1 Friday, 26 February 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
9 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T,
10 the Prosecutor versus Gotovina, et al.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 Mr. Radic, before we start again, I would like to remind that you
13 you are still bound by the solemn declaration that you have given at the
14 beginning of your testimony, that you will speak the truth, the whole
15 truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 Mr. Kehoe, are you ready?
17 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 WITNESS: JURE RADIC [Resumed]
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe: [Continued]
22 Q. Good morning, Mr. Radic.
23 A. Good morning.
24 Q. Mr. Radic, I'd like to begin where we left off yesterday
25 concerning the conversations that you had at the beginning of
1 August 1995, after Operation Storm. And we talked yesterday about the
2 understanding that there was going to be -- according to
3 Ambassador Galbraith, 80 per cent of the Serbs would not come back.
4 Now let us direct our attention back to these transcripts and
5 focus on some of the conversations that you had. And the first one that
6 I'd like to deal with is P463, which is the conversation between you and
7 President Tudjman on the 22nd of August.
8 And if I could turn our attention to page 10 in the English and
9 page 9 in -- excuse me. Page 9 in the B/C/S.
10 Now, I want to talk to you about the centre of that page, and
11 given the fact that I do not read B/C/S, I ask whether or not that's on
12 the page. Beginning with:
13 "Okay, I'm talking about 10 per cent ..."
14 A. This is not in the B/C/S version on this page.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think it should be page 14.
16 MR. KEHOE: Thank you very much. Page 14 of the B/C/S, then.
17 Thank you, Counsel.
18 That does not appear to be it either.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, here it is.
20 MR. KEHOE:
21 Q. Now, in this -- in the paragraph you say:
22 "Okay, I'm talking about 10 per cent. So the first priority of
23 colonising is this right here, in my opinion, Petrova and Zrinski Gore.
24 That's where we have to establish some kind of a city sooner or later."
25 Beginning in the next paragraph. You say: "However by our
1 companies, opening factories, just as the Serbs did in Licki Osijek. I
2 visited that factory. That looks marvellous."
3 If we can turn two pages further on, in page 12 in the English
4 where the president begins: "Listen, I am meeting with the army
6 He notes: "The army is a priority, followed by development" --
7 that's page 18 in the B/C/S.
8 Next page in the B/C/S. That's it, okay, fine.
9 He notes that: "The army is a priority, followed by development,
10 because with the army we begin at once."
11 And I believe overnight you were handed the Exhibit P464 which is
12 a transcript of the conversation with the military leaders that took
13 place the next day.
14 Now in the sequence of these conversations we're talking about
15 opening factories, building cities, having the military move in there to
16 develop the area. And I would like to ask you a question based on the
17 cross-examination by the Prosecutor, if the point of all this activity is
18 just to keep the Serbs out and from returning, if that's the point, why
19 are you insisting on doing all this development in these areas?
20 A. Absolutely the goal was not for the Serbs to keep them out. The
21 only real goal here was for this region, which was underpopulated, very
22 sparsely populated, to settle it. And on several occasions here, we said
23 that we should move in the army as well, as I said, we thought it was
24 better to move the members of the army here, rather than in already
25 existing large towns. And also, we wanted to initiate some factories.
1 We already had some factories in a somewhat more southern region
2 in, Licki Osijek, but over there, there were a couple of hundreds of
3 apartments that were owned by the state and that were empty at the time,
4 so the main goal was to bring people back there. And we started from the
5 fact that -- from our assumption, that many of the Serbs that left would
6 not come back.
7 So this is why we wanted to incentivise the Croats, to move there
8 and this is why we later on adopted the Law on the Areas of Special State
9 Concern. That region per se is not particularly attractive. Without
10 additional incentives, people would not move there. This is why we
11 thought we needed to incentivise them to settle there.
12 And the first and the easiest activity was obviously to go there
13 with the army, with the army which would settle there, because the
14 members of the army have their wives and children, and the wife's could
15 work in a textile factory over there; children could start their
16 schooling there. So this means that the life in this region would be
18 So this was our strategic goal, our strategic task at the time.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Radic. I would like to shift gears with you and
20 talk to you a little bit about some of the questions that were put to
21 with regard to your conversation again with President Tudjman concerning
22 Mr. Pasic. And again we are back at P463, the conversation on 22 August.
23 And if we could turn to page 6 in the English and page 9 in the
25 And this is the conversation that took place with you and the
1 President where you discuss Mr. Pasic being a Serb.
2 Now, you recall, and you know about the law on ethnic minorities,
3 do you not, sir?
4 A. Absolutely, I can recall that.
5 Q. And based on the Law of Ethnic minorities, in an ethnically Serb
6 city based on the 1991 census, you would have to have an ethnically Serb
7 mayor, wouldn't you?
8 A. Yes. The whole point of this story was that in the areas from
9 which people moved out, there were more or less two mayors. One of them
10 was a Serb who lived in Knin, for example, if we take Knin then as an
11 example, and the Serbs of -- citizens of Knin chose him, elected him for
12 their mayor.
13 And the other one was elected by people who moved out from Knin,
14 but very often this election was impossible to organise and this is why
15 the government appointed that person. So from the minimal number of
16 people, because you know that during the time when Knin was occupied
17 there were very few Serbs from Knin who lived away from Knin, and from
18 them we had to choose somebody, to elect him a mayor. And this is why I
19 told the President that we have somebody who is incompetent, and then I'm
20 also reminding him that is he a Serb, just to remind him that we had to
21 select somebody as a mayor based on the Law on Ethnic minorities, one of
22 the Serbs, not out of the ranks of competent people, but out of the ranks
23 of a particular ethnicity.
24 So now that we were about to start with reconstruction, my
25 opinion was that this person who maybe was capable to carry out some
1 administrative work while being displaced he is incompetent to initiate
2 all these works, all the reconstruction, the very difficult task that was
3 now ahead, and this is why I thought that possibly we now to select
4 somebody else.
5 So my point here was not his ethnicity but, rather, my doubt
6 whether he was a capable of carrying out such a serious task.
7 Q. The point, Mr. Radic, is, is that the reason why you are talking
8 about the ethnicity of the mayor is because the Law on Ethnic Minorities
9 requires you and the President to consider the ethnicity of that mayor;
10 isn't that correct?
11 A. Certainly, yes. That was the law at the time, according to which
12 the mayor of Knin had to be a Serb. And in some other municipalities of
14 Q. And this Law on Ethnic Minorities --
15 MR. KEHOE: And I am referring, Mr. President, we don't need to
16 go through that whole matter --
17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is aware of the Law of Minorities, and I
18 think we have dealt with that and also in this context.
19 MR. KEHOE: Yes. And if I can refer the Chamber - and I won't
20 need to go into this - to P639 where Ms. Rehn who testified here
21 described the law as the adoption of -- this is on page 6, paragraph 11,
22 the adoption of this law was considered to be one of the essential
23 conditions of the international recognition of Croatia.
24 Q. So in this context when President Tudjman says, Change this
25 individual, because the Croats are now a minority in Knin -- excuse me.
1 The Croats are now a majority, my apologies, and he is concerned about
2 the competence of this individual. Is that the essence of this
4 A. Absolutely. So the emphasise here was on the competences and not
5 on ethnicity, and this was my point of view, and I'm convinced that this
6 was the President's point of view as well. But this was a colloquial
7 conversation, so we did not give any precise descriptions. At that time
8 I did not have to remind the president, You know, Mr. President, pursuant
9 to the law on ethnic minorities we have to do this or that, but with this
10 fact that I said that he was a Serb, I simply reminded him that this had
11 to do with the Law on Ethnic Minorities which was in force at the time.
12 Q. Sir, I have been informed that if we could just keep our pace
13 down a little bit, Mr. Radic, I think the translators would be very happy
14 with that.
15 This Chamber has received evidence that Mr. Pasic,
16 notwithstanding President Tudjman's desire to change that, Mr. Pasic
17 stayed in position in Knin until March of 1996.
18 Were you aware of that, sir?
19 A. Yes, yes. And I know that, because of that, we had some
20 technical problems. Knin could not function well enough. It would have
21 been better to have somebody who was operationally more competent and
22 more experienced with the matters of economics, for example.
23 Maybe I can add here, that, in 1996, one of the most competent
24 people we had was appointed the mayor of Knin. Prior to that he was
25 mayor of Split
1 and once he came to Knin, the whole life in Knin was organised completely
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Radic. I'd like to shift gears just a bit and
4 talk to you a bit about the status of the Serbs who left the Krajina
5 after Operation Storm. And yesterday we talked in -- of the situation in
6 Western Slavonia of the Serbs after being asked to leave -- excuse me,
7 asked to say, left. My apologies. And now we want to move what happened
8 just prior to Operation Storm and the aftermath, when the Serbs in fact
10 And let's just take this step by step. And if we can, I'd like
11 to talk to you at the beginning of Operation Storm. Just prior to that,
12 the VONS meeting that you attended on 3 August 1995, and if we could
13 bring that up in D1454. And if we could just go to the cover page.
14 Mr. Radic, you can see in the first line of the people present at
15 the meeting, you were present at that meeting.
16 And do you recall this meeting, sir?
17 A. Absolutely. Possibly the best memory of any meetings I have ever
18 participated in is from this one, because, at that meeting, we said we
19 would start with liberation of our country.
20 Q. And when you're saying you will start with liberation of the
21 country what you're saying is that the government decided to commence
22 with Operation Storm at this meeting?
23 A. I would say it in the following way. This was a decision of
24 President Tudjman as commander in-chief, and he informed us his closest
25 leadership, at this meeting about his decision, and we all supported his
2 So you could say that this was a key meeting and the decision was
3 that the next morning we would start liberating the occupied territories
4 of Croatia
5 Q. Now the one part of this meeting that I'd like to talk to you
6 about is the comments by President Tudjman on giving some information to
7 the Serbs and making an announcement to the Serbs in the Krajina to stay.
8 Now we talked yesterday about how such an announcement was made in
9 Western Slavonia for the Serbs to say. And I would like to turn our
10 attention to page 22 of 32 in the English, and page 43 in the B/C/S.
11 And we'll go towards the bottom of the page in English, and
12 beginning with the "dobro" in B/C/S. Do you see that, Mr. Radic, in the
13 middle of the page the president says:
14 "Very well. Let's get to work. I haven't heard the opinion on
15 this. I said I thought we should address the Serb population. We would
16 call the Serbs to lay down their weapons. At the same time we could say
17 that we would vouch for their civil rights, and after that, the
18 implementation of the elections in the spirit of ... law and so forth.
19 We would also tell the international communities [sic] that the Serbs do
20 not accept a peaceful solution."
21 "So, do you think that it would be sufficient to address only the
22 Serbs? I have to sign that appeal to them."
23 And there is an interruption where somebody says: "Only to the
24 Serbs, for now."
25 Now, Mr. Radic, you know, do you not, that in fact the next day,
1 the President did make a public appeal to the Serb population to stay,
2 didn't he?
3 A. Absolutely. Already in the morning hours, all the Croatian media
4 that could be heard in the occupied territory admitted this message by
5 President to the Serbs, that they should stay, that nothing would happen
6 to them and that they should stay as an element of the Croatian citizens.
7 Q. And let me refer to D1809. And I believe it's page -- the part
8 is page 2 in the English, beginning with "I invite the members of the
9 Serbian paramilitary forces," and page 2 in the B/C/S. Thank you. Just
10 up little further.
11 A. Mm-hm.
12 Q. And I'm looking at the section that says -- the
13 paragraph beginning:
14 "I invite the members of the Serbian paramilitary forces who are
15 voluntarily or forcefully [sic] mobilised in the Serbian paramilitary
16 forces to surrender their weapons to Croatian authority, with the
17 guarantee that they will be given amnesty, according to the valid
18 Croatian laws.
19 "I invite the instigators of the rebellion to understand the
20 futility of their undertaking and its damage to the Serbian community in
22 authorities and accept the pardon or legal trial for their offences.
23 "I invite the Croatian citizens of Serbian nationality, which
24 have not actively partaken in the rebellion to stay at their homes, and
25 without fear for their life or property, welcome the Croatian authorities
1 with assurances that they will be given all civil rights and will be
2 enabled elections for local administration according to the Croatian
3 constitution and constitutional law with the presence of international
5 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, the evidence before this Chamber is
6 that any number of witnesses have heard this and have testified about it.
7 In order, it is Sava Mirkovic, P723, paragraph 3; protected Witness 54,
8 P-- at P186, page 3; another witness, Petar Kolovic, testified to this at
9 P631, paragraph 3; Stepan Zaric, Exhibit P2516, paragraph 3; Mile Sovilj,
10 P86, paragraph 9, and so forth. Others have testified, and certainly we
11 will not [sic] provide at the pertinent time the individuals who have all
12 testified to this.
13 Q. Now, Mr. Radic, asking the Serbs to stay and the decision by
14 those Serbs to leave, voluntarily leave, was a significant event for the
15 Republic of Croatia
16 people; isn't that a fact?
17 A. Quite certainly. At this meeting that you have referred to, and
18 at many others prior to this one, the definite position was what the
19 President wrote here, that many Serbs had been misled, that they had
20 taken part in the rebellion without knowing where this was going take
21 them, and the president and all of us on a number of occasions said loud
22 and clear, Stay, nothing will happen to you.
23 But something happened contrary to the will of the President.
24 They left of their own free will. It wasn't the Croatian politics or the
25 Croatian Army who had chased them away. Someone else had.
1 Q. Now, Mr. Radic, it's a fact that they not only left of their own
2 free will, but they joined a force with which the Republic of Croatia
3 at war. Isn't that right?
4 A. Right. Quite right.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could I ask for some foundation for the claim
6 that all the Serbs that left joined a force that was at war? I'm not
7 sure that is well founded.
8 MR. KEHOE: I'll clarify the answer.
9 Q. Mr. Radic, the people that left voluntarily, voluntarily went to
10 another country, to stay in another country, or countries, both of which
11 were at war with the Republic of Croatia
12 A. No one, or at least for me, personally, it is difficult for me to
13 imagine that a person would voluntarily leave his home, and that is why
14 my conclusion is that this was an organised process, that the greater
15 Serbian authorities had made these plans much earlier and had encouraged
16 and organised the Serbs together with the withdrawal of the armed forces
17 for the Serbs to leave with them. I wasn't there, but my deep conviction
18 is that they were forced, in a sense, to leave by what Milosevic is
19 synonymous for.
20 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber considers that you're not staying well
21 within the boundaries the Chamber has set for cross-examination. Would
22 you therefore please get back into those boundaries.
23 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President. I was covering exactly what --
24 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm just asking you to go back into those
1 MR. KEHOE:
2 Q. Yes, now, with the idea these individuals who left and how they
3 were going to be treated, these people who left were not citizens of the
4 Republic of Croatia
5 A. At that point in time, they were not citizens of the Republic of
7 nationality, because they were born in Croatia. Those who had born in
9 one of the basis of the rebellion. They didn't wish to be Croatian
11 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, without going through this, the
12 Chamber has heard the exhibits, and I'm not going to go through this --
13 JUDGE ORIE: But again, we don't have to list them all in the
14 presence of the witness. The Chamber is, perhaps not in every detail and
15 page number, but is aware of the evidence which is before it.
16 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. And likewise, Mr. Radic, you know that these individuals in the
18 Republic of Serb Krajina or the so-called Republic of Serbian Krajina
19 said that they were in fact citizens of the Republic of Serb Krajina
20 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and then changed to the
21 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; isn't that a fact?
22 A. That is common knowledge. Not only did they claim that they were
23 citizens of the republic of Yugoslavia
24 would attach this part of Croatia
25 the basis of the rebellion.
1 Q. So --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one clarification.
3 You said those who were born in Croatia that they had the right
4 to apply for Croatian citizenship between in the intermediate period --
5 well, the situation was quite different.
6 What was the percentage of persons who, well, let's say, in
7 July 1995
8 percentage that was born this Croatia
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is hard for me to tell and to
10 give you the figure off the bat. But shall we say, about 60-odd per cent
11 who had been born in Croatia
12 from other parts of the former Yugoslavia
13 other areas, and who were living in Croatia and working there. This
14 applied mostly to the Yugoslav Army, the police and many other spheres of
16 But that is my impression. I can't give you the exact figures.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
19 Q. Now with regard to these individuals, just to summarize,
20 Mr. Radic, the Republic of Croatia
21 the Serb Krajina to be Croatian citizens and those individuals, Serbs
22 from the Serb Krajina, did not consider themselves to be Croatian
23 citizens. Is that not accurate, sir?
24 A. That is a fact. But the President, in this letter too, called on
25 those who wanted to be Croatian citizens to stay, to accept the facts.
1 Now it was up to their will or due to somebody forcing them to make such
2 a decision to decide what they decided.
3 Q. And you heard, did you not, President Tudjman refer to those
4 people who left as people who opted out of being a citizen of the
5 Republic of Croatia
6 A. That happened during the period that followed, when we saw that
7 they had left, yes, the President repeated this several times.
8 I must also say that he knew better than many of us others this
9 segment of the population because he had lived for a considerable part of
10 his life in Belgrade
11 Yugoslav Army and he spent a large part of his life in Belgrade, and he
12 was far more familiar with the way people thought there than those who
13 were younger than he.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 MR. KEHOE:
16 Q. Mr. Galbraith, Ambassador Galbraith told this Chamber, and this
17 is at P444 --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
19 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think that the focus of the Chamber in its
21 examination-in-chief clearly was to further explore what was said in
22 meetings which this witness attended. We are now going through the whole
23 of the policy of President Tudjman on which we had heard already quite a
24 lot of evidence. That is not, and I repeat therefore, that the Chamber
25 really would like to you go back to the boundaries that were set by the
1 Chamber, since you have asked no permission to do otherwise, and it was
2 clearly in our guidance, so therefore, again, unanimously the Chamber
3 considers that you're not staying within the boundaries set.
4 Could you please now really get back --
5 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Mr. President, and what I was
6 attempting to do --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah, I'm saying, but you are always explaining what
8 you are attempting to do. My --
9 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, if I could have just one second to
10 explain the contextualisation of all of these conversations, which I
11 submit to the Chamber is missing, and that is, number one, that people
12 didn't think they were coming back; and, number two, the concept was of
13 -- of President Tudjman, when we go into Galbraith and what Galbraith
14 said, which the Chamber brought up, was simply this.
15 Excuse me, Mr. President, let me finish.
16 It is simply this: That President Tudjman was of the belief that
17 they didn't have these rights because they opted out and joined a warring
18 force. That gives contextualisation to everything that the Chamber
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, you could -- Mr. Kehoe, in this concept
22 of yours you could go through the whole of the evidence again as
23 contextualisation of what the Chamber was focussing on, and clearly that
24 is not what the Chamber expected to you do.
25 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, Ms. Gustafson did the same thing, and
1 there was no complaint by the Chamber when Ms. Gustafson did the same
2 thing. I am attempting to allow to give as much information to the
3 Chamber as possible as to the mindset of one of the participants to this
4 meeting with another participant who is dead as to how they are coming
5 into this meeting. One, they don't think they're coming back; and, two,
6 they don't think they have a right to come back, which, of course,
7 explains in large part the difference of opinion between
8 Ambassador Galbraith and the participants of this conversation. Because
9 if you go back to the exhibit offered by the Prosecution, Galbraith's
10 testimony and his statement at P444, paragraph 33, he is talking
11 precisely about this which is -- which is Tudjman saying these people
12 opted out. It is a different context.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it true that the testimony of Mr. Galbraith,
14 as you, yourself, pointed out very clearly was specifically focussed on a
15 certain meeting with -- with the President.
16 MR. KEHOE: No, Mr. President, that is not accurate. If you go
17 back to Galbraith's statement he is not talking about a particular
18 meeting; he is talking about a sequence of meetings.
19 JUDGE ORIE: The element that was touched upon, the Chamber has a
20 feeling, has gained the impression that are you further away. I let you
21 go earlier as well. It is not to say that not one step outside of those
22 meetings is allowed, but you are moving further away from what was the
23 focus of the Chamber than Ms. Gustafson did. And I asked you to get in
24 -- back into the boundaries. And if you put one step over those
25 boundaries, I would not have intervened, but it is the unanimous
1 impression of this Chamber that we are already with two feet out of the
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, of course I object, and at the
5 appropriate time, I would like to put my objections on the record more
6 elaborately than I have to date simply because I think this is an
7 extremely important consideration if the Chamber is going to put any
8 credence on these conversations.
9 Q. Now, again, let us talk about the contextualisation of these
10 conversations of moving people in, of what exactly, and we're talking
11 about 426, the Law on the Temporary Takeover that you on 11th of August,
12 we're talking about the conversation with President Tudjman in P463 on
13 22nd of August, 1995 where you are talking about building factories and
14 cities. I'm talking about the conversation in P464, the next day with
15 the military, talking about putting the military in to generate this
17 Now, this is all being done, of course, in the context of the
18 Republic of Croatia
19 at war, it was still a major security concern in the development of these
20 areas. Isn't that right?
21 A. Well, you see, in the neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegovina
22 time, the war was at its peak and the deployment of our military units
23 was certainly strategically aimed at defence, due to the fact that
24 Milosevic was still in power. He had still not been overthrown. And
25 army had to be where it was important for the defence of Croatia. And in
1 this context, if this is positive in the demographic, economic, and every
2 other sense, then it is essential that several parameters form a positive
3 whole. The fact is that the area is empty, abandoned, and for every
4 house to be preserved regardless of who used to have to lived in it, it
5 was important to settle people there.
6 Q. Mr. President, on that score I direct the attention to the
7 stipulation of the Gotovina Defence to the pre-trial brief filed by the
8 Prosecution, and I'm referring of course to paragraphs 105, 106, and 107,
9 where, inter alia, the Prosecution maintained that an armed conflict
10 existed between the HV and the RSK through -- including and not limited
11 to the end of the operative time of the indictment and also that the --
12 that Croatia
13 during this operative time-frame.
14 So suffice it to say for this entire period of time the Republic
15 of Croatia
16 Now, based on that, based on the fact that there was still a war
17 there was, nevertheless, members of the international community,
18 including Ambassador Galbraith, who wanted, notwithstanding the war,
19 wanted a mass return of Serbs who had left; isn't that right?
20 A. I can't remember that Galbraith talked about mass return, at
21 least not when I was present. He may have said that in any of his public
22 addresses. But what I recall much better is that we always talked about
23 it, that realistically a smaller number of people who left Croatia
24 going to return.
25 Personally, I did not have any personal -- or friendly
1 relationships with Mr. Galbraith, so I did not meet with him very often.
2 Q. Well, let us turn to a video that has previously come into
3 evidence in this case with an announcement by Minister Granic. It is
4 Exhibit 1821 which discusses the public position of Croatia with regard
5 to mass returns.
6 [Video-clip played]
7 "THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] Deputy prime minister and minister
8 of foreign affairs, Dr. Mate Granic, received today the representatives
9 of the EU; the French ambassador to Zagreb, Jean-Jacques Gaillarde;
10 and" --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, the interpreters have not received, as
12 they report, transcripts of the --
13 MR. KEHOE: They have, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then let's verify that.
15 Are the transcript available or ...
16 THE INTERPRETER: We have a transcript from 28th August.
17 MR. KEHOE: That's it, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm now moving to the English channel.
19 THE INTERPRETER: The English booth has a transcript,
20 Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Transcripts are there.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. KEHOE: Why don't we just start this from the beginning if we
24 can. Okay. If we may play this.
25 Q. This is 28 August 1995
1 [Video-clip played]
2 "THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] The deputy prime minister and
3 minister of foreign affairs, Dr. Mate Granic, received today the
4 representatives of the EU, the French ambassador Zagreb Jean-Jacques
5 Gaillarde, and first secretaries of the Spanish and Italian Embassies,
6 Camilo Villarino Marzo and Benedetto Laterri, at their own request, and
7 also present at the meeting was the representative of the
8 European Commission with the European Union Monitoring Mission,
9 Fulvio Paolini.
10 The representatives of the countries of the European Trojka
11 expressed the EU's concern to Mr. Granic regarding the situation
12 involving human rights in the liberated areas of the Republic of Croatia
13 emphasising that Croatia
14 Minister Granic said that these were individual incidents which before
15 all show the level of frustration people have, and expressed his belief
16 that with the stablisation of civilian authorities, the reasons for
17 concern over the situation regarding human rights will no longer exist.
18 With respect to the return of refugee Serbs from the liberated areas,
19 Minister Granic pointed out that their return will unavoidably depend on
20 the possibilities of achieving a final peaceful solution of the crisis in
21 these areas and the normalisation of relations with the Federal Republic
22 of Yugoslavia
23 received and processed in accordance with the Croatian laws."
24 MR. KEHOE:
25 Q. So the position with regard to the return of Serbs was -- that
1 would depend on the normalisation of relations with the Federal Republic
2 of Yugoslavia
3 individuals would be brought back. Is that right?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. Now this was the -- not only the public position, this was the
6 position that was talked about privately and talked about among the
7 ministers that there were as well; correct?
8 A. Absolutely. This was a public fact, but this was also something
9 that we talked about on a daily basis.
10 Q. And, Mr. Radic, that in fact did happen, that after the
11 normalisation of relations with the Federal republic of Yugoslavia, then
12 the organised return of people from, be it, the Bosnia-Herzegovina or
13 from Serbia
14 A. Absolutely. It has happened to a large extent, but after the
15 war, after the refugees were exchanged, after we collected information on
16 the victims of the war, the casualties, and all the rest, it was possible
17 to organise to organise the return.
18 And yesterday we already saw the information that
19 President Tudjman, in Vukovar several years later, said that
20 14.500 people came back. So as the normalisation progressed, so the
21 possibilities to have an organised return were also larger. At the same
22 time, the reconstruction was ongoing and we had more technical
23 preconditions which allowed for people to return.
24 Q. And those technical preconditions I think you talked to us
25 previously was an application and receipt of Croatian citizenship and
1 then an application for return; is that right?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Let us now shift gears again, and I want to go back into some of
4 the conversation that we had the early part of August that have to do
5 with -- and I'm talking about your private conversations that are taking
6 place and policies that were discussed privately as well as publicly.
7 And first I'd like to highlight your concerns and the first document that
8 -- and I recognise there are a series of meetings here, but one of them
9 is on the 7th of August, 1995, D813. D1813, excuse me.
10 And this is a -- in fact, this is an open session meeting on the
11 7th of August. And if we could go to page 30 in the English.
12 And this is a series of people speaking, Mr. Radic, Mr. Valentic
13 -- excuse me.
14 MR. KEHOE: And if we could have page 26 in e-court and 59 --
15 excuse me. 20 in English and 45 in B/C/S. In e-court.
16 Q. Now, Mr. Radic, I would like to discuss with you both the
17 conversations that you were having publicly as well as the conversations
18 you were having privately, about problems in the area, especially right
19 after Operation Storm. And it's paragraph that I would like to highlight
20 and it's a long discussion by you. This -- well, it doesn't have you on
21 this particular page. Trust me, this is you speaking.
22 And in this paragraph, where it begins: "There are just one or
23 two very important things I have to stress ..."
24 Do you see that sir?
25 A. I do.
1 Q. All right. "So there are just one or two very important things I
2 have to stress. Activities for the return of people cannot evolve
3 spontaneously. It has to be organised very precisely and very well. So
4 from this, the [sic] government, we are not now sending an invitation to
5 returnees to rush back ... we shall call you, we shall organise those
6 [sic] things, and say tomorrow, or on this or that day, we shall return
7 to Drnis, Vrlika, or whatever area necessary, in an organised fashion."
8 Now I take it from that, that you were very concerned about
9 people just rushing back into this area without any semblance of order.
10 Now tell us why.
11 A. A day before I made this speech at the government meeting I was
12 informed that a returnee had been killed in Lovinac. It was a Croatian
13 village that had been completely destroyed during the war in the area
14 between Gradac and Gospic, and our citizen returnee between Gracac,
15 therefore -- and Gospic, and when he was removing the branches to enter
16 his home, he was killed by a mine. And under the influence of that event
17 to avoid there being a hundred, maybe thousand such incidents, we said
18 that we have to carefully organise these things. We could not allow the
19 returnees to rush back to their villages on their own. It was necessary
20 to renew the infrastructure, to clear the roads, to re-establish the
21 electricity grid, the water supply, and then village by village, small
22 town by small town, starting from the places where it was less dangerous
23 and easier to organise to bring back the people. It would be ideal if
24 everything had been in place that nothing had been mined or destroyed.
25 We could have said, Come back tomorrow. But as it is, without any
1 documentation, this was not possible. And that is why, at the very
2 beginning, we appealed on people to wait to be invited back.
3 Q. Now you also talked to us in -- in the examination over the past
4 several days about people coming back, and the transcript themselves talk
5 about people coming back. And destruction ensued. And in your private
6 conversations with the President, and let me direct your attention again
7 to P463, page 4 of 37, and page 6 in the B/C/S where you talk about that.
8 Now, as this is coming up, Mr. Radic, part of your job in
9 assessing bringing people back is a determination of a level of damage to
10 various areas and what your office is going to have to do to fix those
11 premises so people can be brought back from hotels on the coast or
12 wherever they happened to be.
13 Is that accurate?
14 A. Yes. We organised the return, or the renewal of the returning
15 process, so that the first two steps were de-mining and assessment of the
17 So larger expert teams went into the field to make an estimate of
18 the damage so that we could organise our next steps.
19 Q. Let me turn your attention to the bottom of this page, and we'll
20 talk about another issue where you begin at: "However..."
21 Should be the bottom of page 4.
22 [Defence counsel confer]
23 MR. KEHOE: Just turn the page in the B/C/S to 7.
24 Q. You note:
25 "However, one thing I have to tell you is that I visited all of
1 this now both by car and by helicopter. Our men torched a lot, they were
2 [sic] torching today, as they did yesterday, Mr. President [sic], it's no
4 MR. KEHOE: If we can turn the page in English. Top of the page.
5 Q. "I went to Kijevo to see, I know that area very well. There's a
6 village Civljane near Kijevo, of equal size, a Serb village where they
7 renewed nice houses and told them everything has been preserved. I got
8 there on the day of the assumption of the Virgin Mary to find everything
9 had been burned down."
10 MR. KEHOE: Turn the page in the B/C/S, please.
11 Q. "Not in the cities because the authorities were obviously more
12 powerfully there, but in the villages. It's not the army, it's that
13 5th echelon which is under I don't know whose what kind of banner, put on
14 a uniform, warned about, those are the worst tramps, torching and looting
15 around. That is our property; it is not someone else's. What if he
16 burned down the Serb village near Kijevo where we could accommodate our
17 population? Here, I received a letter of the same content from the
18 cardinal asking me and saying that he had received a letter from some
19 Cilko guy saying that our men are torching those places over there. I'm
20 not telling you hearsay, but the things that I've experienced myself and
21 seen with my own eyes, torching and looting."
22 If we could turn to page 7 in the English, at the top of the page
23 in English, the carry-over sentence is you speaking. And page 10 in the
25 The top of the page, it's you continuing to speak to
1 President Tudjman:
2 "But there transitional period is a period of robbing, misery,
3 and all kinds of things. I do not see a way to prevent all this" --
4 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, I'm told we don't have the B/C/S on the
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not have that page in B/C/S.
7 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, I will get it forthwith.
8 Should be page 10 of the B/C/S at the bottom.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably page 9. Probably 9.
10 MR. KEHOE:
11 Q. I believe it is starting there at the bottom, Mr. Radic.
12 This is the comment: "There's a period of robbing, misery, and
13 call kinds of things."
14 Turn the page in the B/C/S.
15 "I do not see a way to prevent all this, but the worst evil is to
16 torch and destroy" --
17 A. I'm sorry, we don't have the page in Croatian. I think it is the
18 previous page, page 9 in Croatian.
19 Q. I agree, sorry. It's page 9.
20 MR. KEHOE: Can we just go one page back please in the B/C/S.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, each page -- e-court numbers are one
22 ahead of the hard copy page numbering. If you keep that in mind, it may
23 be easier to direct the witness to the right page.
24 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Q. I believe we are at the centre of this page here, sir.
1 And it notes in that sentences, again:
2 "This is the transition period, there's a period of robbing,
3 misery, and all kinds of things. I do not see a way to prevent all this.
4 But the worse evil is to torch and destroy."
5 There's a comment by the President. And if we can go to the next
6 page in the B/C/S.
7 And the President after your comment says:
8 "We talked about preventing this from the beginning."
9 Now, we are talking about what you're saying privately to the
10 President and also what you're saying publicly, and we'll get into the
11 public. Talk to us about this discussion, talk to us about your level of
12 frustration in this particular private conversation.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I don't believe that this issue
15 arises from the -- relates to the topics that the Chamber covered in
16 direct examination not does it arise out of the Prosecutions
17 cross-examination. And if the Chamber decides to allow this area to be
18 covered, I will need some time to recross-examine thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
20 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I believe in your e-mail to us or your
21 Chamber staff e-mail to us, you refer to issues of a security concerns
22 and conversations in both a private and a public setting. Certainly this
23 issue, albeit not specifically addressed by the Chamber, does fall into
24 the category of security concerns and both the private and public nature
25 of those conversations with, once again, a participant to this
1 conversation with the President of the Republic of Croatia
2 obviously dead.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, security concerns, but perhaps there's a
4 misunderstanding, was -- the Chamber was talking primarily about security
5 concerns as we found it in the area north and south of Karlovac where
7 and then how that would address security concerns, and that was also the
8 focus. You may remember that we had a -- quite a number of questions in
9 relation to the 10 per cent where we wanted to know exactly where it was
10 and what the concerns were, and how the population of the area would meet
11 some concerns of -- this balanced composition of the population. That's
12 the kind of security concerns we had in mind at the time. And I think,
13 also, which was shown in our examination-in-chief to be part of our
15 I do not remember that in the examination-in-chief there -- the
16 question of whether one was opposed against burning and looting or not,
17 that that was addressed, either in the examination -- as a focal point.
18 It was, if at all, it was a marginal matter.
19 MR. KEHOE: And, Mr. President, I have to say that I was somewhat
20 surprised that the Chamber did not address this for the simple reason
21 that I understood the purpose in part, of course, of calling this witness
22 was to examine the intent of the Croatian authorities or members of the
23 JCE prior to and going through Operation Storm.
24 Now, certainly this individual and his activities concerning the
25 temporary -- the Law on the Temporary Takeover, et cetera, played into
2 This particular comment on this, given that it is part and parcel
3 of the JCE as charged by the Office of the Prosecutor in paragraph 12,
4 goes directly to the burning or destruction or devastation aspects that
5 the -- that the OTP has levelled in this regard.
6 Now, I did note that the Chamber did talk about some destruction
7 concerning Donji Lapac, but -- excuse me, the OTP did. And -- and
8 certainly it plays into that. But, more broadly, Mr. President, this
9 particular evidence directly goes to the JCE which I do believe the
10 Chamber is very concerned with, and given that, we have the unique
11 opportunity to talk to an individual who was in these conversations and
12 to talk about what was going on during the circle of these conversations.
13 So, again, I thought that the Chamber was going to re-cover that.
14 I thought that, given the nature of this evidence, going to the intent
15 aspect prior to Operation Storm, it was important to ascertain the intent
16 element on these other issues, such as burning, because that has been a
17 central feature of the intent element from the OTP.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, you're invited to move on to another
20 subject. The Chamber will during the break further consider where
21 exactly to draw the lines. That means that there may be or may not be an
22 opportunity to further explore this matter after the break.
23 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, of course, if the Chamber would
24 like any further elaboration on exhibits or the path I was intending to
25 travel upon, I would likewise do that before the break as well.
1 Should I proceed, Mr. President?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kehoe, please do so.
3 MR. KEHOE:
4 Q. Moving away from this topic for one moment, Mr. Radic, and I'd
5 like to certainly begin a discussion on the Law of the Temporary Takeover
6 that was raised both by the Chamber and certainly by the Office of the
7 Prosecutor. And again, once again I ask you to keep in mind the time
8 sequence that we are discussing here, beginning with this conversation on
9 the 11th, where the issue raised is, What are we going to do with all
10 this property? If we talk at the beginning -- and it has been discussed
11 at some length, P462.
12 MR. KEHOE: If we could bring that up on the screen.
13 Q. Just to let you know, Mr. Radic, what I'd like to take you
14 through is the evolution of this decree and statute and the ultimate
15 discussions as they progressed, if I may. So if we get some idea of
16 exactly where I'm going I would like to give you a preview of that and,
17 of course, this is it the first discussion we have on this score. And
18 there's a debate going on, and I think that the Chamber has highlighted
19 some aspects of it. I believe that they -- if you turn to page 10 of
20 this document in the English.
21 MR. KEHOE: I don't believe that's page -- excuse me.
22 Take us to page 15 in the English.
23 Q. Now we begin a discussion about the law itself and some of the
24 practical concerns about the law of people moving in and out. And
25 there's a discussion by Mr. Valentic, where, if someone moves in and
1 someone else comes back, they'll have to move and minister Susak says:
2 "No one [sic] will move in under such a law."
3 Mr. Radic, when you're discussing the implementation of this law,
4 there's some very practical problems about moving people in and moving
5 people out and reconstruction and what happens after the house is
6 reconstructed, and what happens if someone comes back. And isn't that a
7 reality, the practical concern of moving population in and out of these
9 A. Absolutely so. This was the period immediately after the
10 Operation Storm. The war is still going on, a time when many homes are
11 completely or partially destroyed, when there is the danger of some being
12 further destroyed, when many looters are roaming around, stealing
13 property from those homes, we don't have the strength to prevent all that
14 in the villages, so there is a host of practical issues which are not
15 just of a legislative nature, and these are things that had to be
16 seriously discussed at the time. And at meetings, people presented
17 various ideas, but then in a smaller group, a smaller team at the
18 government, we agreed on a draft law which was discussed and adopted.
19 Q. Let us just talk a little bit about the various discussions that
20 are taking place, and even on this page -- excuse me. If we can scroll
21 down to Mr. Krpina's comments.
22 MR. KEHOE: And the next page in the B/C/S.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not it.
24 MR. KEHOE: That's not it.
25 Q. Let me read it to you in English because I think we can get the
1 sense of it.
2 MR. KEHOE: Page 24 in the B/C/S.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mm-hm.
4 MR. KEHOE:
5 Q. Now, Mr. Krpina says:
6 "Mr. President, I think we should pass a law, that they would
7 declare all -- that they would declare all abandoned property state law
8 [sic] on the pretext of preserving the property."
9 He talks about it being a pretext. And that there were other
10 conversations. If we go to, for instance, page 22 in the English --
11 excuse me, page 20 in the English where Mr. Sarinic is talking about how
12 property was -- of the French was dealt with in Algeria.
13 MR. KEHOE: It's the page before that in English, and 28 in
15 Q. And Mr. Sarinic is talking about, in the centre of that comment:
16 "I asked about the case when the French left Algeria?"
17 MR. KEHOE: If we turn to the next page in the English, the
18 comments by Mr. Milas in the centre of the page, and the next page in the
20 Q. Mr. Milas talks about:
21 "The Czech constitutional court has recently confirmed the decree
22 from 1945 on the simple appropriation of property, the decree by Benes,
23 the president of the republic, and the constitutional court confirmed
24 that it is legal and it is still in effect. They haven't made much
25 progress ..."
1 So the discussion is in many different areas, including the Benes
2 decrees, which appropriated, in 1945, property of the ethnic German
3 population. Early on we're talking about a wide variety of proposals on
4 how to deal with all this vacant property, aren't we?
5 A. Yes. At that meeting, there were people with considerable
6 international experience. Mr. Sarinic had spent his life in France
7 Mr. Milas in Austria
8 experiences other countries had in similar cases, and all this was
10 Q. Now let us move to the actual continued discussion as we move
11 closer to the implementation date at the end of August and the beginning
12 of September, and I'd like to direct you to a transcript that was read in
13 part by the Chamber, and that was D1823, which is a closed session of the
14 government of the 31st of August, 1995.
15 I want you to keep in mind as this is coming up, Mr. Radic, that
16 we have a sequence of ideas going on from early -- the early August on
17 pretexts or appropriation of property, and I want to direct you to
18 exactly the conversation that is taking place here that is directed, in
19 large part, by the prime minister, Mr. Valentic.
20 Now, if we could turn to page 2 of 30 in the English, and I will
21 tell you, Mr. Radic, that even though there's not a cover sheet on this
22 that lists all the participants, you are speaking in this document at
23 some length, so I just want to advise you of that.
24 MR. KEHOE: Page 5 in the B/C/S.
25 Q. And it begins with the paragraph: "As you may have seen."
1 And we're talking about this potential decree on the Law on the
2 Temporary Takeover, and I'd like to read you a sequence of items.
3 This is Mr. Valentic, Prime Minister Valentic speaking:
4 "As you may have seen, it is actually about the necessity to
5 protect the property which, de facto, lost its proprietor, the property
6 worth billions; the property which is under no one's protection, and
7 which is, largely because of that, partly burned and robbed. Unless this
8 property is not placed under protection, it is practically impossible to
9 protect this property in this large area. We are fully aware of the
10 possible political implications, and that is why we opted for the
11 solution that we deem have to have factual, political, and legal
12 justification. That is why I would like to ask Vice-President Misetic to
13 elaborate on this law and this decree; maybe I should explain why we
14 decided to come up with this decree."
15 MR. KEHOE: And if we could turn the page in the English and page
16 6 in the B/C/S.
17 Q. I would like to talk you through the discussion by Mr. Misetic
18 concerning the people who left the Krajina. And that is the third
19 category that begins in the centre of the -- in the centre of the English
20 page -- yes, towards the bottom of the -- that's the paragraph in B/C/S.
21 "The third category is the property of those citizens, primarily
22 of those in the occupied territories who left the Republic of Croatia
23 after the liberation of those occupied territories; all ... three
24 categories of property are rated by this law as a property without the
25 proprietor as their proprietors left the Republic of Croatia
1 purpose of this is law to make this property subject to proper management
2 in the way the good governor would do so [sic] in order to avoid an
3 unfathomable damage to this property, as well as to ensure that, although
4 [sic] a proposed fashion of management and manipulation of the [sic]
5 property, a number of Croatian citizens [sic] primarily the Croats who
6 are expelled by the Serbs from other areas and from other countries would
7 benefit from this property."
8 Continuing on.
9 MR. KEHOE: In the B/C/S, if we could turn to the next page.
10 Q. "Bearing in mind the fact that up until now, and from now on,
11 every single Croatian move on the international level shall be
12 scrutinised from the point of view of international humanitarian law as
13 well as the fact that the Croatian state has becoming a military and
14 political factor, and a factor in general, not only in the territories of
15 the former Yugoslavia
16 role of political subject in these areas, there have been quite a few
17 proposals an opinions. The final proposal of the co-ordinating bodies
18 for internal affairs and of all others who took part in creation of this
19 law is that all this property is to be sequestered by the Croatian state,
20 meaning that the state of Croatia
21 management, rather than to state in a law or in an enactment that this is
22 property of the Republic of Croatia
23 Now, I notice we're at break time, Mr. Radic, I would like to
24 discuss this meeting with you at some length. It is going take a little
25 bit of time, Mr. President, and I do believe it will take us well past
1 the break.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's first ask the usher to escort Mr. Radic
3 out of the courtroom.
4 We will have a break, Mr. Radic, so that I can further inquire
5 with the parties about the time still needed.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
8 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You started yesterday. We are now one session.
10 Could you give us a ...
11 MR. KEHOE: At the most an hour, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: One hour after the break.
13 MR. KEHOE: I think so, sir.
14 JUDGE ORIE: As matters stand now, Mr. Kay?
15 MR. KAY: I have no questions in view of Mr. Kehoe's questioning,
16 Your Honour. I don't need any time.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Also not in view of the Chamber's questions.
18 MR. KAY: No, no.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
20 MR. MIKULICIC: I will only have ten minutes questioning,
21 Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ten minutes.
23 Then we will have a break, and we will resume at five minutes to
25 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, the Chamber has considered the scope of
4 cross-examination. If you would like to put a few focussed questions, in
5 relation to the minutes, where looting and burning appears, although the
6 Chamber has not directly addressed that matter as one of the real
7 subjects of its examination, then you're allowed to do so. At the same
8 time, the Chamber expects you not to go through the whole looting and
9 burning issue again, then focussed on those portions of the transcript.
10 Therefore -- Ms. Gustafson.
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry, Your Honour, if that is Your Honour's
12 ruling, you know, I just would like to draw Your Honours attention that
13 this was witness was on the witness list of the Gotovina Defence. This
14 is hardly the unique opportunity that Mr. Kehoe referred to earlier, and
15 I would like to add that if this topic is going to be raised for the
16 first time in cross-examination, and even if is a few questions, it
17 relates to a relatively central issue in this case, I will need time to
18 prepare, and I will need time to re-cross-examine this witness on this
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's first wait and see what the questions of
22 Mr. Kehoe are.
23 Mr. Kehoe, what Ms. Gustafson said is that if this matter would
24 be raised first with this witness -- the Chamber already addressed that
25 matter, to some extent in its communication with the parties, that the
1 parties decided not to call this witness, and you could have done that if
2 you would have wished to do so, and, therefore, there are limitations.
3 Let's really try to see whether we can focus not on the looting
4 and burning as such.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Mr. President, I will, of course, if
7 need be, address the concerns of the OTP, if Your Honour wants to; but if
8 not, I'll just move ahead.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please to do.
10 MR. KEHOE:
11 Q. Mr. Radic, before we go back to the looting and burning issues,
12 let's just stay with what we left off with, which was the temporary
13 takeover law. And we just read both comments by both Mr. Valentic and
14 also comments by Mr. Misetic, and if I could just address you to one last
15 entry in D1863, and I'm talking about page 28 in the English and 46 in
16 the B/C/S.
17 And in the paragraph where Prime Minister Valentic talks about
18 the right to use and manage in the -- about four lines down in the
20 "The right to use and ... manage, meaning that we are ... not
21 interfering with the ownership. It would be regulated by a separate
22 law ..."
23 MR. KEHOE: And if we could scroll down to the paragraph
24 beginning: "Ergo ..."
25 Q. "Ergo, such a decree will allow anyone who returns to apply
1 within 30 days, and in that case their property will not be the subject
2 of sequester. If they fail to comply, then their property is
3 sequestered. The problem of ownership shall be resolved in a separate
4 law. This is another story."
5 Now we have seen some debate, but in this session that you
6 participated in, a wide variety of people weighed in on this debate. Is
7 that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And I think that the Chamber ultimately had the decree that was
10 passed on 4 September 1995
11 that 30 days be given for people to register and then the law itself,
12 being D422, which was passed on 20 September 1995, again, that's D422,
13 which moved that back up to 90 days.
14 So, would it be accurate to say that we started early on in these
15 debates with a lot of discussion as to what to do with that property and
16 we move to a sequestration of 30, then 90 days, certainly by September of
17 1995, all within approximately a month period of time.
18 Is that right? I mean, I don't want to put words in your mouth,
19 sir --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, isn't true that it I already put this to
21 the witness, as what is known to the Chamber, I gave exactly the same
23 So therefore what is the use of asking the witness whether -- it
24 is in evidence; we've seen it several times; and I told it to this
25 witness already.
1 MR. KEHOE: Well, it goes to the Chamber's comments, if I may.
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, you asked the witness whether it is right that
3 this is what then followed. And I told the witness that that is in the
4 knowledge of Chamber.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. KEHOE:
7 Q. Now when these discussions were taking place, was
8 Ambassador Galbraith in these discussions, these private discussions,
9 where how this law was going to be enacted was discussed among all these
11 A. I tell you as follows. We discussed this law widely. Many of us
12 did not have any experience with the matter, but we did have our goal
13 clearly in our minds, and this was to protect and preserve the property
14 and to use it so that it wouldn't go to waste and also to protect private
16 I don't remember that I personally met with Ambassador Galbraith
17 at the time, but I certainly met with many representatives of the
18 international community, and we tried to accord our proposals with them
19 so that our proposals be internationally acceptable.
20 I can remind you that on one occasion in a conversation that I
21 had with Madam Albright when she told me that we had to prevent torching
22 of the houses, I told her, of course, and we are do that, not because are
23 you asking us to do that but because this is in line with our principles,
24 and this is in line with our constitution. We have to prevent torching
25 of the houses, looting. We have to protect private property. And we, at
1 the same time, had to use that property to the best of our abilities
2 during this very harsh times, when we had so many displaced in Croatia
3 from Croatia
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina were both Croats and Bosniaks.
5 So instead of them living in sport halls, under tents, in hotels,
6 where we received them temporarily, the guiding idea was to protect the
7 property, the main idea was if you have a family living in a house, that
8 house will be protected, and we wanted to use them at the same time.
9 Q. Well, Mr. Radic, let me cut this short. The Chamber asked you a
10 question concerning testimony given to the Court by Ambassador Galbraith,
11 and that is at page 27159 to 27160 in various paragraphs, that this Law
12 on the temporary taking over of Property was simply a pretext for
13 permanently taking the property of the Serbs who left.
14 What is your response to that?
15 A. Mr. Galbraith is known to have been very superficial, and he did
16 not have a sufficient insight into this problem. He may have said that
17 this was a pretext for something else, but this is certainly not true. I
18 personally coordinated this work, possibly he observed this from the
19 side, but I can clearly confirm here what was the main idea and the main
20 goal of this takeover of the property.
21 The idea was to protect the property and not to destroy it, and
22 it was certainly not a pretext to prevent anybody from returning. If
23 that was our wish, then the simplest way would have been to torch down
24 everything. But you could have seen here that I said directly to the
25 President, We have to prevent torching. The President confirmed this.
1 And I can also testify here that we had at least 50 such conversations in
2 which we said, Let us protect all the property, let us prevent them from
3 burning it down, because this is the property that is valuable for all
4 the citizens of Croatia
5 So we would not have prevented the torching if our goal was to
6 prevent people from coming back.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, I earlier asked you not to put questions
8 such that you would elicit the same evidence from the witness already.
9 Your last question, what your response is to the pretext, is aiming at an
10 explanation on what was aimed at with this law. I think the witness has
11 explained to this to us now three times, and we don't neat a fourth or a
12 fifth time.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, in that vein, I was going back to the
15 question asked by the Chamber which, for a variety of reasons, wasn't
16 answered squarely. I turn to that page, ask the Chamber to look at it,
17 and I will move on.
18 Q. Let us go to the last document on this issue, P475.
19 Now, this is the law on the change of the law of the temporary
20 taking over and administration of specified property, and it notes in
21 article 11 on the temporary take over and administration of specified
22 property, paragraph 1 is changed and reads:
23 "The issue of returning in possession and use of property which
24 is under the ownership from Article 2 of this property must be regulated
25 by the agreement of the normalisation of relations between the Republic
1 of Croatia
2 And this is dated 17 January, 1996
3 heard from minister Granic both the returns of people coming back, Serbs
4 returning back, as well as ownership of property were not going to be
5 dealt with until relations were being normalised. That was your
6 understanding, wasn't it?
7 A. Yes, and this is what this law says.
8 Q. Now briefly just going back to what we talked and you just
9 touched upon, and we will abbreviate there discussion, which is the
10 force 63, page 4 of 37, we don't need to read that again, where you're
11 talking about the burning of property. I mean, you just addressed that
12 with us, that you talked this about being the worse evil, and
13 President Tudjman says, It should have been prevented from the beginning.
14 I mean, this is a private conversation. Why were you saying
15 that, sir? Give us the reasons for that.
16 A. There are two reasons. The first one is that I was president of
17 the commission for return for the new creation of life in that area.
18 This was a state commission appointed by the government at the time. So
19 I spoke from that position. But also, in addition to that, I personally
20 visited all these liberated areas, so I spoke about what I saw with my
21 own eyes on the day of the assumption of the Virgin Mary, I saw that
22 houses were burning in Cviljane, and I told President that this was no
23 good. He asked me who were burning them. And I said, Well, these were
24 different thieves, people who put on military uniforms, but they are not
25 members of the army. And I told him if he go to the main square in the
1 city of Zagreb
2 members of the army.
3 So this was such a time, immediately after the war, when
4 everybody could hide behind this or that.
5 Q. [Microphone not activated] Now, sir --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
7 MR. KEHOE: My apologies.
8 Q. You condemned this in private, and you also made public
9 statements condemning this as well, did you not?
10 A. Absolutely. I did it on many occasions, both directly, in my
11 interviews for television during the sessions of the government and
12 elsewhere. And I had full support for this from the President of the
13 country, the prime minister, and the entire government. So this was my
14 sincere personal belief, but this was not only my position, this was also
15 the position of the President of the country and the entire leadership of
16 the country.
17 My task was reconstruction, and if we are talking about
18 reconstructing houses, then it is better to preserve the houses than to
19 have to reconstruct them entirely later on. This is why we wanted to
20 protect all of the homes as much as we could.
21 Q. Let us turn to one of your public statements on this score,
22 65 ter 1D3058. This is a newspaper article from the 23rd of August,
23 1995, one day after your discussion -- one day after your discussion that
24 we just looked at in P463.
25 I'm not certain that we have a B/C/S version of this so I will
1 just read it to you in English, sir. And this is a document from Tanjug
2 from the 23rd of August where it notes that you, "Croatian Deputy Prime
3 Minister Jure Radic said Wednesday that Serb property in Krajina was
4 being looted and destroyed."
5 "Radic told the Croatian government session that he disassociated
6 himself from these instances. Radic, on behalf of the government,
7 proposed that the defence and the interior ministries be put in charge of
8 preventing such conduct and punishing the perpetrators of these crimes.
9 "Radic claimed that these crimes had not been committed by ...
10 the army or the police but by those who followed military actions and
11 plundered and destroyed the property."
12 Mr. Radic, would this date and the substance of this message that
13 in these newspaper articles comport with your memory about your public
14 condemnation of this conduct?
15 A. The dates and the core message is as I recall it. Obviously,
16 every journalist reports that in their own manner. But I spoke on
17 several occasions in those days about the fact that we had to protect the
18 property, and I sincerely wanted this message to be received by every
19 single cross citizen who could contribute to the property being
21 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time, we'll to offer
22 65 ter 1D3058.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D02021.
1 JUDGE ORIE: D2021 is admitted into evidence.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. KEHOE:
4 Q. Now, Mr. Radic, were you with President Tudjman in Karlovac when
5 he gave a speech where he likewise publicly condemned the destruction of
6 property in Croatia
7 A. If you are referring on the occasion when we travelled with
8 train, the so-called train of liberty towards Split, yes, I was present.
9 I was present on several occasions when President gave out this message.
10 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, just for reference without going into
11 it, that's D1451, the 26th August video of President Tudjman condemning
12 this destruction.
13 Now, Mr. President, I will tell what you I intended to because it
14 comports with some testimony that the witness had given before, and I
15 will just lay it out. We have obviously seen a video from Mr. Liborius
16 where he talks at some time about Kistanje being destroyed and
17 construction commenced in 1996, he actually says that, and that, of
18 course, comports with what Mr. Radic has said there here.
19 That, of course, was what I was going lead into next which, of
20 course, goes back to the transcript at page 5 where the witness says that
21 this is preventing us from putting in houses -- by destroying this
22 property, it's preventing us from putting displaced people in the houses.
23 I raise this to the Chamber because, of course, I want to be guided by
24 what the Chamber is looking for --
25 JUDGE ORIE: A few questions in which you're focussing on what
1 was said in the transcripts, and if even if the Chamber has not
2 specifically dealt with looting and burning, is -- you have an
3 opportunity to do that. But let's clearly [Overlapping speakers] ...
4 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's clearly understand then, an important matter
6 in this case, apparently is what was said, when, where, what was done,
7 what followed, what was known to happen on the ground. And that is a
8 rather complex matter. The Chamber focussed very much on hearing the
9 evidence of a witness who had attended some of the meetings which were
10 not public and which had been on our table many, many times. And,
11 therefore, the Chamber, as was clearly said, I think in our guidance, is
12 that -- that we did not intend to seek any further evidence on the
13 legislative activities. For example, we knew what the follow-up steps
14 were in legislation. We have seen it; we have heard about it, planning,
15 developing, implementing programmes. The focus primarily was to see
16 whether the knowledge of this witness on what happened during these
17 meetings could make us better understand what was said during these
19 I'm fully aware that we could question this witness for weeks on
20 all the other matters he may have knowledge of. That was not primarily
21 the reason the Chamber called this witness. And, apparently, the parties
22 have refrained from calling him for that purpose. That, more or less,
23 sets the context and the boundaries for the examination.
24 I think I already told you that -- if you -- of course, we have
25 -- most of the evidence is clearly on our minds. I can't say that every
1 detail of it is always without having to verify that. But if there's
2 anything said about looting and burning, where we heard already very,
3 very often, let's -- let there be no question about that, that the last
4 thing that would be in the interest of Croatia was that houses would be
5 burned and looted. Because whatever your approach would have been to who
6 would live in there, et cetera, I leave that now entirely -- and from a
7 neutral point of view, if you want people to live there, you better have
8 houses that are not destroyed and which are not looted. That's -- we
9 have heard that many, many times, and from the whole -- I think this
10 witness told us this already in between one of the previous answers. I
11 think three or four answers from now, he already referred to that, so
12 that is not new for the Chamber.
13 MR. KEHOE: I, of course, am talking about Kistanje because the
14 Chamber yesterday mourning did in fact discuss Kistanje, the destruction
15 of Kistanje, and the reconstruction efforts so that was --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Most important was that the Chamber, although it had
17 seen the statement of the witness, that if you say there was a
18 reconstruction programme where houses were built, if you don't know when
19 it happened, what form it took, that the information in that statement
20 would be entirely without meaning for us whether that was in 2002,
21 whether it was in 1997, 1996, 1999, so, therefore, you may also have
22 noted that the Chamber sought specific, very factual information and then
23 did not follow up that much, just what are we talking about, and that was
24 it. And didn't go much further.
25 MR. KEHOE: My comment to that is this, Mr. President. My
1 understanding in your questioning was going an intent element. And, of
2 course, the intent element in this case is multi-faceted and in various
3 different areas. So it was exactly to that degree that we were trying to
4 get a named member of the JCE to give the Chamber additional information
5 not only the intent element that the Chamber raised but other aspects of
6 it but --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if would you have liked to do that, you
8 should have called the witness.
9 MR. KEHOE: Well, Mr. President, the Chamber called the witness
10 and --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and he was here with limited purposes and gave
12 guidance to the parties, as it did not intend to go through all of the
13 evidence. As I said before, we could hear evidence of this witness for
14 weeks and weeks. You decided not to call him. The Chamber decided to
15 limit the scope of his examination, fully aware that there would have
16 been larger areas, and that's where we are, and that's what we expect the
17 parties to join in.
18 MR. KEHOE: And I understand that, Mr. President, and certainly I
19 agree with you, Mr. President, that we could be here for weeks going
20 through a cross-examination. And I do believe given the fact that my
21 cross-examination is almost complete that --
22 JUDGE ORIE: I allowed you to put a few questions on a certain
23 matter, rather than to enter into a debate which takes more time than
24 just asking the witness those questions.
25 MR. KEHOE: That's why I raised issuing concerning Kistanje. I'm
1 just trying to get into the issue of there was a reconstruction, there's
2 a video that show it is very briefly, he went back there and started
3 constructing them in 1996. You know, when did you start constructing,
4 and whose houses were you reconstructing, and that's it.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, if we would look at the
6 reconstruction, again the Chamber already said that they were not that
7 much interested in the programmes that then followed. That was not -- we
8 specifically and negatively said, This is not what we are seeking. I
9 read to you. We said:
10 "The Chamber is not intending to seek any further evidence on
11 legislative activities or on planning, developing, or implementing
12 programmes," and then we added on which the Chamber has already received
13 extensive evidence, and then we name persons.
14 Now this apparently is an element which is a new little programme
15 that -- or a big programme which we had not heard about yet. We saw a
16 reference to that in the statement of the witness, and we asked
17 ourselves, Is this something entirely new? What is it? And then we got
18 the time-frame. We got more or less the context of what it was, and we
19 had no further questions on it.
20 Now, Ms. Gustafson, if -- if we would see some construction
21 workers building, I think, there were 150 or 250 houses, would that cause
22 you a lot of preparation for further examination.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: No, Your Honour. I doubt I would be interested
24 in following up on that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kehoe, you may proceed. But I would rather
1 keep you to your time-limit.
2 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. KEHOE:
5 Q. You mentioned to us yesterday, Mr. Radic, that there was a
6 reconstruction that commenced in Kistanje in 1996; is that right?
7 A. I said as I recall it was in 1996, but we started a
8 reconstruction in various areas at various times. But as far as I
9 recall, it was in 1996.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please focus on the question. Answer that
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. KEHOE:
14 Q. Let me show you a very brief video from a former ECMM monitor,
15 P842, and this is just an excerpt from this. And this is Mr. Liborius.
16 [Video-clip played]
17 "My name is Soren Liborius. I worked with ECMM during and after
18 Operation Storm in August 1995. We are now approaching the town of
19 Kistanje in former Sector South from the road from Knin. Kistanje used
20 to be a Serb strong hold where the majority by far being Serbs. Kistanje
21 was burned immediately after Operation Storm, in fact the burning began
22 during the first day of the 5th of August.
23 "When the first international organisations personnel drove
24 through Kistanje it was many houses on flames, and the burning of houses
25 and facilities in Kistanje continued throughout the month of August. The
1 intensity in the burning was clearly in the first week after the 4th, 5th
2 of August.
3 "What we see now is a lot of reconstruction efforts going on, and
4 we will see many houses with new roofs, new windows, new doors. The
5 majority of the population is now ethnic Croats, either from the region
6 of Kosovo in Yugoslavia
7 allowed temporarily use of accommodation here.
8 "We will see the new terra cotta tiles on the roofs. These are
9 reconstructed in the autumn of 1996 and the spring of 1997, and the
10 appearance of the Kistanje town is very different now to what it was in
11 the summer of 1995 and also in August 1996."
12 MR. KEHOE:
13 Q. Mr. Radic, as part of your programme that you noted in the video
14 note began in 1996, whose houses were you rebuilding?
15 A. I think there's quite a serious misunderstanding if Their Honours
16 will allow me to explain.
17 I said that in 1996 we started the construction of new buildings
18 in Kistanje to which we moved the people who were put up temporarily.
19 And in 1995, as can be seen in this video, the reconstruction started of
20 partly damaged or destroyed houses. And it is not correct what was said
21 here that the majority of houses were destroyed. A smaller number were
22 destroyed and they were repaired, and for most of them they required a
23 little reconstruction for temporary inhabitants to be put up there.
24 So there were two projects for Kistanje. One was the
25 reconstruction, so we call them Serb houses that were less damaged, and
1 the construction of a new part of the settlement to which we moved
2 people. The reconstruction started immediately in 19995. You see here
3 the that was canal was dug for electricity, water, and everything else.
4 And then in 1996, we started with the construction of the new 150 houses,
5 so that Kistanje today is twice the size what it was. There are twice as
6 many houses now.
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Radic.
8 MR. KEHOE: I have no further questions.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.
10 Mr. Kay -- [Overlapping speakers]
11 MR. KAY: No questions.
12 JUDGE ORIE: No questions from the Cermak Defence.
13 Mr. Mikulicic.
14 MR. MIKULICIC: I will only have a few questions, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic, Mr. Mikulicic will now cross-examine you.
16 Mr. Mikulicic is counsel for Mr. Markac.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Radic.
19 A. Good day.
20 Q. I will put to you only a couple of questions, so please answer
21 them to the best of your recollection.
22 Mr. Radic, we see from the statement that you gave to the counsel
23 for General Gotovina that, from about 1992 until 2003, you were engaged
24 in politics in various capacities. Is that not right?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 Q. We have also seen that you performed some important political and
2 party duties in the Republic of Croatia
3 that capacity, you met with the highest level officials in politics and
4 party life of Croatia
5 A. Well, yes, of course. It was part of my life for 12 years.
6 Q. Would that include the President of the republic, the president
7 of the parliament, the prime minister, the ministers, et cetera?
8 A. Yes, certainly, I was head of the office of the president of the
9 republic for two and a half years, and daily we would spend hours an
10 hours together. I would often travel with him when we toured various
11 areas and, of course, I would meet with all the other colleagues of mine
12 in the state authorities.
13 Q. Mr. Radic, The indictment against the accused, Gotovina, Cermak,
14 and Markac, in this Tribunal, says that they, together with other
15 persons, and those are the persons that we have just mentioned, and that
16 you met on a daily basis, that they were all involved in a joint criminal
17 enterprise, the aim of which to permanently remove the Serb population
18 from the region Krajina by force, by threat, through intimidation,
19 persecution, forced resettlement and deportation, destruction of
20 property, and in other ways.
21 My question: Did you ever, Mr. Radic, in performing your
22 official duties in the political life of the Republic of Croatia
23 minister in the government, as the vice premier, as the head of the
24 president's office, as a leader in the HDZ, as a parliamentary deputy,
25 did you ever participant in such a plan as described by the Prosecution?
1 A. No, and never. I repeat that three times because it is
2 incompatible with my outlook on the world, and I never heard anything
3 like that within the circle that we have mentioned.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, putting the Prosecution's case in
5 the broadest of possible terms and asking the witness to confirm or deny
6 that is far beyond the limited topics of examination that the Chamber set
7 out in its e-mail to the parties.
8 Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, I was just citing the Article 12
11 from the indictment.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's exactly what Ms. Gustafson is telling
13 you -- is telling me, that you shouldn't do that.
14 You could also ask the witness whether the accused are guilty or
15 not, and then read the whole of the indictment. That's -- of course, I'm
16 not exaggerating.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: With all due respect, Your Honour, this is --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I'm exaggerating; I'm saying that. But this
19 apparently is not within the boundaries of what the Chamber expected the
20 parties to remain in. Apart from that, composite questions not having
21 two, three, or four elements, but likely 20 factual elements and 10 legal
22 elements in it, and then to ask the witness yes or no is really not
23 assisting the Chamber in reaching the determinations it will have to
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Radic, were you aware of any such criminal
4 A. I didn't hear the first part of the sentence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
6 Ms. Gustafson, I take it will have a similar objection to your
8 The Chamber called the witness to ask clarification of certain
9 matters -- not to ask whether you could ask every witness, Are you aware
10 of any --
11 MR. MIKULICIC: [Overlapping speakers]... Your Honour, the witness
12 is part of the -- central government and central political bodies in
14 JUDGE ORIE: No, and, therefore, you could have called him. You
15 didn't. And apart from that, the answer -- I mean, where there is a
16 possibility, are you aware of any criminal plans in which apparently
17 then, first of all, I think we should --
18 MR. MIKULICIC: There is the court of the indictment, and the
19 procedure we are sitting here.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we are seeking as a matter of fact facts.
21 Now can you ask the witness, did you attend a meeting in which Mr. A or B
22 said this? But just so say -- you could ask him was there a joint
23 criminal enterprise, more or less. That's -- again, I'm exaggerating,
24 but let's focus on facts, and let's also focus on the subject matter for
25 which the Chamber called the witness.
1 Apart from that, Ms. Gustafson, there's no need. Mr. Mikulicic
2 said that he would have ten minutes of questioning for the witness. If
3 the questions are of this kind, then rather than objecting, you also
4 could say, Well, we'll hear the answers which, I would say, follow. And
5 I mean, if Mr. Radic was of the opinion that there were criminal
6 [indiscernible] at that time, I think he would not -- if he would ever
7 express that, or if he -- all his answers go in a different direction.
8 He explained the -- how reasonable certain plans were. And then to say,
9 Was there a criminal plan? No, he has explained to us how reasonable it
10 all was.
11 So, therefore, it's a superfluous question. It doesn't assist
12 us. It is beyond the boundaries of what the witness said. At the same
13 time, Ms. Gustafson, I encourage you in view of my -- and let me
14 check ...
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, I checked with my colleagues, to
17 object to questions, questions I just said would not in any way assist
18 the Chamber in reaching its determinations may be a waste of time, but
19 then objecting to it may be a waste of time as well.
20 Mr. Mikulicic has asked for ten minutes, and he may continue his
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. MIKULICIC: I have only one last question, Your Honour.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Radic, you told us that you were not aware
25 of such a project. Would have you been aware of it in view of the
1 positions that you held and the contacts you had with the highest
2 officials of the Republic of Croatia
3 A. There's no doubt about it. I certainly would have known,
4 because, for a while, I was number 2 and number 3 in the Croatian state.
5 I also head of the office and secretary of the party, so in view of my
6 positions in the very top echelons of government, I wouldn't have
7 necessarily known if any such project had existed.
8 Q. Thank you for your answers, Mr. Radic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: I have a few questions for you, Mr. Radic.
12 Questioned by the Court:
13 The first one is about what you were asked about, the
14 conversation about Plaski and Saborski. You remember Ms. Gustafson asked
15 was Plaski a Serb village? Was Saborski a Croatian village? There had
16 been some discussion as to having to move twice, first to Plaski and then
17 back to Saborski. Then the discussion went on in which it was said there
18 was strong opposition against moving twice, suggesting that there could
19 be reasons for those who had moved in to Plaski to stay there.
20 And then you drew our attention to the fact that in Plaski there
21 may well have been apartments so that not moving out of Plaski could well
22 be explained by apartments being there which were state owned. And then
23 you said it's very easy to establish that.
24 Now, just for a transparency of the parties, I now and then look
25 at Google Earth. I will usually tell you when I do that.
1 Now looking at the village of Plaski
2 impression of being a mainly rural area, and as far as can you see from
3 above, there seemed to be not much of -- of apartment blocks.
4 Nevertheless, you used that as a possible explanation, why people would
5 stay in Plaski.
6 You also told us that it would be easy to verify. How would you
7 verify that? About the presence of state-owned apartments in this
9 A. I fully agree with you that it is easy to verify. I think I went
10 to Plaski two or three times in my life, and I remember in the centre of
11 Plaski there are several housing buildings, apartment buildings. Maybe
12 there were about ten or so apartments.
13 Plaski, like Saborski is an area mainly inhabited by forestry
14 workers. It is an area where forest are exploited and some of the
15 apartments were owned by the Croatian forests company, and also teachers
16 had state-owned apartments, and so on.
17 But the main idea behind your question obviously was, Let us
18 bring people from Saborski close to their own village so that they could
19 assist in the reconstruction. The most successful achievements were
20 those in which the participants took part.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not inviting you to tell me what the main idea
22 behind my questions. What my ideas behind my questions is, either I
23 share them with the parties, but it is not for you to speculate on that.
24 But I'm quite willing to tell you, you gave a certain explanation
25 as to why not moving out could be -- would not in any way affect rights
1 of individual owners of houses, because it could well be that people who
2 didn't then want to move out again could stay in state-owned apartments.
3 Now, I was just trying to verify the factual basis for that
4 explanation, which is how many state-owned apartments are there in Plaski
5 and how to verify that.
6 Mr. Misetic.
7 MR. MISETIC: Along those lines, Mr. President, I think there may
8 be an interpretation with the last sentence of the first full
9 paragraph of the witness's last answer, which on my LiveNote is page 58,
10 line 1.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll verify that because my recollection is
12 that I heard something different.
13 You told us that you had seen in the centre of Plaski apartments.
14 Could you tell us a bit more in detail, were these apartment blocks, were
15 there -- how many were there?
16 A. I'm afraid my memory is not so precise, because in those days, I
17 toured all the Croatian villages, but I certainly remember that in the
18 centre of Plaski there were some houses that were apartment buildings.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes and could you --
20 A. But their number, I'm afraid I can't tell you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Now I know of apartment buildings, and we have seen
22 many of them, Bosansko Grahovo, Knin, et cetera, we have seen a lot of
23 pictures of apartment buildings.
24 Could you tell us approximately how many apartments in each
25 building, as far as your recollection serves you?
1 A. You're asking about Plaski?
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated] Yes.
3 A. Much fewer in relation to the towns that you have just mentioned.
4 Much fewer.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but are we talking about buildings with four
6 apartments, or 12, or 30, or ...
7 A. My impression from this time distance, and this was happening
8 some 15 years ago, there may have been buildings with about
9 ten apartments, not more than that. Several buildings of that size, to
10 the best of my recollection.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And if you say ten apartments, how many of these
12 apartment buildings or blocks would have been there, approximately?
13 A. Several. Several. I can't remember with precision. But this
14 can easily be verified and checked. This was certainly not a large
15 number. There may have been 20 to 30 apartments that were state owned.
16 Maybe that would be my approximation.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just trying to get a picture for myself as to --
18 to what extent your explanation of people staying in the state-owned
19 apartments would be.
20 Now, if there would be ...
21 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, if I may, I don't know if we are
22 talking about two different pieces of Google Earth, but we have pulled up
23 the map of Google Earth in Plaski who has a multitude of item there, of
24 course --
25 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
1 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ... on the same page, is that
2 the one with the paper factory in there?
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think there is one factory, at least there seems
4 to be one industrial complex.
5 MR. KEHOE: Right.
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I don't have it in front
7 of me as a matter of fact.
8 MR. KEHOE: Over to the right.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any way of showing this --
10 MR. MISETIC: Via Sanction.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Via Sanction.
12 Then we could ask the witness do point to -- yes, this seems to
13 be -- this is -- could we perhaps zoom out a bit. I said "a bit."
14 Yes, Witness, could you tell us, you see here an aerial view of
15 the village of Plaski
16 approximately? If your recollection serves you.
17 A. I think that that is that place. At the time I was in the centre
18 of that settlement. Now, where that is I absolutely cannot remember. It
19 has faded in my memory. But I can confirm that at least 30 families
20 could be accommodated in these state-owned apartments or state
22 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I did understand that it was a village of some
23 -- also looking at you, Ms. Gustafson, 2.000 inhabitants, I think it was
24 said. Thirty families would amount to anything between 100 and
25 150 persons. Is that -- I'm trying to get a picture of -- to what extent
1 this explanation, what it exactly would mean. I now understand then that
2 that would be approximately 7 to 8 per cent, rough estimate, of the
3 accommodations which, as being state-owned apartments, could explain why
4 people would -- could stay there without occupying any private property.
5 Is that -- are we on the same line on that?
6 A. I think that we are talking about the inhabitants of Saborski
7 that needed to be put up in Plaski. Inhabitants of Saborski in Plaski
8 and from the standpoint of reconstruction if certain families or some 50
9 men who can take part in the work, that is a considerable achievement.
10 For us every single family was very important for us. The people from
11 Saborski, at about 200 metres altitude higher than Plaski, many of them
12 were working across the hill in another place.
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... you're focussing on
14 matters which are different from my issue. The discussion was about
15 Saborski being destroyed. Temporarily moving Saborski which was a mainly
16 Croat village to Plaski which was not destroyed, in a similar way, and
17 that there was at least -- there were objections against then having to
18 move again out of Plaski to Saborski, and then it was suggested to you in
19 the questioning by Ms. Gustafson that, if people didn't want to move out
20 from Plaski, that they would then, for a longer period of time, occupy
21 Serb accommodations. And then you said, But don't forget that there were
22 state-owned apartments in there, and I was just trying to figure out the
23 quantitative aspect of your answer.
24 I have no further questions for you. Unless you would like to
25 add something, but where people were working was not of direct relevance
1 for what I sought to establish for myself.
2 A. I have nothing to add. I think I answered all your questions.
3 And I leave here with the impression that have I tried to demonstrate the
4 main idea behind reconstruction and return, which was open, and designed
5 for all Croatian citizens, and from today's perspective --
6 JUDGE ORIE: We are not there yet. I asked you whether there was
7 anything to as to my last question.
8 Ms. Gustafson, is there any need to put further questions to the
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I misunderstood.
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, I have a few questions, Your Honour.
12 Further cross-examination by Ms. Gustafson:
13 Q. Good morning, Mr. Radic.
14 A. Good morning.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could go to P463, please; and page 4 in the
16 English, and page 7 in the B/C/S.
17 Q. And, Mr. Radic, again we're going back to the 22nd of August,
18 1995 conversation you had with President Tudjman.
19 And I'd like to move down to -- towards the bottom of the page
20 where you begin:
21 "However one thing I have to tell you ..."
22 And this is where you inform President Tudjman that you visited
23 the area by car and by helicopter, and you say:
24 "Our men torched a lot ..." and that conversation continues.
25 A. Mm-hm.
1 Q. Now when you said: "However, one thing I have to tell you," it
2 appears that you are, at this point, notifying President Tudjman of what
3 had seen; is that right?
4 A. Yes, without doubt.
5 Q. And you had -- you were explaining to him what you had seen. And
6 if we move to the next page in the English, you talk about Kijevo and
7 Civljane. And you said:
8 "I got there on the day of Assumption of the Virgin Mary to find
9 everything has been burned down.
10 And I assume you're talking about Civljane there. Is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And the Day of Assumption, is that the 15th of August?
13 A. 15th of August.
14 Q. And then you go on to say:
15 "It's not the army, it's that fifth echelon, which is under, I
16 don't know whose, what kind of banner. Put on a uniform, wander around."
17 And at the end of that paragraph you say:
18 "I am not telling hearsay, but the things I have experienced
19 myself and seen with my own eyes, torching and looting."
20 Did you see people in uniform torching and looting when you
21 visited the area?
22 A. No. At that time, I went by road from Sinj to Knin. And the
23 village of Kijevo
24 metres away from the road. And I saw the smoke rising from the houses,
25 and this is what I told the President about. I did not see the person
1 burning down. This was done probably during the night. But I saw the
2 houses burning, and this is what I informed the President about. And I
3 said this was no good, and he agreed with me.
4 I also told him that I visit the some small town, Drnis,
5 Benkovac, and so forth, and that there this was not happening; but in the
6 villages I saw this.
7 Q. Okay. So you say you just saw smoke. So why did you refer to
8 people putting on a uniform, wandering about, the worst tramps, torching
9 and looting. Why mention people in uniform if, as you say, you didn't
10 see any people at all conducting this activity?
11 A. This was my conclusion because I knew that both the army and the
12 civilian police would have prevented civilians from entering this area.
13 But if somebody came there at this time in a military uniform, and I --
14 as I told the President at that time, even at the main square of the city
15 of Zagreb
16 but these were not members of the army; these were people who were hiding
17 behind these uniforms in order to be able to loot and then burn. This is
18 what was happening in some of the villages, and my position was that we
19 had to prevent this.
20 But to answer your question, I did not see people physically
21 burning. This was my conclusion, which I then conveyed to the President.
22 Q. Okay. So if it is your conclusion, because you knew that the
23 army and the police would have prevented civilians from entering the
24 area, but you also knew that it was -- or concluded that it was not
25 members of the army looting and burning, how is that possible? If there
1 is no civilians in the area, how is it possible that it's not the army
2 looting and burning?
3 A. What I said that were my impressions and my conclusions. I knew
4 how our army was organised. I knew how disciplined it was, and I was
5 convinced that it was impossible, apart from maybe some exceptional
6 cases, but I thought it was impossible for this to happen in any
7 organised manner. This was, as far as my knowledge went, and I believe
8 the President shared this view, because such a person would have been
9 immediately punished.
10 Q. So your conclusion that it wasn't the real army conducting this
11 activity is based on your view that the HV was disciplined and organised;
12 is that right?
13 A. And the information that I had from many of my colleagues and
14 friends who were commanders in the army, and it was also based on my
15 discussions with them. For example, my deputy from my ministry went to
16 the army. He put on the uniform and went to defend Croatia, and I knew
17 that anybody who was led by such a person could not have done things of
18 the kind, and I spoke to him during those days as well.
19 Q. And which particular colleagues and friends who were commanders
20 in the army told you that it wasn't the army looting and burning? And
21 when exactly did they tell you that? Names and dates.
22 A. For example, the secretary in my minister, Marijan Perkovic, who
23 later became brigadier of the Croatian Army and now is he back at the
24 ministry, he is one that told me such things.
25 Q. And what was his position at the time after Operation Storm or at
1 the of Operation Storm?
2 A. After the Operation Storm, he came back to be secretary of the
3 ministry of reconstruction and development, and he is the one who
4 physically drafted the laws on return and similar laws.
5 Q. What was his position in the Croatian Army?
6 A. I cannot recall that. He may have led a battalion, or a unit of
7 that kind. I'm not sure.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, the Chamber considers that it is not
9 further assisted by exploring specifically these sources, and thinks that
10 the point you apparently would like to make is sufficiently made by the
11 -- by pointing at conclusions and sources for those conclusions.
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. And it appears from the transcript of this conversation that
14 President Tudjman was not particularly surprised by the information you
15 were providing him. And I'd like to ask you, as far as -- as far as you
16 are aware, did President Tudjman already know about looting and burning
17 in the area?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, the first thing you put to the
19 witness that from the transcript that it appears that he was not
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Can I ask --
23 JUDGE ORIE: If would you please take out that portion of the
24 question and, of course, the second portion of the question is you're
25 asking about facts. But the first one is, to say the least, has a bit of
1 an unstable basis.
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: That's fine, Your Honour.
3 Q. Now my question, Mr. Radic, was it your impression at the time
4 that President Tudjman already knew about the looting and burning; or
5 when you told him about this, did you think that he was hearing this for
6 the first time?
7 A. From his very answer when he said, I keep saying that this should
8 be prevented, it follows that somebody else told him the same thing, and
9 he probably answered in the same manner in which he answered to me.
10 Q. Now, you were asked about public statements you made, condemning
11 the destruction, and one in particular or a report of one was shown to
12 you. And it seems from your -- the statement you gave to the
13 Gotovina Defence that you attended a meeting on the 12th of August in
14 Drnis and that by the 12th of August -- or on the 12th of August, you
15 visited the -- the area liberated by Operation Storm. Is that right?
16 A. Not only that I was there, but I actually chaired that meeting in
17 Drnis. This was the second meeting of the state staff.
18 Q. I'm not so interested in the contents of the meeting. I'm more
19 interested in where you were on the 12th of August.
20 And it's clear you were in Drnis --
21 A. I was in Drnis.
22 Q. And where did you come from to get to Drnis, and how did you get
24 A. I can't remember that. I can't remember how I came, where from.
25 Too much time has elapsed.
1 Q. Would it have been by road?
2 A. I guess so. I'm just trying to remember whether I came from
4 I can't recall that.
5 At that time, I visited the field on a daily basis.
6 Q. Would you have travelled along the route between Knin and Drnis
7 on that day?
8 A. I cannot recall whether I passed from Knin to Drnis. I think so,
9 but I can't say that for sure.
10 Q. And on the 12th of August, when you were travelling through the
11 area, did you see any signs of ongoing or recent destruction of property,
12 such as houses burning, columns of smoke, looting? Any signs that there
13 might have been recent destruction of property, on the 12th of August,
14 when you were -- went to Drnis?
15 A. Had I seen that, probably I would have informed the President
16 about this couple of days later. But I took out the example of what I
17 saw on the 15, and I remember that I described to him the situation, that
18 I saw in Drnis where we, indeed, found many destroyed houses particularly
19 in the villages surrounding Drnis.
20 Had I seen any torching along my way to Drnis, I probably would
21 have informed the President about this, as I did inform him about what I
22 saw on the 15th.
23 So from this I can only draw the conclusion that I came by road
24 from Split
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, we're also now slowly moving a bit
1 away from the meetings and getting into personal observation.
2 Now, to some extent, the example given on the 15th is clear.
3 That's part of the minutes. I would like to avoid that you further enter
4 into the area of personal observation during these days or several areas
5 because that is not exactly within the boundaries.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, it arose out of the
7 cross-examination that was permitted by the Bench, but I will move on.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Any further questions.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, just one other brief topic.
10 Q. In cross-examination, you were shown a clip of Minister Granic
11 speaking, and the proposition was put to you that the return of Serbs
12 would depend -- or that the -- that the position of the Croatian
13 authorities was that the return of Serbs would depend on the
14 normalisation of relations with the FRY except for individual
15 humanitarian cases.
16 And yesterday I -- you -- we looked at the 1996 Law on Areas of
17 Special State
18 limited to bringing Croats into the area and that it included within its
19 scope the Serbs who had left the area.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
21 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
22 JUDGE ORIE: Just perhaps before -- I know that you are on your
23 feet. Perhaps you wait first until Ms. Gustafson has phrased her
24 question, but I already ask the witness not to answer the question until
25 we have heard Mr. Kehoe.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON:
2 Q. And according to your testimony today, and -- and just
3 preliminarily when this Law on Areas of Special State Concern was
4 enacted, there was no agreement on normalisation of relations. And
5 according to your testimony today, the position of the Croatian
6 authorities at the time this law was passed was that the Croatian Serbs
7 outside Croatia
9 So this law when it was passed could not have been aimed at
10 encouraging Croatian Serbs to return because their return was not
11 permitted at that time. Isn't that right?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
13 MR. KEHOE: My objection to this, Mr. President, is that we never
14 asked the question about the Law on Areas of Special State Concern. So
15 in the spirit of the objections that have been levied on my
16 cross-examination, it's similar to this. We never went into this area at
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: It wasn't -- I was trying to contrast what the
20 witness said today in response to a question from the cross-examination
21 with what he said yesterday. I think it's fair.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The objection is denied.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I answer your question now?
24 So, once again, we are talking about two levels or two different
25 things. One of them is the agreement on normalisation which would talk
1 about mass return. And a second issue is daily processing of
2 applications by Serbs who, in the meantime, accepted Croatian
3 citizenship, and they were coming back to Croatia.
4 In Vukovar, President Tudjman said that there were 14.500 such
5 cases. So when we are talking about individual cases, this turned into a
6 rather large number. So we were talking about thousands of people who
7 came back.
8 So this doesn't collide with this other issue. The law allowed
9 it for everybody to return, but in practice, obviously, we had to resolve
10 individual cases.
11 Q. Well, President Tudjman was talking about -- in Vukovar was
12 talking about people who were returning from even Slavonia, not people
13 who were returning from outside Croatia
14 But here you're saying --
15 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President, is that a question or a
16 speech? I object. That -- that is -- if is question --
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: It's foundation to my question.
18 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, is it -- do you contest that
20 President Tudjman was talking about 14.500?
21 MR. KEHOE: I think that Ms. Gustafson understands -- excuse me,
22 Mr. President -- the premise of what he was saying, that thousands of
23 people came in for humanitarian reasons, thousands of people, we're not
24 talking about a handful. With that core concept of his answer, I think a
25 question can come from that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, perhaps not the most expeditious way,
2 but -- would have been to take the witness back to that specific portion
3 and read it and then establish what President Tudjman was talking about
4 and then to phrase your question.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: That would be P2536. At page 4 of the English
6 and page 3 of the B/C/S.
7 Q. Now, this is the first full paragraph in Croatian, and it's the
8 paragraph that begins: "Ladies and gentlemen ..."
9 And President Tudjman, as you see says:
10 "All those Serbs who are citizens of Croatia, who have taken
11 Croatian citizenship and who are living in this county and the
12 neighbouring Osijek-Baranja county and the entire Danubian area, if they
13 want to return to their homes in the western parts of Croatia, from
14 Pakrac to Knin, they will be allowed to return. About 14.500 have
15 already returned. If they do not wish [sic] to return, we shall give
16 them compensation so that they can go wherever they wish."
17 He is talking about Serbs from Eastern Slavonia returning to
18 western parts of Croatia
19 A. He is talking about a total number of people who will come back
20 to the area between Knin, Pakrac, and other areas, and who are now
21 somewhere else. We need to agree on the fact that when people left after
22 the Storm, some of them moved to Serbia and some of them moved to the
24 The border between Croatia
25 They behaved as if it was one and the same state. So we did not know
1 where Croats -- excuse me.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Where Serbs from
3 Knin went.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
5 whether they went to Danube
6 between the Danube
7 ours. And only after the reintegration of the Danube region could we
8 control that border. So the data that we did have was that 14.500 Serbs
9 came back to the liberated area, and at that time they all enjoyed all
10 the privileges granted to them by the Law on Areas of Special State
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: I have no further questions.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: There is a rule under Italian law of criminal
16 procedure which allows the Defence always to put the last question to the
17 witness. Now that rule doesn't apply, because what Judges usually do
18 under those circumstances is to put another question to the witness and
19 then the Defence will.
20 Now that is not what we are aiming at at this moment but,
21 Judge Kinis has another question for the witness and I may have one as
23 JUDGE KINIS: Mr. Radic, I have quite short question to you.
24 Questioned by the Court:
25 JUDGE KINIS: You mention that you travelled around area on 15th
1 of August, and recognised many atrocities on the ground. You also
2 mentioned that one of concerns for returning people in mass way was
3 security issues, including mines on the ground, and booby-traps maybe in
4 buildings, and so on and so forth.
5 How could you explain that after on 15th August that full freedom
6 of movement were allowed for this area for Croatian citizens?
7 A. I am sorry, I didn't catch this question that it was allowed or
8 that it wasn't allowed? Could you just clarify this.
9 JUDGE KINIS: On 15th of August, Chamber receives all the
10 evidence on this respect, that all -- full freedom of movement were
11 allowed for Croatian citizens to go in this liberated area and to move
12 and go out and in and so.
13 And why under this situation you didn't -- state leadership
14 didn't care about security of those people?
15 A. Full freedom of movement was certainly not granted. I was deputy
16 prime minister of the Croatian government, and I was stopped at a
17 check-point and controlled. So, obviously, there were certain controlled
18 check-points or parameters, but if some people passed over some hills to
19 come there, this is what I based my conclusion on, that these were some
20 criminals that engaged in looting and not regular citizens.
21 So there were main check-points, control points, but this is such
22 a large area that our police force simply could not have it all under
23 their control.
24 JUDGE KINIS: I think that you are not correct, because Chamber
25 already receives evidence and including this order which allow full
1 freedom of movement for citizens after 15th of August, and first train
2 was organised from Split
3 thinking that your answer is not correct on this -- on this respect.
4 A. I remember it well, that I was stopped myself near the village of
5 Hrvatse [phoen] and that they asked me where I was going.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if -- if I have a feeling that there may be
7 some mal-communication.
8 What Judge Kinis is talking about is that Croats could move into
9 the area again. That at least how I understood his question. Train,
10 people arriving, no prohibition to travel around. Not to say that there
11 were not, at times, and at occasions, check-points, areas which may have
12 been closed for certain kind of operations.
13 But the question of Judge Kinis apparently says: Why could the
14 Croats return, even if they would be stopped at check-points; and why was
15 de-mining, et cetera, not a safety concern which resulted in saying, Stay
16 out, we're not ready yet; whereas for Serbs, apparently the security
17 concerns contributed considerably to the policy that they could not
18 return freely as they wished.
19 A. I agree with you. There was some noise in the headphones, I
20 didn't fully understand the question.
21 Through the media, we kept warning people that it was still not
22 time for the return. The return has to be organised. But, of course, as
23 soon as it was possible to open the road from Zagreb to Split
24 Croats but for all Croatian citizens, you had to show your ID. The ID
25 doesn't say whether I am a Serb or a Croat, but whether I'm a Croatian
2 Instead of travelling some 500 or 600 kilometres from Split
4 had, we opened the road and the railway for travel. But we warned people
5 that you still cannot go back to your homes, but I gave you the example
6 today that a man got killed because he went there and tried to do some
7 cleaning, and he was killed. So we kept warning the people that the
8 return would be an organised process.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any document or any minutes of meetings in
10 which it is stated, or is there any other clear evidence in which it is
11 stated, although there's no question about your Croatian citizenship,
12 don't come back to your village because it is not safe.
13 Could you give us examples of where you said you warned the
14 population? It may well be that it is even somewhere in the evidence.
15 I'm not quite certain about it. But I'm asking you, since you referred
16 to such warnings.
17 A. We quoted this today, I think, that the Defence showed such a
18 document in which I say in public at an open session of the government
19 about this. I think it was on the screen today.
20 MR. KEHOE: [Microphone not activated] It was the --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 MR. KEHOE: It was the meeting that I referred to. I believe it
23 is 1813 on the 7th of -- if can I just get one second, I can give you the
24 exact page.
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 MR. KEHOE: It is -- it's a discussion that takes place at
2 various times in D813, I didn't go through all of the items, but
3 Minister Radic, this is 28 in the English. Excuse me, it is not 28 in
4 the English. It starts page 11, so that would be 17 in the English, and
5 -- 18 in the English, and that's where he talks about, People can't come
6 back -- you know, spontaneous returnees can't rush back, we have t o
7 organise things. That's just one that I think that the witness is
8 referring to.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, I'm primarily looking at the
10 warnings being given in public.
11 MR. KEHOE: This was a public session.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But that is different from addressing the
13 public. That's --
14 But Mr. Kehoe has drawn our attention to a place where this was
16 Could you add any other document or evidence or, was it said on
17 television or ...
18 A. Of course, I don't have those documents, but I remember well that
19 I visited the refugees from those settlements and told them in person
20 that they should wait, that we need to have an organised return, on
21 several occasions and in several places, and it is impossible that there
22 are no media reports about this, but I personally don't have them.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. I have no further questions for you.
24 If the further questions have not triggered any need, then, yes,
25 Mr. Kehoe.
1 MR. KEHOE: One issue on that.
2 Further cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:
3 Q. Mr. Radic, after Operation Storm, why didn't the Republic of
6 A. The aim was life. For five years, people lived as refugees and
7 they couldn't wait to return to their homes. So we must bear in mind
8 that several hundreds of thousands of Croats had spent five years as
9 refugees, and when the Storm came, for them, it was like a second
10 birthday, and they couldn't wait to see whether their house was intact,
11 whether they could return. And what kind of a government would we be if
12 we were to seal it off now that have you lived to see liberation, we want
13 to let you go home but, on the other hand, we also had to take into
14 account serious security concerns.
15 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, that's it, thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: According to Italian criminal procedure, last
17 question was put by you.
18 Mr. Radic.
19 Yes, Mr. Mikulicic.
20 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, just to inform the Chamber, it
21 is exactly the same position in the Croatian criminal procedure.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I still have to learn a lot, as you see.
23 But this was adopted later than 1991, when the Italian new code of
24 criminal procedure was adopted.
25 Mr. Radic, I'd like to thank you very much for coming to
1 The Hague
2 the Bench and that were put to you by the parties, and I wish you a safe
3 trip home again.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. I am very happy if I
5 have made even a small contribution to clear up understanding of the just
6 struggle in the homeland war.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you escort Mr. Radic out of
8 the ...
9 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any way that the folder is still there or
12 -- one second. One second.
13 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
14 JUDGE ORIE: I had on my agenda, but I left them until after the
15 testimony of this witness, a few procedural matters.
16 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, could I address a couple of issues
17 related to this witness before Your Honours shifts gears, very briefly.
18 I mean, I just want to advise the Chamber.
19 JUDGE ORIE: If we have to come back after a break anyhow, then
20 we could do it after a break as well, because we are at a point where --
21 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... we would have taken a
23 break already a while ago. So, therefore, let me just.
24 Yes, I have a few procedural questions which will not take a lot
25 of time. Most likely some 15 to 20 minutes.
1 How much time would you need, Mr. Kehoe?
2 MR. KEHOE: Just 30 seconds, Mr. President, just two issues
4 JUDGE ORIE: If it is really 30 seconds, then I would invite to
5 you do it now, so that we can then after the break deal with procedural
7 MR. KEHOE: Looking at the clock, Mr. President, I'll start.
8 First, in Plaski there are 187 state-owned apartments, 90 per
9 cent of them owned by the factory. We can make a bar table submission on
11 Second, I have been advised by one of my colleagues that there is
12 a transcript 65 ter 939 from December 1995 where General Cervenko notes
13 that 400 returnees have been killed by mines, and we will provide that to
14 the Chamber as well.
15 I think I'm within the 30 seconds.
16 JUDGE ORIE: You are. I'm afraid that interpreters and
17 transcribers have paid the price for that.
18 We'll have a break, and we will resume at 1.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 12.39 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 1.06 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to start this -- well, it's not a real
22 housekeeping session, but at least we're dealing with mainly
23 administrative matters with P2712.
24 Mr. Kehoe, you objected against admission due to disclosure. It
25 has been MFI
1 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President. I haven't taken a look at it
2 since that time, I still reserve my objection, but I will get back to the
3 Chamber in short order by e-mail and with counsel as to our position.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll wait for further messages from you.
5 Then we briefly looked at Google Maps. Now the witness couldn't
6 identify where he had seen these apartment blocks. Unless there's any
7 objection, the Chamber considers there's no need to have this into
9 I hear of no objections.
10 Mr. Kehoe, you came with two numbers, I think 187 and 400 after
11 the break. Well, the 400 is I think the same as what we saw already in
12 the transcript, to that extent it corroborates or confirms. But I do not
13 know whether there was any reason -- I beg your pardon.
14 MR. KEHOE: [Microphone not activated] It was a transcript for
15 December of 1995. I don't think has been admitted. But I do believe --
16 I'm corrected that you have seen it. That is, the transcript you have
17 seen from December of 1995. That has the 400 people -- [overlapping
19 JUDGE ORIE: I think I read that portion from the transcript. I
20 think 400, and we briefly discussed with the witness whether there were
21 injured people or killed people. And it seems not to be something which
22 is in dispute that 400 people may have been killed due to accidents with
24 Ms. Gustafson, seems not to be ...
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: Certainly not that mines were an issue. I mean,
1 I would have to look exactly at the transcript. We don't know what area
2 we are talking about. But, no, as a general matter, no.
3 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that de-mining after this war period
4 was a serious problem that -- well, hardly is fit for dispute. Apart
5 from all the details and it what caused and what it did not cause,
6 et cetera, but I would say this comes close to common sense.
7 The 187, Mr. Kehoe, the questioning was aiming at the situation
8 in 1995. Is this information -- I don't know where it comes from. Is it
9 related to the situation in 1995? I see Mr. Misetic is nodding yes.
10 What's the source of the information?
11 [Defence counsel confer]
12 MR. KEHOE: I'm advised that we are getting this from the
13 Croatian ministry, from Mr. Radic's ministry on the number of apartments
14 at that time. Certainly we will get those documents and give them to
15 counsel to review before we attempt to bar table anything.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And perhaps look at it as a whole, because the
17 testimony of the witness, we came to an assessment, a rough assessment
18 which was, well, at least considerably lower because I multiplied the
19 number of apartments, I think we're talking about, overall,
20 30 apartments, I think I counted 4 in a family. So we were talking, on
21 the basis of the testimony of the witness, we were talking about seven or
22 eight, approximately, per cent of the population in -- housed in
23 apartments, whereas, of course, the number 187 is quite different,
24 because if I multiply that by four, let's say, for an average family,
25 then that would come to 550, approximately, which comes close to
1 25 per cent of the population, which would -- which would solidify the
2 explanation given by the witness.
3 So, therefore, since there is quite a gap between the two, the
4 number are you giving comes down to almost -- approximately three and a
5 half times more than what the witness -- his recollection was.
6 Therefore, if we use this number and also having looked at the map where
7 I would be -- well, where I was -- I was able to identify certain
8 industrial facilities, and I could imagine of some of the features being
9 what I know to be the normal feature of an apartment block, but
10 25 per cent is, of course, for the population is -- is quite a bit.
11 So, therefore, if -- if would you rely on that, I would invite
12 you to seek verification of this information and perhaps discuss it with
13 the Prosecution before we finally move from what the witness told us to
14 what you consider to be the right number.
15 MR. KEHOE: We will do so, sir.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
17 Then I move on matters unrelated to Witness Radic. The
18 Gotovina Defence has e-mailed a precedent from a 2004 partial award of
19 the Eritrea
20 during the Radic cross-examination.
21 The issue was whether or not we would then need that in evidence.
22 Now, first, it was not used. But usually case law is -- if it's easily
23 accessible through public sources needs not to be admitted into evidence.
24 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I agree. I was simply sending that --
25 or we were simply sending that on the idea that -- to give the Chamber
1 and the parties some notification of our areas of cross-examination.
2 So there would be some basis and certainly the Chamber wouldn't
3 be surprised. We're not asking that the award be put into evidence.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Next, I would like to announce to the parties
5 that in the week of the 5th to the 9th of April of this year, that there
6 will be no sitting in the Gotovina case. That is, whatever other
7 scheduling things may come up, that is the week, I would say, the spring
8 week of not sitting, just for the parties to know already.
9 I would like to move into private session.
10 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
19 D215 is the transcript of the 277th Closed Session of the
20 Government of the Republic of Croatia
21 October, 1995. It was tendered through Witness Gojanovic on the 19th of
22 May, 2008.
23 At the housekeeping session at the 27th of January, the OTP
24 stated that it would provide a full translation.
25 I'm addressing the OTP. Is the full translation, meanwhile,
1 available and has is been uploaded?
2 Mr. Waespi or Ms. Gustafson, whoever is hiding behind the pillar.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'm not entirely sure, Your Honour. There is at
4 least three different exhibit numbers that contain portions of this, and
5 I think between all three of them there might be a complete translation.
6 But I would have to verify that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you would say make it a jigsaw puzzle, we have
8 three pieces, and put the picture together. I would rather stick to what
9 was said by the OTP on 27th of January, and we'd like to hear from you
10 once it has been uploaded, so that then the Registrar can be instructed
11 to attach the full translation to D215.
12 I move on to the -- to P2530.
13 There was a B/C/S version missing. I do understand that the
14 B/C/S version is uploaded. And, Madam Registrar, you are hereby
15 instructed to attach the missing B/C/S version to the -- to Exhibit
17 Then you're also instructed to replace the English version of
18 this same exhibit, P2530, with the new English version with handwritten
20 And, finally, you are instructed to attach the Prosecution's
21 discrepancy report, in relation to P2530 to P2708 and, unless there are
22 any objections, I will decide that P2708 is admitted into evidence.
23 Are there any objections?
24 MR. KEHOE: Frankly, Judge, just consulting with Mr. Misetic, I'm
25 not certain -- I'm not sure exactly what these are, candidly.
1 Maybe I can get some help from my colleagues.
2 [Defence counsel confer]
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'm informed that it is the annotated version of
5 the Markac suspect interview transcripts, with the discrepancy reports.
6 But I'm afraid I can't offer anything further.
7 MR. MIKULICIC: That's correct, Your Honour --
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's the advantage of the e-court system. If I
9 give the numbers, you can just get them on your screen so that we know
10 what we are talking about.
11 It is, indeed -- it is the video and the transcript of the
12 suspect interview with Mladen Markac, 3rd and 4th of March, 2003,
14 Mr. Mikulicic.
15 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour. I believe I exchanged an
16 e-mail with the OTP office saying that have I nothing against
17 introduction of this, translation of the written remarks.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Under those circumstances, the third part of
19 my instructions, that is, to attach the Prosecution's discrepancy report
20 in relation to P2530 to P2708, and that P2708 is admitted into evidence.
21 Would you still like to look at P2708, Mr. Mikulicic, or is it
22 clear to you?
23 MR. MIKULICIC: It is clear to me, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then just for ... yes.
25 Then I would like to move on to a document -- well, it's not a
1 document; it's an audio clip. The Galbraith audio clip, 1D33-074, was
2 used by the Gotovina Defence with Witness Galbraith, and it is about a
3 19th of October, 1995, meeting attended by President Tudjman,
4 Ambassador Galbraith, and Ambassador Holbrooke.
5 First of all, let me verify, I have on my list here, 1D33-074,
6 but a little bit later it states 0474.
7 MR. KEHOE: It's the latter, Mr. President. It's the latter.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because the format of the first number is --
9 is not in line with our system.
10 So, therefore, we are talking about 1D33-0474.
11 At transcript page 5073, Mr. Tieger advised that he required
12 additional time to review the audio and that he would inform the parties
13 of his position the next day.
14 Now, at that moment, no MFI
15 Therefore, it slipped through in our later housekeeping sessions where we
16 dealt with MFI
17 I don't think as a matter of fact that Mr. Tieger came back to
18 it. One day has certainly elapsed since transcript page 5073.
19 Could you inform us Ms. Gustafson?
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honours, I would have to speak to Mr. Tieger
21 and get back to the Chamber as soon as possible.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we are waiting for your communications.
23 Then the next item is the Albiston report.
24 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, in the interim, so we don't lose track
25 of it again, is it possible to MFI
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is a very good suggestion.
2 MR. KEHOE: I have to give that suggestion to Mr. Misetic. I'm
3 just his parrot on this message.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Misetic develops as a great assistant of
5 the court in slowing down the witnesses, let you wait until the
6 translation is finished, and for me to tell what should be MFI'd.
7 Madam Registrar, the MFI
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be D2022, marked for
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so no escape possible anymore.
11 The next item, as I said is the Albiston report.
12 There is an issue of the confidential version of the report and
13 the -- the redacted and unredacted version.
14 Now, the unredacted version is in evidence and the redacted
15 version is not.
16 MR. KAY: Yes. It is attached to a motion, Your Honour, so it
17 doesn't have an exhibit number and causes great difficulty in -- in
18 drafting for the final briefs and referencing that material.
19 So we would ask that the redacted version, which we put with our
20 motion, be given an exhibit number. It is uploaded into e-court, and
21 then, for the purposes of final briefs, we have a much more transparent
22 system, because, otherwise, we are referring to vast passages of a
23 confidential document, which, in themselves, do not have confidential
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, the Chamber is rather reluctant to have
1 in evidence both redacted and unredacted versions and, of course, the
2 filing of the -- the motion where I think the redacted version is
3 attached to that is public.
4 So reference to the redacted document, I do understand it's
5 primarily a matter of footnotes which would reveal the identity of
6 protected witnesses might serve as well, and that would, as a matter of
7 fact, be our suggestion, that you refer to -- to the report and could be
8 pages, paragraphs, whatever, and that since most of the report in the
9 public version is available to the public, that they would be able -- and
10 as good able to -- to understand your further filings and submissions by
11 looking into this publicly filed redacted version, even if is not
12 admitted into evidence.
13 MR. KAY: We're talking about a very narrow compass here of the
14 Albiston report, in terms of the reason why it was given a
15 confidentiality status.
16 We want to make sure that what we put into our final brief that
17 is uncontroversial is part of a public record, that people can see what
18 we rely upon. We don't want to have vast parts of our final brief
19 redacted for what we can see as being no good reason, which is when --
20 what would happen with the exhibit being a confidential document.
21 But we -- we're also anxious that our -- Mr. Albiston's report is
22 referred to.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I must say that the outcome is the same,
24 whether you -- in a public document, you could only refer to another
25 public document and you suggest that it would be the redacted version
1 which will then be admitted into evidence as a public document.
2 Now, all the references to be made to such a document to be
3 admitted into evidence could be made to the Albiston report as attached
4 to the filing of that date, which would give exactly the same result.
5 The public will understand, and, of course, there's no problem in
6 referring to it, that the unredacted version is in evidence. And if you
7 want to refer to page so-and-so, if there are no redactions, then I do
8 not really see the problem, as long as the reference is always to
9 unredacted portions of the document. But it seems to be a matter of a
10 highly technical nature.
11 You would like to have the Albiston report in the redacted
12 version into evidence, and you see that there are some hesitations to
13 accept both redacted and unredacted versions into evidence. Would it be
14 a suggestion that we try to resolve this matter out of court? It has no
15 substance apart from procedural practicalities.
16 MR. KAY: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And then see whether you would still persist in this
18 request or that a solution could be reached.
19 MR. KAY: I'm sure we can find a solution, and it may be it needs
20 explanation on both sides as to what the issues are. I understand the
21 Court's position, and I believe Your Honour would understand the
22 Cermak Defence position, in relation to this.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I suggest that you further discuss the matter
24 primarily with Mr. Nilsson who is the team leader of Chamber support
25 staff for this case.
1 MR. KAY: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And then if it will not be resolved, then, of
3 course, we'll have to find -- then the Chamber, of course, will determine
4 the matter.
5 MR. KAY: Of course, Your Honour, and I'm much obliged.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then these were my procedural matters.
7 Is there anything at this moment that should be raised?
8 Ms. Gustafson.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: One minor matter, Your Honours, which is that the
10 1991 census, the Prosecution, as the Chamber is aware, has uploaded a
11 complete version, and it's at 65 ter 7575, and our suggestion is that
12 that be admitted into evidence, and I know the Chamber expressed some
13 interest in that, and I'd just like to raise that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the Chamber has shown an interest to the extent
15 that, sometimes for understanding matters, it's good to know what the
16 composition of the population was, and the Chamber, of course, is fully
17 aware that it considerably changed since that census took place. That
18 is, in various -- I would say various waves, it is has considerably
20 Mr. Misetic.
21 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President, I think at this point we would
22 object to putting it all in, unless we had some understanding of what
23 purposes it would be used for, and so that we don't hear arguments for
24 the first time in final brief. I will note that portions of it related
25 to Sector South have been admitted into evidence as foundation for some
1 of the exhibits we put in. If there is something more specific in
2 relation to other towns that are not yet in evidence, I'm certainly happy
3 to speak to counsel and work something out.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that -- the Chamber had asked it to
5 uploaded into e-court primarily for having an opportunity, if there would
6 be any need to do so, to look into the census. For example when you
7 talked about certain villages as majority Croat or majority Serb, that if
8 there would have been any dispute, that at least we would have the data
10 Ms. Gustafson, having heard the concerns expressed by
11 Mr. Misetic --
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: I can speak to Mr. Misetic about it. One concern
13 we have is that the part that is in evidence is difficult to make out.
14 Maybe we can reach an agreement on just replacing the pages or something
15 along those lines.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would further discuss that. And if you
17 would please enlarge it as well, so that my eyes are not struggling with
18 what I have seen until now from the 1991 census.
19 What I had forgotten is that I was working from a list dating
20 from yesterday, so, therefore, I would like it finish the items which are
21 on my agenda of today.
22 I would like to briefly move into private session.
23 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I now deal with the stipulations to parts of the
2 OTP's pre-trial brief.
3 On the 4th of February, the Gotovina Defence stipulated to
4 paragraphs 105 to 108 of the Prosecution's pre-trial brief, which relates
5 to armed conflict.
6 An exception was made in relation to the second sentence of
7 paragraph 105.
8 What the Chamber would like to know is whether the Cermak Defence
9 and the Markac Defence would join in these stipulations.
10 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
12 MR. MIKULICIC: We have, Your Honour, a little bit different
13 approach to that questions.
14 So for the very moment, I have to say that I wouldn't join that
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you partly join that stipulation or not?
17 MR. MIKULICIC: I think -- I think that path could be most
18 likely, so ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you then please further explore that,
20 that possibility. Of course, from a purely practical point of view, if
21 there's a stipulation by all parties --
22 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, I can see that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- that makes matters more simple. At the same time
24 of course you should not feel to be forced into a stipulation which you
25 do not support.
1 So, therefore, you're invited to see to what extent, if not for
2 the full extent, you can join these stipulations. Perhaps also discuss
3 the matter with other Defence counsel. What caused them to enter into
4 this stipulations.
5 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. MIKULICIC: We will do so.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then it is on the record that the
9 Cermak Defence joins the stipulation, in relation to paragraphs 105 to
10 108 of the Prosecution's pre-trial brief, relating to armed conflict,
11 with the exception of the second sentence of paragraph 105.
12 Now, really, the last one on my agenda. In relation to D530 and
13 D424, there were requests for verification of English translations for
14 these exhibits.
15 Internal memos were filed by CLSS in this regard. Have new
16 revised translations been uploaded? I must admit that I do not know
17 which Defence team I should address. I remember that ...
18 [Prosecution counsel confer]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, I saw that you were in a tete-a-tete,
20 as the French say.
21 MR. MIKULICIC: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I didn't follow exactly.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The question was whether, upon having received the
23 CLSS memos in relation to D530 and D424, whether the revised translations
24 have been uploaded.
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 MR. MIKULICIC: If I can just have a minute, Your Honour.
2 [Defence counsel confer]
3 MR. MIKULICIC: As it looks like, Your Honour, we are not
4 uploaded yet. But we will --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you take care that they will be uploaded
6 because only then we can instruct the Registrar to attach the new
7 translations to these two exhibits.
8 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, we will do so, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I have nothing further on my agenda.
10 Any of the parties?
11 Then we adjourn, and we will resume, Thursday, the 4th of March,
12 9.00 in the morning, Courtroom III.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.
14 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 4th day of March,
15 2010, at 9.00 a.m.