1 Monday, 7 December 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
8 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
10 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T,
11 the Prosecutor versus Gotovina, et al. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 Two small procedural matters.
14 Mr. Kehoe, during your cross-examination on Friday, you wondered
15 what to do with a number of documents. I suggested that you would try to
16 agree on a joint filing and bar table the documents involved. The
17 Chamber was informed an agreement has been reached and that we could
18 expect a joint filing bar tabling these documents.
19 MR. KEHOE: That's correct, Mr. President. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 Then there's another matter which is the Markac Defence was given
22 until close of business today to come with some scheduling information.
23 To the extent it would be possible already to give it around the
24 first break that would be appreciated, because the Chamber has scheduled
25 an internal meeting during the day and if we would not have that
1 information, that would certainly -- well, not be a problem, but with
2 your information it would be easier to have that meeting.
3 MR. MIKULICIC: We will do so on the beginning of the next
4 session, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 Then, Mr. Moric, I would like to remind you -- first of all, good
7 morning to you as well. I would like to remind that you that you are
8 still bound by the solemn declaration that you have given at the
9 beginning of your testimony last week.
10 Then, Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to cross-examined
11 Mr. Moric.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President, I am thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President, with leave of
15 Court --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my apologies.
17 Good morning to you and everyone in the courtroom.
18 Before we start, may I ask your assistance on two points.
19 I am not sure if I am familiar enough with the procedure. During
20 the examination of Mrs. Prosecutor, may I indicate the documents that I
21 know or I presume were earlier on admitted into evidence and be shown
22 them so that I may answer the questions more easily?
23 JUDGE ORIE: If would you like to refer to documents which you
24 have not available to yourself, please indicate so, and depending on what
25 they are, and depending on what the question is, we'll then consider
1 whether or not you can consult them.
2 Yes. Any other matter, Mr. Moric?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 The other matter is this. During my examination of last week, I
5 noticed that both parties made notes on paper. And I believe that I am
6 somewhat handicapped in that regard. May I be given a pencil and a piece
7 the paper so that I can make a note for myself. I would not be taking it
8 out of the courtroom, nor would I be bringing into the courtroom any
9 papers from the outside.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the first is of less concern to us than the
11 second would be. If you would like to make notes when a question is
12 asked, then there should be no problem. But, if you have any written
13 documents, whether personal notes or anything else you brought with you,
14 and if you would like to consult it, you should first seek permission to
15 do so.
16 But I see you're nodding, no, that you didn't bring anything.
17 Then matters are clear.
18 Ms. Mahindaratne.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President. With leave of Court
21 if I could also have the transcript -- hard copy of the transcript given
22 to the --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And could someone provide Mr. Moric with a
24 clean piece of paper, or even a few, and a pen.
25 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
1 WITNESS: JOSKO MORIC [Resumed]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 Cross-examination by Ms. Mahindaratne:
4 Q. Good morning, Mr. Moric.
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. In preparation for your testimony here, did you have the
7 opportunity to meet any of the Defence teams?
8 A. Before entering the courtroom?
9 Q. Before entering the courtroom.
10 A. Yes. I was preparing with the Defence team that called me as a
12 Q. How many times did you meet with -- your -- I presume when you
13 said "the Defence team," you're referring to the Defence team for
14 Mr. Markac; isn't that correct?
15 A. But, of course. I am the witness for the Defence of
16 General Markac.
17 Q. Did you meet any of the other two Defence teams, either the
18 Defence team for Mr. Gotovina or the Defence team for Mr. Cermak?
19 A. Yes. I met with them briefly too.
20 Q. Can you tell the Court how many times you met each of the teams
21 in preparation for testimony; that is, the Markac team, the Gotovina
22 Defence team, and the Defence team for Mr. Cermak?
23 A. I met with each of the three Defence teams once; and, of course,
24 the meeting with the Defence for General Markac was much longer.
25 Q. And in the course of those meetings, were you shown documents?
1 A. Yes. Some of the documents, yes.
2 Q. Were you -- were those documents familiar to you? Were those
3 documents issued by you, or were there also other documents that you had
4 not seen prior to that time?
5 A. I don't remember that there was discussion of documents I didn't
6 see. We mostly discussed the documents that I saw and the documents that
7 I wrote and signed at -- at a certain point in time.
8 Q. Were you informed or was there a discussion about the evidence
9 that has been already led in these proceedings, evidence of other
10 witnesses or documentary evidence? Was there a discussion with you about
11 that evidence? By any one of the teams.
12 A. My apologies, Mrs. Prosecutor, if I misunderstood your question.
13 You're asking me if the Defence teams discussed statements of other
14 witnesses who have so far testified before this Tribunal?
15 Q. That's correct.
16 A. No, we didn't discuss that.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you.
18 Now, your testimony is that you were in charge of
19 Operation Povratak or Operation Return, as it is known. Now, as a person
20 in charge of OA Povratak when reports were sent to the Ministry of
21 Interior addressed to the OA Povratak staff, did those reports reach you
22 or were you informed of the contents of those reports by any person?
23 A. In principle, reports reached me. Some of the reports did not
24 reach me, but it depended on their substance and on my whereabouts at the
25 time, whether I was in the office or away. In that case the report would
1 have reached the chief of the sector or, as I've already called him, to
2 make it more easily understandable, to the head of the personnel of the
4 Q. And in those instances, when reports did not reach you because
5 you were not present in the ministry premises, were you, afterwards,
6 informed of the contents of the reports by the -- the chief of the
8 A. It depended on the contents, relevance, or less of the report.
9 But, in principle, he should have informed me thereof.
10 Q. Okay. Now, during examination of Mr. Kay, he discussed with you
11 a whole series of documents relating to the operation, security operation
12 known as OA Knin 95. And that was a highly organised, coordinated
13 security operation providing security for the liberty train, isn't that
14 correct, which reached Knin on 26th August?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Now, that -- in -- in organising that operation, the forces of
17 the Ministry of Interior coordinated and worked in cooperation with the
18 military police; isn't that correct?
19 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, among others, the military police was involved
20 too. In that particular operation, absolutely all security services of
21 the Republic of Croatia
23 Q. And about how many members of the Ministry of Interior were used
24 for that operation? I'm talking about fundamental police firstly.
25 A. It's difficult to specify. I can only speculate, based on --
1 Q. Could you give an approximate figure, sort of ballpark figure.
2 You don't have to be very specific on the exact figures.
3 A. If I think back about the railway line, which the freedom train
4 took, and the regular police obligations attached to high-risk travels,
5 then I can think of the enormous duties in the places where the train
6 stopped; whereas, for the police the duties were mostly attached to the
7 line where the train ran. It could have involved in terms of any direct
8 participation, some 300 to 400 policemen. As soon as the train left the
9 section of the area they covered, they would be relieved of some of the
10 duties that they had previously.
11 Q. And are you able to give some idea as to about how many members
12 of the military police were used for the operation? If you don't know,
13 you could say you don't know; if you can give us perhaps a ballpark
14 figure, then please do so.
15 A. In this high-risk security operation, it was not realistic to
16 expect any high-risk security for the military police force. I cannot,
17 unfortunately, assess what the strength of the military police involved
18 was. What I can state with certainty is that the numbers were far lower
19 than the number of the civilian policeman involved.
20 Q. And for how long did the preparations go on, until the 26th?
21 A. As we were able to see from the document, the preparations were
22 conducted by the national security office. I can't gauge how long their
23 preparations took, but if you're asking me how long it took the civilian
24 police to get involved in the action, I could tell you a few things about
1 Q. Mr. Moric, I don't mean to be rude. I'm asking for what you
2 know, so if you could just let us know, based on your understanding, the
3 preparation for civilian police, how long it took. And if you could try
4 to be brief in your responses, I would be grateful.
5 A. I will be brief, Mrs. Prosecutor.
6 I don't know how long the preparations took from the viewpoint of
7 national security, but the preparations of the civilian police did not
8 take long, because the police was always present in its area of
10 Q. So are you able to give us any idea. Is it not very long, is it
11 a week, a few days? If you could just give us some idea.
12 A. Two days.
13 Q. And did you have any problems about coordination between the
14 military police during this particular operation?
15 A. I don't recall that we had any problems.
16 Q. Now is it also correct that in the run-up to the -- the arrival
17 of the liberty train there were a series of mop-up operations carried out
18 in the area by the special police to provide further security for the
19 train, from 21st August downwards?
20 A. I apologise, but probably under the term "mop-up" you mean the
21 police searches of a terrain?
22 Q. Yes, that's correct. That's what -- if I ever I use the word
23 "mop-up" I refer to the terrain clearance operations.
24 A. Apologise my digression, but the "mop-up" term is not a police
25 term. That's why I wanted to be quite sure of what it is that you meant.
1 It wasn't just in -- prior to this particular action, but the
2 searches had to be carried out in general, and, of course, then also in
3 preparation for the journey that the President of the Republic and the
4 government members would take.
5 Q. Now, as a member of the committee, if there were any breaches of
6 security in the area, particularly close to the area where the train was
7 travelling through, would you have been informed of that?
8 A. In principle, I would have had to have been informed, save if the
9 piece of information fell under the remit of national security and were
10 classified as such.
11 Q. Now, were you informed that there were -- there was some combat
12 activity in an area - and I will be very specific - in an area called
13 Ramljane, which is not too distant from the rail track on 26th August.
14 That's the day that the train was scheduled to arrive in Knin. Were you
15 informed that?
16 A. Since that was a period of time that was quite eventful, I'm not
17 sure if I was, indeed, informed of it. But I believe that I would be,
19 Q. I didn't ask you whether you would be, Mr. Moric. My question
20 was: To your recollection, were you informed that there was combat
21 activity in an area called Ramljane, which is not too distant from the
22 rail track on the very day the President was arriving in Knin. Do you
23 remember that, or don't you remember that?
24 A. I apologise, Madam Prosecutor. Unfortunately, the only correct
25 answer is that I don't remember.
1 Q. Thank you for that.
2 Now, were you present in Knin on 25th and 26th August because of
3 the arrival of the liberty train in Knin on 26th? And I'm referring to
4 both days: 25th and 26th, or 25th or 26th.
5 A. Madam Prosecutor, it -- that was not the reason. I was not in
6 Knin because of the arrival of the train. I was there because of the
7 general context, and I believe that I was also there on the 25th and the
8 26th. I'm sure that I was there on the day when the President of the
9 state arrived in Knin.
10 Q. Now, Mr. Moric, I'm it going to discuss with you a particular
11 topic about which much evidence has been led in these proceedings, and
12 you yourself have discussed this at length with the investigators of the
13 OTP, and that's about events in Grubori.
14 Now when did you learn for the first time of -- that an incident
15 had occurred in Grubori?
16 A. I can't remember exactly. I don't remember when it was that I
17 learned for the first time. But I remember that it was a few days, a
18 couple of days or even a few more days after the event.
19 Q. Who informed you of -- of the event?
20 A. Unfortunately, I can't remember that either. A lot of
21 information reached us from all over the place at the time. It could
22 have been one of my staff who acted as the coordinator in the area.
23 I'm not sure whether it was perhaps Mr. Tomurad or Mr. Franjo.
24 Q. Now, were you informed that the incident related to the -- the --
25 the death, killings of five civilians and burning of several houses?
1 A. No, Madam Prosecutor. That's not how I was informed. I did not
2 receive any particular data. All I learnt was that there had been an
3 event, not an incident, but, rather, an event, with some casualties. The
4 information was not specific at all.
5 Q. So can you tell us what was conveyed to you? You say "not an
6 incident, an event." But could you tell the Trial Chamber what really
7 was conveyed to you in that first information. Were you told that
8 civilians had died in the event?
9 A. I can say that the information I was conveyed spoke about an
10 event, which involved casualties. No numbers were mentioned, and the
11 event was not qualified in any way.
12 Q. And were you told that the casualties were civilians?
13 A. Yes, that's how I understood the information. The way I
14 understood it was that the victims in question were civilians.
15 Q. Now, to your knowledge, was this event investigated by any sector
16 of the Ministry of Interior? And I don't want you to speculate,
17 Mr. Moric. I just want you to tell the Trial Chamber what you know.
18 A. I know for a fact, Madam Prosecutor, because I wanted to make
19 sure, I wanted to check that the event was recorded at the Knin police
20 station, and that the information about the event was conveyed was to the
21 chief of the police administration and the head of the police station.
22 Q. Now, your testimony was that, in fact this is at transcript
23 reference T-25634 and 635, you testified here that information generally
24 was passed on from the police station to the police administration, and
25 from the police administration it went on to the Ministry of Interior.
1 Now, to your knowledge did your report -- now in fact the
2 Trial Chamber is in receipt of the Knin police station log which records
3 the event and the Knin -- Zadar-Knin police administration log which,
4 too, records the event.
5 Now, to your knowledge, was a report sent from the Zadar-Knin
6 police administration to the Ministry of Interior about the event in
7 Grubori, as it was recorded by them?
8 A. I didn't see that report. However, as per rules, it should have
9 reached the ministry.
10 Q. Now, during the examinations of, I believe, when Mr. Kay examined
11 you, we see a series of reports from the police administration chiefs to
12 you, which records on-site investigations in relation to arson and theft.
13 Now, you said after a few days from this incident you learnt that
14 an event had occurred and there were casualties, civilian casualties.
15 Wouldn't you have expected to then also receive a report from the
16 Zadar-Knin police administration chief on the on-site investigation into
17 the deaths of those civilians? Weren't you expecting to receive that
19 A. No, Madam Prosecutor, I did not expect that, and I should not
20 have expected that. Such a report along the professional lines goes to
21 the crime police sector of the Ministry of the Interior.
22 Q. Mr. Moric, your testimony here is, and I can cite exactly what
23 you said, that -- that it was a duty of the fundamental police to secure
24 the crime site and secure the evidence until the crime police arrives.
25 And we saw in fact your report sent by the chiefs of police
1 administration giving you numbers of on-site investigation into arson and
2 theft. So why wouldn't you expect to receive a report on an on-site
3 investigation, how they secured the site?
4 On this event, killing -- killings, why is it that when it comes
5 to this particular event, you don't expect a report on the on-site
6 investigation from the fundamental police?
7 A. Madam Prosecutor, in the report that you have just quoted, you
8 will not find information about the events which were potentially attacks
9 against human lives, because those would be grave crimes or potentially
10 grave crimes. In other words, it was the crime police that should have
11 been informed about that and should have primarily dealt with that.
12 Q. I'm trying to understand your testimony, Mr. Moric. Is it your
13 position, then, that when it comes to on-site investigations into
14 killings, the fundamental police -- members of the fundamental police
15 don't participate in the on-site investigation at all? Is that -- is
16 that your testimony?
17 A. Of course not. Of course, they do. However, as you may have
18 noticed in the documents that we discussed last week, fortunately enough
19 we had in the area a substantially low number of aggravated crimes and
20 killings. By contrast, we had a lot of attacks against abandoned
21 property, and we -- we dealt with larger numbers. Obviously not ignoring
22 the other incidents. However, when it comes to murder attempts, the
23 fundamental police is -- are involved, but the crime police is
24 professionally involved and deals with it along professional lines.
25 Q. No, I understand that, Mr. Moric. But isn't it the case that in
1 the -- when it comes to arson and theft, it's the fundamental police that
2 initially secures the crime site and the evidence, and thereafter the
3 crime police conducts the investigation, when it comes to arson and
4 theft. That's correct, isn't it?
5 A. That's correct. And while the on-site investigation is going on,
6 for as long as it lasts, the fundamental police do have things to do one
7 site, while the crime police are doing their job.
8 Q. Now, it is on the basis of that involvement in the on-site
9 investigations of the fundamental police that you received the reports on
10 arson and theft that we saw during your examination. Isn't that correct?
11 A. Yes. Those reports are sent by the chiefs of police
12 administrations as we have seen. They report on the trends and on the
13 problems segregated by types.
14 Q. Now in the same vein, in cases of killings, the crime site is
15 secured by the fundamental police and until the crime investigation
16 police -- crime takes over. They secure the site, they secure the
17 evidence, and participate in the same way they would participate in the
18 case of an arson. Isn't that right?
19 A. Yes, that's right, Madam Prosecutor. But a small correction.
20 Not until the crime police takes over, but all the time, for as long as
21 the crime police are involved, and also depending on what the crime
22 police expect from the fundamental police. During the entire onsite
23 investigation, unfortunately, the fundamental police have things to do
24 and are involved.
25 Q. So why wouldn't the fundamental police then not send you a report
1 on on-site investigations conducted into killing incidents? What is the
2 difference? I fail to see the difference, Mr. Moric.
3 A. So it seems, it seems that you really fail to see the difference,
4 and I may be of assistance.
5 The difference lies in the gravity of the problem. If an event
6 involves the death of one or more people, then potentially we are dealing
7 with an aggravated crime, with a grave crime which specifically engages
8 and involves both types of police but primarily the crime police. And
9 one shouldn't assume that the crime police, along the lines of their
10 organisation and responsibility, will not inform all those who should be
11 informed, including the Ministry of Interior.
12 We have discussed the documents, we discussed the documents last
13 week, and you could see from those documents that we dealt with the
14 prevention of those crimes, which actually represented a large number of
15 incidents. Fortunately enough, those did not involve a high number of
16 grave crimes, including the attacks on civilians. In that huge number,
17 we had a prevailing number of other problems.
18 Q. Okay, Mr. Moric, let me move on without wasting any more time on
19 that issue.
20 Would you be surprised to be told that this Trial Chamber has
21 heard evidence that no sector of the Ministry of Interior conducted an
22 investigation into what happened in Grubori until 2001, when the
23 State Prosecutor, Mr. Zganjer, initiated an investigation? Are you aware
24 of that fact?
25 A. Madam Prosecutor, I know of that only partially. I'm not
1 surprised to hear that fact. In practice, in the practice of almost all
2 police forces worldwide, there are the so-called cases, cold cases, which
3 need to be investigated, even ten years after the event.
4 Q. Mr. Moric, that wasn't my question. My question is: Are you
5 aware that the incident has not been investigated by any sector of the
6 Ministry of Interior until 2001? The event happened in 1995. Were you
7 aware of that?
8 A. Madam Prosecutor, I don't know why you are insisting on saying
9 not a single sector since -- you know that there is only one sector in
10 the Ministry of the Interior which deals with such crimes, and that is
11 the sector of crime police.
12 As far as I know, from the time when I was affiliated with the
13 Ministry of Interior, the problem lay in the fact that it had never been
14 established what had happened there, whether a crime did happen or not.
15 Q. My question is, Mr. Moric, did you know that the crime police --
16 if that's what you want to say, you say there is only one sector which
17 they investigated, let me ask you: Did you know that the crime police
18 never investigated what happened in Grubori, even to establish as to what
19 had happened, never conducted any investigations into the incident until
20 2001? This Trial Chamber has heard that evidence. Did you know that as
21 an assistant minister?
22 A. Not in such a way. And that was not my responsibility. I was
23 not duty-bound to learn something like that.
24 Q. Mr. Moric, your subordinate officer Mr. Cetina, chief of
25 Zadar-Knin police administration testified here. He was aware of that
1 fact. And this is transcript reference 23518 to 23519, and he did in
2 fact acknowledge that the police had not investigated the events in
4 Now, there's also evidence that has been led in this Court, and I
5 refer to P35, where UN Human Rights Action Team visiting the crime site
6 over two weeks after the incident found bullet casings still uncollected
7 by the police at the crime site.
8 Now, you have testified here that it was the duty of the
9 fundamental police to secure a site and collect the evidence, which shows
10 that, actually, even the fundamental police in this instance hasn't done
11 anything with regard to investigations.
12 What do you have to say about that?
13 A. Madam Prosecutor, in your questions to the former assistant
14 minister for the fundamental police you are trying to equate him as a
15 member of the fundamental police involved in investigation. The members
16 of the fundamental police are trained and equipped to go to a site and to
17 be able to recognise what that site represents. They know how to secure
18 that area, and they now how to recognise the potential of possible
19 evidence about the event. They also know how to recognise who the
20 potential witnesses are.
21 This is more or less what the fundamental police is supposed to
22 on-site. On the other hand, if Mr. Cetina, in his testimony, said what
23 you have just quoted back to me - and there's no reason for me to doubt
24 your words - then in accordance with the provisions of the Law on
25 Internal Affairs, Mr. Cetina was talking about the responsibility of the
1 police administration and a police station. The law clearly prescribes
2 that, at that time, a police station was in charge of monitoring the
3 situation and the events in its area and undertook measures to implement
4 the law. Furthermore, the law charges a police station and a police
5 administration for the area for which it was established, and finally the
6 ministry with responsibility for the entire state. Madam Prosecutor,
7 subsidiary responsibility is prescribed in performing legally prescribed
9 Q. Mr. Moric, you're the assistant minister in charge of fundamental
10 police, you were in 1991, and the more senior member of the Ministry of
11 Interior who has testified in these proceedings up to date. Now, I have
12 placed before you the fact that the fundamental police did not carry out
13 an on-site investigation into an incident of killing of civilians and
14 burning of houses which you were made aware of a few days after the
15 incident, and your response is to me is that I'm equating you to a member
16 of the fundamental police, which I'm trying to do. I'm just asking you
17 if you're in a position to offer an explanation to the Trial Chamber as
18 to why the fundamental police, your subordinates, failed to carry out a
19 -- an on-site investigation into this serious crime.
20 Are you able to offer an explanation to the Trial Chamber, as the
21 person in charge of the financial police?
22 A. Of course, Madam Prosecutor, I can, as I have so far.
23 The fundamental police are not in charge of carrying out an
24 on-site investigation. They do not carry out criminal proceedings. They
25 just secure the site. If the fundamental police have not performed their
1 task in keeping with the law, or as provided for by the law -- I have
2 described for you the levels of subsidiary responsibility that existed at
3 the time.
4 Madam Prosecutor, at that time, there were a total of 11.000
5 police officers in the Republic of Croatia
6 failed to do something or omitted to do something, but there were levels
7 above him to punish that or sanction that. But it wasn't me. At that
8 time I could not know, nor was it expect from me, nor was the ministry
9 organised in such a way that would enable me to learn about every
10 concrete case and to be able to know whether the fundamental police had
11 done everything they were supposed to do or if, by contrast, a police
12 officer made a mistake or failed to do his duty properly.
13 Q. Okay. In the interests of time, Mr. Moric, let me just move on.
14 Isn't it correct, and you -- I believe you're fully of this fact
15 because you have spoken about this matter. Isn't it correct that the
16 police coordinator, Mr. Buhin, in fact wanted to have this event
17 investigated, but Mr. Sacic from the special police arrived in Knin and
18 tried to delay the investigations or prevent the investigations. And the
19 result of that situation was that you withdrew Mr. Buhin from Knin to
21 A. Madam Prosecutor, unfortunately, you're not right.
22 Q. Can you explain why I'm not right, Mr. Moric.
23 A. I must, and I will.
24 According to information I received about the event, a few days
25 after event, in the police circles, including Mr. Buhin and Mr. Sacic,
1 whom you have mentioned, there were controversial opinions or, rather, a
2 conflict between professional opinions as to what had actually happened
3 there. There was an opinion, according to which the victims were a
4 consequence of a crime, and there was also an opinion that they were not,
5 but, rather, that there were collateral damage in a conflict between the
6 special police and the remains of paramilitary or a para-police or some
7 other type of armed conflict.
8 According to information that I had at the time, Mr. Sacic was
9 angry, as a matter of fact, and he had every right to be angry, that the
10 problem had not been solved and resolved and that there were still doubts
11 as to what had happened.
12 And as for Mr. Buhin, it is true I withdrew him to Zagreb
13 -- I did that because it was time for his rotation, for him to be
14 replaced, just like with any other coordinator. That was one reason.
15 And the second reason was the fact that in that concrete case, he did not
16 give initiative to his colleagues from the crime police, and he did not
17 help them in doing their job to the extent a person from the fundamental
18 police could. It was not for any other reason that he was withdrawn to
20 Q. Mr. Moric let me take to your statement given to the -- the OTP,
21 the interview. And if could I ask you to turn to the third section.
22 That is 48 -- V000-4894 that's a final section, Mr. Moric. And if could
23 you turn to page 3.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's D1842, on e-court page 224, or it could
25 also be traced through 4894, page 3.
1 Q. Have you found -- it's page 3, Mr. Moric. It's the last section.
2 Under the last tab.
3 A. [In English] This one?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. Page?
6 Q. Page 3.
7 A. Thank you.
8 Q. You were asked about this event, and this is your response. You
10 "Yes, I know why he was -- why he returned to Zagreb
11 conflict in a professional sense with the special police because they
12 were crossed. They were mad, that this case didn't go into our crime,
13 that the crime police did not deal with this case immediately, but it was
14 waited for a day or two until somebody from Zagreb came. I think it was
15 Mr. Sacic who came from Zagreb
16 that it was not good to leave him in a situation where there is so much
17 tension, regarding the time-period. So, I called him back to Zagreb
18 "And in my assessment there was a combination of two reasons why
19 this conflict occurred."
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Going to the next page, page 4.
21 Q. You say:
22 "One of the reasons why they did not agree on the ... on the
23 story how this event came about.
24 "And then the second conflict was in continuation of that, ...
25 they did not agree what actually happened was that when the procedure was
1 supposed to ... whether or not there should be a procedure, and if there
2 should be a procedure, should it be immediate.
3 "And that [sic] was clear to me that these ... that this event
4 was ... was recorded, and there is no way now to stop the normal police
6 And then you go on:
7 "Then I thought that it would be better for Mr. Buhin to go back
8 to Zagreb
10 Then Mr. Foster puts an question to you:
11 "Right. I'm trying to understand that because it seems to the
12 reverse of what I was told. It was Mr. Buhin and the chief of police
13 administration, Mr. Romanic, who wanted to investigate it straight away.
14 And it was Mr. Sacic who did not wanted that to happen."
15 If could you go to page 5, you respond:
16 "Yes, you're right. Allegedly, that was the reason that they
17 were in conflict. Maybe I interpreted ... maybe I related the thing
18 wrongly, but [sic] ... yes, that was the essence of their conflict."
19 Then you clarify Mr. Moric:
20 "What I know for sure is that the reason for conflict was that
21 one side wanted investigation immediately and the other side wanted
22 investigation little bit later on. Which side wanted which, I'm not so
23 ... I'm not so positive on, but it's that what's the reason of a
24 conflict. But I believe that Buhin and Romanic" -- this is at page 6 "as
25 a professional policemen with many years of experience wanted to deal
1 with things according to regular police procedure, which is to deal with
2 [sic] immediately. But knowing Buhin and my ... associates, nobody could
3 have influenced them that things are done in any way other than the way
4 they should have been done."
5 Then you are asked the question:
6 "Why did ... Mr. Sacic of the special police not [sic] want to go
7 according to proper procedure?"
8 And you respond, that's page 7:
9 "Probably he wanted to see for himself what happened. I don't
10 see" -- then there is further ... further conversation about that. "I
11 don't see how that would stop normal procedure continuing." And you
12 respond, "yes, I agree, but you ask me what do I think, why did he do it,
13 and I'm just assuming. If I were him, I wouldn't even go there."
14 And you finally -- then you are asked a question:
15 "I suppose it highlights one of the difficulties that your men
16 working under during that period of time?"
17 And at page 8, you respond:
18 "Yes, that's why I chose people to send there according to
19 special criteria. I wanted experienced policemen with very stable
21 Now, I'm trying -- now, this is what you have testified, this is
22 in evidence, Mr. Moric. If I could understand your testimony here,
23 Mr. Buhin wanted to investigation the crime, and Mr. Sacic wanted to
24 delay the investigations. That's how you understood the matters. Isn't
25 that correct?
1 A. [Interpretation] No, Mrs. Prosecutor. As I was following what
2 you were indicating in the transcript, I observed you quoting that I
3 agreed with what Mr. Foster said. And as you can see from the
4 conversation, Mr. Foster suggested what my answer to the question would
5 be. And I can see in my answer that I'm speculating. You can see at
6 page 7, line 9, I'm telling him I agree, but you asked me what my
7 assumption was, and I'm speculating, just as you are. That's in line 9.
8 Since I was never sent this transcript and I have never had
9 occasion to review it, I'm not sure that I was either translated or
10 interpreted correctly in what I said here. But I will answer your
12 Q. Mr. Moric, if I could stop you there for a minute --
13 A. My perception of the events at the time --
14 Q. If I could stop you there for a minute. I just want to let you
15 know, if you wish to, we have the video recording here, and I have the
16 exact timings of your answers. If you wish to, I can play it to you so
17 that can you see for yourself what you are saying. I just wanted to let
18 you know before. So please go ahead.
19 A. I do not doubt that you can. But I what I wanted to say was that
20 it would have been proper for the transcript to be sent to me earlier on.
21 But if this isn't something that is required by the rules, let's forget
23 The way I understood the matter at the time, Mr. Buhin was a
24 professional policeman, absolutely so, and this was not called into
25 question in this conversation either. Whatever the situation was, he
1 demanded that the matter be approached professionally.
2 What from I understood, Mr. Sacic was cross because the matter
3 had not been resolved right away, either through an investigation by the
4 crime police, or through a combination of the involvement of the crime
5 police and the sanitization team which also comprised a crime-scene
6 examiner. Why wasn't it decided right away whether this was a crime and
7 then a criminal investigation would follow? Or why it wasn't decided --
8 of course, in the case it was decided that it was collateral damage, then
9 the sanitization was to be commenced right away. In other words, he was
10 cross because the decision was not made right away.
11 Q. Mr. Moric, I'm going to read again to you what you -- what is in
12 evidence, what you said. This is what you say: "What I know for
13 sure" -- this is at page 5 of D1842, the section V000-4894. This is what
14 you say:
15 "What I know for sure is that the reason for conflict was that
16 one side wanted investigation immediately and the other side wanted
17 investigation a little bit later on. Which side wanted which, I'm not so
18 ... positive, but that's what the reason of a conflict."
19 That's what you say. And if you want, we can play your answer
20 back to you on audio. So what you're saying is, the conflict was because
21 one side wanted the matter investigated immediately, the other side
22 wanted the matter delayed. Now, you didn't know which side wanted which.
23 But the result was that you withdrew Mr. Buhin to Zagreb.
24 Now, isn't it correct if one of these parties wanted the matter
25 delayed, then obviously that party is obstructing an investigation. It's
1 not wanting matters to proceed according to law. Because an
2 investigation should take -- be started immediately. Isn't that correct?
3 A. In principle, yes.
4 Q. So now, your testimony here was that Mr. Buhin wanted. I read
5 back exactly what you said:
6 "The way I understand the matter at the time Mr. Buhin was a
7 professional policeman [indiscernible], and this was not called into
8 question in this conversation either. Whatever the situation was, he
9 demanded that the matter be approached professionally."
10 So if Mr. Buhin wanted the matter approached professionally, that
11 would then indicate that he wanted the matter investigated immediately.
12 Isn't that right?
13 A. Yes, you're right.
14 Q. In which event the party that wanted the matter delayed would
15 have to be Mr. Sacic, isn't it?
16 A. According to the information I had, Mr. Sacic came upon this
17 situation where there was a conflict of professional opinions as to what
18 had exactly transpired. When he realised that there was a conflict of
19 opinion, he was cross for the fact that a decision had not been made at
20 once. And then, based on the decision, a procedure had not been
21 initiated, either a criminal investigation into the perpetrators of the
22 crime, or if it was collateral damage, then in, according with the
23 Geneva Conventions identification of the victims and the preservation of
24 traces that would indicate their identities, all in keeping with the
1 Q. Mr. Moric you're a senior police officer. It's not -- before
2 talking about opinions as to what happened, don't you think what should
3 be done is to investigate, carry out an investigation, and thereafter,
4 based on the information decide as to what happened? How could you
5 entertain Mr. Sacic's issue about opinions, conflict of opinions as to
6 what happened? What should have been done is to conduct an investigation
7 immediately; isn't that correct? Do you agree with me?
8 A. Yes, of course, you're right. I understand, and you're right.
9 Q. Then if you agree with me on that, if is there another party
10 suggesting the matter should be delayed because there is some conflict of
11 opinion as to what really happened, that is not relevant, isn't it? What
12 you should be proposing and advocating is that the matter should be
13 immediately investigated?
14 A. Yes, of course. Correct.
15 Q. That's what Mr. Buhin wanted, isn't it? Mr. Buhin wanted the
16 matter investigated.
17 A. Yes, correct. And he should have asked for the head of the
18 police station, he should have made sure that the head of the police
19 station was informed, and that would have initiated the whole procedure.
20 Q. Why did you withdraw him to Zagreb
21 coordinator who wants to have the matter investigated. There is another
22 person, Mr. Sacic is bringing a completely relevant issue into that
23 process. Why would you want to withdraw him to Zagreb at a particular
24 time like that?
25 A. I didn't withdraw him at that critical point. Rather, it was
1 several days later. Mrs. Prosecutor, I said that time had come for
2 Mr. Buhin to be replaced under the normal system of rotation. Evidently,
3 the police station was informed, and the crime police of the police
4 administration was informed, too, as was the police administration of
5 Knin. In other words, conditions were met for the police to start
6 proceeding, and that's the most relevant matter.
7 Thereafter, the responsible persons at all levels were supposed
8 to take measures in keeping with the law, regardless of whether Mr. Buhin
9 was there or not. The fact that Mr. Buhin was there did not matter.
10 Q. Mr. Moric, I want to let you know that you're contradicting your
11 own testimony here. Your testimony here, very clearly, and it's on
12 record, is that you withdrew Mr. Buhin to Zagreb because of that
13 conflict. In fact, you know, Mr. Foster has questioned you at depth
14 about why you would want to withdraw him to Zagreb and how the conflict
15 would affect the police activity, and you have clearly stated that the
16 reason for withdrawal was the conflict. And now you're saying that the
17 reason was because it was time for rotation, which is a complete
19 How do you reconcile your testimony?
20 A. I apologise, Mrs. Prosecutor, you are right. A moment ago, I
21 only mentioned rotation as the reason. However, previously in answer to
22 your one of your questions, I cited both reasons as the reasons for his
23 withdrawal. Namely, the rotation and the conflict of professional
24 opinions. And that's the correct answer.
25 As far as my conversation with Mr. Foster is concerned, you can
1 see that he insisted on this matter alone. Of course, he wasn't
2 interested in organisational and other aspects of work in the field, and
3 that's why I did not discuss with him the rotation periods of the men
4 dispatched to the field, including that of Mr. Buhin.
5 Q. Mr. Sacic [sic], you were asked as to why you withdrew Mr. Buhin,
6 and you never ever informed Mr. Foster as to this new reason that you're
7 giving today. You only discussed about the conflict. You said -- in
8 fact, let me read again your -- you reiterated that again at page 34. If
9 you could turn to page -- it starts at page 33.
10 Mr. Foster again asked you this question:
11 "Okay. Why remove Mr. Buhin? You say because of conflict with
12 Sacic. Bearing" --
13 A. Where is that I'm sorry, I can't find it.
14 Q. Page 33, if you turn on the same section.
15 A. Three --
16 Q. Page 33.
17 A. Excuse me, my -- oh, right, I'm sorry.
18 I have found it. Go ahead.
19 Q. This is what you say. You are ask the question:
20 "Okay why remove Mr. Buhin? You say because of conflict with
21 Sacic. Bearing in mind that the special police were doing work
22 elsewhere, how often were they likely to meet up?"
23 Mr. Foster is asking you about the issue of conflict. And at
24 page 34 you say this:
25 "No, this is not a case only of personal conflict between them
1 two. I thought about the possible implications of that conflict in
2 between the two of them."
3 Then you are asked:
4 "Why leave Buhin in such an atmosphere where can he get into
5 another conflict which would be even more and even more expressed because
6 what happened before? I am certain that other people in special police
7 knew about them ... knew about that conflict, not only Sacic."
8 Mr. Moric, you have had ample opportunity to tell Mr. Foster if
9 there was another reason for Mr. Buhin's withdrawal. You have in fact
10 reiterated that it was a conflict that made you withdraw Mr. Buhin to
12 Can you please tell the Trial Chamber - you are under oath - as
13 to what the truth is.
14 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, I could not have discussed organisational and
15 other aspects of work with Mr. Foster, as can you well see from the
16 transcript. He was solely focused on this, and it is only
18 Let me repeat, that there were two reasons, namely rotation and
19 conflict of professional opinions. And I'm telling you this under the
20 solemn declaration that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and
21 nothing but the truth.
22 Q. Isn't it correct, Mr. Buhin [sic], that prior to withdrawing --
23 sorry, Mr. Sacic -- Moric, that prior to withdrawing Mr. Buhin to Zagreb
24 you telephoned him and told him angrily not to interfere into crime
25 police work. Isn't that correct?
1 A. It is true that I frequently communicated with my men who were in
2 the area. There was several reasons for it. And, on occasion, it had to
3 do with a specific task. So I don't rule out the possibility, and I
4 probably did call Mr. Buhin and tell him, just as I did many times
5 previously in our cooperation, that he should not encroach upon the
6 competence of others; namely, the crime police.
7 Q. But why were you angry, Mr. Moric? Mr. Buhin was just trying to
8 have crime investigated. Why would you be angry about this? Because I
9 can tell you -- I can read back the testimony of Mr. Buhin given in this
10 Court. His testimony is that you telephoned and angrily told him not to
11 interfere in the matter.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, could we first establish what the
13 witness reasons about the time of that telephone conversation.
14 You say you didn't exclude for the possibility that you may have
15 called Mr. Buhin, did you mean to say that that was in relation to the
16 Grubori incident?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember specifically,
18 Your Honour, when it was that I phoned him, and I can therefore not
19 rule out the possibility that it happened at the time when the Grubori
20 incident was topical.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you earlier testified that you couldn't deal
22 with all incidents that happened, so many police people around. Now,
23 here we find an incident for which, at least evidence was received by
24 this Chamber, for which Mr. Sacic especially travels from Zagreb, which -
25 but please correct me when I'm wrong - would not be the usual thing to do
1 for whatever incident, would it?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you're asking me about
3 Mr. Sacic's trip?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether that was usual for every incident to
5 travel a long distance in difficult times.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From my experience, I can tell you,
7 Your Honour, that there were cases whose weight required a trip to be
8 made. Now, whether that was a rule in the special police force as well,
9 I can't tell you that, based on my experience.
10 I think that the size of the problems we were faced with out in
11 the field would warrant trips to be made, and I can tell you that that
12 was true for my sector of the uniformed police, for the sector of the
13 special police, and the crime police. Now, whether this was, from the
14 perspective of the special police, something that warranted it ...
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Earlier you told us, more or less in between
16 the lines, that so many things happened, that why would this incident or
17 this event, why would you remember anything about it?
18 Now, apparently, the matter was important enough for Mr. Sacic to
19 travel a long distance from Zagreb
20 it at least not an average event or an average incident, would it?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree with that, Your Honour.
22 You can put it that way.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Were you aware that Mr. Sacic had travelled down?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can remember,
25 Your Honour, I heard later that he had travelled there. I didn't know
1 that he had been sent. Nobody informed me about that, because there was
2 no reason to inform me.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Do you mean to say, is it your testimony that when
4 Mr. Sacic travelled down and when a dispute arose about whether or not to
5 immediately investigate, that you were not aware that Mr. Sacic had
6 travelled down and that this problem had arisen?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this is exactly what I wanted
8 to say. I was informed about the event, and, later on, I learned that
9 Mr. Sacic had been there.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Have you been in touch with anyone who was there and
11 involved in this dispute about whether or not to investigate at that very
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I was not in contact with
14 anybody. I don't remember having been in contact with anybody. Only
15 later I was in contact with Mr. Buhin, but I don't remember anybody else.
16 JUDGE ORIE: What do you mean by later, that you were in contact
17 with Mr. Buhin? What is "later" in this respect? What day?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I meant to say was that I am
19 referring to the contact with Mr. Buhin about which Madam Prosecutor
20 asked me. Two or three days after the event.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You remember that?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I remember that I was in
23 contact with Mr. Buhin.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Just a couple of minutes ago you said that you
25 were not sure whether you had. It could well be that you would have had
1 a telephone conversation, but you had no recollection about that. And
2 then you were asked whether that was in relation to the Grubori incident.
3 And you said, Well, maybe, I don't know. And now, apparently, you have
4 some recollection.
5 Could you give us the details of that telephone conversation.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can --
7 JUDGE ORIE: And that apparently is, Ms Mahindaratne, what you
8 would like to hear from the witness; is that correct?
9 So give us all details you remember from that telephone
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember that I told him like a
12 few times before, in similar situations, to hand the matter over to the
13 crime police, let them do their part of the job. And I reminded him that
14 he was supposed to return to Zagreb
15 the -- who were coming to the area. If I remember properly, those were
16 experts from the ministry dealing with traffic control and border
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Moric, let me read one of your previous answers.
19 I asked you:
20 "You say you didn't exclude for the possibility that you may have
21 called Mr. Buhin. Did you mean to say that that was in relation to the
22 Grubori incident?"
23 The answer was:
24 "I can't remember specifically, Your Honour, when it was that I
25 phoned him, and I can therefore not rule out the possibility that it
1 happened at the time when the Grubori incident was topical."
2 Now, from your last answers, I take it that it was specifically
3 on the Grubori incident that you had a telephone conversation with him
4 after two
5 Is that correctly understood?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as for the event in
7 Grubori, I learnt about it two or three days after the event. And the
8 conversation with Mr. Buhin may have taken place even one or two days
9 later than that, but I can't be sure. So that conversation may have
10 taken place maybe three to five days after the event, because, as far as
11 I can remember, I learnt about the event a couple of days after it
13 JUDGE ORIE: If, therefore, Mr. Buhin says that it was on the
14 27th of August, you would say that that is not accurate.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To my recollection, that
16 conversation should have taken place later.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Did you inform Mr. Buhin before that he had return
18 to Zagreb
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, everybody was informed
20 -- informed and Mr. Buhin was also informed.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Did you specifically talk with him about his return
22 soon to Zagreb
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Before they were centered
24 there, the head of personnel spoke to everybody and announced that they
25 would be rotated, depending on the scope of problems on the ground and
1 the requirements for other types of experts.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And in that telephone conversations with Mr. Buhin,
3 in relation to the Grubori incident, he was, for the first time, informed
4 specifically that it was now his time to return to Zagreb.
5 Is that correctly understood?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that I was the one who
7 told him that for the first time. However, the head of personnel had
8 announced that even before.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As you said before, that rotation was
10 depending on the scope of the problems on the ground and the requirement
11 for other types of experts.
12 Was there any schedule put on paper about rotation in advance?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was the chief of
14 sector who dealt with that, the head of personnel, that is. And rotation
15 depended on the need for other types of experts and estimates --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, my question was not whether you would repeat
17 the criteria but whether it was put on paper.
18 May I take it from your answer that you're not aware of any
19 rotation scheme put on paper in which Mr. Buhin was expected to return to
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. If there was such a rotation
22 scheme, it was the head of personnel who had it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: What, then, were your specific concerns about
24 rotation? Because you said it was two reasons, whereas, you say the
25 rotation was in the hands of the head of personnel, whereas I understand
1 you were involved in the conflicting views -- conflicting professional
3 What was your knowledge, more precisely, on what rotation
4 required at that very moment?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that at that
6 time, people who had to be sent to the field were from the sector of
7 traffic control and border control and some other types of experts and
8 that I had been informed about that by the head personnel. And that was
9 the main motive why Mr. Buhin had to be rotated, as well as the other
10 coordinators after him.
11 JUDGE ORIE: It is not only time for a break, but it is already
12 far beyond the time for a break.
13 Ms. Mahindaratne, the questions I put to the witness should not
14 be understood in any way as that you -- that we would have explored
15 sufficiently. I leave it entirely to you whether this still needs
16 further attention or not.
17 We will have a break, and we will resume at ten minutes past
19 --- Recess taken at 10.45 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 11.18 a.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We'll deal with a few procedural matters at the end
22 of this session, but since Mr. Moric is in the courtroom -- yes,
23 Mr. Mikulicic.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, I was just -- I just want to --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: I just want to inform the Chamber according to
2 your request from the beginning of the session that I sent and an e-mail
3 to Court Officer and to all parties of the case as it refers to our
4 schedule for the rest of the trial.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's a very practical way of resolving the matter.
6 The other procedural matters, there are two small ones, wait with them
7 until the end of this session so that Mr. Moric is not -- is not in a
8 position that he has to listen to all kind of matters which are of no
9 concern to him. At least they should not be of any concern to him.
10 Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to continue?
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. May I just a
12 clarification, Mr. President. At the break, did Your Honour say the
13 questions I put to the witness should not be understood in any way that
14 we have not explored sufficiently?
15 JUDGE ORIE: I would not in any way limit you in exploring the
16 matter, and the fact that I have put some questions in relation to this
17 shouldn't cause to you refrain from any relevant an important matter
18 would you still want to ask him about it or any further details.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I understand.
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
23 Q. Mr. Moric, I just have a few questions on that subject we were
24 discussing before I move on.
25 Now, you were asked a question by the Bench, as to whether you
1 specifically -- let me just -- you were asked:
2 "And in the telephone conversation with Mr. Buhin in relation to
3 the Grubori incident, he was, for the first time, informed specifically,
4 that it was now his time to return to Zagreb."
5 That is the question from the Bench. And your answer is:
6 "I believe that I was the one who told him that for the first
7 time. However, the head of personnel had announced that even before."
8 Now, that wasn't quite exactly an answer to the question. The
9 question was, did you inform Mr. Buhin that he had to return to Zagreb
10 the course of the telephone conversation when you discussed the conflict
11 about the Grubori event, yes or no?
12 A. Madam Prosecutor, I told him, but that doesn't mean that he had
13 not been aware of that same announcement from before.
14 Q. Now, Mr. Moric, Mr. Buhin testified in these proceedings, and he
15 testified about that telephone call. And I'm referring to transcript
16 10016. And this is what he said. He said -- he was asked about the
17 telephone call and said:
18 "No, ours was a very short conversation. He" - referring to you
19 - "only angrily told me not to butt in the work of the crime police, but
20 to do my assigned job. That was the long and the short of our
22 And then in his statement, P963, page 5 he says:
23 "Eight or ten days after receiving that telephone call from
24 Moric, I was returned to Zagreb
25 withdrawn from Knin was that there was no need for two of us to be there.
1 I do not remember the date that I left Knin. At any rate, my replacement
2 arrived before I left. His name was Mato Markovic, and he was a traffic
3 expert. He was there a few days before I left."
4 So according to Mr. Buhin, you never informed him about his need
5 to come back to Zagreb
6 was eight or ten days after your telephone conversation with Mr. Buhin
7 that he was withdrawn, on the basis that there was no need for two people
8 two police coordinators, in the field. So how do you reconcile your
9 testimony that you just gave with what Mr. Buhin told this Trial Chamber?
10 A. Madam Prosecutor, obviously, after such a long time, we don't
11 remember the events in the same way, and that's the only possible
12 explanation I have.
13 Q. Okay. Now when you were questioned by the Bench about rotation,
14 you said the rotation depended on the scope of the problems on the ground
15 and the requirement of other types of experts. This is at page 35,
16 line 6.
17 And in fact during direct examination and cross-examination
18 during last week, we saw a number of documents which showed that there
19 was a problem of crimes continuing throughout the period until
20 15th September. Even at the Plitvice meeting, there was a discussion
21 about meetings.
22 Now, Mr. Buhin's area of responsibility was regular police.
23 Wasn't that correct? As well as traffic regulation, regular police work
24 and traffic regulation. Isn't that correct?
25 A. Unfortunately, Madam Prosecutor, you are not right. The term
1 regular police, in principle, covers all policing performed in uniform.
2 However when it comes to the organisation and internal structure of the
3 regular police, there is policing proper, traffic control, border
4 control, airport control, and within that organisational structure, there
5 is a clear definition about the jobs people perform within the sector of
6 uniformed police.
7 Mr. Buhin was in the ministry in the Department of Police, not in
8 the sector of traffic police. He was, therefore, an expert for the
9 general state of peace and order and prevention. He was not an expert in
10 traffic; in other words, at that time, he did not deal in the matters
11 within the purview of the traffic police.
12 Q. Mr. Moric, Mr. Buhin testified in these proceedings, as I just
13 told you. And this is at transcript page 9935. He testified that --
14 that he was responsible for the regular police work and traffic
15 regulation. But be that as it may, my point is we saw records of
16 situation where there are problems, serious crime being committed on the
17 ground. So wouldn't you agree with me that this was a time at which you
18 needed personnel of the Ministry of Interior whose expertise in fact were
19 focused on regular police work, that is prevention of -- prevention of
20 crime, and maintenance of law and order?
21 Would you agree with me?
22 A. Absolutely. I agree, yes.
23 Q. So then why withdraw Mr. Buhin whose expertise was in fact
24 prevention of crime and maintenance of law and order and send down an
25 expert in traffic matters? That doesn't -- almost sound consistent with
1 what you have been saying all along in this Trial Chamber, which was that
2 you were short of police resources. What is the logic behind that act?
3 A. There is a very clear logic, Madam Prosecutor. Last week, when I
4 was examined by the Defence, we were faced with the facts that spoke
5 about a very complicated -- the state of security in many other areas of
6 our country at the time, not only in that area. And in the area where
7 Operation Storm had taken place, we obviously needed traffic experts in
8 the aftermath of Operation Storm.
9 Mr. Buhin continued to perform his duties within the ministry,
10 once he was withdrawn from Knin, and those duties covered the entire
11 territory of the state. By doing that, he had just resumed where he had
12 left off before being sent to the Knin area.
13 Q. Mr. Moric, we saw your order dated 18th August, where you in fact
14 even diverted resources as you said from crime investigation to crime
15 prevention because the need was such. But here we have a situation, just
16 a week after that, your order, you are sending a police coordinator whom
17 you have initially sent down to the field to assist in the course of
18 prevention of crime back to Zagreb
19 sincere effort towards prevention of crime.
20 How do you respond to that?
21 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, you are entitled to doubt the sincerity of the
22 efforts, but we were involved in them on a daily basis. We needed men in
23 other areas of the country that were also under -- that were under
24 terrorist attacks.
25 Q. Okay. Just moving on, before I finish this topic, just one
1 further question, Mr. Moric.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, I can have D360, please.
3 Q. Mr. Moric, while the document is coming up -- okay. We have --
4 You testified that documents addressed to the OA Povratak staff
5 would reach you, or if you were not there you would be informed of the
6 content in principle.
7 Now this is a report sent to you by --
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if could take the English
9 document right to the top.
10 Q. By the Zadar-Knin police administration to you. It's dated
11 28th August. And it says: Subject, report on hygiene and sanitation
12 measures pertaining to dead human bodies is being submitted.
13 And it says that there is attached list. And if we could move to
14 the next page, thank you, in the Croatian version also.
15 Do you note, Mr. Moric, from number, 301 to 305 - that's five
16 bodies - are the five civilians who were killed in Grubori? You have in
17 fact received a report on the sanitation on the removal of those bodies.
18 Now, at this stage when you received this report, didn't it occur
19 to you to query as to why there -- you have not received a report on an
20 on-site investigation into the matter, what had happened in this
21 instance? Didn't it concern you to inquire into this matter, having
22 received a report that five civilians were in fact killed in Grubori?
23 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, as before, when we discussed the conflict of
24 professional opinions on this matter, you now again proceed from the
25 basis that I or we in the police are duty-bound to be suspicious one of
1 another. Such rules of mutual suspicion on the police force isn't
2 something we have or something I have seen in the police systems
4 Therefore, when I received this report and, by the way, I'm not
5 sure if I personally gave it any of my associates for consideration, but
6 when I received it, it was confirmation to me that the system of the
7 Ministry of the Interior had taken note of the incident and that, as the
8 law dictates, all the mechanisms of the system would be activated and
9 that everyone would do their part of the job.
10 Q. Mr. Moric, what is it -- what is contained in this report apart
11 from the fact that these civilians bodies are buried in Knin cemetery to
12 indicate to you that there has been an investigation, that the other, as
13 to say, the system of the Ministry of Interior had taken note of the
14 incident and the procedure, mechanisms have started working? What is in
15 this document to indicate that to you?
16 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, excuse me, but when you look at the document,
17 it's quite clear. I am informed by the police administration of it, and
18 it is the head of the police administration who signed it. Under the Law
19 on The internal affairs, it is the police administration that is
20 duty-bound to monitor the events, occurrences in its area, and report to
21 the ministry. And I'm reported to by a person who has had his duties
22 clearly defined by the law. Why should I be doubting that?
23 Q. Very well, Mr. Moric, I don't want to spend any further time on
24 this subject.
25 And moving on, I'd like you to look at your statement given to
1 the OTP.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if I could have, Mr. Registrar, D1842, the
3 section marked 4893, page 17.
4 Q. You discuss -- you discuss the inner control within the Ministry
5 of Interior. And this is your testimony:
6 "Inner control of the Ministry of the Interior dealt with
7 discipline, disciplinary breaches, and work, whether the work was done
8 according to the regulations for all members of the Ministry of Interior
9 from the cleaning lady all the way to the minister, except in cases of
10 special police. They had their own department of Control."
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could move to page 18.
12 Q. You say:
13 "The way that inner control usually functions is they would
14 receive information, tapes either from citizens or from the colleagues
15 that somebody has done something, and then they would go and
16 investigate [sic]."
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And then if could you move to page 19.
18 Q. You say:
19 "Whenever I heard of dishonourable behaviour of anyone that falls
20 under my responsibility, whether somebody immediately close or other, any
21 police administration, I would not allow for anybody else but myself ...
22 I would, myself, write to inner control to investigate the [sic] matter."
23 Now just a matter which has not been properly clarified here.
24 Now you say that the special police had their own inner control branch.
25 So in the same way that the inner control of the Ministry of Interior
1 worked, did the inner control of special police also conduct internal
2 inquiries into the discipline and conduct of members of the special
4 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, I think that the branch of the internal control
5 of the special police had, as far as I remember, the role of gathering
6 and processing information about discipline in the various units.
7 However, the issue of disciplinary proceedings, just as was the case with
8 the internal control at the level of the ministry overall, was not a
9 matter for the internal control of the ministry overall and therefore, by
10 the same token, either of the -- neither of the internal control of the
11 special police. It was the chiefs of the police administrations who had
12 to initiate them, and the disciplinary courts as independent judiciary
13 bodies to hear them.
14 Q. Mr. Moric, I did not about initiating disciplinary proceedings.
15 My question was did the special police inner control branch work in the
16 same manner as the inner control branch of the Ministry of Interior. I'm
17 talking about -- I'm not asking about initiation of disciplinary
18 proceedings. Was the task and the responsibility of the inner control of
19 the special police the same vis-a-vis members of special police, police,
20 as was the case with the inner control branch of the Ministry of
22 Do you understand my question?
23 A. My apologies, I now understand your question.
24 Yes, my understanding of it is that they gathered information
25 about the state of discipline in special police units.
1 Q. Now, why is it -- why did the special police have their own inner
2 control branch, as opposed to the rest of Ministry of Interior sectors
3 having a different inner control?
4 A. There were two important reasons.
5 One, of a practical nature. Unlike all the other employees of a
6 police administration who were always moving over a certain area and were
7 subject to public scrutiny, the special police role was quite different.
8 They were supposed to provide security for various facilities in the face
9 of violent behaviour, and I think that was one of the criteria. They
10 were being singled out according to the areas where they were active,
11 where they had to intervene and where they had to train. It was only
12 logical for them to have their own mechanism of internal control,
13 precisely for that reason.
14 The second reason was that, as far as I know, the personnel, the
15 human resources of the internal control of the special police, was used
16 also to gather information relative to the areas where the special police
17 was likely to operate. In semi-military or military jargon to make
18 myself quite clear, when they -- their duty was to gather intelligence
19 and counter-intelligence.
20 Q. Now, if a member of a special police unit attached to a police
21 administration commits a crime in the course of special police duties,
22 and I would be specific, that would be while in the deployment of
23 Operation Storm or in the course of any of the mop-up operations that
24 were carried out after Operation Storm, who had the disciplinary
25 authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings, that is, request for
1 disciplinary proceedings against such member? Is it the special police
2 sector command, or the chief of the police administration?
3 MR. MIKULICIC: Sorry to interrupt my learned colleague. But the
4 question was, in effect, ambiguous because my learned colleague in the
5 first part of the question stated that, if a crime was committed --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne --
7 MR. MIKULICIC: And in the other part [overlapping speakers]...
8 about the disciplinary proceedings. So these are two different things,
9 which are very much --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Mikulicic, there are two different things.
11 The one is to say the question is ambiguous, and then, of course, the
12 first thing that comes to the mind of Ms. Mahindaratne and to my mind is
13 that you should split up and not, as often happens, put into a question a
14 lot of mixed information, and then, of course, to focus on one thing.
15 The same -- Mr. Mikulicic, that's one thing.
16 The other things is that we should not comment on the question
17 because by saying what is wrong with the question, sometimes you give
18 already a clue to the witness what apparently your concern may be.
19 Therefore, Ms. Mahindaratne, could you please try to avoid
20 questions in which the question in itself contains a lot of different
21 matters and then, at the end, put a question to the witness where he
22 could be confused by all the information you gave in the question.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: So would you keep in mind what Mr. Mikulicic said
25 and rephrase your question.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
2 Q. Mr. Moric the Trial Chamber has received evidence that in the
3 case of a crime committed by a member of the special police, there are
4 two processes, parallel processes, that take place. There is crime
5 investigation by the crime police, and parallel to that disciplinary
6 proceedings are initiated against him. That is, he is suspended and
7 there is an internal disciplinary proceeding against him in the MUP
8 disciplinary Courts. Now this Trial Chamber has heard that evidence.
9 My question is, in such an event, where a member of the special
10 police attached to a unit which is within a police administration - Your
11 Honour, I'm referring to, let us say, a special police unit attached to
13 committed a crime, and he is being investigated by the crime police, who
14 would have the authority to suspend him and initiate disciplinary
15 proceedings against him? Is it the special police sector command or the
16 chief of the police administration to which the unit is attached?
17 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, I have tried to understand your question. So a
18 member of the special police has committed a crime, and for this reason,
19 on the one hand, a criminal investigation has been launched, and, on the
20 other he is suspended and disciplinary proceedings is initiated.
21 Is my understanding of that situation correct?
22 Q. That's correct. And my question is who has the authority to
23 initiate the disciplinary proceedings against him? Is it the special
24 police sector command or the chief of the police administration, to which
25 the special police unit is attached?
1 A. I'm not a special police expert. If you -- if you will allow me
2 to, I'll answer the question the way I'm almost positive the procedure
4 The commander of the unit of that particular member would, in
5 cooperation with the internal control of the special police, gather all
6 relevant information for disciplinary proceedings and forward the
7 information to the person authorised with the power of initiating
8 disciplinary proceedings, which is the chief of the police administration
9 to which the special police unit belongs, or, as we call it in our police
10 jargon, the parent police administration. So the head of that police
11 administration had the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings before
12 a disciplinary Court.
13 Q. Now didn't Mr. Markac have the power to initiate disciplinary
14 proceedings against a member of a special police unit attached to a
15 police administration if that conduct was -- if the conduct in question
16 was committed in the course of Operation Storm or in the mop-up
17 operations afterwards?
18 A. Mr. Markac, as well as all the others who belonged to the special
19 police management, could, and was duty-bound, to forward the information
20 he had of a breach of discipline or a crime to the person authorised to
21 initiate disciplinary proceedings, which is the chief of the special --
22 of the police administration, to which the unit belongings.
23 Q. Mr. Moric, Mr. Cetina, the chief of police administration of
24 Zadar-Knin police administration, testified here, as I told you, and when
25 this question was asked of him, and this is at transcript reference
1 23593, let me just read this to you. This is what he said:
2 "Now isn't it correct that if a member of the special police
3 forces committed an offence that requests for disciplinary procedures,
4 initiation of disciplinary had to be made by the commander of the special
5 police and not yourself?"
6 His response was: "Yes, that's how it was."
7 According to Mr. Cetina, the authority to initiate disciplinary
8 proceedings was with the commander of the special police sector and not
9 himself. So are you -- is your testimony based on knowledge, or were you
10 merely speculating when you said that it was the chief of the police
12 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, I am not speculating. I don't know why, and I'm
13 even quite puzzled by what Mr. Cetina said. Perhaps because he was a
14 chief of the police administration with least experience. But we can
15 check the relevant documents, such as decisions rendered by disciplinary
16 courts, and see that the authority was vested with chiefs of police
17 administrations. They initiated disciplinary proceedings against all
18 employees of their administration in the first instance.
19 Q. Okay. Those documents are in evidence, Mr. Moric, so will not
20 waste time calling them. But I want to show you a specific document.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if could I have D530.
22 Q. There was a discussion about who -- which sector within the
23 Ministry of Interior could investigate crime. And I want to show you
24 this document, Mr. Moric. And I appreciate you would not have seen this
25 document. You wouldn't have had the opportunity.
1 Or have you seen this document before? Let me just ask you that.
2 Are you familiar with this document?
3 A. Judging by the additional notes, I can't conclude that it has
4 ever reached me. I don't remember having seen it.
5 Q. Now, this, as you can see, is an order issued by Mr. Markac on
6 3rd October. And it's addressed to the special police unit commander of
7 Zadar special police unit.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
9 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, I have to object. This is not an
10 order. Never in this document is written that type of text. So it could
11 be not fair for the witness to present to him the piece of document which
12 is defined as an order.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- this is a document issued by Mr. Markac on
14 the 3rd of October, I take it.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We are all aware that whether a document says order
17 or not, if it says order, it is not necessarily order. Whether it also
18 works the other way around is still to be established.
19 Please proceed.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. Mr. Moric, here this document is sent to the chief of the
22 Zadar-Knin police administration personally with the request that it be
23 delivered to the special police unit commander. And Mr. Markac writes:
24 "The special police sector received an Official Note from Gracac police
25 station which states that on 17 September 1995 four members of the
1 special police in a vehicle ... were noted in the village of Podkorina
2 I'm sorry I can't pronounce that - as they were leaving the site where a
3 family home and a stable with hay were set on fire.
4 "We checked and established that the above-mentioned vehicle is
5 at the disposal of the SJP of the Zadar-Knin police administration."
6 "In keeping with the above, you are to investigate" --
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President.
8 Q. "In keeping with the above you are to investigate the above
9 claims and submit in writing the results of the investigation to the
10 special police sector."
11 Now in issuing this order, from what you know, Mr. Moric, was
12 Mr. Markac acting within his authority -- sorry, I rephrase, I'm sorry,
13 in issuing this document?
14 MR. MIKULICIC: Sorry to be on my feet again, Your Honour, and my
15 learned colleague. I think we have problem with -- I have -- I think we
16 have problem of translation in that document.
17 So the word in original "provjera," is basically wrongly
18 translated. So if we could check what our translator in the courtroom
19 could translate the word "provjera."
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just ... The English -- is it the written
21 translation that you have problems with?
22 MR. MIKULICIC: Written translation, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: It is -- yes, apparently what it -- the subject is
24 described as "provjera informacije."
25 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, and in the beginning of that part of the
1 document it is translated like verification of information. And on the
2 last paragraph of that document, the very same word, "provjera" is
3 translated as investigation.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The same word appears several times. Let me
5 just check ...
6 Now, Ms. Mahindaratne, are you willing to submit this document
7 specifically for the purpose of the translation of the word "provjera"?
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, it seems that the document tells the
10 special police unit commander what to do and what -- and the results of
11 this activity to be submitted to the special police sector.
12 Do we agree on that, Mr. Mikulicic?
13 MR. MIKULICIC: We do, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then let's work on the basis of this wording and
15 let's forget about the details which are still in dispute.
16 Perhaps, Ms. Mahindaratne --
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will rephrase the question, accordingly,
18 Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
21 Q. Mr. Moric, can you please look at this document and tell the
22 Trial Chamber if, in issuing this document, was Mr. Markac acting within
23 his authority?
24 A. Madam Prosecutor, this document is in line with what we have
25 spoken about, namely the procedure, when it comes to verifying and
1 checking information to see if any of the special police has committed a
2 breach of discipline, the way I understand it is that Mr. Markac received
3 information based on which he concluded that that could have been the
4 case and that it could have even been a potential crime and the breach of
5 discipline and that's why he wanted the information verified and checked
6 and the verification result to be submitted to him.
7 I assume that he would then follow the logic of conveying
8 information further onto the person who would be responsible for starting
9 criminal proceedings. In other words, this document was issued by
10 Mr. Markac and sent with the purpose of verifying information.
11 Q. Now, you have given a lengthy answer to that, Mr. Moric, but you
12 haven't told me what I asked you.
13 Was Mr. Markac acting within his authority when this document was
14 issued? That was my question. Yes or no.
15 A. I believe so, I believe that he was acting within his authority.
16 Q. If I could have, Mr. Registrar, D531, please.
17 And we will see, Mr. Moric, a document on the screen by which the
18 special police commander of Zadar has responded to this instruction by
19 Mr. Markac, the very next day. And that's -- he says, report.
20 And he reports that:
21 "Pursuant to request for information verification ... the
22 information was checked out, and it was positively determined that the
23 perpetrator of the arson in the village of Podkorina
24 of the Zadar-Knin police administration special police unit."
25 Now -- and then there is further details about that crime.
1 Now, the Trial Chamber has received evidence that the special
2 police was a highly-skilled elite police force. Apart from the combat
3 operations they carried out, did they also have the ability to
4 investigate crime, if necessary?
5 A. I apologise, you mean in the same way it would have been done by
6 the authorised and professional crime police? In the same way? You mean
7 that the -- whether the special police could have done the same as the
8 crime police?
9 Q. No. Whether the special police had the capacity to verify, let
10 us say, as to whether in fact indeed a member of the unit has committed a
11 crime. In the manner that has been done in this report, to your
12 knowledge, did they have the competence to do that? Not legally, but
13 could they do -- carry it out, if necessary?
14 A. I apologise, does your question refer specifically to the event
15 described in this report?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. Madam Prosecutor, we can see in this report that the event was a
18 case of some cattle food being set on fire. And that fact could be
19 established, it's something that could you see, that you can simply
20 state, that some dry grass burned down. However, when it comes down to
21 crime investigation, I don't think that the special police was either
22 trained or equipped to do that, nor was it its task.
23 Q. Mr. Moric, let me move onto another area. And in fact Mr. Kay
24 went through a series of documents with you on the planning of the
1 Isn't it correct that prior to the commencement of
2 Operation Storm you and your colleagues at the Ministry of Interior had
3 the experience of crimes being committed in the liberated territories
4 after the previous operations; for example, in operation -- after
5 Operation Medak and Operation Flash?
6 A. We had experience, or, rather, experiences that taught us that
7 there were different problems and that we were able to face all sorts of
8 crimes that we were -- potentially or looking at facing all sorts of
10 Q. Now, those crimes that were committed in Operation Medak and
11 Flash, to your knowledge, were they investigated?
12 A. Madam Prosecutor, I believe that this is a generally known fact.
13 People have been sentenced for crimes committed in the territory of
14 Medak, and they're still serving those sentences.
15 Q. Mr. Moric, I'd like you to look at what you told the Office of
16 the Prosecutor, which is in evidence, your statement, D1842, and if could
17 you turn to the second section. Not the one that you're looking,
18 Mr. Moric, at now. The second section, the middle one. That's section
19 4893, page 53.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, did I understand you well that the
21 previous document about the investigation of the haystack put on fire of
22 -- or -- you just focus on the investigation. You did not want to pay
23 any further attention to the measures taken as a result? Which is fine,
24 but I just want to know whether you want to limit what you put to this
25 witness to the investigations, rather than to the measures that were
1 taken, such as the removed from duty and cut in salary, that's not
2 something you --
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. I didn't need to go into
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
7 Q. If could you focus on page 53, Mr. Moric.
8 Now, you were in fact asked whether you knew about -- this is the
10 "You mentioned that you were aware of some problems. Were you
11 aware of any, let us say, military personnel, having been prosecuted for
12 any crimes during that period?"
13 This is with regard to the previous operations. The question you
14 just answered.
15 This is your response:
16 "I do not know if anybody was processed for the crimes [sic].
17 What I know that there were problems and that they were reported.
18 Whether or not they were investigated by the investigative judge and ...
19 whether or not these investigations resulted in indictments ... or if
20 somebody was charged with any of these [sic] crimes, I do not know. I do
21 not know that."
22 Now you just told in Court the exact opposite. How do you
23 reconcile your testimony?
24 A. Does this refer to the document you're showing me? And does that
25 all that refer to the territory of Medak
1 Q. Mr. Moric, I asked you if you were aware that the crimes
2 committed in the previous operations were investigated, and you answered,
3 this was your answer:
4 "Madam Prosecutor I believe that this is a generally known fact.
5 People have been sentenced for crimes committed in the territory of
6 Medak, and they're still serving those sentences."
7 Now you were asked about questions -- about crimes committed in
8 the previous -- let me first ask you one further question.
9 Do you know if the crimes committed in Operation Flash, whether
10 they were investigated?
11 A. Crime investigation after that, an investigation, you know, that
12 was not my job. At that time, it was not part of my duties no know
13 whether such investigations were carried out or not. That's why I asked
14 you just a minute ago with the way I spoke to Mr. Foster, with regard to
15 Medak Pocket, I answered Mr. Foster's questions, and I told him what I
16 knew at the time, when things were actually happening. The perspective
17 is different, and hence, the difference in the answers I provided to
18 Mr. Foster, as opposed to the answers I'm providing to you today.
19 Q. Let's move away from perspective, Mr. Moric. Let me ask you a
20 clear question.
21 Are you aware if the crimes committed in Operation Medak and
22 Operation Flash were investigated? Do you know, to your knowledge, if
23 they were investigated or not? Yes or no.
24 A. From the media, yes.
25 Q. Now, you were -- you were -- you were the assistant minister of
1 interior. Wouldn't you know if crimes were investigated or not, because
2 if there was an investigation, fundamental police would be involved in
3 the -- the on-site investigations. Isn't that correct?
4 A. Madam Prosecutor, at the level of the Ministry of the Interior,
5 we followed trends. We did not analyse any concrete and specific cases.
6 That would have been contrary to the law. We never dwelled upon the
7 concrete proceedings in certain cases. There were teams of experts in
8 charge of dealing with every single concrete case. That was their job.
9 Q. If I understand your testimony, Mr. Moric, in your position as
10 assistant minister of interior, because you followed trends, you would
11 not know -- you would not be in a position to say if crimes were
12 investigated or not.
13 Is that what you're saying?
14 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President. I hate to interrupt. Are
15 we talking about Operation Flash?
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: We're talking about Operation Medak and
17 Operation Flash.
18 MR. KEHOE: I refer my learned friend to page 51 of 4893,
19 line 12.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, for the later transcript I usually have
21 the pages attached to it. Could you give me a date, then so that I'm at
22 least in the right transcript.
23 MR. KEHOE: I'm sorry, Mr. President. It is on the screen now.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, you said 489...
25 MR. KEHOE: 165 in e-court.
1 JUDGE ORIE: 165.
2 MR. KEHOE: It's exhibit 1842 which is on -- D1842 which is on
3 the screen.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I have found it.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I -- yes, I should I -- I was thinking in terms
6 of transcript pages, rather than -- I do understand you said page 51 of
7 -- yes, now I just misunderstood. It was my mistake.
8 Please proceed.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
10 Q. Now, Mr. Moric, this is what you have said in relation to crimes
11 committed in Operation Flash, and this is at page 51 of your transcript,
12 if you turn to the previous page. You say:
13 "Were you aware in your position as assistant minister and your
14 subsequent negotiations of any crimes being committed by Croatian
16 You say: "Where?"
17 And this is page 51.
18 "In Sector West. That's during and after Operation Flash itself.
19 Yes, I heard about, I heard that there were problems. I heard that there
20 were some suspicious deaths, and I know that crime police investigated
21 it. An investigation of those crimes would be -- the detail of these
22 investigations would kept where?"
23 And there is a discussion about that.
24 And at page 53, Mr. Moric, you are asked again:
25 "You mentioned that you were aware of some problems. Were you
1 aware of any, let us say, military personnel having been prosecuted for
2 any crimes during that period?"
3 Your responses is:
4 "I do not know if anybody was processed for the crime. What I
5 know ... there were problems and that they were reported. Whether or not
6 they were investigated by the investigative judge and ... whether or not
7 these investigations resulted in indictments ... if somebody was charged
8 with any of these [sic] crimes, I do not know. I do not know that."
9 Now, the question was asked from you as to -- as to -- as
10 assistant minister of the interior if you are aware as to whether crimes
11 committed by military personnel during Operation Flash were processed and
12 whether anyone was charged. You have said that you were aware that crime
13 police investigated it, but are you not aware as to if anyone was charged
14 or not.
15 Now, how is it, Mr. Moric, that you're holding a very senior
16 position in the Ministry of Interior that you're not able to say if
17 anyone was charged for crimes committed in Operation Flash or not? You
18 were the assistant minister of uniformed police at the time.
19 A. Madam Prosecutor, it is correct that I was the assistant minister
20 in charge of uniformed police and prevention. I was not in charge of
21 crime police and crime investigation, detecting crimes. In principle,
22 everybody did their own job. I managed the work of the uniformed police,
23 and I had a colleague who was in charge of managing the work of the crime
25 Of course, in day-to-day operations, we meet on a daily basis and
1 exchange information in order to be able to monitor trends. And I knew,
2 based on that information, that there had been some suspicious deaths and
3 that the crime police would get involved and try to elucidate those
4 suspicious deaths. It is only logical that, at the time, when Mr. Foster
5 and I spoke, I didn't know whether that would result in any indictments
6 or charges being brought against certain individuals and their
8 In addition to that, Madam Prosecutor, I was a member of the
9 executive power, and tripartite division of power is very well known.
10 Judiciary is independent, and they don't have to inform us as to what
11 they do. That's why I told you that from public sources of information I
12 learned that people had been sentenced for crimes committed in the
13 territory of Medak.
14 Q. Mr. Moric, you were interviewed by Mr. Foster in 2004. So if
15 anyone was to be charged for crimes committed in Operation Flash which
16 was May 1995, by that time, if you were going to get such information,
17 you would have known that, wouldn't it? I say that because you said by
18 the time -- at the time I spoke with Mr. Foster, you didn't know if
19 people were going to be indicted or not.
20 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, I said something that was even more precise than
22 At the time of my discussions with Mr. Foster concerning the
23 time-period we discussed, and that was the period of Operation Flash, we
24 spoke of 1995, and, unfortunately, this is the period under discussion
25 today as well.
1 However, the crime police was not duty-bound in specific matters
2 to inform the assistant minister in charge of the uniformed police of
3 their activities. In fact the key report on the work of the crime police
4 can be found in the criminal reports that the -- the crime police files
5 through -- to -- to the competent prosecutor.
6 Q. So based on what you just said, Mr. Moric, then it would be
7 correct to assume - and you can correct me if I'm wrong - that you would
8 not be a position to say as to if people -- if anybody was charged for
9 crimes committed in Operation Storm either. Isn't it?
10 A. In Operation Storm?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. We spoke of Operation Flash a moment ago.
13 Q. That's what I'm saying. Based on what you said, you said that
14 the crime police was not bound to inform you. You didn't get this
15 information because you were in charge of uniformed police, and as such
16 you are not in a position to say as to -- if people had been investigated
17 and if people had been charged after Operation Flash. If that's the
18 case, the same principle would apply in relation to Operation Storm.
19 Isn't that right, Mr. Moric? You would not be in a position then to tell
20 this Trial Chamber if persons were indeed properly investigated and
21 charged in relation to crimes committed in Operation Storm. Because the
22 same level of information that you received in relation to
23 Operation Flash would apply here, in relation to Operation Storm.
24 A. Yes, correct, Mrs. Prosecutor. This follows from the way in
25 which the Ministry of the Interior was organised and the way in which it
1 worked, as provided for by the relevant decree.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I'm told that it is time for a
3 break. This would be a good time.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know who told you. But it is certainly
5 approximately -- I would, however, deal with two minor procedural
6 matters, but we don't need Mr. Moric for that.
7 Mr. Moric, if you could already follow -- we would like to see
8 you -- the usher, then we would like to see you back in 20 to 25 minutes
9 from now.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, first of all, thank you for sending
12 your e-mail which certainly is helpful for the Chamber.
13 When we invited you, we also invited the Prosecution to tell us
14 about any developed plans for calling rebuttal evidence.
15 Mr. Waespi could you inform the Chamber about that.
16 MR. HEDARALY: Yes. We have no plans to call any rebuttal
17 witnesses at this point in time.
18 JUDGE ORIE: At this point in time. Thank you for that.
19 Then there was a translation issue in relation to P27 -- 2678. I
20 think you raised it, Mr. Misetic. It was Mr. Carrier who introduced the
21 document, and I think the Prosecution was invited to check the
22 translation of that document.
23 Any report on that?
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I just report as soon after
25 the break.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You may do so.
2 Then, finally, there is a request pending for adding two
3 witnesses to your 65 ter list. One of them being Witness MM-026, which
4 is the witness scheduled first in the first week of January,
5 Mr. Mikulicic.
6 MR. MIKULICIC: That is correct Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Now the Chamber was about to finalize a decision on
8 the matter, but a filing of last Friday, because the two witnesses you
9 are seeking leave to be added to your 65 ter list, your filing of last
10 Friday doesn't deal in any way with Witness MM-026, as you have called
11 her, however, the Chamber is not in a position at this moment to deliver
12 its written decision on the matter, because the filing of last Friday
13 complicates at least the other part, that is MM-027.
14 Now we thought that it was urgent for you to know whether we
15 would at least grant the request in relation to Witness MM-026 because
16 she was scheduled for later in December. Now she has been moved to early
17 January. At the same time, you announce that perhaps one of the
18 witnesses in the week of the 14th to the 18th of December might not be
19 available. So not knowing whether you would like to fill that gap with
20 Witness MM-026, the Chamber considers it wise already to inform you about
21 the decision, that leave is granted to add Witness MM-026 to your 65 ter
23 I've got no idea whether there are any request for protective
24 measures, that's the reason I'm using -- not. Then we are talking about
25 Snjezana Bagic.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: That's correct, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But I'm afraid that witness -- the number MM-026 has
3 already been assigned earlier to another witness, so I would -- I would
4 invite you to -- to assign another number to Snjezana Bagic, and where I
5 earlier said that leave is granted to add Witness MM-026, I'm now more
6 precise and saying that leave is granted to add Snjezana Bagic to your
7 65 ter list, although another MM number --
8 MR. MIKULICIC: It will be MM-028 Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Twenty-eight.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: And just to inform you, as we put Ms. Bagic to
11 testify on the first week of January, in our schedule it was done with
12 exchange of consultation with my learned colleague Mr. Waespi, and that's
13 for -- that's we moved her on the beginning of the next year.
14 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that that has got something do with
15 availability of expert knowledge in the Prosecution team on the matter
16 Witness Bagic will testify about?
17 MR. WAESPI: This is correct, Mr. President.
18 And in addition to what's being said right now, I would like to
19 inform that you we would like to respond or to reply to the response by
20 the Markac Defence on the second expert. I forgot the number. I think
21 it is Witness 27 to be added. I believe we have 14 days or something,
22 but we will certainly respond by Wednesday or Thursday.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has received this filing, and the
24 Chamber will consider how to proceed with that, but does not obstruct you
25 at this moment from preparing a further submission. Although there is no
1 commitment by the Chamber at this moment that this is the by receiving
2 further submissions that that's how we want to deal with the matter.
3 It's fresh. It arrived, I think, two minutes to 4.00 on Friday.
4 We have looked at it over the weekend and this morning. We will further
5 consider that matter as soon as possible.
6 These were the procedural matters I had on my list.
7 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour. Just to stress the point that
8 the leave from my learned colleague to reply would be in fact surreply to
9 response to reply. So just --
10 JUDGE ORIE: But at least Mr. Waespi indicates that everything
11 will be done within the time-limits that's already -- in this context --
12 MR. MIKULICIC: That will be helpful of course.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- that's something new at all.
14 We will -- it was clear, Mr. Mikulicic, where we are with this --
15 with this witness who is an expert witness.
16 We'll have a break, and we'll resume at 1.00 sharp.
17 --- Recess taken at 12.37 p.m.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 --- On resuming at 1.08 p.m.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I took a risk by saying sharp.
21 This is not to -- to be interpreted that "sharp" is ten minutes
22 after the time indicated. The Chamber apologises, but we had urgent
23 matters to deal with, which took more time than expected.
24 Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to continue?
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
1 Mr. Registrar, may I have D409, please.
2 Q. Mr. Moric, I'm going to call up some documents that we have
3 already looked at. And this is in relation to --
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, if you could go to the Croatian page 4,
5 and the English page 5, I would be grateful, Mr. Registrar.
6 Q. We already looked at this document, Mr. Moric. This is the
7 meeting on 2nd August, where you met with the -- with your minister,
8 Mr. Jarnjak, and the minister of defence, Mr. Susak.
9 Now can you tell the Trial Chamber at these meetings, was there a
10 discussion about crimes committed in the previous operations,
11 particularly in Operation Flash?
12 A. Excuse me, but may I, before answering your question, see the
13 list of attendees?
14 Q. I'm referring to the meeting at 7.30 where the minister -- it's
15 right in front of your screen, Mr. Moric --
16 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, it's 1730.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, 1730. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: You misspoke. Yes.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm referring to the meeting at 1730 where the
20 minister of defence, the minister of interior, and yourself, you met,
21 which is right in front of your --
22 JUDGE ORIE: We see it in English, but Mr. Moric could not yet
23 see it in the B/C/S version. He now can. You see it at the bottom of
24 the page, Mr. Moric? Yes?
25 Please proceed.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
2 Q. Was it just the three of you who met, or were there other people
3 at this meeting?
4 A. Could I see the rest of the document? To see if there was anyone
5 else present.
6 Q. Yes, of course. We could go do the next page. But don't you
7 recall that meeting? You already spoke about it during Mr. Kay's
9 A. No. It's just that I would like to see precisely what the
10 document states.
11 You asked me if there were other persons in attendance at the
13 Q. No, I only asked that in response to when you raised it. My
14 question was really was in relation to this meeting: Were crimes
15 committed in previous operations, specifically in Operation Flash,
16 discussed at this meeting, between Minister Jarnjak, Minister Susak, and
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me.
20 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me. I just -- I rise with this particular
21 document being shown to the witness, and we had some questions go back
22 and forth. But if the witness can be informed what this document is that
23 is he being -- that he is looking at.
24 I can advise the Court what it is, but I'm sure counsel knows
25 what it is as well.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Ms. Mahindaratne, you refer to the fact that the witness, that
3 questions were put in relation to the witness. But if in half a line you
4 could say this the meeting, then the day, 2nd of August, because that
5 seems to be the date --
6 MR. KEHOE: But it goes to the question of the number of
7 attendees and this came in --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne understands that she is briefly in
9 half a line, to introduce the meeting to the witness so that he is better
10 able to orient himself.
11 Please proceed.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
13 Q. Mr. Moric, we in fact discussed this during Mr. Kay's examination
14 with you. You recall there was a meeting on 2nd August between
15 Mr. Susak, the defence minister, Mr. Jarnjak, minister of the interior,
16 and yourself, which took place at 1730. This document is the minutes of
17 that meeting.
18 MR. KEHOE: I object, Mr. President. That is not the minutes of
19 the meeting. These are -- General Lausic's notes of that meeting to
20 which he attended.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. My apologies. I
23 should have specifically said. I actually forgot, Mr. President, that
24 was the reason. My apologies.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
2 Q. This is not official minutes, Mr. Moric, I should have mentioned
3 that. This is General Lausic extract of his diary.
4 Now, do you -- you recall this meeting. You didn't have a
5 problem about this when, in fact, when Mr. Kay examined you on this
7 A. I remember the meeting but, excuse me, I was puzzled by the
8 mention of the minutes, because I don't recall the minutes, and that's
9 why I asked to see who was present in order to be able to think back
10 within that context.
11 Q. My apologies, my mistake. Now you now exactly what this document
13 Now, I'm going to the meeting. My question to you is, at this
14 meeting -- and we don't have to focus on this document for it. At this
15 meeting, were crimes committed in the previous operations,
16 Operation Medak, and specifically Operation Flash, discussed between
17 Mr. Susak, Mr. Jarnjak, and yourself? That's my question.
18 MR. KEHOE: Once again, if I could just put it this in context,
19 Mr. President. General Lausic is there.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I don't think this should be
21 discussed in the presence of the witness if Mr. Kehoe is going to --
22 MR. KEHOE: I think that the document should be accurately
23 presented to the witness that these are notes taken by General Lausic at
24 this meeting. And if that's what this -- has been discussed throughout
25 this trial.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Ms. Mahindaratne, do you agree that these are the notes taken by
3 Mr. Lausic?
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Absolutely, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then why not --
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I said that to the witness. I don't know why
7 Mr. Kehoe --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see what exactly you said.
9 MR. KEHOE: If we can look page 70, line 18.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm -- as a matter of fact, we should stop these
11 kind of discussions. These are the notes made by Mr. Lausic on that
12 meeting. Please put your question, preferably a question without too
13 many further introductions. I think --
14 The question was whether you remember, that at this meeting,
15 crimes committed during Operation Flash were discussed, yes or no. Could
16 you tell us.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I recall that we
18 discussed the matter as a problem that we were faced with, and that
19 should not be repeated.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Place your next question, Ms. Mahindaratne.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. At that meeting, was it discussed that the crimes were committed
23 in -- that the crimes that were committed in Operation Flash were
24 committed by military personnel? Was that fact discussed?
25 A. No. We discussed about -- the problem as a problem that existed,
1 regardless of who committed it. Unfortunately, there were crimes
2 committed by both civilians and soldiers, or individuals in uniforms.
3 Our discussions were of a general nature.
4 Q. Now, is it correct that this meeting was conducted for purposes
5 of planning the policing of the liberated territory; is that right?
6 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, unfortunately, that's not true. The ministers
7 of defence and internal affairs are not the ones that are competent for
8 this sort of planning. This was a general meeting, at which the
9 ministers cautioned about the problem that we had earlier on, and the
10 fact that Mr. Lausic and I were supposed to be in charge of the whole
11 matter at the operative level in such a way as to prevent such crimes
12 committed and, if that should prove possible, to reduce them to the
14 Q. Now, your testimony is that at this meeting, you said we
15 discussed about the problem as a problem that existed regardless of who
16 committed it. Can you tell the Trial Chamber what exactly was discussed
17 in terms of the crimes at this meeting, without just saying to generally
18 discuss, can you tell the Trial Chamber what was the -- the line of the
19 conversation? Was it stated that crimes could be committed again after
20 Operation Storm because the same thing had happened in Operation Flash?
21 A. Ms. Prosecutor, at the ministerial level, this was roughly how
22 matters stood. The ministers would refer to a problem and present a
23 position on it. They do not go into analysing or planning operative
24 procedures --
25 Q. Mr. Moric, if I could interrupt.
1 A. But if you insist I could --
2 Q. I'm not asking you as to how the ministers generally do it --
3 speak. But my question is, you were present at this meeting. Can you
4 please tell the Trial Chamber what exactly was stated with regard to
5 crimes committed in previous operations. Was it said that the same thing
6 could happen after Operation Storm? That's my question.
7 A. Yes. It was said that we might have these problems all over
8 again and that we should get organised in such a way as to make sure that
9 they do not occur or that they occur as few and far between and possible.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, if the witness has told us that
11 they discussed that they should not be repeated, would that not
12 automatically include that you considered the possibility that it would
13 happen again? Otherwise, there's no need, is there, to discuss that it
14 should not happen again.
15 So, therefore, that is part of the answer which -- I do not
16 understand what then the -- what you're seeking to establish.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I will just go to
18 the next question.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
21 Q. Now, was it discussed at this meeting that in Operation Flash,
22 there was a problem about the military police cooperating with the
23 Ministry of Interior forces in addressing crimes committed by military
24 personnel? Was that discussed at this meeting?
25 A. Unfortunately, I cannot confirm this with any certainty. I do
1 not rule out the possibility that this was discussed too. It's just that
2 I can't be certain that this was discussed.
3 Q. Okay. Looking at Mr. Lausic's notes here, if you could focus on
4 what the minister of the interior, Mr. Jarnjak, had stated. He writes:
5 "It cannot be the same model as Operation Flash as more places will be
6 occupied. The military police follow the front line and the civilian
7 police enter populated areas."
8 And the third point is:
9 "Shutting down of catering establishments within a 50-kilometre
10 range from a place ordered by government."
11 Is that a reference to shutting down establishments where alcohol
12 was being served? Is that a reference from your recollection; could you
14 A. Frankly, I don't recall the topic as noted down by Mr. Lausic, as
15 having been discussed at the meeting. However, based on the formulation
16 here and based on my police experience, I can state that this referred to
17 catering establishments because that was where large groups of people
18 normally gather and they might be at risk of artillery fire or
19 multi-barrel rocket-launcher fire from occupied areas.
20 Q. The fourth point is:
21 "Introduction of curfew." And it says, "Karlovac, Sisak, Gospic,
22 Zadar, Sibenik."
23 Now after Operation Storm, the initial attack was completed, was
24 a curfew imposed?
25 A. I don't remember, but I don't think so.
1 Q. Was it that every contemplated, Mr. Moric, for instance when the
2 Ministry of Interior faced problems in controlling the crimes? Was that
3 ever contemplated, Mr. Moric, when, for instance, the Ministry of
4 Interior faced problems in controlling the crimes? Was it ever
5 contemplated, perhaps a curfew, imposing a curfew might help the Ministry
6 of Interior to bring the territory under control?
7 A. My associates and lower level teams of specialists contemplated
8 this idea, but, in this particular problem, as was the case with others,
9 too, there was a discrepancy between the peacetime mechanism of activity
10 and wartime circumstances, and one always had to find this fine line in
11 the restriction of movement of citizens at large.
12 Q. Now, Mr. Moric, we heard on a number of occasions you said --
13 told the Trial Chamber how it was difficult to control the situation.
14 Now, understandably, this is wartime. But what was the
15 difficulty in imposing a curfew to enable the law enforcement forces to
16 address the situation more fully or better? What was the problem that
17 you had?
18 A. The problem was in the concept of a democratic and civic state.
19 In an area that was occupied a day or two previously, should the same or
20 similar state of affairs be introduced, and, thus, shutting it out of any
21 normal activity. The idea was to normalize the situation.
22 In practical terms, had we, over such a vast territory,
23 introduced or imposed a curfew, we would have difficulties in
24 implementing this measure alone. Last week, we mentioned the 11.000
25 square kilometres, numerous local and dirt roads. With a curfew imposed,
1 the job would have been practically impossible to carry out, if the
2 police had to patrol the area for persons who were in breach of curfew
3 and concentrate on these matters.
4 Q. Let me call --
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could have D45, please.
6 Q. And you will see in a moment, Mr. Moric, that will be official
7 minutes of your working meeting with the military police administration
8 officials on 3rd August.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if you could go to -- in English page 4,
10 Mr. Registrar, and Croatian page 2.
11 Q. There, in the English page, the last page, and in the Croatian,
12 if could you move to the next page, please.
13 This refers to a statement you made at that meeting, Mr. Moric.
14 This is what you say:
15 "He further said that ... in Western Slavonia he had noticed
16 activities of loose cannons, persons who did not take part in combat
17 activities but were spotted in the area of the front line wearing HV
18 uniforms, raiding houses and 'administering rough justice.' He also
19 pointed out that occurrences of abuse of MUP uniforms had been noticed,
20 namely four persons were found. They are in MUP uniforms. And only
21 later it turned out that they were SIS employees."
22 Now, earlier on, you told the Trial Chamber that you had no
23 information of the investigations or charges processed against crimes
24 committed in Operation Flash. So if you didn't have that information,
25 how were you then able to describe the categories of perpetrators and to
1 say that some were wearing HV uniforms and some were not taking part in
2 combat activities, they were loose cannons, I mean how were you able to
3 give this type of description if in fact you had no information on the
4 investigations conducted into those crimes?
5 A. Madam Prosecutor, I didn't say that I didn't have any information
6 at all. I told you that we were well-informed about trends and that we
7 monitored trends.
8 It is true that I was never informed about any investigations in
9 any particular cases, because that was not a subject of my interest and
10 that was also not my responsibility. In other words, I was only informed
11 about trends. And here we're talking about loose cannons, and that was
12 one of the trends recorded at the time.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If you could move to the next page in the
14 English document. And the Croatian, we can remain on the same page.
15 Q. There's report on what Major-General Lausic had said. He said:
16 "He said in his introductory address that the meeting of
17 ministers which had been held the previous day as well as a meeting of
18 the highest officials an officers of the HV held in the war room of the
19 Ministry of Defence had, among others, rendered the military police and
20 the MUP responsible for complete efficiency in carrying out tasks during
21 combat activities of the HVO. He also pointed out that the commanders of
22 the HV units were warned that they would be personally responsible for
23 the discipline of their subordinates. Otherwise, not even a much larger
24 number of the military police force would be able to secure discipline?"
25 Do you recall General Lausic making that statement at this
1 meeting? This is the working meeting on 3rd August.
2 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President, I think if we look at the
3 -- I apologise. If we look at the Croatian, I believe that line should
4 be HV and not HVO, if we look at the original, Mr. President.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, you're right. Thanks, Mr. Kehoe.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you then invite the witness to -- to
7 answer the question but then the right version which is in his own
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
10 Q. You could read, Mr. Moric, General Lausic's statement there in
11 Croatian and tell me if you recall that statement being made at that
13 A. I apologise, Madam Prosecutor. In this document, Mr. Lausic
14 mentions two meetings from the day before. He says that there were two
15 meetings the day before. The first one was a meeting of the ministers of
16 defence and the interior, and then, a meeting of the top officials and
17 officers of the Croatian Army.
18 As far as I can remember, the second meeting of the top officials
19 and officers of the Croatian Army which could include what is mentioned
20 in here is the meeting that I didn't attend, and I wouldn't know whether
21 Mr. Lausic spoke about that or not.
22 Q. You misunderstood, Mr. Moric. My question was: At this meeting,
23 this minute says that General Lausic said at the third meeting that, At
24 the previous meeting such and such was discussed. I'm not asking about
25 whether General Lausic said anything of this sort at the previous
1 meeting. My question is at the working meeting on 3rd with the minister
2 of the interior officers, including your yourself, do you recall
3 General Lausic making a statement that at the previous meeting, this
4 statement had been made. That is my question.
5 A. I apologise for having misunderstood you the first time around.
6 I don't remember him saying that. However, I don't have any reason to
7 doubt the document which says that he did say that. I can only believe
8 that he did.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could just move, Mr. Registrar, to
10 page 7.
11 Q. There, page 7 of the English, and in the Croatian it's page 4.
12 There you are -- Major Lausic saying this:
13 "He informed those present about the order issued by the Minister
14 of Defence according to which the only persons allowed to enter the area
15 of combat activities would be those having a permission signed by the
16 assistant minister, Brigadier Markica Rebic, and by the chief of the
17 political administration, Major-General Ivan Tolj."
18 And then he goes on to say:
19 "With regard to the meetings, he informed those present about the
20 order according to which every visit by foreign citizens would be
21 registered in the form about which the SIS would be informed."
22 You go on to say:
23 "The Assistant Minister Josko Moric announced that entries and
24 exits of towns were going to be secured, as part of the MUP
1 Now, those passes that General Lausic refers to, for how long did
2 those -- did they operate or were they valid after the liberation of the
4 A. Madam Prosecutor, this document says that they were applicable to
5 the area where there was combat going on. So it is only logical that
6 they were valid for as long as combat was going on, and as soon as the
7 combat was over, there was no need to have them in place.
8 Q. When you say it's logical, to your knowledge, do you know a
9 particular point at which these passes were not required for people to
10 enter the combat territory?
11 What is your knowledge, Mr. Moric, on this issue? I'm not asking
12 you to tell what's logical.
13 A. Madam Prosecutor, I really don't remember that we ever had any
14 problem with this. This was public knowledge. I don't know for how long
15 the passes were valid or that we had any problem with them.
16 Q. Now, according to what you said at this meeting, the fundamental
17 police were to secure the entries and exits of towns. Was that done?
18 Did you implement that order -- did you implement that plan?
19 A. Yes. We could see that from some of the documents presented last
20 week work orders issued to commanders and police officers, and their
21 reports speaking about checks that they performed at the exits and
22 entrances into the town.
23 Q. Now, in addition to that, isn't it correct that you also issued
24 an order to close down the roads to civilian traffic, as of 3.00 a.m.
25 4th August? And if you want to, I can also show you your order.
1 A. Could you, please.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if we could have D --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do that, Ms. Mahindaratne, I'm looking at
4 the clock. It is quarter to 2
5 document, and I take it that you have a few questions for the witness on
6 that, then I'd rather first now adjourn so that we can continue tomorrow.
7 Could I ask you, are you on schedule? You said you expected less
8 than the six.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President, I wouldn't go -- I
10 certainly won't go beyond six, but I expected only about five, perhaps
11 going a little over. At this stage, it's difficult for me to say if I
12 would go to the sixth session, but certainly five session, which would
13 mean by the second session tomorrow, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you could try to elicit the evidence as
15 focused as possible, that would save time.
16 Mr. Moric, you receive the same instructions that you received
17 before, that is, that you should not speak with anyone about your
18 testimony, testimony already given today or last week, or testimony still
19 to be given. And we'd like to see you back tomorrow at 9.00, because we
20 adjourn, and we will resume, Tuesday, the 8th of December, at 9.00 in
21 Courtroom I.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.
23 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 8th day of
24 December, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.