1 Tuesday, 8 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.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
9 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T,
10 the Prosecutor versus Gotovina, et al. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 The Chamber is aware that there is a scheduling issue. We'll
13 deal with that later today, not at this very moment.
14 Mr. Moric, good morning to you as well.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to remind you again that you are still
17 bound by the solemn declaration that you have given at the beginning of
18 your testimony.
19 Are you ready, Ms. Mahindaratne?
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would appreciate if you try to finish in
22 two sessions, certainly not more.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will try my best, Mr. President. Thank you.
24 Mr. Registrar, may have I document D1759, please.
25 WITNESS: JOSKO MORIC [Resumed]
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 Cross-examination by Ms. Mahindaratne: [Continued]
3 Q. Good morning, Mr. Moric.
4 A. Good morning, Madam Prosecutor. Good morning, Your Honours.
5 Good morning to everyone in the courtroom.
6 Q. Now, we noted during direct examination that you issued an order
7 to reopen the roads on 8 August, and this is at transcript reference
8 2556. In fact, Mr. Mikulicic brought that order up which showed the
9 roads being opened on 22nd -- I'm sorry, on 8 August at 2200 hours.
10 Now that was pursuant to the closure of the roads at 3.00 a.m.
11 4 August. Isn't that correct?
12 A. Yes, Madam Prosecutor, it's correct.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, I think the document that's on --
14 it's D1759. Thank you.
15 Q. And this is the order by which you closed the roads; isn't that
16 correct, Mr. Moric?
17 A. That's correct, Madam Prosecutor.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I have D1769 on the screen,
20 Q. And then after opening the roads on 8 August, you also issued an
21 order prohibiting access to the liberated areas. That is, restricting
22 movements to unauthorised persons. Isn't that correct?
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if I could have D1769 on the screen.
24 Thank you.
25 Q. In fact, you can see the -- you order on the screen. It says
1 arrival of reports and public figures in the liberated area.
2 "Allow all reporters accredited in the Republic of Croatia
3 work freely without necessary permission [sic] in the area of Petrina and
4 the Plitvice Lakes
5 Republic of Croatia
6 liberated areas."
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if I could go to the next
9 Q. "When distinguished and generally known public persons enter the
10 liberated area, you must consult the duty operations of operative action
11 staff, MUP Povratak staff, and for all other persons access to the
12 liberated area is prohibited until further notice."
13 So you, by this order, restricted access generally to all
14 persons, unauthorised persons to the liberated area; isn't that correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber as to how this order was
17 implemented on the ground. Was it by means of the civilian police
18 check-points? How was it implemented on the ground?
19 A. By means of the civilian police check-points, yes. There was no
20 other way.
21 Q. Okay. Thank you for that.
22 Now, moving on, Mr. Moric --
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could have document P203
24 on the screen, please.
25 Q. During direct examination -- while that document is coming up,
1 you will not be familiar with that document. My question to you is:
2 During direct examination when Mr. Mikulicic showed you the
3 18th August order - that is, for the record, D49 - and it was discussed,
4 you were asked as to when you got information on the increase in the
5 number of crimes. And let me tell you exactly what you said. This is at
6 transcript page 25561. Your answer was, you said:
7 "If I rely on the date of this document, which is the 18th of
8 August, then my assessment would be that that my co-workers and myself
9 realise that we are facing a deluge of crimes and that pattern began a
10 few days before that day, let's say around the 15th of August."
11 Now, do you see on the screen, Mr. Moric, this is a report from
12 Mr. Ante Gugic head of security information to the minister of defence
13 and Dr. Miroslav Tudjman send on 8th August. In paragraph 4 the report
15 "In the liberated area ... of hinterlands of Zadar and Sibenik
16 the establishment of the civilian authorities is not being carried out in
17 a satisfactory pace. More precisely, in the liberated settlements" --
18 and there are settlements indicated there, including Djevrska and
19 Kistanje, "the situation is rather chaotic. Incidents of mass burning of
20 houses, plundering of property, alcohol consumption occur and the units
21 lack organisation. The reason for such a situation is the insufficient
22 engagement of the command personnel of the units."
23 Now, were you informed of the situation on 8th August, or perhaps
24 the following day, on 9th August, by any person, either by the minister
25 of the interior or any other agency?
1 A. No. As for the villages indicated here, Bribirske Mostine,
2 Djevrska, and Kistanje, I was not informed about them in such a way.
3 Nobody informed me, either the minister or anybody else.
4 Q. Now, even apart from these villages, on or around 8th August,
5 were you informed by either the minister of the interior or any agency,
6 other agency, Ministry of Defence, or from other intelligence services
7 that there was a problem about military personnel burning houses and
8 committing crimes?
9 A. No. Nobody informed me about that. It was not logical to
10 discuss a possible problem in the military with me, or inform me about
11 that problem.
12 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
14 MR. KEHOE: If I may, if the witness is permitted to read the
15 whole document, that page and the next page, to put this matter in
16 context, and I'm talking about that paragraph and the next paragraph, I
17 think it would assist the Chamber.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
19 Q. Mr. Moric, if you prefer to read the entire document.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: However Mr. Kehoe, could always address if
21 there are any issues in re-examination, Mr. President. But I don't want
22 to --
23 JUDGE ORIE: He could. Let's not argue the matter. Also if you
24 can prevent in a neutral way to get half of the answers now and that the
25 remainder of the answer later on, then it could have be preferable to
1 have the right answer right away.
2 Please proceed.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
4 Q. Mr. Moric, if you prefer to read the entire document, and perhaps
5 the next page also, and if you have any additional comment to make
6 regarding this issue, please do so.
7 Have you read the entire document?
8 A. No. In the meantime, the document has been turned to the
9 following page. Could we please go back to page 1.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, please.
11 Q. Have you read this document? Do you have anything to add or
12 comment on this matter? We just read it -- on the point that I have
13 discussed with you.
14 A. I believe that there is another relevant piece of information in
15 the last paragraph on page 1. In the last and penultimate lines, the
16 author of this information says that he had informed the police
17 administration of Zadar and Knin about the problems that had been noticed
18 in the aforementioned villages.
19 Q. Now, going back to my question earlier on, if you had been
20 informed about the problem about military personnel burning houses and
21 committing crimes, about -- on or about the 8th August, your answer was,
22 Nobody informed me about that. It was not logical to discuss a possible
23 problem in the military with me or inform me about that problem.
24 So is it your position, Mr. Moric, that when to comes to crimes
25 committed by military personnel, generally, you were not informed of that
1 because you were in the Ministry of Interior. Is it -- is that your
3 A. That is not my testimony. My testimony is in regard with the
4 specific villages in this document.
5 As for any problems that involved members of the Croatian Army or
6 people in uniform sporting the visual identity of the Croatian Army is
7 something that I was informed about in terms of that being a trend, a
8 type of problem that prevailed or appeared.
9 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber as to when, what were the first
10 time after the liberation you heard about this trend of persons in
11 military uniforms committing crimes? When -- when was the first time you
12 heard, approximately?
13 Now, earlier on, you said about the 15th of August. Now, I'm
14 pointing out that this information was available to the Ministry of
15 Defence on or around 8 August. Now, when did you hear about it for the
16 first time?
17 A. I can't be specific about the time when I heard that. I can't
18 give you the exact day, or date. This information is about three
19 villages, three very specific villages, so I really can't tell you when
20 it was that I heard about them.
21 Q. Now, isn't it correct that you heard about military personnel
22 committing crimes as early as 7th August?
23 A. I don't recall. I don't recall the date.
24 Q. Okay. Isn't it correct that, in fact, you telephoned
25 Major-General Lausic and informed him about this problem on 7th August?
1 A. Madam Prosecutor, I don't recall the date.
2 Q. Okay. Let me -- then let's look at a document, Mr. Moric.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Can I have, Mr. Registrar, P2174, please.
4 Q. And what I'm going show you, Mr. Moric, is an extract of
5 Mr. Lausic's diary, which is in evidence in these proceedings. That's
7 This, as you can see, is an entry for 7th August, and you note at
8 -- Mr. Lausic has made an entry that at 1845 hours, assistant minister of
9 the Ministry of Interior, J. Moric, has contacted him, and he says:
10 "Assistant Minister S. Reljic reported that Croatian Army members
11 were looting on a large-scale in Benkovac and apparently putting up armed
12 resistance to military police members if they attempt to check them."
13 And then there he has made a note saying: "Brigadier Biskic."
14 Now isn't it correct that you telephoned him on 7th August and
15 told him that Assistant Minister Reljic had reported this to you?
16 A. Madam Prosecutor, I find it very difficult to comment upon the
17 contents of private diaries. However if --
18 Q. Mr. Moric, I'm not asking you to comment. I'm just asking you,
19 either you called General Lausic on 7th August and made -- told him about
20 this matter or not.
21 A. I have already answered your question, and I said that I do not
22 recall the date. It was a very specific answer to your question.
23 Q. Do you recall the telephone conversation? I'm not asking about
24 the date now. First, let me ask, do you recall being informed by the
25 assistant minister, Mr. Reljic, that military personnel were committing
1 crimes in Benkovac? And when -- and attempts to prevent resulted them in
2 threatening with arms?
3 A. No, I don't recall. There were a lot of telephone conversations
4 at the time, so I can't remember this particular one.
5 Q. So you -- you don't recall telephoning Mr. Lausic and having a
6 discussion about crimes in Benkovac?
7 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President --
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President, I will withdraw
10 that. That was a superfluous question, I agree.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
13 Q. Now, Mr. Reljic is the assistant minister in charge of SUP; isn't
14 it? That's Service for Protection of Constitutional Order. Isn't that
16 A. Correct. That's correct.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, can I have D46, please.
18 Q. Now, you will see on the screen, Mr. Moric, your letter to
19 Mr. Lausic dated 10th August where you reported to him that:
20 "Cases are being noted of individual Croatian Army members on
21 liberated territory stealing movable property, burning houses and killing
22 the cattle that strays around the area.
23 "In addition, in some places there is a lack of cooperation at
24 check-points and roadblocks."
25 Now, when you sent this letter to General Lausic, was there some
1 response, a positive response, to this? Did the situation improve or did
2 they -- did you receive any kind of response from General Lausic that
3 indicated the matter was being attended to? Or did the situation improve
4 on the ground?
5 A. I don't recall, Madam Prosecutor, whether I received an answer.
6 At the time we had frequent communications, and I don't remember that I
7 received any answer, which does not exclude the possibility that I did
8 receive an answer. I simply don't remember.
9 Q. Now, Mr. Moric, what you have testified here in terms of these
10 interactions is between yourself and Mr. Lausic. Now, at any time, did
11 you discuss these problems with your minister, Mr. Jarnjak?
12 A. My apologies, I don't understand which problem specifically
13 you're referring to, the ones mentioned in the letter?
14 Q. When you used the term "problems," I'm referring to the terms --
15 I'm referring to crimes committed by military personnel that you have
16 been discussing with General Lausic. Did you discuss that with your
17 minister, Minister Jarnjak? Did you tell him or was there a discussion
18 that crimes are being committed, and it's rampant, and some of the
19 perpetrators are in military uniforms? Was that discussed with the
21 A. But, of course. The minister had to be informed of the trends in
22 the state of security in the area. I did inform him.
23 Q. Now, did the minister at any stage inform you in the course of
24 those discussions that the matter would be raised with the Ministry of
25 Defence, or the President? Or are you aware that the minister had in
1 fact raised these concerns with the Ministry of Defence -- or the
2 minister of defence, or the President, or both of them?
3 A. We did discuss the issue. I know that the minister was concerned
4 over the possible course of events. I know that he discussed the issue
5 frequently with the minister of defence. I don't know if he was in
6 communication with the President of the Republic. However, the logic
7 would indicate that he did.
8 Q. Now, you said that -- that: "I know that he discussed the issue
9 frequently with the minister of defence."
10 Did he ever discuss with you what the response of the minister of
11 defence was, in relation to the crimes being committed by members of the
13 A. In principle, the response was that the head of the military
14 police, the chief of the military police and I, should step up our
15 efforts toward stabilizing security.
16 Q. Now when you say in principle the response was, did the minister
17 tell that you that that was the response of the minister of defence, or
18 are you just saying in a more logical term this was the response? Did
19 the minister at any time tell you that when this concern was raised with
20 the minister of defence, his response was that you and the head of the
21 military police, chief of the military police should step up efforts?
22 A. I apologise, when I said in principle, I meant as a rule. Always
23 when this was discussed, the minister's intention was that the military
24 police and the Ministry of the Interior should do everything they could
25 possibly do in professional terms in order to stabilise the situation.
1 That's what I meant by saying in principle.
2 Q. Mr. Moric, I want to find out what you knew as a fact not as a
3 rule. Was it ever conveyed to you by Mr. Jarnjak that when he raised
4 these concerns with the minister of defence, his response was that you
5 and Mr. Lausic should step up security? Was that conveyed to you by the
6 minister, Mr. Jarnjak?
7 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, I don't know if he said it in so many words, but
8 it was unequivocally clear that this was what was expected.
9 Q. Okay.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, can I have D48, please.
11 Q. Now, a week after you wrote your letter dated 10th August, you
12 have raised this concern again with General Lausic. Now, obviously
13 you're having to reiterate the issue again with General Lausic because a
14 week after your previous letter the matter has not been satisfactorily
15 resolved. So instead of raising the matter again with General Lausic,
16 who obviously has not proved to be too effective, didn't you think of
17 raising this concern with another source, or perhaps through the
18 minister, raising this matter and trying to resolve it through another
20 A. This letter was sent following daily contacts with Mr. Lausic.
21 In answer to your question, I can say that channels or routes
22 other than a more efficient cooperation between the civilian and military
23 police did not exist.
24 Q. Now, from what I understand, when you say this letter followed
25 after daily contact with General Lausic, so as I understand it, at least
1 from the 10th August, you have been in daily touch with General Lausic.
2 And then on 17th August you write to him:
3 "It is apparent from reports submitted by police stations" --
4 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President. I certainly object to that
5 characterisation. That's not what the witness said: At least from
6 10th August he had daily contact with Lausic, that's not what the witness
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Let me just rephrase, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
11 Q. Now we see, Mr. Moric, a letter sent by you to General Lausic on
12 10th August. Now, you just referred to daily contact with
13 General Lausic. Did you have daily contact with General Lausic from
14 10th August up until you wrote this letter to him on the 17th?
15 A. I don't remember if that was really the case, if it was on a
16 daily basis at the time. In that period of time.
17 Q. Now, you -- you just testified, Mr. Moric, that this letter was
18 sent following daily contacts with Mr. Lausic. So can you tell the
19 Trial Chamber when your daily contacts started prior to this letter?
20 A. Everyday contact started with the meeting of the minister of
21 defence, the one that we discussed yesterday. It did not happen every
22 day. It depended on whenever a problem would emerge.
23 Q. Okay. Going to this letter, Mr. Moric, you report to Mr. Lausic
25 "It is apparent from reports submitted by police stations and
1 police administrations that cases of houses being burned down and other
2 people's property being stolen are recorded on a daily basis in the
3 Territory liberated in the Storm operation."
4 Now, you said the reason that this matter could not be addressed
5 is because of lack of cooperation between the military police and
6 civilian police. Now, going by the two documents, D46 and D48, these two
7 documents, your letter sent on 10th and letter sent on 17th, you have
8 been raising this issue with Mr. Lausic for at least one week by
9 17th August. Didn't it occur to you that perhaps, as Mr. Lausic had not
10 proven to be effective, you should try another method, perhaps address
11 the issue with another source?
12 A. Ms. Prosecutor, I didn't say that the problem was big because of
13 the poor cooperation with the military police but because the military
14 police evidently had difficulties of such a nature that we, in the
15 civilian police, did not have, or had to a much lesser degree. However,
16 there was no other way, other than having the civilian police and
17 military police cooperate on this issue.
18 Q. Okay.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I have D48, please. D48.
20 Q. Now following your letter of 17th August, you issued -- I'm sorry
21 D49. My apologies, Mr. Registrar.
22 You issued your 18th August order which has been discussed in
23 court already.
24 Now, as I understand your testimony to be, Mr. Moric, what you
25 said was that in issuing this order, your expectation was that crimes
1 committed prior to 18th August will be investigated after the situation
2 had been brought into control. That's how I understood your testimony.
3 I'm referring to transcript page 25563.
4 Now, if that's the case, why didn't you mention that fact in this
5 order? Why didn't you just, instead of giving a general order such as
6 this, what you say is the meeting must be informed of the decision that
7 cases of torching of houses and illegal taking away of people's movable
8 property that have hitherto occurred will not be operatively
9 investigated, but a stop must be put to cases of this type as of today.
10 Now, why didn't you just add a proviso saying, once the matter is
11 brought under control, investigate the crimes committed prior to
12 18th August retroactively, or some indication to your subordinates that
13 those crimes were to be investigated after the matter is brought under
15 Why didn't you mention that in your order?
16 A. Can I please have the second page of the document?
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if you could have ...
18 THE WITNESS: Mrs. Prosecutor, the documents we discussed
19 yesterday -- last week clearly show that I was in charge of the ordinary
20 uniformed police and prevention, as provided for by the decree on the
21 organisation and manner of work of the Ministry of Interior. Therefore,
22 prevention was my job.
23 As you can see, this document does not mention crime police,
24 because, according to the structure, I am not in charge of that branch.
25 This document has to do with the change of tactics of work employed by
1 the ordinary police. It was to be done in such a way that policemen
2 would not be kept lingering in the areas where, unfortunately, arson and
3 looting had already been committed. Rather, they were to be fully
4 engaged in the prevention of a spate of undesirable events, which does
5 not preclude the crime police from acting in the areas where earlier
6 incidents occurred. Besides, the context of the letter clearly shows
7 that crime-scene investigations would continue.
8 Q. Now, Mr. Moric, now, if your position is that you were not
9 involved in -- your police forces were not involved in crime
10 investigation, what is the benefit or the purpose of your order in
11 paragraph 2? What -- can you tell Trial Chamber exactly how you were
12 getting additional resources in telling the fundamental police that
13 crimes committed prior to 18th August would not be investigated?
14 Now you said -- you used the word that they would not be
15 lingering the in areas of -- where there had been already arson. As I
16 understand your testimony, in -- by paragraph 2, what you're doing is,
17 taking away the fundamental police who would have conducted the on-site
18 investigations to -- towards prevention. Isn't that correct?
19 MR. KEHOE: Just on the form, Mr. President. I object to the
20 comments by counsel beforehand, because I don't know for the purposes of
21 the witness, but I do, if you look at the question and answer that goes
22 for some -- excuse me, the question that goes for some 15 lines, the form
23 of it is extremely confusing and unfocussed, and then we move to an
24 additional question at the end.
25 So just in practice, Mr. President, if we could ask the counsel
1 to just ask a specific question and forestall the commentary prior to
2 that, I think it would be helpful to all.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I must say that it's not uncommon in this
4 courtroom to hear this kind of questions being preceded by comments.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, I'm -- it should not become
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will rephrase. Thank you, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
11 Q. Can you inform the Trial Chamber, Mr. Moric, as to exactly how
12 you intended to benefit, or what was the purpose of -- I don't want to
13 use the word "purpose." How exactly did you intend crime prevention to
14 be benefitted through not investigating crimes committed prior to
15 18th August?
16 Can you explain that?
17 A. A while ago when answering your question, I explained precisely
18 at that point. In other words, ordinary uniformed policemen would not be
19 kept in the vicinity of the homes that had unfortunately already been
20 looted, destroyed or torched, because the crime police will -- not
21 because the crime police would need the assistance of ordinary policeman,
22 but, rather, that the ordinary policemen would be engaged in the
23 prevention of new crimes of such type, whereas, the assistance that the
24 ordinary police would provide in the investigations that would be
25 conducted was to be provided as soon as a state of a security was
2 I think that the document indicates this quite clearly.
3 Q. Now, you said ordinary police would not be kept in the vicinity
4 of the homes.
5 When you use the word "kept," what you're talking about is the
6 involvement of ordinary police in the on-site investigation, isn't it,
7 securing the site, securing the evidence? That's what you're referring
8 to, isn't it?
9 A. I was referring to the following situation.
10 Where there is an area with a number of such homes that need to
11 have police presence until such time as the crime police teams arrive, in
12 order to do their job. In other words, I'm referring to the obligation
13 of the ordinary police to provide security to crime scenes. That's what
14 I'm referring to.
15 Q. Mr. Moric, now, you remember in the examinations you testified
16 when - in fact a question from the Bench - that you were asked as to how
17 many members of the fundamental police are required to conduct an on-site
18 investigation, and you said three for a case of arson. You gave numbers.
19 And those numbers are based on probably - and you could correct me if I'm
20 wrong - on the type of work they have to do at the on-site investigation,
21 in securing the site, collecting the evidence. Isn't that right?
22 A. I didn't provide accurate figures. I think I gave what were
23 average figures. His Honour asked me about what the average was. It was
24 difficult to speak in other terms in the specific cases, so what I gave
25 was a figure on average.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the question was about numbers, whether
2 average numbers or -- so you're responding to a question which was not
3 put to you, because Ms. Mahindaratne did not ask you about accurate
4 numbers. I think that's clear for everyone.
5 May I ask one question, since we have this document now on our
6 screen anyhow.
7 This order is addressing the police administrations, very
8 generally. Would that include the crime police in those police
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It would not include the crime
11 police, because chiefs of police administrations knew that I was in
12 charge of ordinary police and prevention.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, second, on the second page of this
14 document, not to investigate the earlier crimes, but then it continues
15 giving clear instructions on, that on-site investigations have to be
16 conducted, that should be agreed, after every case if the military police
17 wouldn't do it, it would be the civilian police to do it alone.
18 That sounds very much as clear instructions on what the crime
19 police, crime section would have to do, because, on-site investigations,
20 apart from the support from the -- from general police officers seems to
21 be specifically the task of the crime police, isn't it?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, ordinary police
23 provides assistance in this sort of duty, and the document relates to
24 these duties.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, at least you say, Because I was not in
1 charge of the crime police, everyone would have understood that despite
2 the fact that not the support is specifically addressed but a lot of
3 other things as well, whether or not to investigate, whether on crime
4 investigation should take place; if not, that everyone would have
5 understood that your letter was limited only to the ordinary police
6 supporting in these tasks.
7 Is that how I have to understand your answer?
8 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President. Mr. Misetic has a
9 translation issue on the transcript if --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I would first is it directly my question. If
11 not, then I'd rather first have an answer.
12 Mr. Moric, just look at me and -- instead of to the Defence and
13 answer my question, please.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honour. Yes,
15 that's how it should be understood.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
17 Translation issue, Mr. Misetic.
18 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, just so that the Chamber is aware,
19 in the Croatian he said something that was interpreted as, I did not give
20 accurate numbers. I think there may be a different interpretation there
21 that might have been more in the context of what the witness was trying
22 to convey with the word that he used.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 When asked by Ms. Mahindaratne on you giving numbers, you started
25 your answer by saying: "I did not give ..."
1 What kind of numbers? Could you please repeat that.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I meant was that I didn't give
3 precise numbers.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Mr. Moric, going back to my question, those numbers, and I'm not
8 talking about precise, you know, just general numbers that you gave, were
9 on the basis of the tasks that the fundamental police would have to do in
10 an on-site investigation; isn't that correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Superfluous question, Ms. Mahindaratne. If you go
14 through in detail about the questioning, it is how many people do you
15 neat for this, for that, et cetera. Of course, is there security, was
16 one of them, apart from the -- the specialists who would investigate the
17 crime. So, therefore, could you please focus on -- on what really is in
18 dispute, because approximately 30 per cent of your questions are about
19 matters which are so obvious.
20 Please proceed.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. Now, in taking away, when you -- when you -- by this order in
23 paragraph 2, you diverting those sources, the fundamental police involved
24 in on-site investigations towards prevention. Now, didn't it perhaps
25 occur to the Ministry of Interior, perhaps one way to address the
1 situation would have been to use crime police who -- personnel who were
2 involved in tasks other than crime investigation during this period
3 towards crime investigation?
4 A. I apologise, it may be an interpretation issue. But I'm really
5 not sure that I understood your question properly.
6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
7 JUDGE ORIE: Neither did I, Mr. Moric.
8 Could you please rephrase your question.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
10 Q. Mr. Moric, are you aware as to what the priority tasks for the
11 crime police were in the aftermath of Operation Storm?
12 A. I don't understand why. In the aftermath of anything the tasks
13 of the crime police have always been the same.
14 Q. Mr. Moric, are you aware that after the liberation a substantial
15 number of crime police personnel were used for purposes of interviewing
16 prisoners of war in the collection centres and also in searching and
17 investigation -- investigating mass graves where persons of Croat
18 ethnicity were buried? Are you aware that that was the case?
19 MR. KEHOE: Can we have a cite for that, please?
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Kardum's -- I'm referring, for the record,
21 to the testimony of Mr. Kardum, transcript 9306, 9290, and 9400. Also
22 P896, paragraph 41. I could cite -- read them out, if necessary,
23 Mr. President. I have those here.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's split the question.
25 Were you aware that crime police were used for purposes of
1 interviewing those who were, I take it, suspected of rebellion, their
2 activities in the rebellion?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was aware of that, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Second question, Ms. Mahindaratne, was about ... And
5 please put the second part of the question.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
7 Q. Now was it ever considered within the Ministry of Interior that
8 perhaps one way to resolve the situation of shortage of personnel --
9 JUDGE ORIE: The second part of your question was about mass
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Which is, of course, a different category.
13 Please proceed.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
15 Q. Were you also involved that the -- the primary task or the
16 priority task of the crime police during this period, after liberation,
17 was to search and investigate mass graves, in which persons of Croat
18 ethnicity were buried?
19 A. Are you asking me whether I knew that that was a priority?
20 Q. Yes. Whether you were aware if that was in fact the priority
21 task of the crime police.
22 A. No, I wasn't aware of that. Because I also believed that that
23 was not the priority.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, there seem to be two questions.
25 First, were you involved that the crime police did participant in
1 the investigation of mass graves, in which Croats had been buried?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that that
3 was the case.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Do you know what proportion of the time was spent on
5 that task, what percentage of the crime police, or what percentage of
6 their time was spent on these kind of investigations?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't give you an answer to the
8 question. I don't know.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well.
11 Q. Since you don't know, Mr. Moric, I will not pursue that issue any
13 To a question from the Bench -- or just before -- let me just
14 cite what you said. In relation to your order of 18th August, you
15 responded to question, several questions, and I will read out what the
16 Presiding Judge said:
17 Yes, at least you say because I was not in this charge of the
18 crime police. Everyone would have understood that despite the fact that
19 not the support is specifically addressed but a lot other things as well
20 whether or not to investigate, whether on crime investigation that should
21 take place, that everyone would have understood that your letter was
22 limited only to the ordinary police supporting in these tasks.
23 Is that how I have to understand your answer?
24 And unfortunately, you haven't responded to that question,
25 because there was an interruption.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No, the answer was given after the interruption and
2 was in the affirmative.
3 Please proceed.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
5 Q. So you confirm that, Mr. Moric.
6 And then, again, on this order, yesterday, you said that -- this
7 is what you said:
8 "There is not a single document. And no one from police
9 administration asked what this was about. And if they believed that this
10 was incorrect professionally or legally, they were duty-bound to warn me
11 that I was requesting something that was not professionally or legally
12 proper. So it was clear from our daily communication what this was all
13 about and what the intentions were."
14 So your testimony here is, Mr. Moric, that your subordinates
15 understood your 18th August order in the context that you say you issued
17 Now, would you be surprised if you were told that your
18 subordinate officers testified here, in fact, Mr. Cetina testified in
19 these proceedings, and this is what he had to say about your order, and I
20 will read the evidence.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Page number, please, Ms. Mahindaratne.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Transcript page 23589, Mr. President.
23 Q. You say: "I don't recall discussing it with anyone ..." - that
24 is your order - "... but I was not bound by that item. The Law on
25 interior states that once I receive an official order which would be
1 legal, I am under no obligation do implement it."
2 In fact, at page 23415 there was a discussion about this order
3 between the Bench and Mr. Cetina. And he said: "In a certain way it is
4 not in fact in accordance with the law."
5 And he was asked again: "So in a certain way it a violation of
6 the law?"
7 "In a way, yes."
8 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I would ask that the counsel put this
9 in context because the questions in that regard, with regard to
10 immunising for prior crimes, not for the order per se. If we go back
11 through and look at the context of that entire conversation as well as
12 Your Honours' questions of Mr. Cetina, it is clearly talking about
13 whether or not --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, we're not going to tell exactly what
15 the --
16 MR. KEHOE: Yes, I know, my apologies.
17 JUDGE ORIE: If you ask, if you invite Ms. Mahindaratne to give
18 the context, then the same applies as I said before, which is that if you
19 give unclear context, then that would trigger further questioning,
20 whereas if you want to have the right answer right away, as I said
21 before, it is always wise to give the context.
22 Ms. Mahindaratne, there's a clear invitation --
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will do that, Mr. President.
24 Q. And, Mr. Moric, the reference by Mr. Cetina to the illegal order
25 is in relation to your order in paragraph 2, where it says that crimes
1 before 18th August should not be investigated. That was the matter that
2 was being discussed and not the order in its entirety.
3 So this is what Mr. Cetina said, and there is also evidence here
4 by another member of the Ministry of Interior, and I can't go into
5 details of what he said because he testified under protective measures,
6 Mr. Moric, where this order, that particular order in paragraph 2, not to
7 investigate crimes before 18th August was described by him as a flagrant
8 mistake. And this is transcript reference T5845, going up to 546?
9 So, Mr. Moric, are you surprised that your subordinate officers
10 in fact had not understood your order in the context that you say you
11 issued it?
12 A. Madam Prosecutor, I am, indeed, surprised.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, your reference to 5845 for
14 Mr. Cetina's --
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President that was the second witness.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Was the second witness. Thank you.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Cetina's would be 23415 and 23589.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I proceed.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
21 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, I once again object. And if we
22 look at the individual page that is cited by counsel, and I address,
23 Mr. President, you to page 23411, Mr. Cetina's testimony, and if we look
24 at lines 18 to 16 [sic] we can again -- I don't really -- excuse me, 8 to
25 16. I don't want to get ahead of myself, but I ask if we can
1 contextualise this conversation with that in mind.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne may accept your invitation or you
3 can deal with the matter in the further examination of the witness.
4 Ms. Mahindaratne, I leave it to you.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I don't believe I have cited
6 out of context, and I --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. It's clear you do not accept the invitation.
8 Please proceed.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Mr. Registrar, may I have document D595, please.
11 Q. Now, while that is coming up, Mr. Moric, I just want to ask you.
12 In fact to a question from the Bench on this order. You said that you
13 did not in fact issue a -- an order after the 18th August order, asking
14 your subordinates to now go back and investigate those crimes committed
15 prior to 18th August.
16 So in that context, since you did not issue an order now to
17 retroactively investigate those crimes, how did you expect your
18 subordinates to react, you know, you expected them to spontaneously on
19 their own decide, now this is the time to start investigating those
20 crimes? Or did you expect them to individually do it? Can you please
21 explain to the Trial Chamber how you expected your subordinates to resume
22 investigation of crimes committed before 18th August?
23 A. Madam Prosecutor, this would follow up from the technology of the
24 police work. If the police, by way of their everyday work or receive
25 information that a house had been plundered or set on fire, and then if
1 the fundamental police had arrived on site, this would have been
2 registered as a security event in the police administration in the area
3 of which the event had happened. And if then an order is issued to
4 change the tactics of the work of the police and if the police are
5 removed from the area in order to boost the prevention of any new events,
6 then the previous event had already been recorded, and it had already
7 initiated all the subsequent procedures and actions prescribed by the
9 That's why we are faced with the fact that criminal reports for
10 crimes committed prior to the 18th were submitted any time after the
12 Q. Okay. Mr. Moric, just moving on to one other matter.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could have D -- oh, you
14 already have that document.
15 Q. The document on the screen, Mr. Moric, you're familiar with it.
16 Those are the minutes of the meeting that took place in Plitvice on the
17 15th of September. And --
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could have a minute, Mr. President.
19 If could you go to the next page, please.
20 Q. Mr. Moric, do you note, Mr. Cetina's statement there? He reports
22 "... the emphasise on that fact that the biggest part of that
23 area had been occupied. The situation in this area ... he divided into
24 three stages."
25 The first stage, stay of the HV professional unit [sic].
1 Second stage, stay of parts of the units which burnt houses and
2 threatened with arms, and if tried to be prevented from committing
4 And the third stage is stay of civilians which were taking
5 property away on a massive scale.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if you could go to the next
8 Q. Now -- and he says:
9 "He has also assessed the cooperation of the military police as
10 unsatisfactory due to the insufficient number of military policemen."
11 "Chief of Knin police administration agreed with the reply [sic]
12 by Mr. Cetina and assessed the situation as satisfactory, considering
13 these circumstances."
14 Now, Mr. Moric, here's a meeting where you're present, members of
15 the military police administration are present. And a report is made by
16 a chief of a police administration that crimes are being committed by
17 members of the HV and attempts to prevent that is being addressed --
18 responded to with arms, which is a serious issue, in terms of security.
19 Now, did you ever consider raising this with the Ministry of
20 Defence, or did you at least tell your minister that perhaps it was time
21 to raise the matter with the Ministry of Defence without constantly
22 addressing it with Mr. Lausic?
23 A. As for individual cases involving armed threats among people who
24 sported the visual identity of the Croatian Army or were, indeed,
25 soldiers, there were such cases at that time. And the only way to remove
1 that problem was to cooperate with the military police.
2 Q. Yes. But you said that, Mr. Moric, now from -- we have seen your
3 attempt from 10th August, and this is the 15th September, over five
4 weeks, clearly the cooperation with military police has not worked which
5 is why the situation is not as it should be by this stage. Didn't it
6 occur to you that perhaps your efforts so far has not yielded results?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, I'm always listening with one ear
8 here and then with the other ear to Mr. Kehoe, and then -- yeah.
9 If I would like you to make a pause, I'll ask you.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President, I finished my question. I
11 was waiting for a response.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Mahindaratne -- Mr. Kehoe.
13 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, the question that came up was whether
14 or not this was being raised, the issues were being raised with the
15 Ministry of Defence, if the document itself is a joint meeting between
16 the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Defence. It's a -- the
17 document that's on the screen is a document from the Ministry of Defence
18 of the military police administration. So I'm a bit confused concerning
19 the issue of raising this with the Ministry of Defence.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, my question was whether it was
22 raised with the minister of defence.
23 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, Mr. Kehoe, where you said the matter
24 was whether -- first of all, I think the question was about not whether
25 it was done or not, but whether it was considered to do that.
1 MR. KEHOE: Well --
2 JUDGE ORIE: The second -- yes.
3 MR. KEHOE: If you look at page 30, line 3, we're talking about
4 the Ministry of Defence. Doesn't say the minister, it says the Ministry
5 of Defence. And then he says it again, Or did you at least tell minister
6 that perhaps it was time to raise the matter with the Ministry of
7 Defence ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. First I was -- as a matter of fact, it's my
9 recollection from listening to Ms. Mahindaratne that she referred to the
10 minister of defence, but I could be mistaken there. But, of course, if
11 you say instead of addressing it with Mr. Lausic, then, of course, you
12 would expect the level higher up.
13 MR. KEHOE: Just for the sake of precision and clarity my -- my
14 confusion I would assume, if it is being translated to the witness as
15 Ministry of Defence, he may be a bit perplexed.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, this witness, first of all, Mr. Kehoe,
17 has shown several times that if anything is unclear to him, that he
18 immediately asks attention for that.
19 And the question was not whether it was raised, but whether it
20 was considered. That was at least how I understood your question.
21 Mr. Moric, did you consider to raise the matter with the minister
22 of defence instead of to continue discussing the matter with Mr. Lausic,
23 at the level of Mr. Lausic?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Lausic was the
25 relevant address for me. I didn't think about ...
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Taking it up higher. Is that ...
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because, unfortunately, if I had
3 addressed the higher level, they would have referred me to a lower level.
4 The level that was actually the operative level and the one in charge of
5 those matters.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say that's the reason why you didn't raise
7 it with the minister.
8 Ms. Mahindaratne, I'm looking at the clock. I said that the
9 scheduling issue would be dealt with later this morning. The Chamber
10 would like to do it before the break.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So that we have a moment to think about matters that
13 may be raised.
14 For this reason, Mr. Moric, your break starts already now. We
15 deal with a matter totally unrelated.
16 Could you please follow Madam Usher.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: The scheduling issue to be raised, who's going raise
20 MR. MIKULICIC: I can, Your Honour.
21 As it refers to the beginning of the next week, that means from
22 14th up to 18th of December, we are preparing to call Witness
23 Tomislav Penic on the very beginning of the week. But due to yesterday's
24 telephone conversation, it would be impossible for him to come that week.
25 But only after the winter recess.
1 Therefore, we just calculated our witnesses, and suggest that we
2 instead of Mr. Penic on the beginning of next week, we could call
3 Ms. Bagic who was expected to testify after the winter recess.
4 And with that proposal, we address the OTP, and got an answer
5 that they are not, let's me put it this way, they are not agreeing with
6 our proposal.
7 So I am afraid if we just postpone the testimony of Mr. Penic on
8 the beginning of next week, we will have a gap of the witnesses of, let's
9 say, two days at least.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there are two questions. If you wouldn't call
11 Mrs. Bagic, that would cause a delay, unless there would be any other
12 witness that could fill that gap. In that case, there would be no
13 additional delay.
14 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, we have in mind that solution
15 as well. But we simply cannot find some replacement for that period.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then next question is what is there to oppose
17 the rescheduling of Mrs. Bagic from early January until the last few days
18 of December?
19 MR. WAESPI: Good morning, Mr. President, good morning,
20 Your Honours.
21 A lot of sympathy for the Defence position in relation to
22 scheduling of the witnesses. That's very difficult, especially at the
23 end when you don't have many more options.
24 We -- I have said a couple of times, we have written e-mails on
25 that, that there was an undertaking by the Defence in relation to the two
1 witnesses they wanted to add, one of them, Ms. Bagic, to call them at the
2 end of their case, and just distributed this morning, Mr. Kuzmanovic's
3 undertaking that the last two witnesses in the case would be called
4 either in the last two week -- in the last week before the holiday break,
5 or if we go long, after the break. That's on the 13th November.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could I have the literal text of that --
7 MR. WAESPI: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- e-mail.
9 MR. WAESPI: I can read it out:
10 "Dear Stefan, you have received the Bagic statement with the
11 filing, which wasn't the case. If you don't have it, let us know and it
12 will be sent to you today. I will e-mail you the Watts [phoen] CV
13 separately. You will get his report shortly. Both witnesses, if they
14 are called will be the last two witnesses in the case, meaning, either
15 the last week before the holiday break, or if we go long after the break.
16 Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Best, Tom."
17 13th November.
18 And there were a number of conversations with the Defence
19 confirming that this was certainly our position.
20 The next issue is that as we all know that spot in the week
21 before Christmas was reserved for Witness Baric, the expert witness, and
22 again, we have conversation on him. I have not heard any formal
23 undertaking by the Defence to withdraw him or not. That was the issue,
24 why there is a space now before Christmas.
25 In relation to us being ready or not to call Ms. Bagic, based on
1 the undertaking by the Defence in their original motion dated, I think,
2 10th November, to add the two witnesses, we organised our resources and
3 the person who is most familiar with these difficult legal issues is not
4 prepared to start next week for -- for various reasons. That's the
5 reason why we would insist that the Markac Defence fulfil its commitment
6 to call Ms. Bagic after the break.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I do understand that, initially it was
8 announced that she would testify either late December or early January.
9 Then, in the motion in which it was requested to add Witness MM-026, I
10 think it was put that the amendment of the witness list would not result
11 in an unreasonable delay of the proceedings, and any issues concerning
12 preparation time needed for the cross-examination of the witness and
13 conduct of the necessary investigations, that could be met by scheduling
14 the witness to appear at the end of the Markac Defence case.
15 Now, I -- did you raise at any time, because I did understand
16 that from your answer to the motion to add, among others, among another,
17 Witness MM-026, that you didn't raise anything, that only if it would be
18 in January. And, therefore, I'm wondering, we start with the position,
19 either late December/early January, then there's a motion saying if there
20 are any issue, then that could be met by scheduling, and then we get a
21 response saying, without any reservation, that there's no objection to
22 adding Witness MM-026 to the Markac witness list.
23 That -- is there any specific moment where you say, It could not
24 be done before the winter recess?
25 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President --
1 JUDGE ORIE: It should be done in January.
2 MR. MISETIC: Just as a practical matter that may actually
3 accommodate both sides, I note that she's scheduled for the last day that
4 we are to sit before the break, which I think is 16th. And the Markac
5 Defence has asked for three or four sessions of direct examination which
6 would allow us then to have her direct examination and then -- she,
7 anyway, would have had to come back for cross-examination, so perhaps
8 that's an accommodation.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Waespi.
10 MR. WAESPI: Yes, I can --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Gotovina Defence as mediator.
12 MR. WAESPI: Thank you. Yes, that's an option which I will
13 discuss internally.
14 In addressing your points, Mr. President, we did rely on the
15 representation from the Defence that she would be called last. I agree
16 that we did not specifically state in our response, Yes, we want to hold
17 you to the fire in relation to that. But the first moment we were told,
18 I think in an e-mail by Mr. Rendulic, that this witness might be called
19 earlier. I immediately responded by e-mail, went to the Defence,
20 discussed it with them, to tell them that this was not our understanding.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Earlier is an ambiguous expression in this respect,
22 because earlier can mean not the last of the case. But earlier could
23 also mean earlier in time, that is, which month. And I do understand
24 that it has been an option on from the beginning that she would testify
25 perhaps as the last witness in December, and that the Prosecution should
1 have been ready for that and has not made any reservation in this
3 Now let me be very concrete, Mr. Waespi. Is it that this
4 preparation takes so much time, or is it simply that one of your team
5 members who would deal with the matter is not present?
6 MR. WAESPI: It's a combination. And Ms. Gustafson who will deal
7 with Mrs. Bagic is also involved in the 54 bis filing preparations and
8 the closing brief, and so on.
9 Again we are not different from the Defence position, the
10 resources are scarce. But there is a lot of scheduling, a lot of
11 thinking about how to respond to these many issues, and that's why we --
12 we jumped on -- on the issue of reserving the testimony, the important
13 testimony of Ms. Bagic to -- to -- after -- at the end of the Defence
14 case, whenever that it is.
15 JUDGE ORIE: So it is not physical unavailability, but being
16 occupied with other matters, and --
17 I suggest, that, Mr. Misetic, that you suggest to the parties
18 that they would accept your mediation, and if there is no positive
19 result, then, of course, the Chamber will rule on the matter.
20 We have a break, and we resume at five minutes past 11.00.
21 --- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 --- On resuming at 11.10 a.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, from what I know of ADR, it is not
25 always the mediator to be blamed for not being successful because
1 mediation focuses on the activity of the parties themselves.
2 The Chamber is informed that your efforts for which we thank you,
3 has failed. The parties are invited to briefly, in a very short or for
4 you, as the mediator, to tell us exactly what the -- where the problem
5 seems to be problematic. I wouldn't spend too much time on it in court,
6 but --
7 Mr. Waespi.
8 MR. WAESPI: I don't think the mediator talked to me over the
9 break, but --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, the mediation -- what I learned from ADR is that
11 at least the mediator should speak to each of the parties.
12 MR. MISETIC: Yes, but learned also in my experience that when
13 one of the parties has taken a position that in advance, will make it a
14 pointless exercise to speak to the other, then -- that's why I avoided
15 it, Mr. President.
16 In short, the problem was --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I wanted to deal with the matter in
18 further detail in -- in Court at this moment. I was about to invite, to
19 inform in a short e-mail what apparently the problem is, but hearing that
20 the parties have not even met, I would suggest that in the next break,
21 and, of course, we couldn't expect any better result without your
22 assistance, Mr. Misetic, but let's see whether direct contact between the
23 parties as a last ultimate resort for this problem to be resolved,
24 whether that works. If not, the Chamber will rule. And then, the
25 Chamber would really prefer to receive perhaps from the parties, then, in
1 less than half an A-4, a short message to say, This was an obstacle for
2 this party, that was the obstacle for the other party, so that we know
3 exactly what the real problem is. And that's -- yes, I -- I tried
4 desperately not to further bore Mr. Moric with the matter, but -- and to
5 spend as little time on court.
6 MR. MIKULICIC: I have just one sentence, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. MIKULICIC: There is no obstacle on our part at all. So we
9 will follow the ruling.
10 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, we will be ready to start the
11 examination-in-chief and do cross after the break, if that's --
12 JUDGE ORIE: And that seems not to be -- I'm informed that that
13 would, for one reason or another, would not work, and that's the reason
14 why I invite you to sit again together and whether or not with a cup of
16 Let's continue, Ms. Mahindaratne.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Mr. Moric --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Moric, you would offer yourself as a mediator.
21 It's appreciated. No, no, I'm --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before we proceed, I kindly ask for
23 your assistance.
24 When Madam Prosecutor asked me about my 18th of August document
25 and called its legality into question, I expected that I would have an
1 opportunity to provide the Chamber with the facts which indicate that
2 legality is not to be questioned.
3 However, we moved onto a different document in the meantime.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Moric, what happened is that Mr. Kehoe wanted to
5 put the matter in a context in which the several stages of the testimony
6 of the witness who expressed himself on whether or not it is legal or not
7 to give any instructions not to investigate, and we do understand from
8 your testimony that you look at it in a bit different way, is not to
9 never investigate but to leave it until the moment where there's a time
10 and an opportunity to investigate the matter, which, at that time was not
11 specifically addressed and which may have an impact on any assessment of
12 the legality. But I take it that Mr. Kehoe will further deal with the
13 matter. And if not, then you'll have an opportunity to briefly address.
14 But then in -- in a limited context. You will have an opportunity to
15 express yourself. Because I do understand that you're a bit concerned by
16 testimony which would say that your order was an illegal one, that seems
17 to be your concern, which I could understand.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. Mr. Moric, just before we go off this document, I just want you
22 to take note of two entries here, about which I will ask you a question
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If you could move, Mr. Registrar, to the
25 English page, page 4, and the Croatian page 3.
1 Q. There is a record of what Captain Matanic, commander of the 72nd
2 [sic] Military Police Battalion said at this meeting where you were
3 present. In the second paragraph he says:
4 "He mentioned the example of Donji Lapac where even MUP members
5 were setting houses on fire."
6 And then I just want you to take note of that, Mr. Moric, because
7 I will ask about it later on.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If you could move to English page 6 and
9 Croatian, which is on page 4, Mr. Registrar.
10 Q. Then you see your concluding remarks, Mr. Moric. It is recorded
12 "Mr. Moric emphasised that the shift of responsibility led
13 nowhere. He expressed his positive opinion to [sic] reports by
14 Messrs. Cetina, Dasovic, and Matanic.
15 "He also supported remarks made by General Lausic and said that
16 we had an equal responsibility for all citizens of the Republic of
18 everybody is engaged in looting - from civilians to representatives of
19 civilian authorities, and to the members of civilian and military police.
20 The most important thing is to perform one's duties in a professional
21 manner and differentiate from the personal attitude."
22 I just wanted to bring to your notice your concluding remarks
23 because I will ask a question about it now.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if we could have document
25 number D3483.
1 Q. You will see in a moment, Mr. Moric, your order dated
2 13 September August [sic]. I'm sorry, 13th September. And whereby, you
3 have withdrawn police forces, the resources.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If you could go to the top of the page so that
5 Mr. Moric could see the document in its entirety.
6 Q. Now, can you follow the document, Mr. Moric. It's dated
7 13 September, two days before the Plitvice meeting. You order as
9 "On 15th September, 1995, withdraw separate police units in order
10 to reduce the number of police officers, as follows:
11 "Krapina Zagorje police administration shall withdraw 61 officers
12 from Knin.
13 "Primorje-Gorski Kotar police administration shall withdraw
14 50 officers from Gracac.
16 Korenica and 28 officers from Donji Lapac.
17 "Split-Dalmatia police administration shall withdraw 50 officers
18 from Vrlika.
19 "And Karlovac police administration shall withdraw 20 officers
20 from Krnjak.
21 "After withdrawal, the officers shall be assigned to their
22 regular tasks."
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if could you move to the next page on the
24 English, Mr. Registrar.
25 Q. You say: "After withdrawal of the determined number of officers,
1 the number of officers that remains there to help shall continue reducing
2 by 15 per cent per month - during regular replacement of officers."
3 Now, Mr. Moric, I'm trying to understand this. Now, on the 15th
4 itself, we see that meeting where there is a report of parts of units,
5 military units committing crimes, and when it's tried to be prevented,
6 reacting with arms. There is a military police officer who has reported
7 at that meeting that there -- that members of MUP are burning in
8 Donji Lapac. And you, yourself, have concluded the meeting by saying
9 that everybody, including members of the military police and the civilian
10 police, are looting.
11 Now, in this context, why are you withdrawing your police forces
12 from the liberated areas when you in fact testified already that one of
13 the problems you faced was shortage of personnel? How do you reconcile
14 the two positions?
15 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, at the meeting held on the 15th of September at
16 Plitvice, a fraction of the management of the civilian and military
17 police analysed the events that had transpired by that date. In other
18 words, individuals reported on the occurrences, the arising problems, and
19 responses to them.
20 At that stage, we were gradually stabilizing the situation,
21 though we were not fully in control yet. On the other hand, we had other
22 security risks that had to be addressed, the ones that we discussed last
23 week, such as security of the lengthy state border, terrorist attacks,
24 which, unfortunately, were directed at vital infrastructure, the
25 population in the areas were -- that had just been liberated were
1 vulnerable in terms of property being damaged, and this happened, and we
2 were proceeding to gradually man the police stations at the liberated
3 territories at a pace of 15 per cent a month. The procedure went on for
4 the subsequent six months.
5 Q. Mr. Moric, now you said that at the time meeting the situations
6 was analysed, and we were gradually, at that stage you were gradually
7 stabilizing the situation.
8 Now, I didn't see that from the minutes, Mr. Moric, because you
9 -- in fact, your concluding remarks are that "everybody is looting."
10 That's how you finished the meeting, and you conclude that meeting.
11 You testified over and over again and you informed this
12 Trial Chamber that one of the greatest problems you faced was shortage of
13 personnel to address crimes in the liberated area. That's on the one
14 hand. But, on the other hand, we saw yesterday, you withdrew Mr. Buhin
15 who was a specialist in crime prevention and replaced him with an expert
16 in traffic matters. And then you also, in addition to that, reduce
17 forces. Now, to me, your actions at that time somehow is not consistent
18 with the actions of somebody wanting to address a crimes, wanting to
19 really prevent the crimes.
20 How do you respond to that?
21 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, you are focussed on one problem, which took up
22 most of my time as well. The state of security throughout the area and
23 the prevention of crime throughout the country was also my problem.
24 On the other hand, as I put it a moment ago, the intention was to
25 gradually reduce the police personnel over a period of six months by
1 manning the police structures in the newly liberated areas at the same
3 Q. Yes. But what we see in this order, Mr. Moric --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, could we just first try to
5 establish exactly what we're talking about.
6 The withdrawal of the determined number of officers, were those
7 officers who came from elsewhere and had been called to help in the early
8 stages of the liberated areas?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour. They are the
10 ones this is all about.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you took out those who had come from
12 elsewhere and were assisting in the early stages gradually; and, at the
13 same time, you were recruiting police officers to strengthen the police
14 organisation locally. That is, to man the strength of the police force
15 in the area.
16 Is that what we are talking about?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour. That's what
18 we're talking about.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. Now, Mr. Moric, if you were manning, as you say, the police
22 stations in the liberated area with new recruits, then what you're
23 talking about is taking away the experienced personnel and replacing
24 those resources with new recruits who are inexperienced, and thereby
25 manning your police stations in the areas where the crimes were high with
1 persons who are just new to the service. Isn't that correct?
2 A. No, Mrs. Prosecutor, you're not right. That was not the
3 intention, nor did this happen in actual fact.
4 Q. Can you explain how then did you replace these officers who were
5 being withdrawn as we see in this order? We see numbers of officers
6 being withdrawn. How and by what numbers did you replace them? Do you
7 have any documentation to substantiate or to provide that information, or
8 can you tell us right now?
9 A. There is documentation in the Ministry of the Interior dating
10 from that period, including the decision of the ministerial collegium,
11 whereby assistant ministers for personnel financial affairs, and other
12 matters provide their support to the process.
13 Let me draw your attention to this fact. What is the area that
14 these policemen are returning to? They are going back to Zagreb
15 Krapina, Rijeka
16 normally reside and work and where, according to the labour law and other
17 valid legislation they exercised all of their rights. It was impossible
18 to keep them in the area all the time. It was reasonable for us to plan
19 a gradual replacement of the personnel with individuals who would be
20 permanently settled and work in the area.
21 Q. If could I just ask you one question based on that answer,
22 Mr. Moric.
23 Now, we see, according to this order, for example, if you take
24 the first entry, The Krapina Zagorje police administration withdraw 61
25 officers from Knin. Is the replacement of those 61 officers immediate,
1 or you just use the word gradual, or was the replacement gradual?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, let's try to understand what we
3 have in front of us. On 15 September withdraw separate police units in
4 order, and then we get the numbers.
5 Then on the next page of this document it says:
6 "After withdrawal of the determined numbers [sic] of officers,
7 the number of officers that remained [sic] there to help shall continue
8 reducing by 15 per cent per month during regular replacement of
10 So the document seems to be perfectly clear. Take out the 60,
11 look at what remains, and then gradually withdraw 15 per cent every month
12 of those remaining.
13 So if talking about gradually, we start with a fixed number and
14 then we continue gradually, at least I have difficulties in any way
15 understanding in a different way. So the question, was it done gradually
16 or not, is -- first of all, I think the document gives the answer.
17 Whatever conclusions to be drawn, whether it would be fair, whether it
18 would be -- but the system is set out with, in my view, extreme clarity
19 in this document. And the question, was it done gradually is not, is --
20 seems to be confusing, rather than to add anything.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I was really focussing on the
22 determined number, the 61, and not the 15 per cent.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it says on the 15th of September withdraw
24 60 men, that seems not to be -- after withdrawal, then do it gradually
25 every month. So, therefore, even in this respect, unless there's any
1 reason to --
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it? On the 15th of September, take out 60
4 here, 80 there, whatever. After that, those remaining of those who came
5 from elsewhere, reduce them by 15 per cent. I really have great
6 difficulties in understanding that you would not understand this document
7 in this way and that you're seeking clarification.
8 Let's briefly ask.
9 Mr. Moric, my interpretation of the document, is that -- you
10 could confirm that that is what the document says. Whatever it's fair or
11 unfair, or appropriate to do, or inappropriate to do, but is my
12 understanding of what the document says right?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You've completely understood the
14 matter, Your Honour.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Mr. Moric, moving onto a completely different area, that is, your
19 testimony about General Cermak's --
20 A. My apologies, can we just briefly go back to the minutes of the
22 Q. We will do that later on, Mr. Moric. I am under limited time.
23 So -- we will go back to prior to -- before closing my examination.
24 At this stage, I just want to address your testimony on what you
25 said about General Cermak.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if we could have document
2 D494 on the screen.
3 Q. I just wanted to ask you, while this document is coming up - and
4 you may not have seen that document or you may have seen it - have you
5 seen any written orders issued by General Cermak to the Knin police?
6 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, I saw some of the documents at a later date.
7 Q. When you say you saw some of the documents at a later date, was
8 it during preparation for testimony here, or did you see it at any other
9 place, any other time?
10 A. No, no, in the context of my preparation for the testimony. I
11 don't recall seeing them before.
12 Q. So the first time you saw written orders issued by General Cermak
13 to the police was when the Defence showed you the documents; is that
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's what the witness just said, Ms. Mahindaratne.
16 I have not seen them before; I saw them when preparing.
17 Try to use your time as efficiently as possible.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Sorry, Mr. President.
19 Q. Now at any stage, had members of the Knin police informed you
20 that they had received orders from General Cermak?
21 A. I don't remember.
22 Q. Okay. Now, are you familiar with this document that is on the
24 A. This is not an order. Yes, I am aware of it.
25 Q. I didn't refer to as your order, Mr. Moric.
1 Now, there is a -- some text at the bottom of the page. Is that
2 your writing?
3 A. No, this is not my handwriting.
4 Q. Where did you see this document? You said you're aware of it.
5 Did you receive this document? It is addressed to the Operation Povratak
6 staff. Did you receive it at any stage?
7 A. I believe that one of my associates showed it to me.
8 Q. And in showing the document, in this letter, the query is:
9 Please reply and confirm in writing the validity of the passes for
10 civilian persons in question and that queries made by the --
11 Mr. Ivo Cipci, I believe, that is the chief of the Split-Dalmatia police
13 Was it you who made the query as to validity of the pass, or your
14 colleague? Can you please explain to the Trial Chamber.
15 A. I apologise, I believe, if I can remember things well, that I
16 ordered my associate to investigate the matter. Because when I saw that,
17 the least I can say was that I was angry.
18 Q. Why were you angry?
19 A. Because restrictions on the movement of people anywhere else but
20 in the areas where combat is going on cannot be within the authority of
21 either the army or the Ministry of Defence.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Moric, I earlier told Ms. Mahindaratne that you
23 had answered the question, but, looking at this document and talking
24 about when you saw these documents, you said that you saw them in the
25 context of your preparation for testimony. I don't recall seeing them
2 Now, half a page later you say, I believe that it was shown to me
3 by -- "I believe that one of my associates showed it to me."
4 And then you say what orders you gave to investigate the matter,
5 et cetera. These answers are not easy to reconcile, on the one hand
6 saying I saw them during preparation for my testimony, and now you start
7 explaining that you believe that it was shown --
8 Mr. Kehoe.
9 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, I believe if we go back to the
10 question on page 48, line 17.
11 JUDGE ORIE: 48, 17. One second.
12 MR. KEHOE: And 18 and 19. It may provide the source of
13 confusion because it is directed towards Mr. General Cermak.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well -- no, it is --
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I can imagine that -- yes.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I agree with Mr. Kehoe that my
18 question was specifically directed at a particular type of document.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. That's -- I was about to say,
20 Ms. Mahindaratne, that I would not have told you that the witness had
21 already answered the question. But, at present, I'll -- I'll refrain
22 from any further comment.
23 Yes, I think it would have been transparent, if, at page 49,
24 line 11, you would have said, Now we move to a different type of
25 document, or a different document, because there was no clear separation
1 between the issue you addressed earlier and the issue you addressed now.
2 But it's clear to me, and I think more careful reading on my side
3 would have prevented me from making my last observation, not my earlier
5 Please proceed.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Moric. If you could go back to -- you said you
8 were angry because -- and let me just see. You said:
9 "Because restrictions on the movement of people anywhere else but
10 in the areas where combat is going on cannot be within the authority of
11 either the army or the -- or the Ministry of Defence."
12 So with whom were you angry, Mr. Moric? Who -- towards whom
13 were [sic] your anger directed?
14 A. It was about the fact that somebody, whoever it may have been,
15 came up with an idea that they might be doing things that they were not
16 within their authority. Whoever it was, as I say.
17 Q. Now, there's a note here that says:
18 "By checking through the Knin police, Colonel General Cermak will
19 issue an order on the annulment of travel passes and free movement of
20 civilians. It must come in writing from Ministry of Defence and the
21 Republic of Croatia
22 Now who made that inquiry from the Knin police with regard to
23 this matter? Was it you, or was it your associate who was attending to
25 A. One of my associates did that.
1 Q. And who was that?
2 A. If memory serves me well, it was Mr. Tomurad. He was the chief
3 of the duty service sector. And that's how things were done. In terms
4 of communication, we communicated with the duty service sector which was
5 a regular procedure whenever we were faced with an operative problem.
6 Q. Now, do you know if any representations were made to
7 General Cermak in order to have these passes annulled? How was it
8 brought about that General Cermak had either agreed or, you know, had
9 undertaken to annul these passes? Can you tell the Trial Chamber as to
10 what exactly transpired for this outcome.
11 A. Unfortunately, I can't tell you exactly what my associate did, or
12 I can't give you the whole scope of the actions that he undertook. But I
13 can give you the end result.
14 Q. Now, beyond this issue, were any other inquiries made from the
15 Povratak staff, as to any other aspects of General Cermak's passes beyond
16 asking whether it was valid. Was the Ministry of Interior asked for any
17 qualifications as to what those passes or to -- against whom those passes
18 could be used, or in relation to whom those passes could be used?
19 A. I'm trying to remember. However, what comes to mind and what I
20 can tell you for a fact is that, at that time, we, in the Ministry of
21 Interior, understood that high officials or high officers of the
22 Croatian Army could request for the issuance of some sort of passes or
23 documents to that effect, and those documents would entitle either
24 soldiers or civilians employed by the army to move freely through the
25 areas and facilities used or occupied by the army or the Ministry of
2 That's how we understood the matter at the time. We believed
3 that the whole matter was restricted to such situations.
4 Q. Okay. Let me show you another document, Mr. Moric.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if I could have -- well,
6 before that, if you could go to the next page of this document, please.
7 Q. Mr. Moric, are you familiar with that pass? Have you seen that
8 -- had you seen this pass before this document -- this letter reached you
9 on 15th August?
10 A. I don't remember having seen it before. I believe that this is a
11 pattern, and I'm not sure that it was precisely this document that was
12 attached to that letter, whether this was the form that was attached to
13 that letter.
14 Q. Okay. Let me call another document, Mr. Moric.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if I could have D496, please. I'm sorry,
16 it should be D495. My apologies.
17 Q. Mr. Moric, are you able to tell the Trial Chamber as to who wrote
18 that entry at the bottom of this pass?
19 A. Are you asking me to identify the author based on the
21 Q. I'm just asking whether you are aware as to who wrote. If you're
22 not aware, that's quite all right. I'm just asking.
23 A. I'm sorry, I don't know.
24 Q. Thank you for that.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could have D496, please.
1 Q. Now, there is an inquiry, a request made from the same police
2 administration that sent your previous letter to the ministry that we
3 looked at, which was D494. And it said:
4 "We ... send and admission to the liberated. We are very
5 pressured by citizens and displaced persons who wish to visit liberated
6 areas Knin and Drnis. We have been informed that the regular Split-Knin
7 railroad line has been restored, which is being regularly announced
8 through the media ... where citizens are informed that they have free
9 transport on the said railroad line in the next ten days. This creates
10 enormous pressure, both at valid checkpoints and in," if you could go to
11 the next page, "... operation staffs because citizens feel that they can
12 travel without any problems [sic] on the said train.
13 "Please give us urgent directions as to how we should act in this
14 newly developed situation."
15 And on this same document --
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If you could go back, Mr. Registrar, to the
17 first page of the English.
18 Q. -- there is a handwritten note saying:
19 "Call the Split-Dalmatia police administration and say that
20 Cermak will annul the passes today."
21 Now, isn't it correct, Mr. Moric, that the document we saw
22 previously, where there was a note at the bottom saying through Knin
23 police administration it was found out that Cermak -- General Cermak will
24 annul the passes, that was connected to this request sent by the
25 Split-Dalmatia police administration, is it the same day?
1 A. No, I don't think that this is about the request that came from
2 the police administration.
3 This document is about a normal train journey on a regular train
5 Q. Mr. Moric, you have seen two documents, both sent by the same
6 police administration to the Povratak staff on the same day, 15th August,
7 on the same issue. One says that you need to make access to the
8 liberated area -- you know, the civilians should be allowed unrestricted
9 access. And the other issue is an inquiry about the validity of passes
10 issued by General Cermak. And in relation to both documents there is a
11 note that General Cermak would be cancelling the passes.
12 So are you saying that these are two separate inquiries, or
13 they're not connected? Is that what you're saying?
14 A. Yes, Madam Prosecutor, this is my testimony.
15 Q. Very well.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Can I have document P509, please.
17 Q. Have you seen this order, Mr. Moric, before prior to your
18 preparations for the testimony?
19 A. No. No, I didn't.
20 Q. Now, on the same day, you have the very same day has
21 15th August 1995, General Cermak issues an order to the Knin police
23 "From 15th August, 1995, onwards allow civilians unhindered entry
24 into the town of Knin
25 police on all access roads to the town.
1 "Permit civilians to enter the town of Knin without passes and
2 carry out routine checks following the rules set out earlier."
3 Now, you just said a little while ago that you were very angry
4 that these restrictions of movement was being issued in an unauthorised
5 manner. Did you have anybody raise that with General Cermak?
6 A. No, Madam Prosecutor. At that time, when it comes to the thing
7 that we have just discussed, I understood this as an idea, as an
8 intention, and I realised that that idea and intention had been
9 eliminated and amounted to nothing. So nothing came out of that idea.
10 Q. I don't understand that answer, Mr. Moric.
11 Let me just ask you this way. Do you agree with me that this
12 order of General Cermak is connected to the -- the other two documents
13 that we saw earlier on, which are sent to the Povratak staff by the
14 Split-Dalmatia police administration? Isn't it pursuant to that inquiry
15 that General Cermak issued this order?
16 A. If I remember things properly, those documents bear the same
17 date. As to their sequence, I don't know. I can only speculate. I can
18 only speculate whether one thing preceded the other or the other way
20 Q. Very well. I don't want you to speculate.
21 Mr. Moric, let me just show you one other document on this
22 subject, and then I will move on.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could have P510, please.
24 Q. Now, you will see a document on the screen, Mr. Moric, which is
25 dated 16 August, the day after this order was issued by General Cermak,
1 and that is a document from the Knin police.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could we turn into private session for a second.
3 [Private session]
9 [Open session]
10 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Q. Now, Mr. Moric, were you aware of that sequence of events, where,
14 after General Cermak issued his order of the 15th August, the Knin police
15 issued an order implementing that?
16 Were you aware of that sequence of events?
17 A. No, I didn't know that.
18 Q. Okay. Then would you agree with me, Mr. Moric, that you are not
19 -- you have not been fully apprised, or you were not fully aware of the
20 exact nature of the interactions between General Cermak and the Knin
22 A. Yes, in principle. But it is obvious that in this particular
23 data -- detail, I did not. I did not know that the head of the civilian
24 police wrote this letter.
25 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
2 MR. MISETIC: I think we have an issue with the beginning portion
3 in terms of the interpretation. Page 59, line 1, on my screen, which is
4 page 58, line 25, on the centre LiveNote.
5 If we could ask for clarification because I think it is inverted
6 as to what the witness said.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You were asked, Mr. Moric, whether you were --
8 whether you would agree that you were not fully aware of the exact nature
9 of the interactions between General Cermak and the Knin police. And then
10 your answer started with, Yes. But could you please repeat what you
11 added to that.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in principle. In principle, I
13 was aware, but when it comes to this detail, the detail of this letter, I
14 was not fully aware.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Detail of the letter.
16 MR. MISETIC: Yes, his answer is, In predictable I was informed
17 of the nature of their relationship but not of the details. And the way
18 it came out was that, yes, he agreed with Ms. Mahindaratne's assertion,
19 which is not what he had said.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Not fully aware.
21 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Just to verify, you confirmed that, in general
23 terms, you were aware of the interactions between General Cermak and the
24 Knin police but not in detail.
25 Is that correctly understood?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was even more
2 specific and clear when I said that I was not aware of this detail.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Please proceed.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. Mr. Moric, going to another area. Mr. Kehoe questioned you about
7 the jurisdiction of the civilian police over military personnel.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if I could have
9 document D214.
10 Q. And I appreciate you may not have seen the document that is about
11 to come on the screen.
12 This is a meeting of the closed sessions of the government and
13 you have the prime minister present there and several other cabinet
14 ministers, including Mr. Jarnjak. And I just wanted to first show you,
15 this is the cover page of the minutes so that you take notice of who was
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if could I have D215.
18 Q. I'm going to a portion of those minutes, Mr. Moric.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if you could go to -- in the English,
20 page 2, and the Croatian, page 38.
21 Q. I just wanted to remind you that, in case you didn't take note,
22 that this is a meeting on 5th October, 1995, in that -- in the English
23 the second paragraph starting from last three lines. There's Minister
24 Jarnjak saying:
25 "... here at the closed sessions I have to say that I will try to
1 get in touch with the minister of defence today to see if there is a lack
2 of, or if there is an insufficient number of military police in that
3 area" --
4 A. My apologies. Excuse me.
5 Q. I'm sorry --
6 A. The Croatian version is evidently -- has evidently got the wrong
7 page on the screen, because I can't see what you are reading.
8 Q. sorry. I think have you it now, Mr. Moric.
9 Did you note that? Let me just take you to the exact line. It's
10 the third line from the bottom of the page.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If you could go down to the page,
12 Mr. Registrar. There.
13 Q. It's just -- I'm starting halfway through his address:
14 "... here at the closed sessions [sic] I have to say that I will
15 try to get in touch with the minister of defence today to see if there is
16 a lack of, or if there is an insufficient number of military police in
17 that area that should be present, as there is a large number of military
18 personnel, or at least persons wearing uniforms who do not wish to show
19 their IDs to the civilian police."
20 A. I'm sorry, I don't have the continuation of the text in front of
22 Q. There you have it.
23 A. [In English] Thank you.
24 Q. "They do not wish to cooperate" -- I'm sorry, they do not wish
25 to show their IDs to the civilian police. "The civilian police have no
1 jurisdiction over the military personnel. They do not wish to cooperate
2 and we have problems because there is isn't a sufficient number of these
3 people in that area, and therefore we ... ask for this."
4 Now, Mr. Kehoe questioned you about this issue. Can you please
5 tell the Trial Chamber exactly what the civilian police could do upon
6 seeing a member of the military committing crimes?
7 A. [Interpretation] It could have stopped and identified the
8 individual to see if it was a soldier or a civilian who was abusing the
9 uniform. Of course, I am assuming that the individual whom the civilian
10 police wished to identify is not resisting the procedure. In the event
11 that there is physical resistance, it is up to the civilian policeman to
12 use his judgement as to whether he would use, and, if so, which sort of
13 restraining means that he is authorised to use. If he resorts to the use
14 of restraining equipment, and if it is an ascertained that the individual
15 is, indeed, a member of the army, then the individual should be handed
16 over to the care or the custody of the military police.
17 Q. Now, Mr. Kehoe asked you this question. And then this is what
18 you said in response. This is at transcript reference T-25724. You say:
19 "However, at the time that we're talking about and considering
20 the problems at the time, the situations that we were faced with most
21 often were such that it was clear from the very beginning that these were
22 military persons. So we didn't need the criminal processing to establish
23 that these were military persons, and in that context I wanted to say
24 that in such situation it was clear that the military police would be in
25 charge of that from the start."
1 Now, can you tell Trial Chamber what you meant by "it was clear
2 from the very beginning that these were military persons." What were the
3 factors that made it clear when you saw persons committing crimes?
4 A. I was referring to a situation where a policeman would be faced
5 with individuals who appeared to be members of the army. It can be a
6 perplexing situation in the sense that one is uncertain whether the
7 individual is, indeed, a soldier or not. Again, there could be
8 situations where, undoubtedly, the individual concerned is a soldier.
9 Q. Can you be a bit more specific, Mr. Moric, because I don't think
10 you really answered my question.
11 A. You said I was referring to a situation where a policeman would
12 be faced with individuals who appeared to be members of the army, and it
13 can be a perplexing situation.
14 Q. My question was what did you mean that in those it was clear from
15 the beginning that the perpetrators were members of the HV? I'm asking
16 to you clarify your response to Mr. Kehoe.
17 A. I have just tried to give you an answer, Mrs. Prosecutor.
18 If the policeman believed that the individual was, indeed, a
19 soldier, and it was down to his own judgement, because he was
20 experiencing the situation, the assessment he makes will be based on
21 several elements before him; the visual appearance of the individual, the
22 gear that he carries along, and similar.
23 Q. Okay. Let me just, while we're on this document, I just want you
24 to also focus on another section, statement of the minister. This is at
25 the same page, and you can follow it on page 40 of the Croatian document.
1 The minister says:
2 "Therefore, what we spoke about at the very start, that torching,
3 blowing up, and then taking things away can be explained by folklore,
4 well that was taking things away in a kind of way. Here again, at the
5 closed session, I have to stay it in a legal sense that all and sundry
6 signed all sorts of receipts, starting from war booty do stolen property,
7 from the prefect, deputy prefect, offices, associations, mayors, all
8 signed receipts on who has the right and what they have the right to take
9 out. It has come to a situation in which people gained the impression
10 and they can take" --
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And in the English if you could go to the next
13 Q. "... they can take absolutely anything that belongs to anybody.
14 This means that it was not only houses that belonged to Serbs that were
15 plundered, houses that belong to Croats are now up for it, and that is a
16 very serious problem.
17 "Therefore, this is no longer a question of some kind of
18 folklore. This is now the question of serious organised crime that we
19 have been burdened with and that we have to solve."
20 Now, as I understand the minister's statement here, his concern
21 is that, at this stage, crimes have got so out of hand that houses
22 belonging to Croats are now being plundered, and he considers that a
23 serious problem.
24 Now is that consistent with your own observations regarding the
25 trends? And you -- since you said you were following the trends on the
2 A. It is common knowledge in the police practice that crime knows of
3 no boundaries, including ethnic ones. We knew that from the start. When
4 it comes to the plundering of abandoned, empty homes, the criteria news
5 was not that of ethnic affiliation.
6 Q. No, Mr. Moric. My question is the minister is saying, earlier
7 on, the crimes were directed at Serb property, and now it has moved from
8 Serb property to Croat property, and he says that is a serious problem.
9 Now my question is --
10 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President, that is not what the
11 transcript says.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, would you please verify and see --
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
14 Q. I will read it again to you, Mr. Moric. It says:
15 "It has come to a situation in which people gained the impression
16 and they can take absolutely anything that belongs to anybody. This
17 means that it was not only houses that belonged to Serb that were
18 plundered; houses that belonged to Croats are now up for it, and that is
19 a very serious problem."
20 So my question is: is that consistent with your own observations,
21 that the trend of crimes developed, initially the targeting was Serb
22 houses, but at this stage when this conversation was taking place, it is
23 now heading towards crimes being directed against property belonging to
24 Croats. Is that how you saw the trend?
25 A. Excuse me, Mrs. Prosecutor, but I think that I've just answered
1 this question. From the beginning, we never stated that crime was
2 confined within ethnic boundaries, but, of course, in view of the number
3 of criminal incidents and the property on the other hand, unfortunately,
4 most of the crime committed was to the detriment of owners who were
5 ethnic Serbs but not exclusively so.
6 Q. Okay. Okay, let me just ask you one last question, Mr. Moric.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could have P494, please.
8 Q. And this is moving into another area, Mr. Moric, which is an area
9 you're familiar with, collection centres and reception centres.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's P494.
11 Q. Now this document was in fact called up by Mr. Mikulicic, and you
12 discussed this document with him. And this is what you said about the
13 collection centres. This is at transcript reference 2554.
14 "Thus the idea of reception or collection centres was to receive
15 all categories of people and to provide all of them with the basic
16 conditions fit for human beings. And also the intention was to interview
17 all those people and then in keeping with their possibilities, their
18 wishes allowed them to achieve their goals."
19 Now is it correct, then, to understand that the collection
20 centres and reception centres or reception centre, whatever you prefer to
21 call them, received both the prisoners of war and the civilians? These
22 two categories of people, all of them were held in the same premises. Is
23 that correct?
24 A. I cannot confirm with any certainty, or deny the possibility, for
25 that matter.
1 Q. Mr. Moric, you are the person who set up these -- this system.
2 In fact, we have the order right in front of the -- front of you. If you
3 do not know how the system was operated, who would?
4 A. Mrs. Prosecutor, I would have to read the entire document and see
5 what it states in relation to prisoners of war.
6 Q. Please do so. This is your own order, but please take your time
7 and read it.
8 A. Can I see the rest of the text?
9 Further down, please.
10 Further down.
11 Thank you. I have read it.
12 Q. Now are able to answer my question?
13 I could repeat my question. My question was that, isn't it right
14 that both civilians and prisoners of war, were these categories of people
15 were accepted to these collection centres, in that both were taken in,
16 into the same premises, to these collection centres?
17 A. That's correct. The document requests that prisoners of war be
18 separated from the rest.
19 Q. Where -- where in this document do you see that prisoners of war
20 be separated from the rest?
21 A. Can I have page 2 first, and then perhaps 3.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if he could have page 2 first.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The next page, please.
24 The top of item 3. The top of the page, item 3.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
1 Q. Can we just take, in the English, if you could -- you're
2 referring to the paragraph that starts: "If it is established ..." Is
3 that the --
4 "If is established that the person does not reside on the
5 territory of the Republic of Croatia
6 special part of the collection centre along with other persons of the
7 same status. Such person [sic] must be registered separately."
8 Is that what you're talking about?
9 A. Yes. That's what I'm talking about.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: I will try to assist, Your Honour.
11 I see the confusion. The confusion obviously derives from the
12 fact that one word which is in Croatian language mentioned before the
13 person is not translated in English.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
15 Q. Can you --
16 MR. MIKULICIC: In Croatian language it states: [Interpretation]
17 "If it is established that the person captured or person taken prisoner."
18 [In English] And in English it states: "If it is established
19 that a person."
20 JUDGE ORIE: If that's the case then ...
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
22 Q. Mr. Moric, could you read out paragraph 3 loud, please, in
23 Croatian. The paragraph you're pointing to us, can you read it out,
25 A. "If it is established that the person taken prisoner does not
1 reside or have a place of residence in the territory of the Republic of
3 separate part of the collection centre with other persons holding the
4 same status."
5 Q. Mr. Moric, the way I see it, there difference is you are asking
6 that persons who do not reside on the territory be separated. Now you
7 have in fact explained this in your testimony, and I can read you. This
8 is at transcript page 25554, and I will read your entire answer about
9 this document. You said:
10 "As a result of that, those who wanted to stay in the Republic of
12 in such areas where their safety could be guaranteed. At the same time
13 such places had to receive the former members of the paramilitary and
14 para-police forces who had taken off their paramilitary uniforms and
15 removed paramilitary insignia from their clothes and, thus, changed their
16 visual identity. It was a notorious fact."
17 Then you talk about a third category:
18 "We knew from before that among them there were also people who
19 were not citizens and nationals of the Republic of Croatia
20 been citizens of Croatia
21 nationals. The police -- at that time the penal law prescribed penalties
22 for participation in armed rebellion. The police tasks, amongst others,
23 was to collect information about any person who had committed that type
24 of crime. The idea of reception or collection centre was to receive all
25 categories of people and to provide all of them with the basic conditions
1 for human being, and also the intention was to interview all those people
2 and then in keeping with their possibilities, their wishes allowed them
3 to achieve their goal."
4 So this paragraph you are pointing to as your instruction to
5 separate prisoners of war from civilians is not exactly what you -- what
6 you claim to be, Mr. Moric. In fact it relates to persons who are not
7 residents or, as you clarified to Mr. Mikulicic, who were never citizens
8 of Croatia
9 A. Ms. Prosecutor, unfortunately, I am not sure anymore if I
10 understand your question fully.
11 The reception centres were supposed to receive all persons who
12 were in need of some sort of assistance, and almost everyone needed
13 assistance at the time.
14 Q. Mr. Moric, if I could --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Mahindaratne, not for the first time, we
16 now hear about reception centres.
17 The question that was put to you by Ms. Mahindaratne was about
18 collection centres. Now, could we first verify whether there is any
19 difference between sabirni centar and the reception centre you were just
20 talking about.
21 Mr. Kehoe, let me first --
22 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, before the witness answers, if I
23 may independently direct the Chamber to a Prosecution exhibit.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I know they are different languages used in
25 other documents, that's exactly the reason why I'm --
1 MR. KEHOE: It's a little bit more specific. But --
2 JUDGE ORIE: But let's first -- I appreciate your assistance.
3 Could we first hear the answer of the witness.
4 You were asked to read a document about what is translated to us
5 "collection centre," and which, in the original reads sabirni centar. Is
6 that anything different as far as you are concerned with the centres you
7 just mentioned, where everyone was supposed to be looked after in the
8 appropriate way?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, there was no
11 JUDGE ORIE: Now, the whole line of questioning,
12 Ms. Mahindaratne, started with a relatively simple question. Whether
13 both civilians and prisoners of war were received in these
14 sabirni centar. Yes.
15 Now, the witness said, yes, but they were separated. And I read
16 that from paragraph B, under 3. Now in B, under 3, there was apparently
17 an incomplete translation about the persons. But could we go back to
18 what apparently was the issue, that how, from paragraph B, 3, as it
19 appears on your screen at this very moment, how we could read from that
20 paragraph that a distinction was made, a separation was made between
21 prisoners and civilians, because we have now spent quite some time on
22 establishing that apparently there was something about people residing on
23 the territory or not residing on the territory, which, I would assume, is
24 different from the distinction between civilians and prisoners.
25 So could you first explain how, in paragraph B, 3, we can read
1 that civilians and prisoners were separated.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the text reads, or
3 states, that first it needs to be established that the person was taken
4 prisoner. Then it has to be determined whether the person has a place of
5 residence in Croatia
6 part of the centre with the persons holding the same status.
7 So, number one, taken prisoner --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It means that prisoners who have no residence
9 on the territory of the Republic of Croatia
10 registered separately and should be placed in a special part along with
11 other persons of the same status. That is, other persons without
12 residence on the territory of the Republic. But that is a not a
13 distinction between prisoners and civilians. It is two categories of
14 prisoners. Those who are taken prisoner and who have no residence in
16 you again to indicate what in this text clearly establishes that
17 prisoners were to be separated from civilians.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt. But as many
19 times before, I believe we have a translation issue problem.
20 JUDGE ORIE: If that's the case, then the witness who has the
21 original available will first give his answer, and I'm fully willing,
22 unless my question is wrongly translated. If that's the case, I invite
23 you, or at least if you think that my question is wrongly translated.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, with all due respect, your
25 question is wrongly in fact wrongly translated.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'll rephrase it --
2 MR. MIKULICIC: But not due to your mistake.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, I'm not talking about mistakes. Then I'll
4 rephrase question, which avoids --
5 MR. MIKULICIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... No, Your Honour, let me
6 put an end preposition. Just to establish what is the proper translation
7 of the Croatian word "zarabljenik," it is translated as "prisoner." From
8 my point of view, it is not a proper translation. That's all.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you already went one step beyond what are you
10 expected to do. If you would have said, We should verify that word,
11 that's fine. But to add to that that it is a wrong translation, as it
12 appears here, is one step too far.
13 I will rephrase my question.
14 Mr. Moric, where in the Croatian text of paragraph 3 you see a
15 clear distinction between those civilians and prisoners?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what we can see is
17 that they were to be provided uniform treatment in this centre. Equal
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's not an answer to my question, because
20 if you are to receive equal treatment, then the question was who would
21 receive equal treatment?
22 And from what I have seen until now, let alone any further
23 translation issues, that the criteria for putting apart some was whether
24 they resided on the territory, yes or no.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Ms. Mahindaratne, I'm looking at the clock. We are already far
3 beyond the usual time of having a break. Where I invited you to finish
4 within two sessions.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You have no further questions.
7 Could I inquire with the other parties how much time they would
9 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, I believe I could finish my
10 re-direct within the next session, which would be, let's say, half an
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's well within the next section.
13 MR. KAY: No questions, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: No questions for the Cermak Defence.
15 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I think that I -- if my learned friend
16 is going take half an hour, I may take approximately that. I have a few
17 documents to clarify. So, say, half an hour, 45 minutes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Which would mean that we could not --
19 MR. KEHOE: I think we should be able to finish today,
20 Mr. President. [Overlapping speakers] ...
21 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Well, Mr. Kehoe, you are
22 quite optimistic in the judges having no questions. If we resume at five
23 minutes past 1.00, then two times 30 minutes makes 60 minutes, brings us
24 until five
25 MR. KEHOE: I lost of the track of the time, Mr. President, I
2 JUDGE ORIE: I beg your pardon?
3 MR. KEHOE: I lost track of the time, I didn't realise we were so
4 close to 1.00.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That seems to be a common problem, which is more
6 general in this courtroom at this moment. I'm not addressing anyone in
8 We will have a break, and we will resume at five minutes past
10 --- Recess taken at 12.49 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 1.12 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The parties who apparently have reached an agreement
13 that it would be preferable to hear Witness Bagic after the recess are
14 invited to make a joint submission, which could, to start with, be an
15 informal submission in an e-mail to be put on the record, If there is any
16 need to do that at a later stage, not only why it is preferable to hear
17 the testimony after the winter recess, but, also, what the compelling
18 reasons are not to hear it before the recess. Because it would result,
19 most likely, in the loss of another couple of days in court. And, of
20 course, this would apply not only to hearing the whole of the evidence
21 before or after the winter recess, but, also, what the compelling reasons
22 are not to hear a part of it, for example, examination-in-chief, before
23 the recess, and the witness be cross-examined after the recess.
24 The Chamber will consider whether it will accept the agreement
25 between the parties in this respect.
1 Mr. Moric, I have another message for you. We will not be able
2 to conclude your testimony today. It will only be tomorrow. I hope that
3 this causes -- that this does not cause you major problems.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it won't be a problem
5 at all.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Mikulicic, are you ready to further
7 examine Mr. Moric?
8 MR. MIKULICIC: I am, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
10 Re-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr Moric.
12 A. Good afternoon.
13 Q. Let's resolve a confusion with regard to the terminology and the
14 reception and collection centres.
15 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see document P494.
16 This is a document that we have already seen. We saw it during your
17 cross-examination by the Prosecutor.
18 Q. Mr. Moric, you had an opportunity to see the entire document. It
19 is dated 4 August. The intention of the document is to say that
20 collection centres should be established in accordance with the intention
21 of the Operation Return.
22 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we please move to the second
23 page of the same document.
24 Q. On the seconds page of the document, it is stated that commanders
25 should be appointed and so on and so forth. And it is also stated that
1 security should be provided by the military police, amongst others.
2 Furthermore it says that the conditions in those centres should be in
3 compliance with the Geneva Conventions, and under 1B towards the end of
4 the page it says that the collection centres will accommodate people
5 taken prisoners or detainees, that there will be a register of these
6 people being taken prisoners and that there should be a list of all those
7 who have been brought in.
8 Mr. Moric, as a person's whose mother tongue is Croatian, what,
9 in your view is the term people taken prisoners? How do you define this
11 A. A person taken prisoner is a person who was found in an occupied
12 territory during war activities, and that person either surrendered or
13 was taken prisoner in some other way, which means that it was against
14 that person's will.
15 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at another
16 document which was issued one day later, on the 5th August. The number
17 is P1045.
18 Q. Mr. Moric, this document also originates from the Ministry of the
19 Interior. However, the assistant minister who signed the document wasn't
20 you. Let's look at the bottom of the document. We will see that it was
21 Zdravko Zidovec who signed it. He was another assistant minister.
22 Do you remember what his sector was within the Ministry of
23 Interior at the time?
24 A. Pursuant to the decree on the internal organisation of the
25 minister of the interior, Mr. Zidovec was in charge of the sector for
1 administrative and logistics tasks, together with the civilian protection
2 and fire-fighters.
3 Q. So Mr. Zidovec says in this document, and he also addresses all
4 the police administrations, and says that the police administrations are
5 duty-bound to immediately establish reception centres for civilians.
6 He calls those centres reception centres to distinguish them from
7 collection centres, which were subject from -- of the document from the
8 day before, the 4th of August. And he says: "The centres are to be
9 organised in accordance with the" --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, there is an element of leading
12 in introducing to this question. He calls the centres --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Mikulicic, would you refrain from leading
14 in this respect.
15 MR. MIKULICIC: I will do so, Your Honour, although I am not
16 capable to see what was leading in my questions, but ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, my ruling is that you should put the questions
18 in a non-leading way.
19 MR. MIKULICIC: Of course. I respect your ruling, Your Honour,
20 as always.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Moric we're talking about a document, which
22 deals with the work of reception centres. The document says that the
23 reception centres should be established within -- in compliance with the
24 Geneva Conventions regulating the treatment of civilians. It also says
25 that the reception centres should be established within the organisation
1 of the civilian protection with the full cooperation of regional offices
2 for expelled persons and social work centres.
3 In the second paragraph, it says:
4 "In the course of reception of persons found in the zone of
5 combat activities, i.e., in the liberated area, it is compulsory to
6 separate civilians and send them to the reception centres of the civilian
8 Mr. Moric, if you compare this document with the previous
9 document, what would be your comment? Are we talking about one and the
10 same type of institutions, or are we talking about two different types of
12 A. We are talking about two different types of institutions. The
13 previously described centres were for persons who were taken prisoners,
14 and the latter centres for are for civilians, or rather, people who have
15 nothing whatsoever to do with any combat operations or activities.
16 Q. Let's look at P914.
17 This is a document dated 8 August, three days with respect to the
18 latter document or four days later in respect of the former document,
19 your own, dated the 4th of August.
20 This is a document which was sent on behalf of the Ministry of
21 the Interior of its sector for crime police, was issued by the chief of
22 the sector, Mr. Ivan Nadj on 8th of August. Again, this document was
23 sent to all the police administrations in the area. The subject of the
24 document are collection centres, reference is made to the document dated
25 4 August that we saw at the beginning of our conversation, Mr. Moric.
1 And the document says:
2 "We are hereby informing you that in the future, instead of the
3 term collection centre for prisoners of war, you are to use the term
4 reception centre for prisoners of war when reporting."
5 Instead of the term reception centre, are you to use the term
6 reception for civilians.
7 Mr. Moric, it is obvious that during the first few days, there
8 were certain awkward uses of the terminology which defined the
9 institutions that received prisoners of war and civilians.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: Isn't it obvious?
11 JUDGE ORIE: No, it's comment.
12 MR. MIKULICIC: It's comment. Okay, Your Honour. I will
14 JUDGE ORIE: If you will please put the question to the witness.
15 MR. MIKULICIC:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Moric, how would you comment the three
17 documents and how would -- what are your thoughts on the terminology and
18 the difference between reception centres, as opposed to the collection
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if I may, first if the
21 foundation can be established as to his knowledge of these documents, and
22 secondly the witness has testified on this issue in response to questions
23 from the Bench.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Mikulicic is now testing the evidence the
25 witness gave, isn't it?
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President, but perhaps a foundation
2 could be established as to his knowledge on these --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Mikulicic was focussing on terminology,
4 not primarily on documents, although this terminology is found in
5 documents, and I therefore consider it to be illustrative rather than
6 anything else at this moment.
7 Could you comment on the terminology, Mr. Moric.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, obviously in the
9 initial stages, different terms were used to describe reception centres,
10 and they were wrong or unacceptable, and that's why they had to be
11 corrected subsequently.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, could you invite the witness to tell
13 us why the terms were wrong.
14 MR. MIKULICIC:
15 Q. [Interpretation] Would you please answer the Judges question.
16 Why do you think that the terminology was wrong? Maybe a sub-question in
17 this regard.
18 In your order dated 4 August, Mr. Moric, you didn't use the word
19 "civilians." You used the word "prisoners of war." In the order dated
20 5th of August and signed by Mr. Zidovec, a reference is made to
21 civilians. Doesn't this indicate a difference in the terminology used?
22 A. Your Honour, I believe that the change or the correction in the
23 use of terminology was caused by the fact that there is a difference in
24 the factual contents. One of the two institutions is a reception centre
25 for war -- prisoners of war, and they are the population who are looked
1 after there, and the other institution is in charge of the victims of war
3 Q. If the Chamber does not have any question about this topic, I
4 would like to move on to a different subject, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I do have a question.
6 Apparently the initial terminology used was collection centre for
7 prisoners of war. That is, the sabirni centar. Now, and apparently,
8 initially, the terminology for the other category was prihvatni centar.
9 If would you not have changed it, would not the distinction between the
10 centres for prisoners of war and the centre for other people, would not
11 -- would that not have been perfectly clear.
12 So the only thing is that you change one word and you change the
13 other word as well; whereas, the difference initially seemed to be rather
14 perfect. The one referring to prisoners of war, and the other one, with
15 a different name, not in any way relating to prisoners of war.
16 So, therefore, the explanation why the initial terminology was
17 wrong is not -- at least I still have difficulties to see why the
18 original terminology did not make a clear distinction. So, therefore I
19 still wonder what then was the reason to replace one clearly distinct
20 terminology between the two categories to be replaced by another, as
21 distinctive terminologies for the -- terminology for the two categories.
22 Is my question clear to you?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question is clear to me,
24 Your Honour.
25 In my language, the term sabirni, collection, may imply that
1 certain state agencies, in this case the police or the army, was intent
2 on gathering, assembling, collecting people in a given area, and
3 isolating them in the process.
4 The term "prihvatni," reception, in my language, implies that it
5 is a place where individuals are being received who are in need of
6 something or are faced with problems.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Now, then, looking at the original language, that
8 you say the sabirni centar for war prisoners was the place where --
9 sabirni centar is whether you would collect them to get them together,
10 and that should be changed in a place there where -- and I will now
11 literally use your language, that prisoners of war were taken because
12 they were in need of something.
13 I'm following your explanation, your linguistic. You say we
14 changed because we didn't want to collect the war criminals, but we want
15 to bring them to a place where their needs would be fulfilled.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I may have expressed
17 myself in a manner that left something to be desired, and you
18 misunderstood me.
19 What I wanted to say was that terminology changed in order to
20 define these facilities in a more precise way, so as to indicate that
21 there was nothing in these facilities that would be contrary to the
22 Geneva Conventions, international conventions, and standards.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I heard your explanation.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. MIKULICIC:
1 Q. [Interpretation] So I would like to go back to the decree on the
2 internal structure and the manner of work of the Ministry of Interior
3 which is D527.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we call that document up, and
5 more precisely Article 3 of the decree, which is page 2 of the Croatian
6 version and the English version.
7 Q. [Interpretation] We said, Mr. Moric, that the ministry was
8 divided into sectors. We saw that within the special police sector a
9 department was set up, not an office but a department of Internal
10 control. Was there set up a department for internal control in any of
11 the other Ministry of the Interior sectors in addition to the special
12 police sector, if you know?
13 A. Counsel, I am not aware of there being a department such as that
14 one in any of the other sectors.
15 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we move to Article 8 of the
16 decree now, which defines the work of the internal department -- of the
17 internal control office as part of the minister's office. Article 8.
18 Q. I will be focussing on the relevant part of Article 8.
19 Article 8, in fact, provides for the activities of the office for
20 internal control, and let's look at the end of line 3 of the text in
21 Croatian. That the office for internal control shall initiate the work
22 of operative sectors with a view to solving specific cases and shall
23 monitor the proceedings thus initiated until their completion.
24 Of course, this relates to the various types of unlawful conduct
25 on the part of employees.
1 Let's look at Article 8 -- 28 now, which describes the work of
2 the department for internal control of the special police force, of the
3 special police sector.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Article 28.
5 Q. The department for internal control of the special police shall,
6 it is provided, engage in activities with a view to gathering,
7 processing, and using information concerning the internal order of the
8 special police force, et cetera, et cetera.
10 operative sector with a view to resolving specific cases.
11 Mr. Moric, the internal control office attached to the minister's
12 office, did it have jurisdiction over the entire structure of the
13 Ministry of the Interior? That's to say, over all the sectors.
14 A. Yes, it did.
15 Q. The competence was to safe-guard the legality, enforce discipline
16 among the employees of the ministry; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. If we look at the tasks envisaged under the decree, the tasks of
19 the internal control department of the special police, we will see that
20 it has to do with providing security to the special police, cooperation
21 with the Service for the Protection of the Constitutional Order, and
22 other security services of the Republic of Croatia
23 Mr. Moric, the scope of work of the internal control department
24 thus defined, does it indicate that the competence is the same as the one
25 vested with the internal control office attached to the minister's
2 A. No, it does not indicate that the competence is the same, and I
3 can pin-point the difference.
4 Q. We will be coming to that point. But, first, can we look at
5 D1092 for -- for illustration.
6 We will see a document issued by the internal control of the
7 special police on the 29th of July, 1995. And the subject is the summary
8 report on the work of reconnaissance-operative groups in the area of
9 Mount Velebit
10 the special police, on the eve of Operation Storm, engaged in
11 reconnoitring in an area where the special police were supposed to be
13 Mr. Moric, in your understanding of this document, what is the
14 nature of this report? Is this -- well, I am wary of putting a leading
15 question to you.
16 A. Based on its contents, this is a report, which speaks to the
17 intelligence gathered, the situation in an area which could presumably be
18 the one where the special police would be engaged in operative tasks. In
19 other words, this is intelligence reporting.
20 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at D1093 now, please.
21 Q. This is a document issued on the 1st of August, 1995, by the
22 office for internal control of the special police.
23 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at the top of the
24 document, and we will see that it's the 1st of August. We can see that
25 the document was sent to the chief of the staff of the joint forces of
1 the special police. And the document deals with the area of
2 responsibility of the 9th Motorised Brigade, Gracac.
3 The information has to do with the brigade which is deployed as
4 an enemy force opposite the deployment area of the special police.
5 Can you tell us briefly, Mr. Moric, what is the nature of this
7 A. In a word, this is an intelligence report on the situation in an
8 area where the special police may be charged with tasks.
9 Q. Let us look at D529.
10 What we will be seeing now, Mr. Moric, is a document issued by
11 the internal control on the 11th of January, 1996. It is an annual
12 report of the internal control for the year 1995. This is the internal
13 control of the special police force.
14 The document reads:
15 "In the course of 1995, the office had carried out tasks from
16 within its purview."
17 The report is divided into four parts. The first one being the
18 intelligence and operative preparations of operations in which the
19 special police took part. Part 2 deals with the provision of security
20 for special police units. Part 3, with professional training. And
21 part 4, monitoring the state of work discipline, human relations,
22 relations between special policemen and the command structure, and
23 problems special policemen were faced with.
24 Now, Mr. Moric, part 4, which deals with work discipline, you've
25 already stated repeatedly in your testimony that you were following
1 trends at the level of the ministry. What is your interpretation of
2 item 4, the fact that work discipline was being tackled within special
4 A. It follows clearly from the document that the department dealt
5 with intelligence work, as well as with counter-intelligence, protection
6 of special police units, including monitoring the state of discipline.
7 They go as far as to cover relations among people because that's the sort
8 of thing that was relevant for discipline. Trends in discipline were
9 being monitored, in terms of their improvement or deterioration, in order
10 for them to be able to forestall the negative trends and to support the
11 positive ones.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, the expectation that you would finish
13 in half an hour, I thought that -- but that you would finish within a
14 couple of minutes after quarter to 2.00, but apparently, that is not the
16 Therefore, I think it would be better to adjourn. Could you
17 indicate on how much time you would still need.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, not more than 15 minutes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. MIKULICIC: But I -- with your permission, I will just put
21 one last question. [Overlapping speakers] ... and this is only a matter
22 of a couple of seconds.
23 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: One question, not more, Mr. Mikulicic.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. [Interpretation] My last question for today, Mr. Moric. Did the
3 office for internal control attached to the office of the minister of the
4 interior deal with such intelligence and counter-intelligence work, as
5 did the internal control department of the special police?
6 A. No, it did not, Counsel.
7 Q. Thank you for your answers.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.
9 Mr. Moric, hopefully for the last time I give you the instruction
10 that you should not speak with anyone about your testimony, either
11 already given or still to be given tomorrow. I'm not saying to be given
12 the day after tomorrow, because I will not give you the same
13 instructions, most likely, tomorrow.
14 Because we adjourn, and we resume tomorrow, Wednesday, the 9th of
15 December, at 9.00, in this same courtroom, I.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m.
17 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day of
18 December, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.