia of unreliability,
14 why you, nevertheless, chose to rely on this document in your report? It
15 was more a methodological question.
16 A. Well, I hoped that the answer was a methodological answer, but if
17 not, then let me try to approach it from a different way.
18 If the area that you're asking me about at this stage is
19 contradictions between the pronouncements of the government of the
21 and the evidence before the Chamber and the suggestion that there's a
22 contradiction there and that the Grubori incident is related that, I
23 agree with that. It wasn't something that I thought needed to feature in
24 my report in relation to that.
25 Q. Yes. But you have relied on this document as support for
1 conclusions about the performance of the government of Croatia
2 A. Well --
3 Q. I'm wondering why you did that, in light of contradictions
4 between what they say their performance was and what the other evidence
5 indicates it actually was.
6 A. Yeah, I'm sorry. I follow that now.
7 Yes, I rely on this document as I rely on a number of other
8 documents to make some general conclusions which are that there was a
9 criminal justice system in operation and that some of the people that
10 were caught up by that criminal justice system were, indeed, ethnic
11 Croats and members of the HV.
12 There are other documents, which I cite, to indicate that a
13 criminal justice process involving the civilian police and the courts was
14 taking place. I certainly don't want to suggest to this Chamber that I
15 believe everything that the Croatian government would say, because they
16 have political reasons and other agendas operating. I accept that
18 Q. Now, I'd just like to ask you a couple of questions about the
19 civilian police manpower and resource issues which we touched on a few
20 moments ago. And I'd like to go back to that. And that's at
21 paragraph 3.104, and following, of your report.
22 And it's my understand that you conclude that the shortage of
23 manpower and other resources is a factor contributing to the level of
24 crime and the lack of a response to reports of crime. And the example I
25 pointed to earlier was at 3.115.
1 Is that a fair understanding?
2 A. Yes, certainly. Any discussion of police manpower issues is
3 fraught with difficulty, and police leaders will always want more
4 resources than they have in order to deliver a better service than
5 they're delivering, but I have attempted, in this report, to snap-shot
6 some indications of what might be some of the problems facing police
8 Q. And faced with a manpower and resource issues, would you agree
9 that, after Operation Storm, the police should have focused its
10 resources, in a way, aimed at addressing the most serious and immediate
11 problems of crime in the area?
12 A. Oh, yes, certainly.
13 Q. And would you agree that, based on what you reviewed, the most
14 serious and immediate problem of crime in the area after Operation Storm
15 was looting, burning and killing?
16 A. Certainly.
17 Q. So in -- going back to the practice we discussed of not
18 investigating killing victims, would you agree that that is something
19 that's inconsistent with what you think the focus of the police activity
20 should have been?
21 A. Well, yes, it's -- it's a very disappointing outcome. But I
22 think we have to understand that before you can start investigating crime
23 scenes and carrying out -- not just on-site investigations but follow-up
24 investigations to serious crime, you have to establish control over the
25 territory in which you're operating. This is not a problem which is
1 relevant for most civilian police forces, but for police forces operating
2 either in areas of conflict or in areas which are immediately
3 post-conflict. There are significant difficulties in establishing that
4 sort of control.
5 This is it why, in many areas, you have this difficulty over who
6 has the primary responsibility for securing a safe and secure environment
7 and maintaining civilian law and order. And in this particular area, the
8 first necessity for the police is to establish an effective uniformed
9 branch, civilian policing presence, so that roadblocks and the protection
10 of individuals and buildings and people can be established so that roads
11 can be secured with the assistance of the explosives ordnance people in
12 the military to ensure that can you get from one place to another without
13 driving over a mine.
14 Then, you can seek to establish your control of crime scenes,
15 your control of towns and villages in which you wish to conduct
16 investigations and so on. I don't, for one moment, suggest that it would
17 be wrong to criticise the performance of police either in individual
18 cases or in some cases overall in terms of the successes that were
19 achieved. What I say was there was a system which they were gradually
20 establishing and putting in place, and that it's perhaps difficult, in
21 the calm of the aftermath, to empathise with the actual practical
22 difficulties which face people in trying to do this sort of thing.
23 I have some experience of it myself, and whilst, as the Chamber
24 heard earlier, I'm the first to criticise the absence of effective
25 investigation of serious crime, I do have some sympathy with the
1 difficulties which were facing the police at this time.
2 Q. Just to go back to the beginning of your answer which was related
3 to control of the territory.
4 If the MUP was able to send a civilian protection team to a site
5 of a killing victim and collect that body and take it to a cemetery in
6 Knin or Gracac and bury it, presumably, control of the territory wasn't
7 an obstacle to actually investigating that crime or performing a forensic
8 analysis of that body, was it?
9 A. Well, actually, I don't think that that is right. I don't think
10 that does necessarily follow.
11 There are documents which suggest that there was a concern
12 amongst the civilian police, certainly, and maybe in other quarters,
13 about the continuing existence of what are described variously as
14 terrorists, Chetniks, and so on. Now, I don't attach too much weight to
15 that, because I think that the Chamber may think there are reasons why
16 those sorts of expressions are used and why such documents exist.
17 Nevertheless, I don't think you can entirely dismiss the concerns
18 which the civilian police may have felt about their own security in this
19 region at this time. This was period of significant disorders, so ...
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Albiston, I get the impression that
21 Ms. Gustafson is asking you about a specific example in which, due to the
22 fact that MUP was, as she said, able to send a civilian protection team
23 to a site of a killing victim and collect that body, that if you can do
24 this, at that moment, at that place, you could send someone also to do a
25 forensic investigation.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, well, I'm sorry if my answer appears to be
2 rather longer than it need be. But what I'm trying to explain to the
3 Chamber, Mr. President, is that I don't know the example to which
4 Ms. Gustafson is referring, but it is quite possible that you can get a
5 team in, do a quick job, and get it out again without threat of violence
6 to that teem.
7 What I'm saying is that it would be wrong to extrapolate from a
8 single instant, in which such an operation was carried out successfully,
9 that, therefore, you could always do that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that is not what Ms. Gustafson asked you.
11 She didn't ask, If this happened, would that mean that you could go
12 everywhere. She said, If you could go there to do this, couldn't you
13 then have sent another person to investigate the crime.
14 That was the question, at least if I understood you well,
15 Ms. Gustafson.
16 And you're making it -- in your answer you're making it far
17 broader. That's --
18 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm sorry. That does --
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]... it's definitely, it's
20 the -- what struck me.
21 THE WITNESS: I see. Well, I -- certainly, in that case, I
22 misunderstood the question.
23 I would ask if the question could be put again so that I can deal
24 with it directly in the way that Ms. Gustafson is seeking.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Before I do so, I'm also looking at the clock. It's
1 16 minutes to 2.00. I would like to briefly discuss with the parties
2 what time would still be needed, as matters stand now. I think we could
3 do it in the presence of the witness, because then he knows already what
4 his fate might be for the days to come.
5 Ms. Gustafson, how much more time would you need?
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: For my part, five to ten more minutes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Five to ten more minutes.
8 For re-examination, Ms. Higgins?
9 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, as it stands approximately 50 minutes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I'm reading -- yes, it's 50. Yes.
11 MS. HIGGINS: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
13 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, I have a half an hour, maybe
14 45 minutes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 And you would need that time to -- for matters that were raised
17 in cross-examination?
18 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And which you -- and which are not dealt with in
21 MR. KEHOE: There were touched upon in examination --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Because we expect you to cross-examine the witness
23 on matters that have been dealt with in chief.
24 MR. KEHOE: I think that, in dealing with these issues, and I
25 think great leave has been given, for instance, to the Prosecutor during
1 their case, when issues have come up that are of some substance that need
2 clarity, and I believe I will briefly deal with these issues that need
3 some clarity, that we have been somewhat expansive on those rules
4 Your Honour.
5 So I'm not going to cover anything that hasn't been addressed to
6 some degree, but on cross-examination, certain issues have been left out
7 there that need some clarification for this witness's testimony to be
9 JUDGE ORIE: Are you saying that if matters are left in
10 cross-examination by the Prosecution, where you have had an opportunity
11 to cross-examine the witness on whatever, you would like, then, to fill
12 that, what you consider to be a gap, then that should be dealt with in
13 cross then?
14 MR. KEHOE: I didn't understand your question. If I can just --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what I'm say is, of course, the Chamber
16 expects you to cross-examine the witness on any matter you consider of
17 importance dealt with in examination-in-chief or to deal with any matter
18 for which you think the witness could tell us about and which would
19 support your case under Rule 90(H).
20 Now, Ms. Gustafson has cross-examined the witness. And it's not
21 entirely clear what matters you'd like that deal with in
22 cross-examination. And my primary question was whether you would deal
23 with any matter which was not addressed in examination-in-chief. And
24 then you said something that matters that were not addressed in
1 MR. KEHOE: No. I believe Mr. President, I may have misspoke.
2 But there were issued that were raised in cross-examination that broadly
3 may have been issued on direct but were specifically addressed by
4 Ms. Gustafson. And my questions are related to those particular issues.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll see. If you would please keep in mind the
6 concern I just expressed about what should and should not be covered in
7 cross-examination and give that some consideration.
8 Which means that, all together, that -- let me just ...
9 One second, please.
10 That would mean that we finish the re-examination by Ms. Higgins
11 well within the first session tomorrow morning and that we would need
12 another little bit of the next session, then, for you, Mr. Kehoe.
13 Which also requires the next witness to be ready. He is on stand
14 by, Mr. Kay.
15 Then we will adjourn for the day. And we will resume tomorrow,
16 Friday, the 6th of November, at 9.00, in Courtroom III. But not until
17 I've instructed you, Mr. Albiston, that you should not speak with anyone
18 about your testimony, either already given or still to be given. The
19 same instruction as I gave you before.
20 THE WITNESS: I understand, Mr. President. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We stand adjourned.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.
23 to be reconvened on Friday, the 6th day of
24 November, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.