1 Friday, 4 December 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
8 everyone in the courtroom.
9 This is case number IT-06-90-T, the Prosecutor versus
10 Ante Gotovina et al.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 While we are waiting for the witness to be escorted into the
13 courtroom, could I address the Markac Defence.
14 The Chamber would like to receive the schedule for the next two
15 weeks, updated, especially also in view of whether the Witness Baric will
16 testify and where we are with the translation of documents.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Secondly, the Chamber would like to also how much
19 time we then still needed in January, and the Chamber would also like to
20 know whether your scheduling suggestions would include the two witnesses
21 still pending in the motion as to be added to the witness list.
22 And, third, the Chamber would like to know whether the
23 Prosecution has already developed any ideas about whether or not they
24 would like to call any rebuttal evidence. The Chamber would like to be
25 informed about this by Monday, Tuesday. What would be -- I see already a
1 nodding, yes, Monday. Monday, close of business.
2 Good morning to you, Mr. Moric.
3 Mr. Moric, I would like to remind you, as I did before, that
4 you're still bound by the solemn declaration that you've given at the
5 beginning of your testimony.
6 WITNESS: Josko Moric [Resumed]
7 [The witness answered through interpreter]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay will now continue his cross-examination.
9 Mr. Kay, are you ready to do so?
10 MR. KAY: I'm much obliged, Your Honour. Thank you.
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Kay: [Continued]
12 Q. Yesterday, Mr. Moric, we had called up a document onto the
13 screen, but we didn't deal with it, 65 ter 2D00485, and I'd like you to
14 look at this again.
15 This is a further report, this time from the Split-Dalmacija
16 Police Administration, dated the 1st of September, 1995. It is a further
17 response to a report requested by you from all the police administrations
18 concerning crimes, as we were discussing yesterday, and we look at this
19 period of the 22nd of August to the 31st of August, 1995. Page 2 of the
20 English, please. Mr. Cipci, who has signed this report, then goes
21 through the various issues in response to your request, giving you
23 In paragraph 3, we can see he has dealt with an issue of arson,
24 and then removal of mainly deserted movable property, and reports against
25 24 persons for 10 crimes. Just looking at that issue in paragraph 3,
1 giving a police perspective, how easy is it for the police to control and
2 protect people's homes if the people have moved out of the those homes?
3 Is there a weakening of the possibility to protect because there's no one
4 there within the property?
5 A. Counsel, it is commonly known in the police practice that a thief
6 will always seize an opportunity where there is one. Theft will occur
7 where two conditions are met: that there is something to be stolen and
8 that there's an opportunity to do so.
9 Had the inhabitants occupied their homes at the time, the
10 incidents of crimes would have been much lower, not only within the
11 territory covered by this particular police administration, but in all
12 the other ones as well.
13 Q. So when comparisons are drawn between normal times, before an
14 area has been the subject of conflict, and then abnormal times, would it
15 be right to say that the comparisons have to be carefully looked into
16 before drawing conclusions as to the number of police there may be needed
17 in normal times as against the police that were here at this time?
18 A. Of course, this is something that needs to be factored in as part
19 of preparations, and assessment has to be made of possible developments
20 and expectations. Under normal circumstances, when citizens occupy their
21 homes and when there is normalcy to life, guarding citizens, and that's
22 to say their lives and their property, in an inhabited area requires
23 normally one police patrol cruising the area and reacting where
25 However, under the circumstances prevailing at the time, it was
1 almost necessary for every house to be guarded by one policeman. That's
2 the difference between work in normal conditions and work in the context
3 we are referring to.
4 Q. And in your planning, had you realised or the Ministry of
5 Interior realised that people would be deserting homes, so that private
6 property would be left unguarded and more of a target for thieves and
8 A. As part of our planning, we did envisage that a certain number of
9 citizens from the area would leave for various reasons. Unfortunately,
10 this is the usual course of events in wartime circumstances. However, we
11 did not think that the numbers would be that high. There was no rational
12 reason, from our point of view, for this to happen en masse. Besides,
13 when we were preparing our tasks in the area, we felt that the appeal
14 issued by the president of our state and the prime minister, which had
15 been repeatedly broadcast over the media and which called upon the local
16 citizens to stay, we felt that that was very relevant. Therefore, there
17 was no reason why we should have predicted that as many people would
18 leave as did.
19 Q. Thank you. If we just look at this passage in paragraph 3 at the
20 end, where Mr. Cipci states:
21 "According to information gathered so far, none of the liberated
22 areas stand out as particularly affected by the aforementioned crimes,
23 and the perpetrators are for the most part from these areas or from the
24 immediate vicinity."
25 Did that sentence convey any particular meaning to you? What did
1 you conclude from that, when that information was given to you?
2 A. The chief of the Police Administration reports herein that the
3 perpetrators were persons hailing from the area or from the immediate
4 surroundings. This should indicate, and this was proved right by the
5 subsequent developments, that these were isolated crimes which evidently
6 occurred, and unfortunately so, from base instincts such as gain or
8 Q. Thank you. Looking at Mr. Cipci's report in paragraph 4:
9 "Except in the case of fire, where civilian personnel carried out
10 an on-site investigation alone, these were not performed in other cases
11 since the cases concerned the removal of items from an open and
12 unprotected area, where there were no characteristic traces as a result
13 of the acts themselves."
14 So there Mr. Cipci appears to be given a reason for not
15 performing on-site investigations in certain cases. Could you comment on
16 that as to whether that was right or wrong in the context of the time?
17 A. This is not at all wrong, in view of the police practice. If we
18 have the crime of theft, of misappropriation of property of another, the
19 owner, however, not being present at the scene of the crime and not being
20 able to help the criminal investigation in any way, and where no trace
21 evidence is left at the crime scene which would allow to identify
22 perpetrators, and where there are no eye-witnesses who might help with
23 the identification, in other words, if there is nothing left to do but to
24 make note of the fact that the property of another went missing, then, as
25 is customary in policing work, it is necessary to wait for a period of
1 time until the owner of the stolen property reports the crime and
2 provides the necessary information for the identification of the property
3 stolen and possibly identify potential perpetrators.
4 In other words, Mr. Cipci reported here that, for instance, there
5 had been cases where there was reason to suspect that livestock had been
6 stolen from estates and nearby fields, but there is little in the way of
7 traces that one can find in such cases of theft. This, however, does not
8 mean at all that the police would desist from attempts to solve such
9 cases of crime as well.
10 Q. Thank you. We've no need to look at 5.
11 If we look at point 6, and the report here from Mr. Cipci, next
12 page in the English, please - thank you:
13 "Appropriate criminal investigations are planned and underway
14 into all the recorded crimes."
15 What did you understand that part of the report to mean?
16 A. Counsel, the key word in this sentence is "recorded." It is
17 being reported that the police is engaged in a criminal investigation
18 into all the crimes that it was put on notice of; in other words, of all
19 the crimes that it is aware of having happened. "Crimes recorded" means
20 that the police are aware of the crimes based on all the sources which it
21 can possibly rely on in elucidating crimes, be it an eye-witness who
22 reported it, be it the injured party who reported it, or be it the
23 police, themselves, through witnessing it on the ground, or be it some of
24 the representatives of international organisations or personnel of other
25 state and local services who may have reported the crime. The fact that
1 the crime was recorded refers to all the crimes that the police had been
2 put on notice of.
3 Q. Thank you. Turning now to paragraph 7. We know from paragraph 3
4 that reports were received against 24 persons for 10 crimes, and we see
5 in paragraph 7 five perpetrators known wearing Croatian Army uniforms
6 during the commission of the crimes in relation to which the VP was
7 informed. Now, that figure of 5 perpetrators out of 24 persons
8 concerning 10 crimes, what were you able to conclude from that figure?
9 A. Unless I'm mistaken, and I can't see the beginning of the
10 document, I think the document was sent on the 1st of September. Is it
11 possible, perhaps, to see the beginning of the document.
12 Q. It is the 1st of September, yes.
13 A. In view of that, it can be concluded that unfortunately
14 individuals wearing military uniforms are still found to be perpetrating
15 crimes, on the one hand. On the other hand, this particular formulation
16 leads to conclude that the military police were informed, just as the
17 sentence goes on to say that they are in the process of identifying them,
18 which is an initial stage in the criminal inquiry. They are to identify
19 the potential perpetrators and then commence a criminal investigation.
20 A more precise answer to your question would be that it can be
21 concluded that by that time, unfortunately, there was still perpetrators
22 to be found wearing military uniforms. However, evidently co-operation
23 with the military police improved.
24 Q. It's that issue of wearing the military uniform that I want to
25 look at more specifically. The fact that someone was in a military
1 uniform at this time did not prove that that person was in the military
2 at that time; would you agree?
3 A. Correct, it does not prove.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think this question has been put to 50 witnesses
5 70 times. If it's an introduction, then I think that is a matter which
6 is so obvious in this case that the one is not a proof of the other, that
7 it was a superfluous question.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. KAY: Your Honour headed me off too early. It was, in fact,
10 a stand-alone question because this formulation of words is being sent to
11 Mr. Moric, which is why I wanted to put it to him, so that we had him
12 dealing with it without being controversial to the Court.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I wouldn't expect anyone to say, Well, of course,
14 that's perfect proof, someone wearing a uniform, he must be at least a
15 colonel in the army. That's something that -- but please proceed.
16 MR. KAY: I'm grateful for the Court's comment. Thank you very
18 May this document be made an exhibit, please.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1857.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
23 MR. KAY: And there are two more of these documents I want to go
24 through with you, Mr. Moric, in the interests of time, to make them
25 exhibits of the Court.
1 Can we have 2D00354.
2 Q. This is a similar report in relation to your earlier
3 instructions, documents we have seen in evidence, of the 22nd of August,
4 30th of August, requiring reports from your police administrations. This
5 one is from Glina Police Administration, implementation of measures. You
6 can see that the information follows what we have seen before.
7 Can we go to page 2 of the English, please.
8 We see there that this particular police administration has
9 broken it down into the police stations within the Police Administration,
10 and giving particular details there.
11 May we go to page 3 of the English and looking at number -- the
12 next page in the Croatian.
13 We see further details there, as well as details of on-site
15 If the English can be turned over, please.
16 We can see the types of crimes; burnings, one explosion, other
18 If we may turn over and go to paragraph 6, please.
19 On this page here, we see as well identification of perpetrators.
20 We see it broken down as to how it is expressed in this document in
21 paragraph 7, that there is the specific identifying factor of people
22 being members of the HV and how that is expressed. Again, this follows
23 the previous pattern of reports to you; is that correct, Mr. Moric? I
24 don't need to go into any further detail.
25 A. Yes, that is correct. It follows the previous pattern, and as I
1 said, specific details were needed so that I could take any decisions on
2 management on the basis of specific data and information.
3 MR. KAY: Thank you.
4 May this document be made an exhibit, please, Your Honour.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit D1858.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
9 MR. KAY: Thank you.
10 The next document is 2D00166. A further report, 2nd of
11 September, from the Lika-Senj Police Administration in Gospic, sent by
12 Mr. Dasovic, the police administration chief, to you, in response to your
13 request for reports, of the 30th of August, giving us details that we can
15 If we turn to page 2 in the English, we can see the breakdown of
16 information, including, in paragraph 3, perpetrators of crimes from
17 Gospic Police Station turn out to be mainly members of the HV, but cases
18 where civilians involved, giving details of the investigations in
19 paragraph 5.
20 If we go to the last page in the English to paragraph 7, on the
21 same page in the Croatian, 14 civilians, 8 members of the Croatian Army,
22 were recorded as perpetrators. Again, a similar report to that which
23 we've seen before; is that correct?
24 A. Yes. But if you allow me, I wish to point out a formulation in
25 item 3 which I find to be relevant.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. KAY: If we could go back to paragraph 3, which is the second
3 page in the English.
4 Q. Continue giving your evidence.
5 A. Under item 3, the chief of the Police Administration says that
6 cases of burning of houses and removal of movable property still occur,
7 but to a lesser degree. So this is relevant for managing the activities.
8 This still occurs, but to a lesser degree. So a gradual decrease of the
9 occurrence of these crimes is something that is noted here.
10 MR. KAY: Thank you very much.
11 Your Honour, may this document be made an exhibit, please.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1859.
15 JUDGE ORIE: D1859 is admitted into evidence.
16 MR. KAY:
17 Q. If we go to the next document, the last in this series, 2D00087.
18 This is a report by Mr. Dasovic again on the 12th of September, but in
19 response to your original request for reports of all the police
20 administrations on the 22nd of August, and so it covers the period from
21 the 22nd of August until the 10th of September, as we see in paragraph 5
22 when we get to it.
23 If you could just look at paragraph 1, and now if we could turn
24 over the English, it gives the same information that we have seen before.
25 Military police are not sufficiently present, military police not paying
1 enough attention to the problems. When acting on their own, military
2 police do not investigate perpetrators thoroughly, which impedes the
3 uncovering of crimes, resulting in a number of them remaining unsolved.
4 Is there any comment you can make as to whether there is a
5 disparity between the professional competence of the military police
6 officers as compared with those officers from the Ministry of Interior,
7 the civilian police officers?
8 A. Yes, unfortunately there was disparity at the time. As I already
9 mentioned during my testimony, while establishing the state, its
10 mechanisms also needed to be set up. So as the military was being
11 formed, so along the way the military police needed to be formed as well.
12 The civilian police supported this process of setting up military police
13 by expert training and by educating the management and the command
14 structures of military police.
15 At this time, the military police, as an institution, was two or
16 two and a half years old, so it is clear that there was a disparity, but
17 the difference in the professional level and competence is one issue and
18 one problem; and another issue, another problem, is the difference in
19 terms of the level of organisation and readiness for rapid reaction. It
20 is obvious that at that time the military police infrastructure was not
21 good enough so as to be able to follow civilian police in their
22 activities, but we also had a legal issue there because the military
23 police was supposed to discharge duties from its area of responsibility,
24 and that was why we constantly insisted on this co-operation.
25 So the military police certainly had difficulties and problems.
1 We also had great problems within the civilian police, for sure, but we
2 had to co-operate.
3 Q. Thank you. The Court can see the rest of the document. If we
4 just turn quickly to page 3 in the English, page 2 in the Croatian, to
5 note 33 on-site investigations for the types of crimes ranging from
6 burning of houses, mining of housing facilities, illegal possession of
7 weapons, ammunition, explosive devices, 66 perpetrators, 57 civilians,
8 9 HV.
9 MR. KAY: Your Honour, may this document be made an exhibit,
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1860.
14 JUDGE ORIE: D1860 is admitted into evidence.
15 MR. KAY:
16 Q. For the final part of my questioning of you, Mr. Moric, I want to
17 turn now to the issue concerning any restrictions of movement there may
18 have been imposed upon people.
19 If we could first turn to the document Exhibit D28, and this is a
20 document dated the 6th of August, 1995, and it concerns an agreement
21 between the state of Croatia
22 Sector South. This document was signed by Mr. Sarinic and Mr. Akashi.
23 Firstly, have you seen this document before?
24 A. I do not remember this specific document at present, but I could
25 say with certainty that I must have been aware of it. But at the moment,
1 I cannot remember whether I ever had it before me. However, I'm almost
2 certain that I had to have seen it.
3 Q. Because you were in the position of being in charge of the
4 fundamental civilian police, this agreement between UNCRO and
5 Mr. Sarinic, what would that have represented to you in terms of legal
6 status of the document?
7 A. I would have to read the document now. But -- so that we
8 wouldn't lose time, I think that nothing could be agreed by this document
9 that was not already a part of the national legislation. I believe that
10 the Secretary-General's envoy, Mr. Akashi, was potentially concerned
11 about the freedom of movement and the security of the mission's
12 personnel, and that the purpose of this document was probably to
13 emphasise, on the one hand, from the international perspective, the
14 obligation to protect human rights and freedoms of all citizens in the
15 Republic of Croatia
16 not restricting the movements of the personnel of the international
17 mission of UN, and guaranteeing support for their security.
18 Q. I'm interested in the transmission of this document. From its
19 date of the 6th of August, are you able to say if you received a copy of
20 this document on that date or any later date, as a document for you to
21 study and take into account?
22 A. Counsel, in my answer to your previous question, I said that I
23 could not say with any certainty whether I had this document before me
24 and whether I had seen it previously, but I suppose that I ought to have
25 been aware of it. I have heard about it, so I cannot exclude the
1 possibility that I received it. But also I cannot exclude the
2 possibility that I did not receive it.
3 Q. Why I ask this question is for this reason: This Court has heard
4 from various international witnesses, from UNCRO or the European
5 Monitoring Mission
6 obstructing the passage or preventing the passage of internationals from
7 those organisations at various check-points. And, firstly, were you
8 aware of cases where that happened?
9 A. I think that it is relevant to say at the beginning that such
10 instructions to restrict the movements of the personnel of any of the
11 international missions or organisations is something that I never issued.
12 If it did occasionally happen on the ground, I do not remember that I
13 received any specific reports on that or, more precisely, that I received
14 such reports and that I did not react.
15 It is true that I'm talking about a period when there were so
16 many events that it is possible I do not remember any such reports, but I
17 am certain that if I was informed about such incidents, that I would have
18 reacted in the sense of issuing instructions that they have to be allowed
19 freedom of movement. And if there were any sporadic incidences of
20 vehicles being stopped and the personnel controlled, then it could have
21 happened due to the specific circumstances in the area, such as, for
22 example, once or twice vehicles with marks of international
23 organisations, such as UNPROFOR and UNCRO, and later on UNHCR, were
24 stolen, and it is possible that upon receiving their local tasks, that is
25 to say, to search for this equipment and the people who had stolen it,
1 the regular police could have stopped such vehicles and tried to check
2 who was in them.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, could we try to keep the witness talking
4 about facts. Of course, it's possible, nothing can be excluded, that if
5 a UN car is stolen, that you start investigating it by stopping UN cars.
6 Do you have any knowledge of what happened, because your answer
7 suggests that the only purpose for which you are aware of for which
8 vehicles from international organisations were stopped would have been to
9 search for stolen vehicles? Is that how we have to understand your
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the police did not
12 have any other valid reasons. That is how I would state that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking whether they had valid reasons to do
14 so. My question was whether that was the case, yes or not, with or
15 without valid reasons. Could you tell us what you know about this, even
16 from reports? But knowledge about facts; not about what should have
17 been, but about what happened.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honour.
19 Yes, that was the reason for them to be stopped.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Is it to say that whenever a vehicle of an
21 international organisation was stopped, that that would have been the
22 only reason for doing so, never for any other reason? If you don't know,
23 tell us. If you do know, tell us as well.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I know that, and I
25 said so in one of my previous answers. The reason was their own security
1 and also a search for stolen vehicles.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You've told us that you didn't go through the
3 document you said you must have been aware of at the time. Who decides
4 on whether or not the security of members of the international
5 organisations is at stake? Is it they, themselves, who decide whether or
6 not to freely move around, with all the risks, or is it the Croatian
7 government who is entitled to say, Stop, it's too dangerous for you? If
8 I say "Croatian government," I mean Croatian authorities.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in principle, yes, but
10 this is not what I had in mind. I had in mind the specific developments
11 in local areas because of which the police would have to stop anyone,
12 including the peacekeeping mission's personnel or personnel of
13 international organisations, until the reason for stopping them did not
14 exist anymore. But, generally speaking, the Croatian government was in
15 the position to say, Yes, you can move freely in certain areas, or, You
16 cannot go into specific areas until such and such a date.
17 JUDGE ORIE: So the master of the freedom of movement was finally
18 the Croatian authorities?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And you told us that you had not looked at the
21 document, the agreement. Is there any -- would there be anything in the
22 agreement you said you did not re-read, but as you told us you were aware
23 of at the time, which would confirm that or contradict that, or was there
24 any clause in that agreement which would be relevant for the answers to
25 the last questions I put to you?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sorry that I
2 cannot say with any certainty whether I did receive this document or not.
3 Only if I were to read all of it, then I could answer with more certainty
4 to your very precise question.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not inviting you to do so at this very moment.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Kay.
7 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. In looking at the documents in this case, Mr. Moric, we've seen a
9 large number of orders. We've been through quite a few, you and I, in
10 the last day. The Court has even more. We haven't seen an order from
11 you to the police administrations setting out the Akashi-Sarinic
12 agreement so that the police administrations were aware of it. Do you
13 know if you drafted any such order at the time? We haven't got one in
14 this case.
15 A. I don't remember doing anything in relation to one such document,
16 though I do understand the idea behind the document, as I explained in my
17 previous answer.
18 Q. I'm interested in what happened at the time, which is why I asked
19 whether this document had ever been transmitted to you, because again I
20 found no evidence anywhere of anyone sending it to you. And you're a
21 person dealing with freedom of movement at the time, and that is why I
22 asked whether the document was transmitted to you at that time. So I'm
23 very concerned to know what was sent to you at the time, what you knew at
24 the time, and what you did at the time, because there is this issue of
25 the civilian police being recorded as having stopped various
1 international representatives. Do you understand? Are you able to give
2 any further information concerning the situation at the time?
3 A. Counsel, I can only repeat that I'm sorry that I don't remember
4 having been given the document or hearing of it. I do understand the
5 point it makes and why it was written.
6 As for the freedom of movement of personnel of international
7 organisations is concerned, I understand that it could have been
8 restricted to a locality for a limited period of time, such as an area or
9 a brief dangerous operation close to a roadway, and other reasons that
10 would deal with the security of international personnel in general of all
11 the various missions, de-mining operations.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, your question was answered at page - what
13 is it? - 17 or 18, line 23. Could you make sure that the witness
14 refrains from telling us what could have been the case, or what he could
15 imagine that would have been the case, not having looked at documents, so
16 as to leave the realm of speculation, unless there is a very good basis
17 for it.
18 MR. KAY: There is, actually, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please.
20 MR. KAY: It's the next question.
21 Can we go to Exhibit D499.
22 Q. And it's a document dated the 17th of August, 1995, and in fact
23 it does concern UNCRO, UNCIVPOL, European Union Monitors. It was written
24 by you. I'd like you to look at it. You sent it to all the police
1 Page 2 in the English, please.
2 It doesn't refer to the Akashi-Sarinic agreement or any agreement
3 between the Croatian government and the UN, which is why I'm interested
4 about who received this agreement, where it went to, who knew about it,
5 what the efficiency of the system was, whatever. But we see here, on the
6 17th of August, that you issued this order to the police administrations
7 concerning no longer to need restriction of movement in areas because of
8 the return and normalisation of life, and consequently do not restrict
9 the movement of European Union Monitors, UNCIVPOL, UNCRO members,
10 "movements and itineraries of UNHCR convoys must be announced in
12 Now, just before we look at that document, was there any plan or
13 policy from the Ministry of Interior that had been issued or sent to the
14 civilian police on the ground saying, Restrict the movement of
15 internationals, prevent them from going to places? Was there a plan or
16 policy in relation to that?
17 A. There absolutely was not.
18 Q. And the reason, on the 17th of August, of you sending this to all
19 the police administrations concerning the international monitors, can you
20 recollect why you put that in this document on the 17th of August?
21 A. In the preamble, the document refers to the general state of
22 security which allows for free movement of persons and goods, as well as
23 a gradual normalisation of life. In other words, there is no need to
24 restrict the freedom of movement for security reasons. This was to state
25 that if anyone was still in doubt, there was no need to restrict the
1 movement of members of international organisations.
2 Q. Thank you. I want you now to look at a document dated the 8th of
3 August, Exhibit D1769, please.
4 This was an order issued by you again to all the police
5 administrations. Its subject is the arrival of reporters and public
6 figures in the liberated areas. We can see in paragraph 1 it refers to
7 accredited reporters. We can see, in paragraph 2, about:
8 "... distinguished and generally-known public persons entering
9 the liberated area, consult the duty operations of the Ministry of
10 Interior operation return staff, and for all other persons access to the
11 liberated area is prohibited until further notice."
12 If you could inform the Court about the purpose of this order
13 issued on the 8th of August, please, Mr. Moric.
14 A. Counsel, always in all my documents, since I'm in charge of
15 prevention, the purpose of all my documents is security and safety.
16 Q. Thank you. If we can now go to the Akashi-Sarinic agreement, as
17 I would like you to look at it to see its context, what it says, and then
18 I'll ask questions about it to you.
19 So can we have Exhibit D28, please.
20 Please have a look at this, Mr. Moric. An agreement between the
21 Government of the Republic of Croatia
22 temporary measures in the areas formerly known as Sector South. If you
23 could just read it to yourself.
24 A. If you were referring to the title of the document only, I've
25 read it.
1 Q. No, sorry, the whole document. It concerns the effects of
2 hostilities on the lives of civilians. It's committed to minimising loss
3 of civilian life from hostilities, full protection of civilians and human
4 rights, humanitarian needs.
5 A. Excuse me. May we move further down, because in Croatian I can
6 only see item 1.
7 Q. Thank you. Perhaps if we turn to page 2 in the English.
8 A. Can we turn to the next page in Croatian, please.
9 Q. Have you finished it? Thank you.
10 A. I have, yes.
11 Q. Right. First of all, would this agreement, signed by Mr. Sarinic
12 with Mr. Akashi, have been relevant to the business of the Ministry of
13 Interior, to the work of the Ministry of Interior?
14 A. It could have been relevant, in the context of items 4 and 5, if
15 I've read them correctly, where security reasons are cited, and in
16 relation to them, the issues of movement and security guarantees.
17 Q. If this had been transmitted to you at the time --
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I object to that question.
19 The witness has reiterated that he cannot --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first hear what the question is. At the same
21 time, Mr. Kay is put on notice that speculating on hypothetical
22 situations is not what at least the Prosecution expects him to invite the
23 witness to do.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. KAY: Well, it's not speculation, Your Honour, because I
1 asked for any evidence that there may be that the Prosecution has that
2 this was transmitted at the time.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I did not say that you were asking for speculation.
4 I said that you were on notice that you would not ask for speculation.
5 And, therefore, not having heard your question, I have no opinion about
6 whether you would or would not ask for speculation.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Mr. Moric, if you had received this document at the time, would
10 you have issued an order to all your police administrations, telling them
11 about their rights and obligations under it?
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I object, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Mahindaratne, of course what Mr. Kay is
14 asking, of course, he's asking a hypothetical situation. If he rephrases
15 his question slightly, then the question remains the same and your
16 objections would not be valid anymore. That is, If you would have seen
17 this at the time, was it or had it been your duty... And then he tells
18 about what his duties are, and that comes down to exactly the same. So
19 let's refrain from semantic discussions.
20 At the same time, Mr. Kay, you're asking what he would have done
21 under different situation, whereas I do understand you wanted to ask him
22 what he felt his duty would have been to do, which is slightly different
23 but comes down to the same considerations when answering the question.
24 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour.
25 Q. Mr. Moric, if you had received this document, would you have had
1 any duty or responsibility to take any action upon it in relation to the
2 police administrations beneath you?
3 A. Counsel, in my previous answer I said that I thought the document
4 was relevant in items 4 and 5, which came within the competence of the
5 Ministry of the Interior. I believe that under the circumstances, I
6 would have drafted instructions which I would have sent to police
7 administrations in order to let them know of the existence of the
8 document and of the obligations they had arising from it.
9 Q. Because I note that when we looked at Exhibit D499, there is no
10 mention there of the agreement between the Republic of Croatia
11 United Nations peace forces, is that any indication to you as to what
12 information you had at that time between the 6th of August and 17th of
13 August? Are you able to give a comment on that, the absence of reference
14 to this agreement in any of those orders?
15 A. It could have happened this way only because I evidently was not
16 aware of the document and did not have any obligations with regard to it.
17 Q. I want to now consider the process, because we have here, on the
18 one hand, an agreement signed by Mr. Akashi, on behalf of the
19 United Nations peacekeeping forces, and we have Mr. Sarinic, who had a
20 particular job, signing on behalf of the Republic of Croatia
21 should have been -- or was there any legal route that needed to be taken
22 for this to be acted upon by you at that time?
23 A. From my experience dating from that time, and from the standard
24 practice, I can tell you which route it should have taken. Mr. Sarinic
25 was the head of office of the President of the Republic. He should have
1 sent it to the Government of the Republic of Croatia
2 was the minister of the interior. The government could have set out some
3 of its positions with regard to how the agreement would be implemented.
4 The positions thus set out would be taken on board by the minister of the
5 interior, who would, in turn, inform one of his assistants about it and
6 give his obligations about it, the one assistant who was charged with it,
7 and that would have been me. So that would have been the proper route.
8 Q. Are you able to comment upon it, its status in law, then, as it
9 is just signed by Mr. Akashi and Mr. Sarinic? What was its legal status,
10 this agreement between Mr. Akashi and Mr. Sarinic?
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I object to this question.
12 I don't know what the foundation for this question is, whether
13 this witness is in any position to express an opinion of the legality of
14 an agreement of this nature.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, in view of the position of this
16 witness at the time and the fact that he may have had to consider the
17 legal validity of this document, it is certainly interesting to know not
18 what a legal status of this agreement was, as Mr. Kay asked him, but how
19 he understands such a document, in view of its legal validity. Then it
20 is about his own relevant opinion he may have formed on it.
21 At the same time, Mr. Kay, we've heard from this witness first
22 that -- with certainty, that he was aware of the document. Two pages
23 later, he certainly was -- he apparently was not aware of the document.
24 So let's try to keep it short. He says he may have seen the document,
25 but he cannot say with certainty that he has seen the document. So in
1 order to explore his understanding of this document, which he may have
2 seen, may not have seen, certainly may not have seen, certainly may have
3 seen, is a risky exercise, but let's ask, now that he has read it,
4 whether he remembers whether at the time he formed an opinion about any
5 agreement, for example this one, being concluded between Mr. Sarinic and
6 Mr. Akashi.
7 MR. KAY: With respect, Your Honour, I've dealt with the issue of
8 whether he had seen it at the time, and --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you have dealt with it. I'm just noting that
10 there are some -- the answers are not in every respect consistent. I
11 don't want to revisit that whole matter, but I --
12 MR. KAY: Which is why I took him to the other exhibits, and the
13 content of those exhibits and what is written in them. We're now very
14 familiar with --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and then he concludes from the documents that
16 he has not seen it. That is a conclusion, and if three minutes before
17 that, without having seen the documents, he has a different recollection,
18 then at least it's something the Chamber will have to consider, what the
19 basis is for the testimony of the witness in this respect. Not to say
20 that it's one or the other, but certainly a matter to pay proper
21 attention to.
22 As I said before, it may be relevant to know whether the witness
23 formed any opinion about this kind -- the validity of this kind of
24 agreement, because that is apparently what you are looking for.
25 MR. KAY: Yes.
1 Q. Give me just a straight single answer. This agreement we've been
2 looking at, at that time between the 6th and 17th of August, can you say
3 that you saw this document and acted upon it by informing your
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I object to that question.
6 I think the witness has answered this question twice, and I could
7 take --
8 MR. KAY: I'd be happy with the answers, but there seems to be
9 uncertainty about it. But if I'm the only one who's happy with the
10 answers, then --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, answers, Mr. Kay. The Chamber will consider --
12 the evaluation of the evidence, of course, is for the Chamber to -- but I
13 just pointed at the various questions and the various answers we received
14 in relation to having seen at the time the document, yes or no. I'm not
15 going any further.
16 MR. KAY: I am surprised the Prosecution objects. I mean, a
17 large portion of their case is based on this.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but whether you're surprised or not on what
19 Ms. Mahindaratne does, that's --
20 MR. KAY: Well, we were searching --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed.
22 MR. KAY:
23 Q. I'm on my last minute, Mr. Moric. In your position, as assistant
24 minister of interior for the fundamental police, we have seen you have
25 issued orders to your subordinate police administrations concerning
1 freedom of movement. In fact, the Court has seen other documents on the
2 same matter from you, and we have also seen comments on documents from
4 This document, signed by Mr. Sarinic, could you have acted upon
5 it if it had just been given to you by Mr. Sarinic, or would it have had
6 to have gone through another procedure for you to have issued lawful
7 orders in the Republic of Croatia
8 A. Counsel, in answer to your earlier question, I described the
9 procedure that was in place in the time and that this should have gone
10 through in order to reach the government and, consequently, the minister,
11 and then the assistant minister ultimately.
12 MR. KAY: Thank you. I have no further questions.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kay.
14 We'll have a break, and we'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Moric?
18 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Moric, you'll now be cross-examined by
20 Mr. Kehoe. Mr. Kehoe is counsel for Mr. Gotovina.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:
24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Moric.
25 A. Good morning.
1 Q. Mr. Moric, I'd like to ask you a few questions from your
2 statements and maybe further questions based on the questions asked by my
3 colleagues Mr. Mikulicic and Mr. Kay. I'll do my best not to repeat
4 those matters, but if I happen to jump between subjects, it's just that
5 I'm trying to use the time as efficiently as possible. So bear with me
6 if you can; okay?
7 A. Yes. Please go ahead.
8 Q. Mr. Moric, during the examination by my learned friend
9 Mr. Mikulicic, he discussed with you the operation return plans, and we
10 don't need to bring that up, but it is embodied in your document D1845.
11 And in that plan, Mr. Moric, you had envisioned working with the UN as
12 part of the peaceful integration, and it was also contemplated that the
13 people who resided there were going to continue to reside there while
14 this peaceful reintegration was taking place; is that a fact?
15 A. Yes, that is correct. They were the citizens of the Republic of
17 Q. Now, of course, we know, based on the facts of this case and what
18 transpired, that things became much different than this morning. You
19 were asked some questions by Mr. Kay, and for reference, Mr. President
20 and Your Honours, it's page 3 and 4 of today's transcript, concerning the
21 Serbs leaving the area, and while you expected some Serbs to leave, you
22 didn't expect as many to leave. And my question, I would like to ask
23 you -- I want to expand on a few items touched upon by Mr. Kay and talk
24 about -- in addition to the looting issues that you talked about, can you
25 talk on all levels how your policing job became more difficult when there
1 were no people left in the area? I don't want you to just limit it to
2 just looting. How, in toto, did it become more difficult? And,
3 likewise, could you include as part of that, did it become more dangerous
4 for your police officers?
5 A. Counsel, it was much more difficult to do the police work in such
6 an area because of the fact that, as I have already mentioned, in the
7 wake of Operation Storm a time of confusion followed, as is typical for
8 such periods, that is to say, a postwar period. The policemen discharged
9 their duties in a complex security situation which brought them in danger
10 as well, because a group of paramilitary and para-police had remained in
11 the area and because there were a lot of mines and other explosives
12 devices and weapons left behind in this area, as well as because of the
13 fact that houses and private property had been abandoned in such great
14 numbers, and also because from the neighbouring Bosnia-Herzegovina, from
15 the parts that were under the control of Republika Srpska, groups
16 returned to the area liberated in Operation Storm with some specific
17 goals, and also because of the fact that this was a vast area. We talked
18 about how big it was yesterday. And these are all the elements that show
19 how difficult were the conditions under which the police work was
20 supposed to be done, and the scope of duties was increasing from day to
21 day so that around the 15th of August, we were faced with a spate of
22 negative events.
23 Q. So if I was to ask you the precise question, did the fact that
24 there were very few people left in the area make your job more or less
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, if I would repeat what the witness said
2 earlier is that he said that since people were not there, that reporting
3 took place rather late. Apart from that it's obvious that if there's no
4 one there, it may be very difficult to observe that a crime is committed,
5 apart from those who commit the crimes. And of course you wouldn't
6 expect any reports to the police in that respect. That is what the
7 witness explained at quite some length. If there's anything else you
8 would seek in your answer -- and I'm making this observation because the
9 previous question resulted in an answer which was, for 85 per cent, a
10 repetition of what the witness said already before; confusion, large
11 territory. The only thing that was new, I think, was the groups that
12 returned from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska. So, therefore,
13 if you're seeking anything apart from what is either obvious or already
14 in the testimony of the witness, I would invite you to focus on those
15 specific matters and not after lengthy introductions, but let's go to the
16 core right away.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. KEHOE: I appreciate Your Honour's guidance. My specific
19 question, just so Your Honour knows, and I'll move on to another topic,
20 was that during the examination of Mr. Kardum, the Prosecution took a
21 different position. But I will focus my questions based on Your Honour's
22 guidance, but I just wanted to bring that to Your Honour's attention so
23 you had an idea of why I was going into that in a little more depth.
24 JUDGE ORIE: As may appear from my observation, I carefully
25 listened to the testimony of the witness, which covered 90 per cent again
1 of what you asked him. So let's try to find that final 10 per cent
3 MR. KEHOE: Thank you.
4 Q. Now, Mr. Moric, yesterday in your testimony you talked about the
5 number of police officers that you would have needed to secure the area,
6 and at page 25647, lines 16 and 17, you said that not even 40.000 men
7 would have been enough. And there were serious problems for the
8 fundamental police in manning check-points, and I'm talking about
9 manpower concerns and their ability to prevent people coming into the
10 area, were there not?
11 A. That's correct, Counsel. And in addition to that, we did not
12 have a legal valid basis to prevent freedom of movement, except in
13 exceptional micro-local situations and locations. So the answer to your
14 question is, yes, that's right.
15 Q. Let's talk -- and I would like to go through a sequence of the
16 problems facing the military police. And let's just, for a starting
17 point, go into some check-points, to a degree, and some of the
18 difficulties that the police were facing.
19 And I would like to bring up 65 ter 1D3013.
20 Now, Mr. Moric, I don't suspect that you've seen this document
21 before, but I trust that you recognise the format of this document, given
22 your many years in the Police Department in the Ministry of the Interior.
23 And as you can see, this is a 9 August 1995 report from the Benkovac
24 Police Station.
25 And if we could move to page 2 in the English, and stop me if you
1 you need more time to examine the document.
2 Now, if we look at -- this is a report from 1400 hours to 2200
3 hours on the 9th of August, and I'm interested in the first paragraph on
4 the reporting that came in:
5 "After being informed of new events in the police station,
6 Cunjak, Zivko, Pecirovic, Midhat, patrolled all the check-points in the
7 town several times, as well as the officers on patrol, at which point
8 there was no particular new events aside from the fact that the officers
9 at the Smilcic check-point informed us that civilian persons dressed in
10 military uniforms were coming to the village Biljane Donje and burning
11 houses. The same were arriving to the village on traffic and side
13 Now, obviously this document indicates that the MUP was receiving
14 reports of civilians in military uniforms conducting burnings as early as
15 the 9th of August.
16 My question for you, Mr. Moric, is: Reports back concerning the
17 effectiveness of check-points and the difficulty in those check-points,
18 given the fact that people, who may have known the area, knew the side
19 roads, did that present a difficulty for your men?
20 A. In this report, police officers precisely point out that people
21 are using traffic and side roads to get to certain points, and of course
22 this presented a great difficulty because of the great number of such
24 Q. And obviously all these side roads couldn't be patrolled
25 continuously by the civilian police, could they?
1 A. This was an operative and technical request at the level of
2 commanders of police stations, and I believe that whenever they could
3 meet the request, they did do so. But generally speaking, it's certain
4 there were more side roads and traffic roads than they had police patrols
5 at their disposal.
6 Q. I ask you that question because several witnesses for the
7 Prosecution have come forward to say that the only thing that the
8 civilian police had to do to prevent people that were interested in
9 committing crimes is to just put up more check-points and make sure these
10 people weren't coming into the area. What's your comment on that?
11 A. Unfortunately, that is not correct. If that was the mechanism
12 that would have prevented such development, we would have used it. But
13 even if these traffic roads and side roads were blocked, the perpetrators
14 who were from the area were well-acquainted with the area, and they moved
15 around it in various ways mostly on foot in order to avoid any police
16 check-points or control.
17 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time we will offer into evidence
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1861.
22 JUDGE ORIE: D1861 is admitted into evidence.
23 If you would allow me, Mr. Kehoe, to seek a bit of clarification
24 on this same report which is still on the screen.
25 Mr. Moric, the first paragraph about persons coming to the
1 village and using traffic and side roads, if I read that, I get the
2 impression, but please correct me or at least give me your impression,
3 that apparently these people going to the village were escaping the
4 check-points and, therefore, not checked before they went to such a
5 village, that is what I'm inclined to understand what is reported here.
6 Do you agree with that, or do you have a different understanding of what
7 is said in this report?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is also how I
9 understand it. That was a way to avoid police check-points.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I also read this document as reporting that
11 for these reasons, they could not be arrested or that they escaped
12 further action from police officers.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct, and that is
14 precisely the conclusion that can be drawn from this.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if we read it this way, do you have an
16 explanation how, under those circumstances, you could establish, first of
17 all, that persons were dressed in military uniforms, but if you could
18 already observe that perhaps from a distance, how you could establish
19 that these were civilians.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is a report
21 drafted by police officers, and they are reporting to the commander of
22 the police station that through their colleagues, that is to say, someone
23 who is a member of the Ministry of the Interior and discharging some
24 duties within the MUP, informed them of the arrival of persons dressed in
25 military uniforms. So this is local knowledge and local familiarity with
1 certain persons. This is how I understand it. And I conclude that those
2 who had seen these men recognised that these citizens were dressed in
3 military uniforms, but they knew that these same persons were not
4 soldiers and were not from the ranks of the Croatian Army. This is how I
5 would interpret this report.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So, therefore, it is your understanding this
7 must have been based on observations by persons from this village,
8 Biljane Donje, and that they would have recognised those persons as being
9 civilians and, at the same time, being dressed in military uniforms, in
10 which case I would expect - but please correct me when I'm wrong - that a
11 police officer would report those details, saying, I recognise Mr. X, Y,
12 or Z, whom I know to be a civilian, although he was dressed in a military
13 uniform, of which we do not find further details in this report. Is that
14 also -- is that what you would expect as well, as an experienced police
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, your conclusion is
17 correct because the report contains certain indications that would incite
18 the crime police to collect the facts, and they would very quickly
19 establish who these citizens were, because it is clear from this
20 formulation that the people who had seen them had also recognised them as
21 citizens dressed in uniforms.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you started thinking in terms of assumptions,
23 that is, I assume that they had been informed about this and this and
24 this. And now in this step of your answer you say it's easy to define
25 them because they had been observed. So you make -- what you earlier
1 assumed to be the basis for these findings, you now make them facts. I'm
2 not yet at that point, without further verification. But you would say
3 if that is what happened and if this knowledge was brought to the
4 attention of the crime police, then that would have created a situation
5 in which it may have been relatively easy to identify the perpetrators.
6 I think, then, if that is how I can understand your answer, then we can
7 move on.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
10 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
11 Q. If we can go back to the first page of this document, I'd like to
12 ask you some clarifying questions based on the questions asked by the
13 Presiding Judge.
14 Now, this is a work order, is it not, that the individual shift
15 presents, and he presents this back to his supervisor for additional
16 steps to be made based on this information; isn't that right?
17 A. Counsel, I wish to correct your conclusion.
18 Q. Please do.
19 A. It is not a shift. It is not a shift, because there are several
20 police patrols in one shift and more policemen. This is just one patrol,
21 and there's a number of these within one shift. This is a work order
22 with listed tasks that they need to carry out, and previously we saw
23 their report that in connection with the tasks that were issued to them,
24 they carried out certain activities, including the information they
25 gathered. After that, this is forwarded to other services within the
1 police station, and from that report each of these services can see what
2 is relevant for it and what it needs to do.
3 Q. Now, just to follow up on that, you mentioned the crime police.
4 If information like this is passed to this police officer's superior, it
5 could be sent to the crime police for further investigation; is that
7 A. In case of this fact, when the policemen entered something
8 specific that they learned in their report, I do not agree that they
9 could pass it on to the crime police. They would have to pass it on to
10 the crime police within the police station to conduct further
11 investigation about that.
12 Q. So when we look at this work order and these comments, if this is
13 going to continue to be investigated, this matter -- this information is
14 not the end of the investigation; it could be the beginning of the
15 investigation that leads to the crime police conducting interviews or
16 doing anything that they have to do to investigate the matter?
17 A. That's right. This is just the initiation of the procedure.
18 Q. Let me shift to some of the other difficulties facing the
19 civilian police, and you alluded to several of them this morning, and one
20 of them that you alluded to was the issue of being confronted with
21 ammunition and mines in the liberated areas. And I'd like to show you a
22 serious of documents and ask you if this is the type of information that
23 you had in mind. And I'll go through several of them in sequence and
24 then just ask you for your assessment of them at the end. And I do that
25 in the spirit of time, because some of them are similar, they're just in
1 different places at different times.
2 If we could go to the first document, which is 1D3018.
3 And just so you know, Mr. Moric, while this is coming up, they're
4 all virtually two-page documents, so we'll go through the two pages. And
5 when you tell me you're completed reviewing them, we can go to the next
7 Now, this is a work order for the 6th Benkovac Police Station for
8 the 13th of August.
9 A. Could we please move on to the next page.
10 Q. Yes.
11 MR. KEHOE: I will say, Mr. President, I do believe this is
12 mis-dated, because it's 1994. I think contextually, it would appear to
13 be 1995.
14 If we can look at the next page, and focusing most of our
15 attention on paragraphs 4, 5, and 6, which deals with the issue of
16 ammunition and mines.
17 Have you completed reviewing it? Let's look at another one
18 which is 1D --
19 [French interpretation on English channel]
20 MR. KEHOE: I'm sorry, Mr. President, I think I was getting
21 French there.
22 [French interpretation on English channel]
23 MR. KEHOE: I'm getting the French on Channel 4. I know the
24 language myself, but --
25 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't notice it. I'm used to listening to
1 several languages. Usually, if it's observed, it's immediately repaired.
2 MR. KEHOE: Okay.
3 Q. If we can turn, Mr. Moric, to 1D3020, another work order from the
4 Benkovac Police Station, 14-15 August 1995. Again, if you view the first
5 page, I think it's self-explanatory.
6 In the English, if we can turn to the second page, I believe we
7 can -- it goes two pages in B/C/S, yes. And we're interested in the
8 bottom paragraph, concerning the finding of explosives.
9 And, again, just let me know when you're finished reading that.
10 A. Counsel, we can move on.
11 Q. Let me turn to another one, 1D3021, another 14-15 August
13 Excuse me, I apologise, not that document. If I can turn to
14 1D3023. My apologies. And this is dated 16 August.
15 A. We can move on.
16 Q. Can we turn to the next page in this document, please. This is
17 -- the pertinent paragraphs being paragraph 1 and 3 for the purposes of
18 my question.
19 A. You can move on.
20 Q. Now, Mr. Moric, I'm just using these three as an example, and all
21 three of them talk about the finding of plastic explosives, weapons,
22 ammunition, explosives, et cetera, in houses throughout the liberated
23 area. Were these the type of reports that you were receiving back from
24 people in the field that they were finding throughout the liberated area
25 once the police were moving through?
1 A. I didn't receive this sort of reports, but I did receive reports
2 through my daily contacts with chiefs of police administrations which
3 made it quite clear that they, having received such reports from the
4 field, were aware of the problem. And it was clear that the problem
5 required special involvement on the part of the police because the
6 ammunition, which ranged from regular ammunition to anti-aircraft
7 rockets, had to be safely evacuated from the area, and this undoubtedly
8 required special engagement on the part of the police.
9 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, we'll offer into evidence 1D3018,
10 1D3020, and 1D3023.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, those documents become
14 Exhibit D1862 up to D1864, respectively.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
16 One second. D1862 up to and including D1864 are admitted into
18 Could I ask one question in relation to the last documents we
19 saw. Was there a general duty to report to the police for every citizen
20 in that area? And if so, where is that duty to be found?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, is my understanding
22 correct that you asked me if the citizens were duty-bound to report that
23 they were in possession of such weapons?
24 JUDGE ORIE: No, not in possession of weapons, but just ordinary
25 citizens. We find in this report that three elderly people were found,
1 and people of 60 years and over, among them a woman of 65 years old, and
2 apparently there's an issue of whether they had already reported to the
3 Benkovac Police Station. Therefore, I ask you whether there was any duty
4 and whether it was -- what was the reason to verify whether they had
5 report it already. I do not see in this report that they were in any way
6 related to any weapons, but if I misread, please correct me.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You did not misread it,
8 Your Honour. They were not tied in with the weapons. That's not the
9 point. The point is that they had the duty to report because the duty
10 stems from the law governing residence of citizens.
11 Following the liberation of the area, the legal system of the
12 Republic of Croatia
13 of the time the citizens were still not in possession of what were the
14 legal identity documents, so they were still duty-bound to report their
15 residence if they stayed in the area before the conflict and renewed
16 their documents, because what they had previously were para-documents.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Even those who were born in that same village would
18 not have had any of their original documents dating from, well, before
19 1991? Because it appears that all three were born in that same village
20 where they were found.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, such clear-cut cases existed.
22 However, the problem lies in the fact that they do not have the relevant
23 documents of the Republic of Croatia
24 different documents, and what they needed to do now was to reapply for
25 new documents of the Republic of Croatia
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that explanation.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
3 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. Now, before we move off this topic, let me ask you, Mr. Moric:
5 Did the availability of all these weapons impact on the crime problem
6 that you were facing?
7 A. Of course, it did have an impact. In addition to the efforts put
8 in by the police to collect the remaining weapons and the left-over
9 ammunition, including the anti-armour rockets, which was heavy ordnance,
10 there were individuals who were prone to criminal conduct and who wanted
11 to arm themselves as soon as possible. To add to the general chaos,
12 there were -- there was arms trafficking rife in the area. You'll
13 understand that it was relatively easy to come by weapons at the time,
14 and one could expect for individuals to get hold of weapons and hold on
15 to them for a while, waiting for their price on the market to go up.
16 Q. Let us shift to another problem facing the civilian police that
17 you referred to in the questioning to date, and that refers to looting.
18 And I'd like to use some exhibits to take us through this and have
19 explain some matters.
20 And if we could bring up first 1D3049.
21 Now, this is a criminal report that was filed 12 September 1995
22 If we can go to the second page, you can see that it's signed by
23 Mr. Kardum of the crime police. And I'm interested in the entry for
24 31 August 1995
25 was accompanied by an Alen Marin. Do you see that, sir? And reading
1 after the name of "Alen Marin," it says --
2 A. It's a bit difficult, but I can make it out.
3 Q. Okay. Okay, let's see if we can -- if you have any difficulties,
4 I think we can get you a hard copy. But it said this individual:
5 "... accompanied by Alen Marin, benefitting from the inability of
6 the unknown persons to protect their property, took several items from
7 the abandoned house, i.e., the garage, with the intent of transporting
8 the same to his own house in Kljuc, Drnis municipality, and thus gain
9 illegal benefit of the property."
10 Now, during your testimony, you were talking about looting and
11 thievery that was just for outright gain for the individual. Now, was
12 this the type of scenario that you were talking about? Not this
13 specifically, but this type of scenario, was this what you were talking
14 about when you said that?
15 A. Correct. When I talked about the crime committed for gain, I
16 meant theft and aggravated theft.
17 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time we'll offer into evidence
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1865.
22 JUDGE ORIE: D1865 is admitted into evidence.
23 MR. KEHOE:
24 Q. Now, just staying with the types of people that were doing this,
25 we just categorised those who did it for gain. And in your statement to
1 the Prosecutor, D1842, and this is at 4893, 93 of 107, and you were
2 talking about motivation of people to take property. You noted at
3 line 27:
4 "So we had people who would come back to their village and
5 recognise their property in the neighbouring house, so they would put
6 it -- take that, but they wouldn't take it back to their house, but would
7 take it back to the house where they used to live, where they lived for
8 the last three years."
9 Going to the next page:
10 "You had people who would -- who took other people's property,
11 but said that they recognised that this -- that this is their property
12 and that they recognised. So you had such a huge area which was
13 impossible to physically control, you had such a situation."
14 So first we were talking about looters for personal greed, and
15 then you had information, as you discussed with the Office of the
16 Prosecutor, people who fell into this category, that took their property
17 that they said was theirs. Can you just elaborate on that to a degree
18 and tell me the overall situation as it was relayed back to you, and the
19 consequences of that.
20 A. Counsel, examples such as this one, and various versions thereof,
21 were plentiful. As is commonly known, many or almost all non-Serbs had
22 previously been driven out of the area; not only Croats, but others as
23 well. In 1990 and 1991, their property was looted and homes destroyed.
24 After the liberation of the territory, it would happen that
25 individuals would recognise certain items as their own. However, in that
1 event the police resorted to reasonable suspicion; was it indeed the case
2 that the citizen had recognised any items that he stole -- his own
3 property, or whether he was only using this as a subterfuge, as a
4 justification. It depended on the policemen involved. It was down to
5 his assessment and to his options to check on that. It would be highly
6 unlikely for these individuals to actually be in possession of the bills
7 that they had once, indeed, bought the items concerned, and there was no
8 other way of verifying their allegations. So it was a very difficult
9 choice or situation that the policeman manning the check-point was faced
10 with. But it was more of a problem in legal and professional terms,
11 rather than his own discernment of what the situation was.
12 Most often, the police manning the check-points proceeded from
13 the presumption of culpability, rather than the presumption of innocence,
14 as should have been the case according to our jurisdiction. In
15 principle, this meant that the policemen wanted, through whichever way
16 was possible, to check whether this was, indeed, a matter of ownership or
17 only a camouflage for theft.
18 Q. Let me just change the motivation of some of these people just a
19 bit through another document, and I'd like you to examine it, because in
20 the document there are some comments that I would like to explore with
21 you. And that is 1D3029, a criminal report again filed on behalf of
22 Mr. Kardum by his subordinate, dated 31 August 1995.
23 MR. KEHOE: If we could bring that up on the screen. Again, that
24 is 1D3029.
25 Q. This is a report to the municipal public prosecutor. If we could
1 move to page 2 of the document, and if you can just -- actually, it's
2 page 3 in the B/C/S, I'm being told. Thank you very much. Thank you,
3 that's it.
4 Just tell me, sir, when you've finished reviewing that page.
5 A. I've gone through it.
6 Q. You see that this is an aggravated theft case. It does involve
7 an individual employed by the HV, and we'll take that at a -- I'll get
8 into that in a little bit. But I would just like to stay with the
9 content -- the rest of the content of this document.
10 If we could move ahead to page 4 in the English, and 4 in the
11 B/C/S. This is a receipt for these items. If we could turn the page in
12 both English and B/C/S, there's another receipt. And if we could do that
13 just one more time, there's yet another receipt. Now, if we could go on,
14 and we have an Official Note by the crime police in the next page, page 7
15 in the English. And if we could go to the next Official Note concerning
16 this individual, Mile Serdar. And I'm interested -- this is the
17 individual who was a driver for the Croatian Army, and I'm interested in
18 the justification that was given to the crime police for this theft.
19 Do you see that, at the bottom of the page, there should be --
20 there's one last line. But the paragraph right before the last line, it
22 "Given that during the occupation of Sveti Rok, they left
23 everything behind which has now been stolen or burnt, he thought that he
24 had every right to take now what he took, and therefore he didn't talk to
25 anyone about this before."
1 Now, that type of mentality and psychology, were you receiving
2 information back from your police administrations that many of these
3 looters were justifying their actions because they had lost all their
4 items during the occupation from 1991 to 1995?
5 A. Of course, in their day-to-day work the police was faced with
6 explanations and justifications such as this one. But as you can see in
7 this particular example at hand, this did not prevent the police from
8 doing its police work. There was no solidarity in that sense, although
9 you will see that there were quite a few members of the uniformed police
10 or the crime police who had suffered the same or similar fate, or whose
11 families had suffered the same or similar fate.
12 With your leave, I would like to draw your attention to another
13 relevant piece of information in the document.
14 In paragraph 3, it is stated that the gentleman worked as a
15 driver at the Logistics Base of the Croatian Army, but the relevant piece
16 of information which would indicate the scale of the problem we were
17 faced with was that he had been living for four years in Hotel Laguna, in
18 a hotel room in Zagreb
19 place where he committed this crime.
20 Q. Now, sir, just going through the rest of the document - we will
21 go into this - if we just page through, just for the purposes of the
22 Chamber, I don't want to say that this is the last document, there are
23 two more Official Notes from the suspects. And if we go to page 11, it
24 notes a referral by the state prosecutor to the Military Prosecutor's
25 Office because Mile Serdar is employed by the Croatian Army, and also a
1 referral to the Karlovac. One goes to the Split Military Prosecutor's
2 Office and another one to the Karlovac Prosecutor's Office. Excuse me,
3 then the last one is from Ivan Simic, as the military prosecutor.
4 And we will talk about those issues in one moment.
5 MR. KEHOE: But at this time we would like to offer into evidence
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1866.
10 JUDGE ORIE: D1866 is admitted into evidence.
11 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. You talked, Mr. Moric, about decisions that individuals at
13 check-points have to make and what has to be done at that particular
14 time. And the Chamber has received evidence that if a check-point -- a
15 police at a check-point perceives that items are stolen, that he has to
16 seize those items from the individual. Now, let me just change that
17 circumstance just a bit through another report and ask you if this is yet
18 another problem that causes a police officer at a check-point to have to
19 use his own judgement.
20 And let me bring up 1D3017.
21 Now, this is another work order from the Benkovac -- 6th Benkovac
22 Police Station, 13 August 1995
23 if we could look at the paragraph beginning at 1620. And this paragraph
24 talks about the transportation of cattle, cows, calves, and sheep, loaded
25 on in Gracac, and taking it through a check-point.
1 And tell me after you read that last paragraph, when you have
2 completed it, and I will talk about it a bit.
3 A. Only that paragraph, or should I read through to the end?
4 Q. I think you could read through the whole document. It's just one
6 A. I've read it.
7 Q. Now, this raises a problem concerning -- or an issue concerning
8 cattle. Now, we know based on prior evidence that the civilian police
9 would take stolen property or what they thought was stolen property from
10 people coming through check-points, but here we have a situation of
11 individuals that at least were suspected of transporting cattle that
12 might have been stolen. Now, under those circumstances - and here we
13 have cows, calves, and sheep - what is a police officer at a check-point
14 supposed to do? And does he have the facilities at his disposal at some
15 rural check-point to seize cows, calves, and sheep to take care of them?
16 And the reason I ask you this question by way of background, Mr. Moric,
17 is this: There have been items of evidence coming in from internationals
18 where they perceived people who were transporting stolen livestock moving
19 through check-points --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I know leading questions are
22 allowed in cross-examination, but then to explain to a witness why a
23 question is asked, and the background, and the purpose, I think, is
24 perhaps --
25 JUDGE ORIE: It's inappropriate.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: -- inappropriate.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I do agree with you.
3 You may put the question --
4 MR. KEHOE: That's fine, Judge.
5 Q. I'll go back to my initial question. Do you remember it,
6 Mr. Moric, or do I have to repeat it for you? And I'm talking about the
7 problem facing an officer at a check-point.
8 JUDGE ORIE: What to do with cattle, that was the question.
9 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let's keep matters short.
11 Mr. Moric, what to do with the cattle.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in this example,
13 cattle is potentially evidence. In general, in police practice at the
14 time, police would submit evidence together with criminal reports, so as
15 long as the investigation is being carried out, the evidence is under
16 police care. And then upon completion of the criminal investigation,
17 together with the criminal report and the possible suspects, the evidence
18 is to be presented at court. Of course, in cases like this one, it is
19 technically difficult to organise. Therefore, in cases like this one,
20 and I must say that these colleagues of mine were lucky that in the
21 immediate vicinity there was a farm, so that they could register that the
22 cattle was seized and that it would be temporarily accommodated at the
23 farm. But my colleagues in other areas, who did not have any farms in
24 their vicinity, had serious problems with this, how to -- how to keep the
25 evidence, how to have it fixed, and then how to physically preserve it
1 once it has been registered.
2 MR. KEHOE:
3 Q. And how do they solve it, Mr. Moric?
4 A. One of the solutions was quite unusual. Namely, we are talking
5 about the fact that they would use an exception to what the law provides;
6 namely, that a perpetrator or a possible perpetrator of the crime of
7 theft would be obliged to preserve himself cattle or other evidence,
8 which is difficult to preserve physically, until the proceedings against
9 him are initiated. And previously the evidence would be recorded in the
10 usual way and the receipt would be issued to this person, saying that
11 such evidence, in this case cattle, were seized from the person who is
12 suspected of having committed the crime, but physically would be left
13 with the person, and the person would be legally obliged to take care of
14 this evidence. All of that under the assumption that the person who is
15 the suspect is interested in preserving such evidence, in particular if
16 the person considers himself or herself not guilty and is convinced that
17 he or she would prove innocence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
19 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, a slight intervention into the
21 Page 52, line 2, after -- or before the word "seized," the
22 witness mentioned another word which is, I think, quite important to be
23 introduced into the transcript.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We'll check that. Although I find the word in a
25 different line, but I take it that we're looking at the same.
1 You said that, "... the evidence would be recorded in the usual
2 way and a receipt would be issued to this person, saying that such
3 evidence, in this case cattle, were..." and then we read, "seized from
4 the person who is suspected of having committed a crime." Did you add
5 anything where you said that the cattle were seized from that person?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said that the
7 evidence would be preserved in the usual way, and on the receipt it would
8 be stated that in the legal sense of the word, the evidence would be
9 seized, but physically it would be left with this person, with the
10 obligation to take care of it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I understand this to be that although the cattle
12 were seized, immediately the person under whom it was seized was
13 appointed the custodian of that seized cattle.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you have understood that
15 properly. That is right, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
17 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
18 At this time, we will offer into evidence 1D3017.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1867.
22 JUDGE ORIE: D1867 is admitted into evidence.
23 Perhaps one follow-up question. What you described as what
24 happened with cattle, did this occasionally happen with other seized
25 objects as well? For example, if I would have a truckload of
1 refrigerators, not having an opportunity to store them right away, that a
2 similar procedure would be applied; that is, that it would be recorded
3 what was formally seized, but then the person who transported these
4 objects or -- that it would be left in his hands and that he would be
5 responsible for preserving those objects as evidence?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the practice at the
7 time was such that, with a refrigerator as an example, that wouldn't have
8 been the case. Judging by examples of TV sets and similar, it would also
9 not be the case. But it would be the case if someone had a great
10 quantity of firewood, or of building materials, or similar items which,
11 because of their volume and quantity, would simply be too big for any
12 police facility. So if the police were to seize and preserve this as
13 evidence, then very soon around the police station there would be a space
14 that would seem like a public depot.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. My example was not about a refrigerator, but
16 about a truckload of refrigerators, and perhaps I should say a truckload
17 of household appliances, where the police may not have had a truck to
18 transport them. Could a similar thing -- could a similar procedure be
19 followed under those circumstances?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Possibly it could, and there could
21 have been a case or two like that, but I think that according to the law,
22 an exception of this kind is envisaged only for cases that are not
23 typical, such as when it is physically impossible to preserve such
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
2 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Mr. Moric, I just want to shift gears and talk a little bit about
4 the authorities of the civilian police and the military police. And I'd
5 like to show you a couple of items in evidence, starting with D1626,
6 which is the statement of Mr. Mladen Bajic, who's now the chief state
7 attorney for the Republic of Croatia
8 prosecutor, and I'd like to just show you a sequence of statements or
9 pieces of evidence and then ask you some questions. And this is all in
10 the spirit of moving through this quickly.
11 And if we could move to paragraph -- excuse me, point 6 or
12 paragraph 6. It's page 3 in the English and -- paragraph 6, and there it
13 is in the B/C/S.
14 If you could take a quick look at that question in the first
15 paragraph, and I'm interested in the area where Mr. Bajic says:
16 "Thus," and this is in the second -- third sentence in the
18 "Thus the general jurisdiction was assigned to the public
19 prosecutor, and if, in the course of a previous procedure or after the
20 commencement of a criminal procedure, it was established that an offence
21 falls within the scope of the work of the military justice system, the
22 procedure would be taken over by the military prosecutor."
23 If we can turn our attention ahead to paragraph 14, and I'm
24 interested in the last paragraph in 14, which is page 7 in the English
25 and page 6 in the B/C/S. And it notes:
1 "In general terms, the role of the military police in the
2 detection and perpetrators of criminal offences is as follows: After
3 determining that a criminal offence has been committed, the civilian
4 police from the composition of the Ministry of the Interior conducts
5 criminal proceedings of the case. If, in the course of processing of the
6 case, it would be established that the perpetrator was a member of the
7 military, the military police would then take over the criminal
8 processing. Therefore, the minister of the interior had general
9 jurisdiction for conducting criminal processing, and in cases where, in
10 the course of processing, it was established that the offence was under
11 the jurisdiction of the military justice system, criminal processing
12 would be taken over or conducted from the beginning by the military
14 I want to ask you a sequence of these, sir, just in the spirit of
15 time, because there are several witnesses that have committed on this,
16 and I just want to give them all to you.
17 The next one is Judge Zoran Matulovic, who is now a judge in the
18 County Court in Split
19 that would be D1613.
20 If we could bring that up on the screen. If we could turn to
21 paragraph 9 in the English. That's on page 7 of the English. And in the
22 B/C/S, it is page 7 in the B/C/S as well.
23 Reading under the question -- under the question -- the
24 paragraph 9, it notes:
25 "When the civilian police or military police notified the duty
1 investigating judge of the District Court (now County Court) on any
2 incident or perpetration of a criminal offence when the perpetrator is
3 unknown at the time, the investigation is always conducted by the
4 investigating judge of the District Court. The investigating judge of
5 the Military Court is autonomous. The Military Court has its own duty
6 service, and the duty military investigating judge does not participate
7 in the work of the Investigating Centre."
8 Number 10.
9 "Q. When does the investigating judge of the Military Court -"
10 it should be have, it says having - "having territorial jurisdiction,
11 i.e., venue, join the investigation?"
12 We can turn the page in the English. I think we're okay in the
14 "At the moment, it has been established beyond doubt that the
15 perpetrator of the criminal offence is a soldier, i.e., when it has been
16 established that the offence falls under the jurisdiction of the military
17 judiciary, for instance, when military equipment has been damaged,
18 et cetera."
19 The point there is at the moment it has been established beyond
20 doubt that the perpetrator is -- that the perpetrator of the criminal
21 offence is a soldier.
22 One last piece of evidence before we go into this, and that would
23 be D1553, and this is the evidence -- statement by a Mr. Galovic, the
24 county state prosecutor in Zadar. And if we could turn to the next page
25 in both the English and the B/C/S, and I'm interested in the second
1 question asked.
2 "Q. Could you describe the role of the civilian police in the
3 prevention and discovery of the perpetrators of criminal offences?
4 "A. According to the criminal procedure law, the police take
5 necessary actions aimed at the prevention and discovery of criminal
6 offences, and the perpetrators in the interim, a pre-investigative
8 "When there is reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence has
9 been committed which is prosecuted, the police has the duty to take
10 measures ex officio to find the perpetrator of the criminal offence, to
11 prevent the perpetrator or the accomplice from hiding or escaping, to
12 find and secure the traces of the criminal offence and objects that might
13 serve as evidence, and to collect any information that might be useful to
14 conduct a successful criminal procedure."
15 If we could move ahead to the next page, and that would be the
16 page -- the next page in English, and let me check on the B/C/S. And I
17 believe that's right at the top of the page:
18 "Q. Could you describe the role of the military police in the
19 prevention and the discovery of perpetrators of criminal offences?
20 "A. While performing military duties, the military police is
21 authorised to take actions towards: Military persons serving at the
22 Ministry of Defence and the armed forces; state officials and employees
23 serving in the armed forces; state officials and employees of the
24 Ministry of Defence who perform duties from the scope of the work of the
25 Ministry of Defence and the armed forces; civilians located in military
1 buildings that serve for defence purposes."
2 Moving down several paragraphs in this page in the English to,
3 "Accordingly ...," it's under the next question, same page in the B/C/S:
4 "Accordingly, the discovery of criminal offences and perpetrators
5 of those criminal offences was in the jurisdiction of the police, or the
6 military police respectively, when the criminal offences fell under the
7 jurisdiction of the military judiciary."
8 Now, Mr. Moric, these items in evidence before the Chamber from
9 Mr. Bajic and Judge Matulovic and Mr. Galovic concerning the law in this
10 area, is that your understanding of how these matters were to be
11 investigated and who had jurisdiction, either the civil element or the
12 military element, under the various circumstances as described by these
13 three gentlemen?
14 A. Counsel, even though I'm neither an expert for criminology, nor
15 did I manage crime police, I will try to answer as precisely as possible
16 to your question.
17 In general, this was how the distinction of jurisdiction was made
18 between civilian and military police. But I would ask if we could please
19 return on the screen the document of Mr. Bajic, because it seems to me
20 that we should have a look at an information that is relevant in this
21 context, if you would allow that.
22 Q. Absolutely, sir.
23 If we could go back to D1626, and I actually read from two
24 entries, and I'll show them both. One is larger than the other, but we
25 can look at both of them.
1 In page 3 in the English, under Question 6, I read for you the --
2 under the answer in 6, having looked at first paragraph -- I read for
4 "Thus the general jurisdiction was assigned to the public
6 Do you see that, sir?
7 A. Yes, I can see that. But if we could please move on to the
8 section that talks about the jurisdiction of the military police.
9 Q. Yes, and that would be on page 7 in the English, right above
10 paragraph 15. And again my memory is not completely accurate as to where
11 this is in the B/C/S. Page 6 in the B/C/S. Thank you.
12 I believe that is the other section that I read for you from
13 Mr. Bajic, where it notes in general terms --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, the witness asked whether he could see a
15 certain portion of the document. Let's first allow him to read --
16 MR. KEHOE: I am, Judge, I'm just trying to make sure that we get
17 the right place, that's all.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, you started -- the previous section, you
19 started reading it, whereas I think the witness is in a perfect situation
20 to read the portion he asked for.
21 Is this the portion, Mr. Moric, you wanted to have in front of
22 you? Please read it and make your observations.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 I wanted to point out the formulation used in this sentence,
25 which is the second in the passage beginning with the words: "In general
1 terms ..." So the second sentence. It says here that if, in the course
2 of the processing of the case, it would be established that the
3 perpetrator was a member of the military, the military crime police would
4 then take over the criminal processing.
5 However, at the time that we are talking about, and considering
6 the problems at the time, the situations that we were faced with most
7 often were such that it was clear from the very beginning that these were
8 military persons, so we didn't need the criminal processing to establish
9 that these were military persons. And in that context, I wanted to say
10 that in such situations, it was clear that the military police would be
11 in charge of that from the start.
12 MR. KEHOE:
13 Q. With that clarification and the other items that I read to you,
14 do you agree that that was your understanding as to how the system would
15 work, and the processing of suspects, depending whether or not they were
16 military or civilian?
17 A. Yes, that is correct.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, as I'm looking at the clock. Could you
19 find a suitable moment.
20 MR. KEHOE: This is a suitable moment, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: This is a suitable moment.
22 MR. KEHOE: I was just going to go into some other exhibits on
23 this, but we can do that. That will take a few minutes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will have a break, and we will resume at
25 10 minutes to 1.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
4 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. Mr. Moric, we'd like to just develop this issue with the military
6 police and the civilian police just a little bit more, and I'd like to
7 direct -- just expand it past some of your comments about joint
8 check-points, and singular check-points, and difficulties, and just to
9 turn our attention to some work orders that are similar to what we looked
10 at before.
11 The first one I'd like to talk to you about is 1D3019, which is
12 again a work order for 15 August 1995
13 And if we could -- if we could just take a look at that front
14 page briefly. And when you finish, just let me know, Mr. Moric, and we
15 can turn to the next page.
16 A. Turn to the next one.
17 Q. Thank you. Turn to the next page.
18 And I'm most interested in the entry towards the middle of that
19 page, Fitoma Jurosevic [phoen], with the seizure of the Zastava truck.
20 It notes that the same was handed over to the military police because he
21 was transporting a cow and 10 sheep in his trailer, on which he picked up
22 in the village of Oklaj
23 cattle. And it notes in parenthesis "(member of the Croatian Army)."
24 You note the first line is "handed over to the military police."
25 And let's just look at 1D3025. This is another work order for
1 the civilian police of the 18-19 August. Just let me know when you've
2 glanced through that and we'll turn to the next page.
3 A. You can turn to the next one.
4 Q. Yes, thank you. Turn that page in English.
5 If we could just read this, I'm actually interested in the
6 paragraph beginning:
7 "At 20.40 hours, we stopped a vehicle with license plate ZD-535-u
8 which is operated by a member of the Croatian Army, Bozidar Mikulic, and
9 the same vehicle, with no certificate of ownership, the same was
10 transporting two lambs and were behaving in an unbecoming and arrogant
11 manner towards officer, policeman; Marin, Darko. The duty service was
12 informed of the same, and they sent the military police, who then took
13 over the aforementioned person."
14 If we can turn to the next one, 1D3048. This is another work
15 order from the Knin District Police from 4-5 September 1995. If you'll
16 glance at that page and tell me, and we'll move to the next page.
17 A. Next, please.
18 Q. Yes. Turn to the next page. I'm actually interested most
19 specifically in the bottom portion of that page at 2110 hours. It notes:
20 "... an army truck with registration HV-743-PF arrived at the
21 check-point, and the same was filled with objects and the driver had a
22 receipt which we thought was suspicious, and we requested the operative
23 duty officer within the administration of the arrival of the military
24 police. Upon arrival, the military police took over and removed the
25 truck from traffic."
1 Just moving again quickly through, 1D3050. Again, it's another
2 work order from 20 September 1995 from the Knin Police District.
3 If we can move to the second page.
4 Sorry, if I could just -- thank you. If I can go back to the
5 prior page just one moment.
6 I note for your review point 5 in the special tasks, that:
7 "If the person stopped and checked is an HV member, inform the
8 military police through operative duty."
9 If we could turn to the next page for the particular factual
10 events, and I'm interested in the facts concerning the 1610 entry. It
12 "At 1610 we stopped a vehicle with no registration plates; make,
13 Warburg, green in colour; with a trailer with two uniformed persons
14 inside without military passes. And the same also didn't have a receipt
15 for the goods they were transporting and no registration card."
16 "The police station operative duty was notified, and the same
17 sent a military police patrol. At 1650, Corporal Loncov," and I'm not
18 even going to attempt the next name, "Domagoj from the 72nd Military
19 Police Battalion took over the persons."
20 One last entry, and this is 1D3024, and this is again from the
21 Benkovac Police Station, 17 August 1995
22 And if we can turn to the next page -- is that okay to turn to
23 the next page, Mr. Moric? Yes, so we turn to the next page, and I'm
24 interested in entry 14, which is at 1750, describing a vehicle ZD-521-B,
25 Zastava, 640-D, blue, Marinko Ledenko, Sonja, and Martin Ledenko, and
1 Vuka Sava [phoen], and Sime Bobic, they were transporting two beds, a
2 wood stove, kitchen tables, mattress. Persons and items were taken over
3 by the Benkovac military police, due to the fact that the driver was a
4 member of the Croatian Army 4th Brigade.
5 Now, Mr. Moric, looking at these documents, your men in the field
6 properly executed what they were supposed to do, i.e., if they saw
7 something suspicious or possible of criminal activity, they were stopping
8 these people at check-points and calling the military police so the
9 military police could take custody of the matter; isn't that right?
10 A. That's right, Counsel. They did what the order told them to do.
11 In all these documents, we were able to see on the first page, save for
12 the last document, I believe, that the policemen specified what the
13 specific duties were, that the vehicles had to be pulled over, and that
14 those items in respect of which ownership could not be ascertained should
15 be impounded.
16 In one of the reports, mention was made of individuals
17 transporting goods for which they had a certificate of ownership.
18 However, the police found the certificate suspicious and asked that both
19 the individuals and the goods concerned be taken care of, taken over.
20 Q. Now, let us -- that is probably the good example to talk about,
21 and that would be 1D3048. If we could bring that one back on the screen,
22 the second-to-last one, because I think that's the one that you were
23 referring to, where your officers noted that the receipt was
25 A. Yes, that could be on page 2 of the document.
1 Q. If we could go to page 2. If we could go down to the 2110 entry
2 towards the bottom. That's it.
3 Now, Mr. Moric, in this scenario here we have an HV truck coming
4 through with suspicious paperwork, that your officer thinks is
5 suspicious. As opposed to letting this suspicious action take place or
6 possible crime take place, he had the responsibility of keeping that
7 individual there and then calling the military police to have them take
8 over; isn't that right?
9 A. That's right, your conclusion is correct.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, since you've called this back --
11 MR. KEHOE: Oh no -- Mr. President, please do.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We also see in this document, and it
13 apparently was once attached to this document, that persons arrived in a
14 vehicle and that they had a receipt for exporting certain items, but that
15 the police officers were informed later on that such receipts were no
16 longer valid. And they apparently have attached a copy of that receipt.
17 Now, could you shed some light on what kind of receipts these
18 were and why such receipts were not valid anymore on the 4th or the 5th
19 of September?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the case in point
21 in this particular report, my understanding is that the individuals who
22 were in the vehicle had some sort of a receipt indicating that the items
23 there were owned by them, but that the police found it suspicious.
24 MR. KEHOE:
25 Q. Mr. Moric, I think you're looking at the wrong entry. If we can
1 go to the entry at 2000 hours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I'm talking about the entry at, yes, 2000 hours.
3 Could you please read that portion of the document.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honour. I have
5 obviously misunderstood your question.
6 This may have been one of the cases where some of the government
7 commissioners or representatives of civilian authorities tried to issue
8 citizens with receipts for the items that they recognised as theirs in
9 order to be able to certify that they were, indeed, their belongings. As
10 soon as we realised, "we" being the police, that this practice is open to
11 abuse, we asked that the government ban the government commissioners and
12 representatives of local authorities from resorting to such practice. We
13 informed the police structures that they should not consider such
14 documents as valid. I think that this is what the particular example
15 here might be about, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President. We would like to offer into
19 evidence 1D3019, 1D3024, 1D3025, 1D3048, and 1D3050.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, those will become Exhibit D1868 up
23 to and including D1872.
24 JUDGE ORIE: D1868 up to and including D1872 are admitted into
1 MR. KEHOE: May I proceed, Mr. President?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. KEHOE:
4 Q. Mr. Moric, we're going to shift gears just a little bit and talk
5 about the actual planning of check-points and your discussions with
6 General Lausic both prior to Operation Storm and after. And we know,
7 based on the exhibits that we have seen and presented to the Chamber and
8 you discussed, that check-points -- joint check-points were scheduled to
9 be established, and you ordered that to your men as early as the 3rd of
10 August, 1995. And for the record, that's P493.
11 And we also know, in our discussions with my learned friend
12 Mr. Kay, that you had expressed displeasure about the lack of
13 co-operation with the military police at these check-points, and we saw
14 that yesterday in your examination with Mr. Kay, of 10 August 1995, which
15 would have been D46.
16 Now, you also noted for us that as you were going through these
17 very difficult days, you were in daily communication with
18 Major General Lausic, weren't you?
19 A. Correct, Counsel. It was necessary for us to be in frequent
21 Q. And that communication obviously took the form of both oral
22 conversations and written correspondence, as we've seen. But my question
23 comes to your discussions with Mr. Lausic, both in person and in writing.
24 When you were talking to him about the problems in the liberated areas
25 and the problems that you were having with the military police, did
1 General Lausic ever say to you that he didn't have the authority to
2 correct those problems?
3 A. In the frequent daily contacts, Mr. Lausic and I were frustrated
4 by the state of matters in the area. However, he never said that he
5 lacked competence, and he never referred me to any other authority for a
6 specific or a general case, so he was the only relevant counterpart for
7 me on this issue.
8 Q. Now, Mr. Moric, you noted, in your statement to the Office of the
9 Prosecutor, D1842, at e-court number 4893, line 17, that you never spoke
10 to General Gotovina; is that correct?
11 A. I think that we were specifically discussing the period before,
12 during, and after Storm.
13 Q. My apologies, Mr. Moric, and my question was not as exact, and
14 your interpretation of my question is 100 per cent correct. So if you
15 can answer it in that context, that would be fine.
16 A. Yes. Before, during, and after Storm, I never contacted
17 Mr. Ante Gotovina because I didn't have any professional reasons to do
19 Q. Now, Mr. Moric, when you were having discussions with
20 General Lausic about problems in the liberated areas, did he ever tell
21 you that he needed to go back and discuss this matter with
22 General Gotovina in order to get this matter resolved? Did he ever tell
23 you that?
24 A. He didn't tell me that he would need to refer back to
25 Mr. Gotovina on any score, and Mr. Gotovina never actually featured in my
1 conversations with Mr. Lausic.
2 Q. Now, shifting gears once again, I want to go back to the order
3 that we've discussed at some length. And if I can just reference you to
4 it, and this has to do with your order on the 18th of August of 1995,
5 D49. If we could bring that up on the screen.
6 Now, the item that I'd like to talk to you about is item 4, and
7 you ordered, in item 4 -- can you turn to that? It would be the next
8 page in English, thank you.
9 "It should be agreed as of today an on-site investigation and
10 forensic and operative processing will be conducted after every case of
11 torching houses and illegal taking away of people's movable property."
12 Now, yesterday, in your discussions with my learned friend
13 Mr. Kay, and the President of the Chamber was asking you some questions
14 about arson investigations, you ordered this, sir, as part of your
15 overall plan to bring this torching of houses and looting to an end,
16 didn't you?
17 A. Correct. Given the sequence of tasks that I set out in this
18 letter, number 4 relates to co-operation with the military police -- or,
19 rather, number 3 relates to the co-operation with military police, and
20 that they, too, would have to play a role in the forensic examination and
21 criminal inquiries.
22 Q. Well, let's just briefly go through the results of your order,
23 sir, and let's look at some of those results in the field.
24 And if we could turn our attention to a sequence of documents,
25 and we'll do this in a similar fashion as we've gone through some of the
1 prior documents, and begin with 1D3031.
2 A. My apologies. Can we stay with this document for a moment still?
3 Q. The floor is yours.
4 A. Thank you. I wanted to draw your attention to item 5 in the
5 context of what I've just said. Item 4 specifically related to
6 co-operation with military police, that they were supposed to get
7 involved in the process as of that date. In item 5, I allow for the
8 possibility that should the military police be unable to carry out its
9 duties as per item 4 -- in other words, I do want to make sure that their
10 engagement in the process becomes greater.
11 So we can move on. I'm sorry for the interruption.
12 Q. Mr. Moric, taking you up on that, your intention was, whether the
13 military police was going to participate or not, you wanted your officers
14 to make sure that an on-site investigation was done so you could bring
15 this burning and looting to an end; isn't that right?
16 A. The intention behind the entire document is prevention and
17 investigation into the events that already happened, but the emphasis is
18 on the prevention together with the military police, prevention and
20 Q. Thank you, sir. Let us turn to a sequence of documents, and I'm
21 turning to the actual fire documents or torching documents.
22 And if we could go to 1D3031.
23 Again, as I mentioned, Mr. Moric, in the interests of time I'd
24 like to show you a sequence of documents.
25 This is an Official Note from the Gracac Police Station, on
1 27 August 1995
2 fire in a house.
3 A. Could I point out relevant information from this document,
5 Q. Absolutely, sir.
6 A. At the end of the third paragraph, the third one from the top in
7 this document, it is mentioned that due to detonations of ammunition
8 heard from within the house which was torched, they couldn't come there
9 immediately, and I believe that this tells us something about the
10 contexts within which this kind of work had to be done.
11 Q. Thank you for that, sir.
12 If we could turn to the next document, which is 1D3032, which is
13 on the same day, later on that day at 1710. Again, we're looking at an
14 investigation by a duty officer sending a patrol. In the second
16 "Upon arrival at the site of the incident, information was
17 obtained that an unknown perpetrator had intentionally set fire to seven
18 family houses ..."
19 A. In this document as well -- in this document, we can also see the
20 information about the specific attitude -- the personal and professional
21 attitude of the police officers to the incident, because it says here
22 that they managed to extinguish one of the fires.
23 Q. Let me just turn to another document, again from the Gracac area,
25 This is an information from the 27-28 August 1995 on reporting of
1 two fires.
2 If we can turn to the next page. Stay on that page in the B/C/S.
3 It notes:
4 "At 1755, the Knin Police Administration Duty Service was
5 informed of the same, and after consulting with Bugojno, it was agreed to
6 conduct an on-site investigation in the morning on 28 August 1995
7 cause of the fire is unknown."
8 If we can continue on to another matter, 1D3034.
9 Again, we are a series of fires being reported. For instance,
10 looking at 1550, the front page:
11 "The fire on one of the houses was put under control; however,
12 the remaining four houses burnt down entirely.
13 "After consulting the operative officer, Pogarelic, it was agreed
14 on to conduct the on-site investigation in the morning of the 31 August."
15 And if we can turn to the next page in English. I'm not sure if
16 that's the next page in B/C/S. It's that same page. We again see the
17 reporting of additional fires.
18 Now, staying with this sequence, I mean, if we just move on.
19 After this is reported back, you mentioned during the course of your
20 testimony with my learned friend Mr. Kay, that the crime police becomes
21 involved. And let us just look at a sequence of those documents,
22 beginning with 1D3035.
23 And while I'm doing that, Mr. President, it might be best to just
24 tender these as we move ahead, and that would be offering 1D3031 through
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, those documents become
4 Exhibit D1873 up to and including D1876, respectively.
5 JUDGE ORIE: D1873 up to and including D1876 are admitted into
7 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, if I could just seek your guidance at
8 this point. I know that I said two sessions. I do have a series of
9 Crime Department reports on arson that go through here. I know that I
10 said I'd finish by quarter of. I do have several brief areas just to
11 cover. If I could ask the Court's leave for some short period of time on
12 Monday, or I suppose that I could put these in through some Bar table
14 The reason I'm interested in this, of course, Your Honour, is I
15 pulled these yesterday because we had some discussions about arsons and
16 times and on-site investigations, and I have a dossier of any number of
17 investigations, so I'll be guided by how Your Honour wants to proceed.
18 I can certainly put these in through a Bar table. Of course, we'll miss
19 the opportunity to have this individual's comment thereon. Or I could
20 just keep going through these and take a very short period of time on
21 Monday. But my apologies to the Chamber about my mistaken in time claim,
22 but I do not think, if given some additional time on Monday, that I will
23 be running over very much.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest the following, Mr. Kehoe: If you would
25 proceed now without these documents, if before Monday you try to agree
1 with Ms. Mahindaratne on a meaningful Bar table submission of those
2 documents that is pointing at the most relevant entries. And then if
3 that would not have a positive result, we still can decide on Monday
4 morning what to do. So prepare for Bar tabling, seek the assistance of
5 Ms. Mahindaratne for that purpose, and try to finish in the next
6 15 minutes on the other matters you had on your mind.
7 MR. KEHOE: I will. Thank you, Mr. President. I will do that.
8 Q. Mr. Moric, we're going to move to another item, and that had to
9 do again -- but it's yet similar. If we can go back to D49, which is
10 your 18 order.
11 Now, if we go to paragraph 2, this is the item that we've talked
12 about before that talks about the operative investigations prior to the
13 18th of August, then you noted, in response to questions by my learned
14 friends, that you didn't have the authority to grant immunity, but those
15 items were going to be investigated after the area had been brought under
16 control. And I'd like to bring an exhibit to your attention, which is a
17 spreadsheet from the Municipal State Attorney's Office.
18 MR. KEHOE: D568, if I can put that on the screen. D568.
19 Now, this, of course, is in English. Do we have this in B/C/S?
20 No? Excuse me. I do not believe -- I've been told, it's in B/C/S.
21 Q. But nevertheless, sir, I can tell you that these are entries of
22 crimes. And if you look at -- and this is just on the front page, having
23 to do with the Benkovac State Attorney's Office. We can see any number
24 of items towards the bottom of that page where crimes are committed prior
25 to the 18th -- and if we look at column 5, prior to the 18th of August;
1 reported, for instance, in number 20, in September of 1995, and the
2 decision by the State Attorney's Office was in September of 1995.
3 Now, this particular document is replete with those examples of
4 burning and looting charges being filed for events that took place prior
5 to the 18th of August, 1995
6 you moved through, that those items would continue to be processed once
7 the area was brought under control?
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if I could just -- the 27th,
9 I think Mr. Kehoe mentioned the date 27th of September. It's not
10 reported, the date of the indictment.
11 MR. KEHOE: No, no. If I may. If we can go through the
12 left-hand column and go down to, say, the 20th entry, the Benkovac police
13 station, it notes in column 5: "Date and criminal offence was committed,
14 August 5th, 1995
15 Decision by the State Prosecutor's Office, 27 September 1995," with the
16 Court decision in 2001.
17 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that this resolves your problem?
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MR. KEHOE:
21 Q. Again, Mr. Moric, going back to my question, was that your
22 understanding, that these matters would continue to be pursued after your
23 preventive measures had taken hold?
24 A. Counsel, that was the idea, that was the intention, that we
25 should focus on prevention. And as for what had already happened, we
1 would clarify that once we checked the spate of negative events, as I
2 described it. And this is what actually did happen, in practice.
3 Q. And you say "in practice." Is that -- based on your knowledge as
4 the assistant minister, was that how the police administrations, to your
5 knowledge, interpreted your order of the 18th of August of 1995?
6 A. There is not a single document, and no one from police
7 administrations asked what this was about. And if they believed that
8 this was incorrect, professionally or legally, they were duty-bound to
9 warn me that I was requesting something that was not professionally or
10 legally proper. So it was clear, from our daily communication, what this
11 was all about and what the intentions were.
12 Q. Let me go through the last subject on this score, and not on this
13 issue but just generally what I would like to talk to you about,
14 Mr. Moric, with the caveat that we may address some issue on Monday
15 morning. But I would like to address to you certain allegations made by
16 the Prosecution that involves the civilian police, and it involves the
17 crimes that you have talked about over the past several days.
18 And I'd like to read to you some of the statements being made by
19 the Office of the Prosecutor in their pre-trial brief. And I would, for
20 the purposes of this, focus the Prosecution and my learned friends on
21 paragraph 51 and the allegations concerning the joint criminal
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I don't think it is proper to
24 read to a witness off the pre-trial brief. Mr. Kehoe could just ask the
25 questions on a factual basis.
1 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I'm putting the Prosecution's case to
2 the witness. This is the Prosecution's case concerning the participation
3 of the civilian police.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think that putting the Prosecution's case or
5 putting evidential material is not the same, Mr. Kehoe. Even if in a
6 pre-trial brief you refer to some evidential material, witnesses are
7 expected to testify on the basis of the questions put to them and not, at
8 least not in first instance, comment on what other evidential material
9 may bring.
10 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I will be guided by what Your Honour
11 would like me to do. My only point with this is there are specific
12 allegations made by the Prosecution concerning the participation of the
13 civilian police in the joint criminal enterprise.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but let's avoid that one witness starts
15 commenting, at least to start with. I'm not saying that under no
16 circumstances you could put to a witness what someone else has said, but
17 let's first hear the testimony of that witness not in the form of a
18 comment on what other evidence may bring us.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Mr. President. And I will not read
21 this for Your Honour's clarification. We can move on. I was going to
22 refer to paragraph 51 of the Prosecutor's pre-trial brief as well as
23 paragraph 29 of the indictment. So I won't read those. I will move on
24 from there.
25 Q. But I need to ask you this question, Mr. Moric: Based on your
1 experience and your years in the Ministry of the Interior, both in Zagreb
2 and in the field, did you ever participate, or do you know anybody that
3 participated in some agreement to allow actions to take place and allow
4 crimes to take place in order to ensure: one, that the Serb population
5 was driven out of the Krajina and, two, to ensure that they never
6 returned? Did you ever know of anyone participating in that in the
7 Ministry of the Interior or anywhere else; did you?
8 A. Counsel, I never heard nor felt an atmosphere in the Ministry of
9 the Interior which would go in that direction. No one who was
10 discharging any duty within the Ministry of the Interior at the time
11 thought that in any context whatsoever the development and the number of
12 crimes were not something bad.
13 MR. KEHOE: Mr. Moric, I have no further questions of you. Thank
14 you very much.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.
16 I think, Ms. Mahindaratne, it doesn't make much sense to invite
17 you to start your cross-examination. We'd rather leave that until
19 Could I already invite Madam Usher to escort Mr. Moric out of the
21 Mr. Moric, I instruct you again in the same way as I did the
22 previous days; that is, that you should not speak with anyone about your
23 testimony, whether already given or whether still to be given. And we
24 would like to see you back on Monday, 9.00 in the morning, in this same
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Before adjourning, the Chamber would like to express
4 its appreciation for the work that Mr. Monkhouse has done for us for
5 quite a long time. His accuracy, his energy, and his commitment will for
6 the future to be benefit of Chambers, although not this Chamber, from
7 what I understand.
8 Initially, I thought that I would say I would speak on behalf of
9 all of you, but I know that there are various instructions. In an
10 orchestra, the violin players would tick their bows on their orchestra
11 lecterns. In school rooms, often the knuckles are used by ticking them
12 on the tables to express the joining in the praise. Even, I think, in
13 the House of Commons they use yelling now and then as a tradition to
14 express that one joins in what has been said. I all give you 30 seconds
15 to express, in your own way, that you join. And for those who have not
16 brought their violin bows, we could try to find some, but I give you
17 30 seconds to express that, and we'll then adjourn.
18 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, well, I think I haven't been
19 elected, but I'll take the floor here on behalf of us all to agree with
20 what Your Honour has said.
21 We do have a memento for Mr. Registrar. I will say that it
22 hasn't been looted, and I don't know how to jump-start it. We're all
23 wearing black because Mr. Registrar is leaving us, but one moment and
24 I'll pull it out here.
25 We have a microphone here for Mr. Registrar. We know you're
1 going to miss the microphone, so we just thought we'd give you an old one
2 for a keepsake.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I take it from the hand-clapping that everyone joins
4 in the expression of appreciation, and of course the Chamber is very
5 happy to have Mr. Monkhouse among their ranks.
6 We adjourn. Accurately, guided by the little yellow note given
7 to me by Mr. Monkhouse, we'll adjourn until Monday, the 7th of December,
8 9.00, Courtroom I, which will not be the same as it is today.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.
10 to be reconvened on Monday, the 7th day of
11 December, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.