1 Friday, 5 March 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
8 This is case number IT-06-90-T, the Prosecutor versus
9 Ante Gotovina et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 The Chamber was informed there was a translation issue to be
12 raised before we start.
13 Mr. Misetic.
14 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, we have an updated translation
15 provided to us by the Prosecution for Exhibit D1280, and we ask
16 permission to upload it into e-court with doc ID 0673-0221ET.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It doesn't ring immediately a bell to me, but
18 if the parties agree that it's a better translation, Mr. Misetic, the
19 issue was -- you --
20 MR. MISETIC: We had provided a partial translation of the
21 document. I believe Mr. Carrier wants to use it in his
22 cross-examination, and he has provided a full translation, and we have no
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- then leave is grant to upload a new
25 translation for Exhibit D1280.
1 Any other matter? If not, could the witness be brought into the
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 WITNESS: IVAN JURIC [Resumed]
5 [The witness answered through interpreter]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Juric.
7 Perhaps needless --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps needless to say, but you're still bound by
10 the solemn declaration you've given yesterday at the beginning of your
12 You'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Carrier. Mr. Carrier is
13 counsel for the Prosecution. You'll find him to your right.
14 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Carrier:
16 Q. Good morning, Brigadier Juric.
17 MR. CARRIER: Madam Registrar, could we please have document
18 65 ter 7587 on the screen, please.
19 Q. Brigadier Juric, while this is coming up on the screen in front
20 of you, yesterday Judge Orie asked you some questions about your area of
21 responsibility, for your co-ordinator role as assigned by General Lausic,
22 and references there are T-27421 and following. And yesterday you said
23 that the area was the Split Military District, and you also mentioned
24 that the area was dynamic, in the sense that it changed as additional
25 areas were liberated by the Croatian Army.
1 And if you could just focus on the map in front of you,
2 Brigadier Juric, I'm wondering if at the time that you were sent to Knin,
3 if you were aware that normally the northern border of the Split Military
4 District area of operations corresponded roughly with the solid yellow
5 line that's shown on this map.
6 MR. CARRIER: And perhaps we could just close in a little bit.
7 It's the bottom half of this map.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Would you please zoom in a bit
10 I spoke about the zone of responsibility of the Military District
11 of Split. Well, that area of responsibility was based on the area that
12 was under Croatian control. I am not aware, in detail, of the borders
13 between the Split Military District and the neighbour on the left side,
14 that is to say, the newly liberated areas.
15 MR. CARRIER:
16 Q. Okay. So given your answer, looking at this map, when you say
17 "left side," you mean the northern part of Croatia, meaning above the
18 yellow line; is that fair?
19 A. No, I don't know if it's above the yellow line or where it is on
20 the map. I'm telling you that I wasn't aware of where the line of
21 separation was between the Split Military District and the left side of
22 the Split Military District.
23 Q. So I take it, then, you wouldn't be able to confirm whether or
24 not -- or what the northern border of the Split Military District would
25 have been on the 6th of August or the 14th of August, 1995. You wouldn't
1 really know precisely?
2 A. No, no, no.
3 MR. CARRIER: Your Honour, if I could have this map marked as an
4 exhibit, please.
5 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, if we could have it MFI'd. We just
6 got it a few minutes ago before we came in court.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and you'd like to see what we find on it before
8 you express your position.
9 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that this would be the same for the other
11 Defence teams.
12 MR. KAY: I wonder if it adds anything at all, Your Honour, as
13 the witness didn't speak to the map or adopt any part of it. So in that
14 sense, making it an exhibit I'm not sure helps the Court in any way. I
15 see that some of the information already comes from other documents on
16 it, and it's not the witness's map.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The document will be marked for identification.
18 Madam Registrar, the number would be ...?
19 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P2715, marked for
21 JUDGE ORIE: P2715 keeps that status, MFI, for the time being.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Madam Registrar, if we could please have Exhibit D267 on the
25 screen, please.
1 Q. Brigadier Juric, what's going to come up on the screen in front
2 of you is General Lausic's 2 August 1995 order in relation to
3 preparations of military police units to perform military police tasks in
4 the area of responsibility of the Croatian Army military districts during
5 Operation Storm.
6 MR. CARRIER: Sorry, D267. And if we could turn to page 4 in the
7 English, please, and the top of page 3 in the B/C/S.
8 Q. Brigadier Juric, under this order from General Lausic, you were
9 appointed to assist in commanding and organising the activities of the
10 72nd and 73rd Military Police Battalions. This is located at item 10 of
11 his order, and it also says that the commanders of these two battalions
12 shall be subordinated to you.
13 Brigadier Juric, when you were briefed about your role as the
14 Military Police Administration co-ordinator for Operation Storm by
15 General Lausic, you were told that the military police would be given
16 tasks by the military district commanders; is that fair?
17 A. No. Your Honours, I explained yesterday, in response to your
18 question, what my role and task were. When I spoke yesterday, I never
19 mentioned, and I never mentioned it today either, that the military
20 police would receive orders from the commander of the military district.
21 Q. Brigadier Juric, yesterday His Honour was reminding you that you
22 gave -- you were interviewed by the investigators from the Prosecution in
23 March 2002. And for reference, at paragraph 4, page 2, Your Honour, you
24 were recorded as telling the investigators that the military police would
25 be given tasks by the military district commanders. Do you recall that?
1 A. No. Your Honour, I spoke to the investigator. However, I never
2 saw the record. Afterwards, I never checked the record, and I have no
3 idea what it says.
4 Q. The question wasn't about whether you checked the record. The
5 question was whether or not you said that.
6 A. As far as I can remember, no, because commanders of military
7 districts in this specific case did not issue orders to officers who were
8 sent to the ground by the chief of the Administration of Military Police.
9 Q. They would be issuing orders to the Military Police Battalion
10 commanders; isn't that fair?
11 A. Yes. As prescribed in the rules, the commanders --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the answer
13 slower, notes the interpreter.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your answer, but speak a bit
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In accordance with the rules on the
17 establishment of the military police, the commanders of military
18 districts were superior to commanders of battalions of the military
19 police in the daily system of command and control.
20 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I apologise. Could we check the
21 interpretation of the last portion?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please slowly repeat the last part
23 of your answer. You said that in accordance with the rules on the
24 establishment of the military police, the commanders of military
25 districts were superior to commanders of battalions of the military
1 police, and then you said something about command and control, or could
2 you please repeat that last portion of your answer?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The system of daily operative
4 command, management and command.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
6 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
7 Q. And perhaps if we just look down in the same document that's on
8 the screen in front of you, item number 12, Brigadier Juric, there's a
9 heading called "Commanding and reporting system." That indicates that
10 daily operational chain of command for the commanders of the military
11 police battalions was given to the military district commanders, as you
12 just said. And then if we turn the page in English, there also the
13 Military Police Battalion commanders would be reporting in writing in --
14 at briefings on a daily basis to the military district commander. Is
15 that consistent with what you just described, in terms of the daily
16 operative command?
17 A. Yes, yes. Yesterday, I also explained that from the moment when
18 the military police was established on the basis of the Rules on
19 Establishment, every commander of the Military Police Battalion had to
20 provide daily reports to commanders of military districts about what
21 happened over the past 24 or 48 hours.
22 Q. And, in fact, yesterday, Brigadier Juric, when you were asked
23 about -- by Judge Orie about reporting between HV operational commanders
24 and military police, and this is at T-27438, there may have been a little
25 confusion, but what you did was you referred to the customary practice of
1 the military police, and then I'll quote you about what you said. You
3 "The highest-ranking commander in an area of responsibility was
4 the operative commander, was supposed to receive daily operational
5 reports from military police units, and that had, indeed, covered all the
6 developments in the corresponding area over the period of 24 hours.
7 Also, those commanders are supposed to be present at the briefings that
8 operative commanders, in their respective areas of responsibility, held.
9 At those briefings, they were supposed to receive certain information --
10 or, rather, they were supposed to be briefed, they were supposed to
11 provide briefings to others."
12 And just to be clear, when you say "operative commander" here,
13 you're referring to the HV commander with operational control over the
14 military police unit; is that fair?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. Now, Brigadier Juric, in terms of the tasks that can be assigned
17 by the military district commander to Military Police Battalion
18 commanders, those would be to issue orders relating to military police
19 units performing regular military police tasks?
20 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I'm going to object at this point.
21 I believe the Chamber's -- this is now outside the scope of the Chamber's
22 examination, and now we are getting into what, in the e-mail, was
23 indicated that the Chamber would not get into, which is the functioning
24 and structure of the military police in general.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
1 MR. CARRIER: Your Honour, I believe there are a number of
2 questions from the Bench yesterday about the ability to issue orders and
3 what those orders would consist of, and this witness talked about that
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
6 MR. MISETIC: If you could point me to the record as to the
7 specific questions so that I know how this arises out of the Bench's
9 MR. CARRIER: Well, the whole last section regarding
10 General Cermak, for instance. I believe that starts around page 60 on
11 yesterday's transcript. I can find the actual page, but I -- I don't
12 know if Your Honour remembers those questions.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I do remember some of my questions, yes,
14 Mr. Carrier, yes.
15 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I mean, obviously those questions
16 were specific to General Cermak, and I think Mr. Carrier's questions are
17 specific to General Gotovina at this point. So if he wants to focus on
18 General Cermak, that's fine, but I believe the Bench's questions were
19 very specific as to General Cermak yesterday.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, you are at the edge of where you could
21 go. Don't stay there too long, because you might fall off.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. CARRIER: I'll proceed with caution, Mr. President.
24 Q. If I could just read the question to you again.
25 Brigadier Juric, in terms of the tasks that can be assigned by
1 the military district commander to Military Police Battalion commanders,
2 that would include orders relating to military police units performing
3 regularly -- regular military police tasks. Is that fair?
4 A. Well, for the most part, that is what is prescribed in the rules
5 for the work of the military police. The daily operative orders are
6 issued by the commander of the military district where members of the
7 military police, in accordance with their powers, can give support to the
8 carrying out of the task issued by the commander to his own units.
9 MR. CARRIER: Thank you. I'm off the subject now, Your Honour.
10 Q. If we just turn now to the appointment again, your appointment,
11 Brigadier Juric.
12 MR. CARRIER: And, Madam Registrar, if we could please have
13 Exhibit D268 on the screen.
14 Q. And, Brigadier Juric, what's coming up on the screen is a
15 document that you looked at yesterday when you testified. And if we
16 could please -- once it comes up on the screen, I'll ask you to focus on
17 item number 1. I'll just wait until it comes up.
18 Now, looking at item number 1, you, along with some other
19 Military Police Administration officers, were sent to the 72nd Military
20 Police Battalion Forward Command Post, and at the bottom of the page in
21 English, your name's mentioned, and then there's a list of assigned
22 tasks. It goes on to the next page. It's all on page 1 in the B/C/S.
23 But if you could just take a moment to review that. I know you did
24 yesterday, but just have a chance to review it again, and I'll ask you a
25 couple of questions. Just let me know when you're done looking at it.
1 A. Please go ahead. You can put your question now.
2 Q. Thank you, Brigadier. Is it fair to say that General Lausic's
3 orders, dated the 2nd of August, 1995, which we just looked at, did not
4 appoint you to take over or replace the command role that was occupied by
5 either of the Military Police Battalion commanders, the 72nd or the 73rd,
6 in respect of their battalions?
7 A. No, I have already explained. I was not appointed as a
8 commander of -- the commander of any of those units. The procedure to
9 appoint people is prescribed, and only those officers who are in command
10 duties, who have been appointed commanders, are, indeed, commanders. And
11 that's why I said that I was just a co-ordinator who co-ordinated,
12 directed, and channeled certain tasks and the way those tasks were
13 carried out.
14 Q. Thank you. And is it also fair to say that your appointment
15 under these orders of General Lausic did nothing to change or inhibit the
16 ongoing daily operational subordination of the commander of the
17 72nd Military Police Battalion, Major Budimir, to the Split Military
18 District commander, Colonel General Gotovina?
19 A. No. As I've already said, we arrived with a group of officers
20 from the military police to help link up and co-ordinate the work and
21 activities of the military police in that territory, and all -- every
22 officer in the group had his own tasks and covered a certain area of work
23 that they were most familiar with.
24 Q. Brigadier Juric, yesterday you said that the garrison
25 commander -- sorry, as garrison commander, General Cermak had the right
1 to issue tasks to the military police, in terms of implementing - and you
2 gave some examples - security details, checks, and similar things. And
3 you were asked by Judge Orie what the basis was on which General Cermak
4 had the right or authority to issue such tasks to the military police.
5 For reference, that's transcript page 27457 and following on the next
6 page. You answered, Brigadier Juric, and I'll just quote you again:
7 "Duties, tasks, and whatever the military police had, in keeping
8 with the rules, every officer had the right to issue requirements and
9 tasks that the military police then implemented. If they were in
10 accordance with the area of work and the authorities of the military
11 police, in that case the military police were duty-bound to carry them
12 out in the prescribed -- in the way prescribed by the scope of their
14 Brigadier Juric, I would like to show you a document and then
15 follow up on the answer that you gave to Judge Orie.
16 MR. CARRIER: If I could please have Exhibit D1280. This is the
17 document, Your Honour, with the now complete translation.
18 And, Madam Registrar, when you get that on the screen --
19 Q. Brigadier Juric, you'll see that this is a 3rd December 1995
20 order issued by General Lausic regarding establishing the areas of
21 responsibility of military police units.
22 MR. CARRIER: And, Madam Registrar, if we could please go to
23 page 7 in the English and page 2 in the B/C/S.
24 Q. And, Brigadier Juric, if you could focus your attention on item
25 number 7 of this order, which indicates that the 72nd Military Police
1 Battalion shall carry out military and police tasks in the area of
2 operations or area of responsibility of the Split Military District and
3 the Southern Front. It goes on. The next paragraph down from that in
4 item 7 indicates that the 72nd Military Police Battalion commander shall
5 be subordinated to the Split Military District commander, in terms of
6 daily operational command.
7 And the next paragraph down from that, you'll see, indicates
9 "In matters of daily operational command, platoon and company
10 commanders who are outside of the command headquarters of the
11 72nd Military Police Battalion Command are subordinated to the commanders
12 of the HV garrisons or to the most senior HV commander in their area of
14 Now, Brigadier Juric, is this item number 7 of this order in
15 keeping with the rules that you mentioned that form a basis for
16 General Cermak's authority to issue orders and tasks to military police
17 units as a garrison commander at the relevant time in August 1995?
18 A. Your Honours, I believe I'm not competent to talk about this. I
19 don't know what General Cermak's authorities were and what they were
20 based on. I don't know what he did and how he did it. However, in terms
21 of bullet point 7, I explained that yesterday, and I said that every
22 operative commander had the right to issue orders to the military police
23 active in his area of responsibility and that the unit commander was
24 duty-bound to carry out the order if it was within the scope of the
25 police -- military police duties.
1 Q. Thank you for that answer, Brigadier Juric.
2 MR. CARRIER: If we could please have Exhibit P881 on the screen
4 Q. And, Brigadier Juric, what will come up on the screen is a
5 5th of August, 1995, order issued by General Lausic in respect of the
6 establishment of military police units in the newly liberated areas of
8 MR. KAY: Just while we're waiting, the document was introduced
9 by Mr. Carrier with an inaccurate date. It's the 3rd of December, 1994,
10 not 1995, is the date on the document from General Lausic.
11 MR. CARRIER: I apologise. If I said "1995," I did mean 1994. I
12 appreciate the correction.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Proceed.
14 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
15 Q. Brigadier Juric, this is the document I just described to you,
16 the 5th of August order.
17 MR. CARRIER: And, Madam Registrar, if we could -- sorry.
18 Q. Brigadier Juric, if you could focus on item 1.5. That's, in
19 English, on page 1, where General Lausic ordered that the 72nd Military
20 Police Battalion establish a military police company in Knin. And just
21 for the record, so you're aware, this Chamber has received evidence that
22 that actually happened on the 5th of August, 1995, at about noon, that
23 that MP company was formed.
24 If we could turn the page in English, please, to page 2, and the
25 B/C/S to page 2.
1 And, Brigadier Juric, if you could focus your attention on item
2 number 7 of this order, which indicates that:
3 "For the execution of daily operations, the commanders of the
4 newly established military police units shall be subordinated to the most
5 senior HV commander in their respective zone of responsibility."
6 Which, I believe, IS consistent with what you've been saying so
7 far, is that right, about operational commands?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. Now, in August 1995, Brigadier Juric, setting aside the fact that
10 General Gotovina was the overall commander of the military district, it's
11 true, isn't it, that your understanding was that General Cermak was the
12 most senior HV commander in Knin at the relevant time?
13 A. At that time, General Cermak was the commander of the Knin
14 Garrison, and as far as I know, he did not have operative authority over
15 the units of the Croatian Army that were deployed in Knin in any
16 capacity. He did not have any authority over the installations that were
17 used by members of the Croatian Army in Knin. I can't tell you, and I've
18 already told you that, I can't tell you what exactly were the tasks and
19 duties of the garrison commander there.
20 Q. Irrespective of the operational role of General Cermak, your
21 understanding was that he was the -- other than General Gotovina, he was
22 the most senior-ranked military person in Knin?
23 MR. KAY: Now, Your Honour, that's a very misleading question, if
24 I may say so, and the Court knows fully the background to this. It may
25 be my learned friend's inexperience with the evidence.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, you can ask the witness whether he's
2 aware of the rank held by General Cermak, and you can ask whether he
3 knows of any others having higher ranks. The issue is clear that the
4 Chamber is mainly assisted by questions where it appears that facts,
5 rather than intertwined half conclusions, are dealt with by the witness.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. CARRIER: Sorry. Just for some direction from the Bench,
8 Your Honour --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we can -- do you know what the rank of
10 General Cermak was at the time, Mr. Juric?
11 Could you answer the question?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. General Cermak had the rank
13 of colonel general.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then the Chamber, of course, has a lot of evidence
15 on ranks of others, and what that means, Mr. Carrier, is a different
17 MR. KAY: I'm grateful. I take Your Honour's line on that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
20 Q. Now, Brigadier Juric, you were aware, during August 1995, that --
21 or as far as you could remember, General Cermak was receiving regular
22 reports about the military police in Knin; is that fair?
23 MR. KAY: Can we establish a foundation for that, for that
24 question, Your Honour. With respect to my learned friend, I don't know
25 what he's doing there.
1 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that depending on the answer of the
2 witness, that you'll take him through further evidence which the Chamber
3 has received, Mr. Carrier?
4 MR. CARRIER: At least his -- at least evidence that's not in
5 evidence, but that was referred to during Your Honour's examination of
6 the witness.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Under those circumstances, Mr. Kay, the
8 question is put to the witness, and Mr. Carrier will not just leave it to
9 that, but will take us to further evidence on the matter.
10 Please proceed, Mr. Carrier.
11 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
12 Q. Sorry, Brigadier Juric, for the interruption, but you were aware,
13 during August 1995, that at least as far as you could remember,
14 General Cermak was receiving --
15 MR. KAY: Well, the witness hasn't said he can remember anything.
16 That's the point with a misleading question in that form. The witness
17 has not said he can remember that in that way, and to put a question like
18 that is designed to lead a witness down the path that is misleading, with
19 respect. And the Court knows the evidence in this case, and what has
20 been able to be put into evidence, and what doesn't exist.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, you can ask whether the witness was
22 aware. That would be a more neat and clean question. And to say, Are
23 you aware, at least as far as you could remember, is highly suggestive.
24 Under the present circumstances, where no foundation has yet been laid,
25 I think it's better to refrain from that.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. CARRIER: Certainly.
3 Q. Brigadier Juric, you were aware that General Cermak was receiving
4 regular reports about the work of the military police in Knin; isn't that
6 A. No, Your Honours, no.
7 Q. I'm just taking you back to your interview with the Prosecution
8 investigators in March 2002, where you're recorded as saying that as far
9 as you could remember, General Cermak was getting regular reports about
10 the work of the military police in Knin. Does that refresh your memory
11 at all? Do you remember saying that?
12 A. No. Yesterday, I said that I had not checked how units sent
13 their daily reports through daily operative channels that had been
14 established far before. I don't remember to this very day that I saw a
15 single report sent by the military police unit to General Cermak.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, needless to ask your attention for the
17 difference in language. Getting regular reports about the work of the
18 military police is not exactly the same of getting regular reports from
19 members of --
20 MR. CARRIER: I don't have any more questions, Your Honour. I
21 take your point.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 MR. CARRIER: And I literally don't have any more questions. I'm
25 JUDGE ORIE: You literally have no more questions, yes.
1 Mr. Juric, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Misetic, at least
2 if he can find a lectern. Otherwise, he'll refrain from
4 He has found one, so you'll be cross-examined by Mr. Misetic.
5 Mr. Misetic is counsel for Mr. Gotovina, as you may be aware of.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
7 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Misetic:
9 Q. Good morning, Brigadier Juric.
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. First, let me follow up with some of the questions you were asked
12 this morning, first dealing with the northern boundary of your zone of
14 MR. MISETIC: And if we could go, Madam Registrar, to
15 Exhibit P887, please.
16 Q. And Brigadier Juric, this is an order from General Lausic on the
17 5th of August. And if you look on the first page in point 1.4, you'll
18 see that a platoon of the military police is formed in Gracac, but it's
19 from the 71st Military Police Battalion. It's correct, isn't it, that
20 you were not responsible for the 71st Military Police Battalion?
21 A. It's correct. The 71st Battalion was not in the area of
22 responsibility. Another team of officers covered that area.
23 Q. And that would be the team led by Colonel Kosic?
24 A. I believe so.
25 Q. This morning, you were also asked a question at transcript
1 page 8, lines 10 to 12. Just one moment, please. The question was
2 phrased in a way that says the HV commander had operational control over
3 the military police. Isn't it correct that, more specifically, he had --
4 he was able to issue daily operational tasks to the military police, to
5 be very precise?
6 A. Could you please repeat your question.
7 Q. The question that was posed to you by Mr. Carrier earlier this
8 morning had embedded in it the presumption that the HV commanders had
9 operational control over the military police, and I just want to be clear
10 that that relates to Article 9 of the Rules of the Military Police. Is
11 that correct?
12 A. I'm not sure that it relates to Article 9, but, yes, in the rules
13 it does explain how this was done. I'm not 100 per cent sure that it
14 would be Article 9. I'm not sure of that.
15 Q. And pursuant to General Lausic's orders, starting with the
16 2nd of August, the military police was subordinated to the military
17 district commanders in fulfilling daily operational tasks; is that
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Now, I want to go back, Brigadier Juric, to questions that were
21 put to you by the Bench yesterday.
22 You'll recall --
23 MR. MISETIC: And, Your Honours, this is referring back to
24 Exhibit P1193, page 9 in the English, page 7 in the B/C/S.
25 And, Madam Registrar, if we could call that up, please.
1 Q. You'll recall this is a report from Captain Grancaric to you?
2 A. Your Honour, there's something wrong with my screen. I can't see
3 the Croatian translation.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think that it's still being uploaded to be visible
5 on your screen. Let's just take a while, because I see that the Croatian
6 part is still the previous document.
7 MR. MISETIC: In Croatian, it's page 7 of 19. That's it, now the
8 bottom paragraph in Croatian. And in English, it is the first
9 translation -- the first English translation, page 9.
10 Q. Major Juric -- I'm sorry. Brigadier Juric, you'll recall you
11 were shown this by Judge Orie yesterday about:
12 "During the searches we have found five to six dead bodies, and
13 then we informed the security services as well as the services in charge
14 of the clearing up of the terrain. Considering the shortness of time
15 passed since our entrance into the city, we assumed that these were
16 people of Croatian ethnicity who had been killed by Chetniks."
17 My first question: Brigadier Juric, when you received a report
18 like this, would you have had reason to think that proper procedures
19 would not be followed in a case where Croatian victims had been
20 discovered in Benkovac?
21 A. No, Your Honours.
22 MR. MISETIC: Madam Registrar, if I could have on the screen,
23 please, 65 ter 1D3066.
24 Q. Brigadier Juric, this is now a criminal report regarding an
25 incident similar to the one described in the report of Captain Grancaric.
1 It's a criminal report against a Nikola Kresovic - if we turn the page,
2 please - committing a war crime, it says.
3 If we turn the page in Croatian as well.
4 It says:
5 "There is reasonable suspicion that Kresovic, Nikola, committed
6 the criminal offence of war crime against the civilian population,
7 against Zrilic, Zorka; Beslic, Vlado; and Beslic, Stana. On 5 August
8 1995, at an unspecified time, most probably in the early-morning hours
9 immediately prior to the entry of the military police forces of the
10 Republic of Croatia into Benkovac and its liberation, the reported
11 Kresovic, Nikola, using a 7.62-millimetre calibre firearm, make unknown,
12 killed the following persons in their family homes in Benkovac ..."
13 The next paragraph says:
14 "After having murdered the aforesaid persons, the reported
15 person, together with other insurgent citizens of Serb nationality, left
16 Benkovac, or rather the Republic of Croatia, and moved to the area of the
17 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Serb control."
18 It is signed by Mr. Kardum. If we go two pages further, please,
19 there's also a record of an on-site investigation having been done, with
20 an investigating judge having been called, the district attorney,
21 et cetera.
22 Now, Brigadier Juric, when you received the report from
23 Captain Grancaric, you would have assumed that, in fact, this would have
24 been the procedure that was followed upon the discovery of these bodies;
1 A. Yes, precisely so. Yesterday, in answering a number of
2 questions, I provided a similar answer, and I said that I was absolutely
3 sure that the procedure would be followed, irrespective of the
4 allegations or anything that the recording clerk may have recorded or put
5 on paper.
6 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.
7 Mr. President, I tender 65 ter 1D3066 into evidence, please.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
9 MR. CARRIER: No objection.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D2023.
12 JUDGE ORIE: D2023 is admitted into evidence.
13 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Q. Brigadier Juric, I want to turn our attention to a different
15 topic that was covered with you yesterday, and this is reporting about
16 looting as well as reporting to the military commanders.
17 And if we could first turn our attention to 65 ter 5807, please.
18 This is a report of the 7th of August sent to you by the
19 commander of the 5th Company of the 72nd MP Battalion, Captain Janjic.
20 And you can see that starting in paragraph 2, he reports to you about
21 items having been seized and equipment having been seized, and receipts
22 for the temporary seized items have been issued, and it talks about who
23 some of the soldiers are.
24 If we go to point 4 -- could we turn the page in English, please.
25 It talks about the members of the 7th Guards Brigade of the HV
1 having items seized. The next paragraph talks about a soldier in a
2 Toyota truck with HV plates being stopped, inspected:
3 "During the inspection, a large quantity of technical goods was
4 present. Orlovic made away from the check-point without permission. He
5 did not stop. The offender's military ID card and the vehicle worksheet
6 are at the Vrlika barrier check-point premises."
7 It talks about another incident.
8 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I'm going to show him a series of
9 documents, so I'd like to ask that 65 ter 5807 be marked, and I tender it
10 into evidence.
11 MR. CARRIER: No objection.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D2024.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
15 MR. MISETIC: Madam Registrar, if we could have Exhibit D868 on
16 the screen, please.
17 Q. Mr. Juric, this is a report of the 8th of August. It's a report,
18 I believe, that covers not only the 8th, but the period prior to that as
19 well, and it itemises some of the things that have been seized at the
20 check-points. And I note, again, and I ask you to pay attention to the
21 fact that this is the 5th Company, Knin -- sorry, Sinj. There's a --
22 we'll have to have that translation corrected. It includes technical
23 equipment, TV sets, Sanyo players, cassette players, VHS videos. And if
24 we flip through it, there's 222 items seized, according to this report.
25 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President -- sorry. Madam Registrar, if we
1 could have 65 ter 2748 on the screen, please.
2 This is another report from IZM Vrlika, itemising additional
3 items seized at check-points that include electronic equipment like TV
4 sets, tractors, radio-cassette players, et cetera.
5 Mr. President, I ask that 65 ter 2748 be marked, and I tender it
6 into evidence.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
8 MR. CARRIER: No objection.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D2025, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: D2025 is admitted into evidence.
12 MR. MISETIC: Madam Registrar, if I could have 65 ter 1D3064,
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, just for my information, at this moment
15 you apparently are establishing that the military police took action
16 against what may appear as being looting, in view of the -- that was not
17 the core of my questioning, just for you to be aware of. I didn't say
18 that it didn't happen. I didn't say that the military police -- what I
19 focused on was the way in which it was reported.
20 MR. MISETIC: And that's what I'm going to get to, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, then that's -- then I'll wait and see how it
23 MR. MISETIC: Okay.
24 Q. Mr. Juric, this is a report about tractors -- three tractors
25 being seized at a check-point. When the persons driving them couldn't
1 show documents -- proper documentation, they were seized from members of
2 the HV on 7 August.
3 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I ask that this exhibit,
4 65 ter 1D0364, be marked and I tender it into evidence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No objections, I take it, Mr. Carrier.
6 Madam Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D2026, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. MISETIC: Madam Registrar, this is the last one,
11 65 ter 1D3065. It is a statement that was taken from one HV member
12 suspected of having a cultivator that did not belong to him, and this is
13 his statement describing the military police patrol coming upon him,
14 asking for paperwork. When he didn't have it, he was taken to the
15 forward command post.
16 Mr. President, I ask that this exhibit be marked, and I tender it
17 into evidence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, from what I see from you, you have no
20 MR. CARRIER: Well, actually, on this -- this point, I'm just
21 trying to confirm -- if it can be marked as MFI for now. I want to just
22 check what the -- I know there's a lot of traffic on the whole Official
23 Note concept, so I just wanted to confirm before I register no objection.
24 MR. MISETIC: It's not an Official Note, Mr. President. It's
25 actually -- it says it's a statement, I guess, of -- in the person's
2 JUDGE ORIE: Official Notes are, I think, often not signed by the
3 person from whom a statement is taken, whereas this statement is signed
4 by the person from whom it was taken, Mr. Carrier.
5 MR. CARRIER: I'm just checking that, but I was looking at the
6 description which calls it an Official Note. So if I could just have one
7 moment, Mr. President.
8 MR. MISETIC: I think, Mr. President, that was just in e-court.
9 Someone described it as an Official Note, but the title of the document
10 is a record of taking a statement.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Often, Mr. Carrier, we find "Official Note" in the
12 heading of document, where here it reads "Record of taking a statement."
13 MR. CARRIER: In the Croatian version, I can't even see the
14 heading. I'm just trying to be cautious, obviously.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that those who translated it must have
16 been able to read it, perhaps, in a better copy.
17 MR. CARRIER: If there is a better copy, perhaps that could be
19 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, you can see the ERN number, that we
20 got it from the OTP, so that is --
21 JUDGE ORIE: If you can find a better copy, Mr. Carrier, you
22 receive leave to upload it.
23 MR. CARRIER: Thank you very much.
24 JUDGE ORIE: It will be MFI
25 Madam Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D2027, marked
2 for identification.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status for a short while.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. Now, Brigadier Juric, I want to now show you a report.
7 This is P1134, Madam Registrar. And if we could go to page 4 in
8 the English, and page 4 in the Croatian as well, please.
9 Now, in paragraph 9 of this report, which is the 10th of August,
10 and it's a report of the SIS, it says:
11 "At the very beginning, war booty was not collected in an
12 organised manner. Each unit collected it individually, and some HV
13 members took household appliances, cars and such-like. Most of the items
14 were confiscated from them at VP check-points. In some cases, the VP had
15 to do it by force. A group of armed members of the 7th Guards Brigade
16 requested that the 5th Sinj Company return the confiscated goods to
18 Now, Brigadier Juric, is it your recollection that with respect
19 to the items that had been taken in places like Knin, that most of the
20 items had, in fact, ultimately been seized by the military police at
22 A. Yes, precisely, Your Honours. Members of the military police at
23 check-points stopped all vehicles of members of the Croatian Army and
24 took away all objects that were not part of military equipment or if the
25 persons involved did not have proper documentation for the said objects.
1 Q. Let's now look at -- after having looked at these reports, let's
2 look at some of the reporting that was discussed both with the
3 Trial Chamber yesterday and in the Prosecution's cross-examination of you
5 You'll recall that you have testified about reporting to the
6 operational HV commanders would have continued along the standard
7 practice of reporting that had existed prior to Operation Storm; correct?
8 A. That's right.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, could I ask clarification of one of the
10 previous answers.
11 The question put to you was whether it was your recollection that
12 with respect to the items that had been taken in places like Knin, that
13 most of the items had, in fact, ultimately been seized by the military
14 police at the check-points. Now, if I understand the items that had been
15 taken to be the items that had been taken from apartments, from wherever,
16 taken from individuals, a judgement that most of these items were
17 ultimately seized by the military police suggests that you had a good
18 knowledge of the total number of items taken. Could you explain how you
19 could tell us whether what was seized by the military police was
20 10 per cent of what had been -- and I now use the word in non-technical
21 terms, whether that was 10 per cent of the looted goods, or 90 per cent
22 of the looted goods, or 30 per cent of the looted goods?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in response to the
24 question put to me, I said that at blockade check-points, the military
25 police stopped all members and seized all goods for which they didn't
1 have proper documentation. I did not say whether these goods, if we are
2 to call it that, belonged to the area or the town of Knin or wherever.
3 We can only talk about what was done at the check-points themselves.
4 Actually, check-points were put up in an attempt to seal off the entire
6 I cannot tell you now with certainty at which check-point how
7 many goods were taken. And when certificates were written up, I don't
8 know whether it was stated from where the said goods came.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. This clearly explains the problem. You're
10 asking for a judgement on whether most of these items were then seized,
11 whereas the witness starts saying, Yes, and then explains what they did
12 at the check-points, and which does not allow for any final conclusions
13 on whether most of them were seized or not.
14 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. MISETIC: -- if I can just explain my position.
17 I was quoting from a report of the 10th of August.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. MISETIC: So that's --
20 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine, but your question was phrased in a way
21 which went far beyond that. I read the relevant places, like Knin, goods
22 taken. It leaves a lot of questions are open, such as, What was the
23 total quantity of goods that were stolen? How many of those who had
24 taken those goods were stopped at check-points? How many circumvented
25 check-points? What may have been missed in inspecting the cars, for
1 example? If golden rings would have been stolen, you would more easily
2 accept that they would have been missed in the inspection of the cars,
3 compared to refrigerators, for example, which you'll not easily --
4 MR. MISETIC: I'll explore it, then. I have an answer to that
5 but --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what I'm saying is that -- of course, you can
7 explore that and say, Do you think that you missed rings, and then we get
8 a yes or a no, and it's --
9 MR. MISETIC: I was --
10 JUDGE ORIE: What I wanted to point at is that whether most of
11 them were seized or not, as the witness says, requires a full knowledge
12 of what happened, including the dark number. I mean, those who have
13 worked in criminal law know that the dark number is one of the most
14 difficult problems to tackle.
15 If you want to explore it, fine. I'm not seeking that. I'm just
16 pointing at what came to my mind when I heard first your question and
17 then the answer.
18 MR. MISETIC: Well, I'll explain, through questions, what my
19 point is.
20 Q. Mr. Juric, let's take this as an example: If military units, as
21 units, were systematically seizing goods and then taking them back to
22 wherever, warehouses, logistics bases, et cetera, and if you had a
23 suspicion that, in fact, you hadn't been able to take the items that are
24 in their possession, and they drove past the check-points and were
25 storing huge quantities of technical equipment that you didn't get, you
1 would have been obligated to pursue this matter further and go into those
2 units and try to find that material; correct?
3 A. Yes. If we had information that a unit in a particular area has
4 some equipment that are not part of establishment, then the closest
5 military police unit would go there and investigate the matter.
6 Q. My point, Brigadier Juric, is that as of the 10th of August, in
7 this report, it says that the conclusion was that most of the items had,
8 in fact, been seized at check-points. And my question to you is: As of
9 that time-period, was that consistent with what your conclusion was as to
10 whether or not items had been seized back from any units that may have
11 been involved in looting?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. MISETIC: I'm prepared to move on, unless you have further
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I didn't prevent you from moving on at an
16 earlier stage, but --
17 MR MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- please proceed as you wish.
19 MR. MISETIC: Madam Registrar, if we could have Exhibit P2247 on
20 the screen, please.
21 Q. Mr. Juric, please take a look at this report. It's a daily
22 report of the Duty Service of the 72nd Military Police for the
23 5th of August. Is this the report that you were referring to in your
24 answers to Judge Orie's questions and the questions of the Prosecutor
25 concerning the standard reporting that would go to the military
1 commanders about, for example, the state of crime and disciplinary
3 A. Yes, that is one of the reports that were written up when the new
4 rules on the activity of the military police were adopted, and these were
5 the reports that had to be submitted by commanders to commanders of
6 military districts.
7 Q. Is this the type of report that you were referring to in your
8 answers to Judge Orie's questions and the answers of the Prosecutor -- or
9 the questions of the Prosecutor?
10 A. This is one of the forms of these daily reports that were sent
11 every day to the command of the military district.
12 Q. Yes, and if we could go to the -- first, let's flip through this
13 quickly, but you can see what some of the types of issues are that are
14 reported here, okay, and it talks about threats being made to restaurant
15 owners in Sibenik, "drunken soldier" is in the second paragraph.
16 MR. MISETIC: If we can turn the page in English, please.
17 Violations of military discipline; no events recorded.
18 Sorry, if we could turn the page in Croatian as well.
19 Safety and military road traffic.
20 If we could go to the last page now, please. Second-to-last
21 page, I'm sorry. I'm looking at the addressees on the bottom, and if we
22 could find that as well on the Croatian, please.
23 I'm told that -- and I guess I'll talk to my colleagues in the
24 Prosecution, but the last few pages of the original have not been
25 uploaded into e-court, so we'll rely on the translation here.
1 Q. Bear with me, Brigadier.
2 But the addressees to this daily report on the 5th of August, the
3 first address is the Operative Duty Department of the Military Police
4 Administration. Then it goes to the military district commander. Then
5 it goes to the garrison commander in Split, the SIS, the MUP, chief of
6 Split-Dalmatia police, the Military Court, the Military Prosecutor's
7 Office, et cetera.
8 Now, if you could just note that those are the addressees. So
9 these reports don't just go to the military district commander; they go
10 to a wide variety of addressees, including to the MUP as well. Is that
11 your recollection?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. And they went to the Military Police administration; is that your
14 recollection as well?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I won't take you through all the documents now, in the interests
17 of time, Brigadier Juric. But if we were to look at P2248, which is a --
18 this same type of report for the 6th of August; P2249, which is the same
19 type of report for the 7th of August; P2250, which is the 8th of August;
20 P2251, which is the 9th of August; P2253, which is the 10th of August;
21 none of those reports contain any information about the seizure of the
22 looted items at the check-points that we just went through and explored.
23 In other words, the 5th Company, Sinj, has seized hundreds -- literally
24 hundreds of items at check-points on the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th, yet none
25 of that gets reported in the daily reports that go to, amongst others,
1 the military district commander. As the person on the ground there, can
2 you explain to the Trial Chamber why those types of incidents wouldn't
3 exist in a daily report?
4 A. Your Honour, I really don't know why they were not recorded in a
5 daily report, but it is certain that whatever companies reported on, and
6 in connection with exceptional cases, an officer on my team who covered
7 the work of the crime police, he would have to put that all in a single
8 report and provide this information to whoever he was supposed to report
10 Q. Brigadier General Juric, I've now been advised that I've been
11 demoting you several ranks in the Croatian Army, so I apologise.
12 Let me explore that just with you for a moment. General Lausic
13 testified in front of the Trial Chamber, and for the parties, this is
14 P2159 at paragraph 162.
15 When you were -- first let me ask this: Do you recall a meeting
16 on the evening of the 2nd of August where General Lausic spoke to the
17 officers of the Military Police Administration and first told you that
18 you would be going out into the field?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. At that time, did he say to you why he wanted you to go out into
21 the field? What was the purpose of having you go out there?
22 A. You're asking about me, personally, whether he appointed me?
23 Q. No. He established three forward command posts, and my question
24 is: Generally speaking, did he tell you officers, all of you, why he
25 wanted to establish three forward command posts, what was the purpose?
1 A. I don't know. Right now, I cannot answer your question. I don't
2 remember whether he said it specifically in those words. But as I
3 already said, at the moment when he made us aware of this, namely, that
4 certain teams of military police officers were made up in order to be
5 sent to certain locations, he did not elaborate to us why, specifically,
6 we were being sent to these locations. During my testimony yesterday, I
7 said how and in which way I personally accepted that task.
8 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I'm going to continue on this topic,
9 and it might be a good time for a break right now.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 Could I, in view of what remains -- your time estimate would
12 still be the same, Mr. Misetic?
13 MR. MISETIC: I will definitely finish well within the second
14 session, maybe by another 45 minutes or so.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, as far as you're concerned, still not more
16 than one session?
17 MR. KAY: I put it actually as perhaps more than one session.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. KAY: But I feel we may have a good chance of finishing the
20 witness today, Your Honour, if that helps the Court. I need to know what
21 happens before --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 Mr. Mikulicic, are you of the same view, that there's a fair
24 chance --
25 MR. MIKULICIC: I am, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Juric, the parties tell me that there's a fair
2 chance that we might conclude your testimony today, but Mr. Carrier is on
3 his feet.
4 MR. CARRIER: I don't think I will impact finishing today, but I
5 wanted to raise one issue in the absence of the witness just before we
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then, perhaps, we'll already ask the witness to be
8 escorted to the place where he, I take it, gets his coffee.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
11 MR. CARRIER: It's a time-saving measure only that we wouldn't
12 have to bring him in and then at the end -- but in anticipation of
13 perhaps Mr. Misetic reading to him portions of General Lausic's testimony
14 and telling him it is General Lausic's testimony, my understanding of the
15 procedure is more in the vein of the Chamber has received evidence that
16 General Lausic reported this or reported that, as opposed to saying what,
17 specifically, one person said. I know that's how Your Honour did it,
18 that's certainly how I've tried to frame mine, so I just wanted to be a
19 peremptory objection if that's the case.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, could you please first respond.
21 MR. MISETIC: We've been here a long time, Mr. President, so I'm
22 very familiar with the procedure, and that's why you will note that I
23 first asked him what his recollections are of what he was told at the
24 meeting. I tried to get everything in a non-leading way as to what his
25 recollections are.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. MISETIC: And then I may just use a phrase with him, which is
3 that General Lausic not once but at least three times told the
4 Trial Chamber that he wanted his own eyes and ears on the ground. And I
5 simply intend to explore with the witness what he understood by that, if
6 anything, and whether he recalls hearing such a comment from
7 General Lausic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The general guidance is that first it should
9 be explored with the witness, what he knows about the events he's
10 questioned about. Then the second is then that if that is inconsistent
11 with evidence, or seems to be inconsistent with evidence the Chamber
12 heard, that that will then be put to the witness.
13 Now, in a special position where the witness was a subordinate or
14 at least was appointed by a person, it might be wise, and at least I'm
15 glad that Mr. Carrier noted the subtleties in my phrasing of the
16 questions, that to put it perhaps first in terms of, The Chamber received
17 evidence, or, A witness told the Chamber.
18 Now, sometimes, of course, that makes no sense at all, to say, A
19 witness told the Chamber that he had sent you there to be his ears and
20 eyes on the ground, so, therefore, I expect observance of what would
21 provide the best evidence, which is first explore, then put to the
22 witness, in the most appropriate way, what is presented as evidence.
23 That could be directly saying who the witness is. That makes sense
24 sometimes. Sometimes you can take a more cautious approach and not to
25 identify yet the witness who told us these kind of things.
1 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I would be happy to take your
2 guidance if we can consider it over the break. My intention is to say to
3 him that General Lausic -- I mean, phrase it somehow that General Lausic
4 indicated that he was dissatisfied with Operation Flash, in terms of what
5 he -- information he was receiving, and that he wanted his own eyes and
6 ears on the ground.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If it is clear that we are talking about what
8 moved General Lausic's ears and eyes on the ground, then, of course, it
9 doesn't make that much of a -- doesn't make much sense to say, Well, a
10 witness told us that before he decided whether or not to send additional
11 persons to the ground -- Mr. Carrier, you would agree with me, I take it,
12 in that respect. But, of course, the first question should be, Are you
13 aware of the motives of sending additional persons to the ground.
14 That's, of course, first exploring the knowledge of the witness. And
15 only -- he may say, I know that, because General Lausic wanted to have
16 his ears and eyes on the ground, which --
17 MR. MISETIC: That's the first point, Mr. President. Just in
18 full transparency, I will now -- you'll recall the discussion yesterday
19 with Mr. Carrier about an order that has not been admitted into evidence
20 yet, that actually went to the witness, about what Mr. Lausic wanted to
21 have reported to him during Operation Storm and afterwards. And I think
22 it's natural to explore with the witness, in light of the questioning
23 about reporting, why General Lausic -- or what his understanding is of
24 why General Lausic would need a separate order itemising the type of
25 information he now wants to receive, if, in fact, for example, these
1 daily reports, which go both to General Lausic and to these various
2 addresses, would have been sufficient. I mean, I think the witness might
3 have some knowledge or understanding for why he's being asked to provide
4 additional information pursuant to an order.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Carrier, anticipating on questions that he
6 expected you would put to the witness, addressed the Chamber in order to,
7 well, meet, perhaps, some of his concerns, not even knowing yet what the
8 questions are. I think I gave the general basis on which we should
9 proceed, and by the examples I gave, it's also clear that you can't give
10 a once-and-for-all answer to these matters. It also depends on the
11 subject matter.
12 Mr. Misetic, you know that being cautious in this respect, which
13 should not in any way finally affect what you can achieve in
14 cross-examination, saves us a lot -- perhaps a few objections by
15 Mr. Carrier.
16 Mr. Carrier.
17 MR. CARRIER: And just in that sense of being cautious, the
18 reason I raised it is that at page 34, beginning at line 19, Mr. Misetic
19 prefaced his examination on this point with, General Lausic testified in
20 front of this Chamber, and then referenced his exhibit number and went
21 on. And that's where the concern came from, to even preface before, Such
22 a person has testified before this Chamber, and then to start exploring
23 the areas where that person would be, as Your Honour said, the only
24 source of that type of information, that, I think, perhaps needs to be
25 addressed if there's future reference to witness statements.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, again it depends on -- if I would say that
2 someone told me that he had given blessing "urbi et orbi" five times in
3 his life, then there's not really a reason, not to say that that was the
4 Pope, because as far as I'm aware of, he's the only one authorised to
5 give this blessing on the St. Peter's Place in Rome. So, therefore, it
6 all depends very much on what the question is, and I think it's clear we
7 should elicit from the witness the evidence, even in cross-examination in
8 the present circumstances, not by already whispering in his ear, Someone
9 with great authority told us this or that. Let's first try to find out
10 what the witness can tell us, and then if there's any reason to put to
11 the witness that others, perhaps even others with great authority, said
12 different things, then we'll do that in the following stages in the -- in
13 such a way that the Chamber is best assisted by the answers of the
14 witness when it will have to make its determinations at a later stage.
15 We have a break, and we'll resume at five minutes past 11.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 10.40 a.m.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, the Chamber was informed that you had a
20 certain matter whether or not you would go beyond the scope of cross, as
21 defined by the Chamber. You have approximately said where you may have
22 wanted to go to the Legal Officer of the Chamber. He reported this to
23 the Chamber. The guidance is the same as I gave to Mr. Carrier. It's at
24 the edge. Don't stay too long there, because you could fall off.
25 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
1 MR. CARRIER: Sir, is the Prosecution going to be informed of
2 what that was?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Misetic, the reason why I'm dealing with
4 it in this way is because it prevents us from sending the witness out of
5 the courtroom again, et cetera.
6 Mr. Carrier, if there's at any moment any objection you would
7 like to -- Mr. Misetic was seeking guidance, and you've heard the
8 guidance, that's all; not more, not less. If there's any moment where
9 you think that he goes anywhere where he shouldn't go, then, of course,
10 we'll hear your objection, and then you'll also find out what the
11 guidance was.
12 MR. CARRIER: I understand that, and I appreciate this guidance.
13 I suppose it's in reference to the earlier guidance of the Chamber that
14 it would be sought in written form and to provide notice. That was --
15 the Prosecution filed a request when Chamber witnesses were initially --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it was credibility, isn't it?
17 MR. CARRIER: No, but it was also about whether or not to go
18 outside, there would be notice of what those things were. That was the
19 filing. There was a ruling on that that was put on the record. It was
20 initially in an e-mail, and then it was read into the record. We never
21 had notice of it.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No, of course, the same as this morning, when
23 Mr. Misetic objected to your questions, you had not given notice. But,
24 of course, you considered it not to be outside the scope of. And there's
25 a thin line between that. One of the reasons why I'm dealing with it in
1 this way as well is that it takes usually less time to just proceed, put
2 one or two or three questions. If there's any real concern that you
3 could not have prepared for that, we'll hear from you.
4 MR. CARRIER: If you could just -- if it could just be e-mailed
5 to us from the Gotovina Defence, what the area is, that would be helpful
6 to start.
7 MR. MISETIC: I was just about to say, I would just direct my
8 learned friend to transcript page 3786, lines 1 to 9, and transcript
9 page 7653, line 5, to 7654, line 6.
10 JUDGE ORIE: It must make you happy, Mr. Carrier, to have a lot
11 of numbers. No, no, don't take me serious at this moment.
12 Mr. Misetic, please proceed.
13 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Q. General Juric, let me call up a document.
15 MR. MISETIC: This is 65 ter 2193, Madam Registrar.
16 Q. You can see, General Juric, that this is an order dated
17 3rd of August. It is from General Lausic, and you can see the addressees
18 in the upper right-hand corner, it goes to all military police units,
19 including the 72nd.
20 And if we turn the page in English, please.
21 It also goes to the departments and sections of the Military
22 Police Administration.
23 Now, let me first ask you -- and the subject of the report is:
24 "Content of reports on the completion of military police tasks as
25 per the order of the chief of the Military Police Administration, dated
1 2 August."
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. If I'm not mistaken, that is -- and let me just confirm that. I
4 believe that's D267. Yes. D267 is what's referenced there, and that is
5 the order that ordered you to be appointed, and D267 also stated that you
6 would be reporting by 2000 hours, beginning on 4 August. And then this
7 order was issued, describing what the content of the reports should be.
8 Do you recall receiving a copy of this order? And we can turn
9 the page for you in Croatian if you need to see it.
10 A. I believe that I did receive the order, but I can't be
11 100 per cent sure. I can't say either, Yes, or, No, for a fact, but
12 I'm -- I believe that I did receive it.
13 Q. In the introduction, General Lausic says that the order is being
14 issued in order to standardise the content of reports on the completion
15 of tasks in the zones of responsibility.
16 And in point 2, if we turn the page in English -- if we can go
17 back in Croatian, please.
18 In point 2, the reports should contain information about the
19 state of law and order in the zone of war operations and in newly
20 liberated areas, listing the incidents in which the military police
21 acted, and the results of the intervention.
22 Point 4, if we turn the page in Croatian, please:
23 "The situation with crime in liberated areas and in the areas in
24 the zone of war operations, the number of crimes processed, criminal
25 reports filed, and HV members, who committed crimes, brought in."
1 And then point 5, which is an area we'll address in a few
3 "The number of arrested persons by the time of their take-over
4 from HV units, the time of their hand-over to the Reception Centre, the
5 number of civilians, women, children and elderly, handed over to the
6 police stations of the MUP."
7 Now, can you explain what was your understanding of why
8 General Lausic needed to issue an order on the 3rd of August about what
9 information should be contained in reports?
10 A. I don't know what governed General Lausic in writing this order.
11 I can only speculate. I believe that it was meant to unify the system of
12 reporting and provide all units with a set of guide-lines for uniform
14 Q. Well, would the information that General Lausic seeks in this
15 order already be in the daily reports that we looked at this morning?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Well, if that were the case, then why would General Lausic need
18 to issue a separate order seeking this information? Do you know?
19 A. I don't know.
20 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I ask that 65 ter 2193 be marked,
21 and I tender it into evidence.
22 MR. CARRIER: No objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D2028.
25 JUDGE ORIE: D2028 is admitted into evidence.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. MISETIC:
3 Q. General Juric, do you recall anyone at any point indicating to
4 you that you were being sent down there to be a separate set of eyes and
5 ears on the ground?
6 A. No, Your Honours.
7 Q. I note that in General Lausic's orders, it says that where you
8 were, that that was called a forward command post. Is that accurate?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What was that a forward command post of?
11 A. The commander of the 72nd Military Police Battalion.
12 Q. Well, is it correct that there were three forward command posts
13 that were established pursuant to General Lausic's orders, one of which
14 was your team, another of which included Colonel Kosic's team, and I
15 can't remember the identity of the third person, but that there were
16 three forward command posts set up?
17 A. Yes. The chief of the Military Police Administration issued an
18 order to set up three teams that were to cover three different areas.
19 Q. And those three teams, they were considered to be forward command
20 posts of the MP Administration; is that accurate?
21 A. I don't know how to answer your question, sir. I was at the IKM
22 of the commander of the 72nd Military Police Battalion, and I told you
23 already that I didn't take over the command of the unit. I was attached
24 to the unit as a co-ordinator and as a person who would team up with
25 other professionals and assist the unit.
1 Q. Okay. You see in the order that we just looked at that
2 General Lausic talks about reporting as to civilians that were turned
3 over to the MUP. Can you explain why civilians were being let out of the
4 zone by the military police and turned over to the MUP?
5 A. I tried to answer that question yesterday, and I said that one of
6 the tasks was to do with prisoners of war. Our task was to pull them out
7 from combat-affected areas and hand them over to the civilian police, who
8 had set up accommodation centres for them.
9 MR. MISETIC: I'll just refer the Chamber, then I'll skip this
10 part, to transcript page 13395. It's 13395, line 13.
11 Q. Let me turn your attention now to your testimony concerning the
12 events in Kistanje.
13 Yesterday, you spoke about encountering some UN personnel from
14 Canada. You recall that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Let me ask you, as a preliminary question, did you speak English
17 in 1995?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you have any knowledge, in any form, of English in 1995?
20 Could you understand it?
21 A. No, I had never learned English before. If I could understand
22 anything, it would be some 50 words that I'd picked up on television and
23 from films.
24 Q. How did you communicate with these UN officials?
25 A. The first time ever the MPs of the Canadian police came to the
1 building where we were stationed in Knin and asked to meet one of the
2 officers. I was there in the building at that time, and I asked -- I
3 inquired among the MPs if anybody was fluent enough to serve as an
4 interpreter, just to see what the request was. I found somebody, I can't
5 remember his name, and I used him as an interpreter. We managed to
6 establish communication in that way. And our first conversation dealt
7 exclusively with the implementation of the security detail for
8 Mr. Yasushi Akashi.
9 Q. Okay. I'm now specifically referring to this meeting that took
10 place in or around Kistanje on or about the 9th of August, and my
11 question is: At that time on that day, how were you able to communicate
12 with them?
13 A. Your Honours, it was not a meeting. I just happened to be there
14 and come across the patrol of the Canadian MP. It was not a meeting, it
15 was not a conversation, to speak of. We spoke by using hands more than
16 anything else, by using sign language, if you will. So I could
17 understand that they wanted me to call somebody, for example.
18 Q. Did they happen to have an interpreter in their team?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you recall whether there was any type of question from them
21 concerning the issue of mop-up operations of the Croatian Army?
22 A. I don't know. How could they have asked me anything, knowing
23 that I could not understand English?
24 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I'll move on, then, from this topic.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
1 MR. MISETIC:
2 Q. General Juric, I'd like to show you a video of Kistanje and ask
3 you for your recollections.
4 MR. MISETIC: And this is, Madam Registrar, Exhibit P26. There
5 is no audio, so, therefore, no need for transcripts. And the video will
6 start at the 2 minutes 17 mark.
7 Q. And, Mr. -- General Juric, the Trial Chamber has heard evidence
8 that this video was shot by UN personnel on the 13th of August, and so
9 what I'd like you to do is follow the video. You've already testified, I
10 believe yesterday, that you recall seeing four or five destroyed houses
11 when you were there on the 9th, and I'd like to ask you, to the best of
12 your recollection, if you recognise any of the homes that had been
13 destroyed at the time that you were there.
14 And my first question to you is: If you can look on your screen
15 right now, do you recognise this location just by looking at this?
16 A. I can't see anything happening. I still have the previous image
17 on the screen.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any way that we could get this car
19 driving --
20 MR. MISETIC: Well, I just want to ask him first with respect
21 to --
22 Q. Do you see a video on your screen right now?
23 A. No. On my screen, I can see the order, the document that we saw
24 previously and commented upon.
25 Q. Do you recognise this location?
1 A. No, I can't remember it, no.
2 MR. MISETIC: We'll play the video, and then I'll ask you a few
3 questions when it stops.
4 [Video-clip played]
5 MR. MISETIC:
6 Q. General Juric, did you recognise anything about that location
7 that we saw on this video?
8 A. Yes. I recognise the sign posts, and I think -- it seems to me
9 that the sign posts were in the middle of that village.
10 Q. With respect to the -- I think we've seen that at least one
11 building is on fire in this video on the 13th. Can you assist the
12 Trial Chamber, by looking at that scene, as to which buildings may have
13 been burned at the time you were in Kistanje on the 9th and which had not
14 been burned when you were in Kistanje on the 9th?
15 A. Your Honours, I said yesterday that on the day when I was in
16 Kistanje, I did not see a single building ablaze.
17 Q. Well, I understand that there was no building on fire at the time
18 that you were in Kistanje. However, were there any buildings that had
19 already been destroyed by fire by the time you got to Kistanje?
20 A. Yes. I said that there were four to five buildings that I saw
21 that had been destroyed, but I did not take the trouble to remember where
22 exactly they were, in what micro-locations.
23 Q. General Juric, thank you for answering my questions. I have no
24 further questions for you.
25 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Misetic.
2 Mr. Kay, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
3 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Juric, Mr. Kay, who will now cross-examine you,
5 is counsel for Mr. Cermak.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. KAY: Sorry for the delay, Your Honour. I've got a slight
8 technical difficulty. I think that it's all right now, thank you.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Kay:
10 Q. Mr. Juric, you answered some questions yesterday from His Honour,
11 and you were asked about what you could tell the Judge on what basis he
12 had a right or authority to issue tasks. And you said that duties,
13 tasks, and whatever the military police had, in keeping with the rules,
14 and every officer had the right to issue requirements and tasks that the
15 military police then implemented if they were in accordance with the area
16 of work. Do you remember saying that yesterday?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I don't know whether you can remember the document, but were the
19 rules you referred to there the Rules of Service concerning the military
21 A. I was speaking about the rules on the work and organisation of
22 the military police.
23 Q. Yes. And how familiar are you with that document?
24 A. While I was affiliated with the military police, I had to know it
25 literally by heart. But as I sit here today, I really don't know how
1 many of the provisions of those rules I could remember off my head.
2 Q. What I'm going to ask you about is one of the rules - that's
3 Article 73 - and whether that was the rule you were referring to. Can
4 you recollect Article 73 or would you like us to show it to you on the
5 screen, as we have it in court?
6 A. Could you please show it to me? I can't remember the specific
7 article without being able to read it.
8 MR. KAY: If we could have Exhibit P880. And turn to page 28 in
9 the English and page 28 in the Croatian language.
10 Q. If you'd just look at Article 73.
11 A. Yes, I've read it.
12 Q. Now, when you gave that answer yesterday, was that the rule that
13 you had in mind?
14 A. No. I believe that this was prescribed by articles that deal
15 with the system of command and control of MP units. I don't know what
16 chapter are we reading from. I don't know where the article that we are
17 now looking at is situated, in terms of chapters.
18 Q. Right. It's the last chapter, actually, in the document. But if
19 it's not that that you were thinking of, we've no need to look at that
20 any further and we can just close that, because that was an article of
21 the rules that we saw there which was a general requirement for all
22 members of the Croatian Army to assist the military police and enable
23 them to gather information and reports. Is that -- am I reading that
24 right, in relation to that article we've just looked at?
25 A. Without perusing the entire rules on the work and organisation of
1 the military police, I really can't remember the part of those rules that
2 this article is connected to.
3 Q. Okay, very well. You were asked about the right or authority of
4 General Cermak, and you were shown a document today, dated the
5 3rd of December, 1994, D1280. But there's another document I'd like to
6 refer you to, and that's our Exhibit D34.
7 MR. KAY: And if that could be put on the screen, please.
8 Q. This is a document that concerns the order of organisation and
9 work in the garrisons, and sets out what the garrisons had to do. It's
10 called the organisational order regarding work, order, and discipline,
11 issued on the 27th of August, 1993.
12 Now, in relation to the garrison and the garrison commander, were
13 you familiar with the rules inside this order?
14 A. No, Your Honour. I said yesterday as well that I was not
15 personally familiar with the rules pertaining to the commander of
17 Q. In relation to the responsibilities of a garrison commander,
18 would you accept that an order such as this is an order that the garrison
19 commander would have to follow?
20 A. This is the first time I see this order. I am not familiar with
21 this order. I don't know who wrote it, I don't know who it was issued
22 to, so I cannot interpret it either.
23 Q. We should have a look at it. We can see that it's from the
24 Ministry of Defence in Zagreb. We can see the order on page 1.
25 Let us turn now to page 2.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
2 MR. CARRIER: Yes, Your Honour.
3 I'm wondering whether or not this is outside of the scope, given
4 that we're getting into apparently garrison command structure, when the
5 witness has already said he was a member of the military police and
6 doesn't know anything about this.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, it's the fate of all parties to be reminded
8 that you are at the edge. We should avoid that we are seeking legal
9 opinion from witnesses on the basis of documents which they are not
10 familiar with, as they said. So may I ask you not to stay in the danger
11 zone too long.
12 MR. KAY: Yes. I'm conscious of Your Honour's guidance, but
13 these matters arise from Your Honour's own questioning yesterday on
14 competence --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think it's for other reasons. I would -- as
16 a matter of fact, my concern was perhaps a bit different than
17 Mr. Carrier's, and perhaps it was not fully appropriate not to respond to
18 Mr. Carrier's objections, which is that you went beyond the scope of
19 cross-examination. My concern is slightly different. It is that we are
20 seeking legal opinion from a witness, who doesn't appear as an expert
21 witness, and has several times now told us that he had not looked very
22 much in the -- let's say, in the legal structure of authority underlying
23 the position of Mr. Cermak.
24 MR. KAY: Well, Your Honour, that begs the question of
25 Your Honour's questions yesterday, to be frank, on the orders. And
1 Your Honour consistently asked about the right of garrison commander,
2 and --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what I did yesterday is when the witness gave
4 opinions on that, I asked him on what it was based, and whether I would
5 have explored all the legal texts underlying it is a totally different
6 question, Mr. Kay. As you may have noticed, I did not, I didn't take him
7 to that. But since you could suspect that there was some kind of legal
8 opinion in his answers, I'd rather know that than it being -- remaining
9 unknown to me. That's the reason why I asked the questions, which were
10 not given any further follow-up then.
11 MR. KAY: Yes. Your Honour, I'm not asking for his legal
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let's --
14 MR. KAY: And I wasn't going to ask his legal opinion, because
15 he'd asked to see who issued the order, and --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, he said he didn't know who issued the order.
17 MR. KAY: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- if you would please keep in mind what I
19 just said and then proceed.
20 MR. KAY:
21 Q. Mr. Juric, if you could look at the screen now, please, you'll
22 see that this was issued by the minister of defence, Mr. Susak, as well
23 as the Chief of the Main Staff, General Bobetko. So would you agree, as
24 a member of the armed forces, that this is an authoritative document on
25 the powers of the garrison commander?
1 A. I repeat, once again, this is the first time I see this document.
2 If it was signed by Gojko Susak, minister of defence, and the Chief of
3 the General Staff, I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this
5 Q. That's right. And so in giving your answers to His Honour
6 yesterday concerning the garrison commander, if you were unaware of the
7 powers of the garrison commander, would that affect the accuracy of your
8 answers to His Honour yesterday on certain orders that were described as
9 being issued by General Cermak?
10 A. No, Your Honours. I said yesterday, in response to every one of
11 your questions, that General Cermak issued tasks, and that we carried out
12 these tasks because all of these tasks were within the scope of work of
13 the military police.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, you were on your feet, but you are
15 seated again. Yes.
16 MR. KAY: Thank you.
17 Q. So in relation to what you said yesterday when His Honour
18 described to you some documents issued by General Cermak, would it be
19 right to say that you viewed them as tasks?
20 A. I said yesterday that we received tasks from General Cermak, and
21 that within the scope of work and responsibility of military police, we
22 carried them out.
23 Q. Well, if I just look at that, first of all, in respect of those
24 orders, am I right in saying - can you confirm - that you did not
25 recollect any of them?
1 A. I cannot remember that I had personally seen any one of these
3 Q. And would you also confirm that General Cermak never issued any
4 orders to you?
5 A. Yes, I can confirm that he had never issued any orders to me.
6 Now, whether he gave me some tasks, that is something I cannot remember.
7 Q. So the position is that yesterday, when you were answering
8 His Honour's questions, you were giving your opinion in relation to the
9 matters put to you by the Judge; is that right?
10 A. I don't understand your question.
11 Q. Well, when the Judge was putting to you the descriptions of the
12 documents, which you described as tasks, you were giving your opinion on
13 the competence of General Cermak to have issued such a document?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
15 MR. CARRIER: Your Honour, if Mr. Kay could point to where it is
16 that the witness described documents as tasks. I'm not familiar where
17 that is.
18 MR. KAY: Well, have a look at the transcript. I'm sorry, I'm on
19 my feet, cross-examining, and I don't want to lose my train of thought.
20 Your Honour, this is very important.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I can't say that I have no concerns, although
22 they are a bit different from Mr. Carrier's. But you may proceed. I'll
23 refrain from any comment at this moment. You may proceed.
24 MR. KAY: Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: What is opinion, and what is not opinion, and what
1 is -- that's a matter which is of some concern to me.
2 Please proceed.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In response to His Honour, I gave
4 answers yesterday in the way in which the questions were put to me. If
5 His Honour read certain parts of a document to me, then I would refer, in
6 my answer, to specific questions related to a specific document that
7 His Honour had read out to me.
8 MR. KAY:
9 Q. Would you accept that what His Honour was reading out to you was,
10 in fact, information that was being sent to the military police?
11 A. I cannot make decisions here as to whether that is information or
12 whatever, when we are not speaking about a specific document. His
13 Honour, the Judge, read out to me yesterday two or three documents, I
14 believe, or orders. I don't remember how this was exactly formulated.
15 And my answer was exclusively in response to the questions put to me by
16 His Honour. I think that they were in the context of the following: that
17 we, as members of the military police, as we read these documents or
18 orders from General Cermak, we saw what the tasks of the military police
19 were that were prescribed by the rules on the military police, and we
20 carried out those tasks.
21 Q. Do you accept that General Cermak could not have ordered you?
22 You decided whether to carry through the task or not.
23 A. General Cermak was not my immediate superior. It was
24 General Lausic. I said yesterday and I said today that I personally did
25 not see, nor do I remember, any order that General Cermak issued to me
1 personally, or any similar task, for that matter, so I cannot speak about
3 Q. Yes. Aside from your personal position, the Judge's questions
4 yesterday concerned the competence of General Cermak to issue orders to
5 the military police, whether he was competent to do that.
6 A. I repeat, once again, General Cermak could give tasks to the
7 military police, and if that task was within the scope of the
8 responsibilities and work of the military police, the military police
9 would carry it out.
10 Q. Is that something that became a task? If he referred to stolen
11 UN vehicles in something called an order, was that information that you
12 received that became a task?
13 A. Yes. Yesterday, I also responded to that question. In this
14 specific case, General Cermak had regular co-ordinating meetings, and he
15 obviously received information about these stolen vehicles. Quite
16 simply, he spelled that information out to us. We understood it to be a
17 task, and we did that.
18 Q. And the reason it became a task was because you considered that
19 it fell within the scope of your duties as a military policeman?
20 A. No, it's not because I personally thought that, but because that
21 is what is written in the rules on the work and responsibilities of the
22 military police.
23 Q. If General Cermak had issued something called an order that was
24 not within the duties of the military police, you would have a right to
25 refuse to follow it?
1 A. That is a rather hypothetical question. What would happen, had
2 this happened, it depended on the situation involved, on the available
3 number of patrols of the military police, and on what we were doing at
4 that particular point in time. So I cannot give a yes-or-no answer to
5 that question.
6 Q. In relation to information provided by General Cermak, the
7 military police had no duty to report back to him; is that right?
8 A. It would be fair and proper to inform someone who had provided
9 you with some information as to whether you had started doing that or
10 not. However, officially, I don't think that there was any need to
11 report back.
12 MR. KAY: If we could look at a document, please, which is the
13 first one His Honour referred to in evidence, Exhibit D503.
14 Q. This is one of the documents that His Honour was referring to
15 when he was questioning you yesterday. He referred to the
16 12th of August, and he referred to various vehicles. And in doing so,
17 asked you to comment about that. You said you couldn't remember the
18 order. And what you said of it was:
19 "However, if you say it was drafted, then I'm sure it was."
20 Well, that's what we're -- we're looking at now, Mr. Juric.
21 General Cermak issued a task pursuant to a piece of information that he
22 had received about a crime having been committed and the perpetrators had
23 to be discovered. And in this case, as you've just said, some vehicles
24 had been stolen. This certainly fell within the scope of the work of the
25 military police, and the military police were duty-bound to accept that
1 task and implement that task. And this is what I'm asking you about:
2 that if information was provided to you that was within the scope of your
3 duties, you viewed it as a task?
4 A. Precisely.
5 Q. The fact that this is headed as an order is actually irrelevant
6 to you because it is simply information; is that right?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, in your question --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: In your question, you create a causal relationship
10 which is, from a logical point of view, not solid. So whatever the
11 witness answers to it is -- whether something is relevant, because it is
12 simply information, is a double question: Whether it's relevant or not,
13 and the second is why it is relevant or irrelevant. Simply, information,
14 without looking at the document, seems not to be a proper reflection of
15 what the document says.
16 MR. KAY: Well, for the assistance of the Court, I will certainly
17 go back and cover that and make sure that this is considered.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. KAY:
20 Q. The fact that this was headed an order, how did you view that; as
21 an order?
22 A. No. I answered that question yesterday; namely, that it wasn't
23 important how and in which form one of the operative commanders provided
24 something. The essence of the matter is whether it contains what is
25 within the purview of the work of the military police.
1 Q. And it's from that, as your duties, that you see your task to go
2 and try and find the vehicles, if you had received this document?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. KAY: If we can look at the similar one His Honour referred
5 to, D303.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, I really have some problems in the way in
7 which you present this document, and I'd like to give a follow-up
8 question to the witness in this respect.
9 Now, you said you felt that you were tasked with finding the
10 missing vehicles, and that was within the purview of your task as the
11 military police. Yes. Now, the document also says that for that
12 purpose, that teams should be formed consisting of members of the MUP and
13 from the Knin Police Station and from the Knin Military Police. Now, if
14 you would have received information, UN vehicles are missing, go and find
15 them, would you have understood that to be that you will be tasked also
16 by setting up such a mixed team, MUP and military police, which had to
17 try to find those vehicles?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in principle, all
19 criminal processing that had to do with the work of the crime military
20 police in the field was done jointly together with the members of the
21 civilian police. So regardless of sources of information and regardless
22 of the way in which we received such information, members of the crime
23 military police immediately established direct communication about that
24 with civilian crime police, and then they would start dealing with the
25 matter. We never know whether the perpetrator was a civilian or a
1 soldier, or whether some equipment was hidden by a civilian or a military
2 man. It was a joint effort that was required.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is a joint effort and sharing information the
4 same for you as form a team consisting of both elements, that is, MUP and
5 military police?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Does that mean that every offence you learned of,
8 and where you were not aware of who the perpetrator was, that you would
9 not seek information in your own teams, your own platoons, but that you
10 would immediately -- apart from sharing information, that you would set
11 up a mixed team?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did not quite
13 understand your question.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there is a difference between -- at least from
15 my understanding, but if you take a different view, I'd like to hear from
16 you. There's a difference between working in a team and sharing
17 information with others, and -- well, to see that your work is, well,
18 let's say, co-ordinated to some extent, and making a team consisting of
19 members of two different units. For example, I would understand the one
20 approach to be that you would drive around and try to find those
21 vehicles, but still in your own vehicles, your own team members, whereas
22 a mixed team might be that you have on board MUP people when you are
23 driving around. This is just an example, not to bind you, but just to
24 give you an impression of what I understand to be the difference between
25 working in your own team, sharing information, co-ordinating with teams
1 of the MUP, and forming a team consisting of members of the MUP and the
2 military police. And I explained this to you because my question was
3 that if you would receive information and receive a task that vehicles
4 that may have been stolen should be found, whether you would, under
5 normal circumstances, form a team of mixed composition.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Generally speaking, crime military
7 police and crime civilian police, each on its own, would start the
8 proceedings in order to try and detect the perpetrators of such crimes.
9 There would be moments when they would exchange information and update
10 each other on how far they had got. In any case, each of the services
11 would try and find as many elements as possible, and then there would
12 come a time when they would update each other on what they know. The
13 crime police teams did not have to ride on the same team, or inspect the
14 area together, or engage in one and the same search. The two different
15 teams could do it separately, each in their own way.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay.
17 MR. KAY: A slight technical difficulty. Just not a great
19 Q. From what you're saying, anyone within the armed forces, the
20 Croatian military, was able to pass on information to you about a crime,
21 and you would be duty-bound to look into it; is that right?
22 A. Yes. The authorised personnel had to take statement, check the
23 contents thereof, see where there were any elements for further
24 proceedings, and then they would take it from there.
25 Q. And, again, from any person within the armed forces of whatever
1 rank providing you with information, that was giving you a task if it was
2 about something within the scope of your duties?
3 A. It depended on the type of information, on the contents thereof.
4 Q. Yes. If information was passed on to you by a person of any rank
5 within the Croatian armed forces that concerned a matter such as a crime
6 committed by the military that fell within the scope of your duties, that
7 that would be a task?
8 A. I'm not an expert on the job of the crime military police, but I
9 believe that this is prescribed by the Penal Code of the Republic of
10 Croatia, which clearly describes procedures and the way things are done
11 within the scope of penal procedure.
12 Q. Are you referring to the Law on Criminal Procedure?
13 A. Yes, the Law on Criminal Procedure.
14 Q. Articles 139 and 140; is that what you're referring to, if you
15 can remember?
16 A. No, I can't remember.
17 Q. Okay. I'm not testing your memory. I was just checking whether
18 that's what you were referring to. I'll try and make the question a bit
19 clearer. If a soldier, not a general, not an officer, had information
20 from the UN that their vehicles had been stolen, and gave that
21 information to the military police, that would then be something they
22 were tasked to deal with?
23 A. Yes, Your Honour. We would have proceeded in the same way as
24 described in the order that we have just seen.
25 MR. KAY: If we can now go to Exhibit D303.
1 Q. This is another of the documents that His Honour referred to
2 yesterday, which he described to you, concerning UN vehicles. If you can
3 see it there, it's from the garrison command on the 9th of August, signed
4 by General Cermak. It concerns various vehicles.
5 Have you ever seen this document before?
6 A. No, Your Honours, I don't remember ever seeing this document.
7 Q. If you received this document as an order, would you take it to
8 be an order?
9 A. No, I would have considered it a task, one of those that the
10 military police had to discharge, in view that it was about an unlawful
11 misappropriation of somebody's property.
12 Q. So would it be right to say that the heading being an order is
13 irrelevant to you?
14 A. I already said that yesterday, in answering the Honourable
15 Judge's questions.
16 MR. KAY: Thank you. Exhibit D788, please.
17 Q. This is another of the documents that His Honour referred to
18 yesterday. It concerned controlling entrances to the camp, UN camp. You
19 can see it's dated the 8th of August. His Honour asked you about that.
20 Have you ever seen this document before?
21 A. I can't remember whether I saw it. I am familiar with what is
22 the subject of this document.
23 Q. In relation to this as an order, would you view it as an order?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
25 MR. CARRIER: Your Honour, given the line of questioning and the
1 way the questions are being put to the witness, I'm not sure that this is
2 within the scope of the topics, given that I think what he's asking is
3 whether or not Mr. Juric, if he had received these documents, would
4 consider it an order, rather than military police units. There's a
5 difference, and it's important, because Mr. Juric has already explained
6 he's not subordinate to Mr. Cermak.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, earlier I said that we were at an edge.
8 We're not here at an edge. We're within the territory which is -- which
9 Mr. Kay is entitled to explore. At the same time, the witness testified
10 quite considerably about these matters yesterday, about tasks and orders,
11 and, therefore, to some extent it seems to me to become repetitious, and
12 also it may not that much further assist us.
13 And you may remember, Mr. Kay, that yesterday I relativated [sic]
14 already the order. I always talked about a document which contains the
15 word "Order," or I said something of -- so that may be indicative
16 already, perhaps, for the approach taken. And the witness has explained
17 some matters already three, four, five, or, if not, six times.
18 Would you please keep that in mind.
19 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I'm very happy to accept the Court's
20 guidance on that. I don't want to --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, not to say that there may be not a problem, but
22 what problem is there may not be fully understood by the witness, but is
23 fully understood by the Chamber. Let that be clear.
24 The witness said already how he experienced matters at the time,
25 receiving tasks, feeling, and that's what he said, duty-bound, whatever
1 that finally may mean, whether that is under legal text, or whether he
2 felt it this way, or whether that's what they always did, but for the
3 Chamber the matter is, of course, perfectly clear. And the sole purpose
4 for which I refer to these documents, not even having them on the screen,
5 whether when the witness was talking about tasks, whether these were the
6 kind of things he had on his mind. That is, if that gives further
7 clarification, then --
8 MR. KAY: I'm following Your Honour entirely on that. It's just
9 that he didn't feel anything at the time because he didn't receive these.
10 And he said that he was not ordered or tasked by General Cermak, and so
11 I'm slightly confused now with what Your Honour has said about the
12 evidence yesterday.
13 JUDGE ORIE: He said that they would receive tasks, and was not
14 specifically referring to these tasks. But that was explored before we
15 went into these documents, and what I -- the only thing I wanted to check
16 with these documents were that these were the kind of things he had on
17 his mind when he said that one would receive -- could receive tasks and
18 that one was duty-bound, then, to do what you were tasked with.
19 MR. KAY: Is Your Honour saying that -- I don't want to say
20 anything in front of the witness that I shouldn't say.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. KAY: Perhaps he should take his earphones off.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we asked him of his knowledge of the English
24 language at the time, not his present knowledge of the English language.
25 Do you -- have you learned more English since 1995, Mr. Juric?
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, sir.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Congratulations with that.
3 MR. KAY: Probably in the last few days as well.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, I'm also looking at the clock.
5 MR. KAY: Should we --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if there's any --
7 MR. KAY: If we break --
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- matter you would like to raise we could do it
10 MR. KAY: And I will raise it with Your Honours. It is a matter
11 of great concern to me that I get this right.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Preferably, then, before we take the break and --
13 MR. KAY: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- so that we have time to think about it.
15 And, Mr. Juric, Mr. Kay wants to say something in English,
16 although not to be heard by you. It's a procedural matter. Again, could
17 I already invite you to follow the Usher so as to have your coffee first.
18 [The witness stands down]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay.
20 MR. KAY: Yes.
21 Your Honour, I'm well aware of the issues Your Honour was dealing
22 with yesterday in relation to tasks, orders, instructions, requests. I
23 noted Your Honour's careful language on that. My concern has been when
24 Your Honour asked about the competence of General Cermak, first of all,
25 and that's something that my learned friend certainly looked at this
1 morning, T-27457. And in using that description, which was not a
2 de facto -- I had -- before we started the witness, I had anticipated
3 Your Honour would be dealing with de facto evidence, to be frank. And
4 when the questioning took this turn, it seemed to me we had moved from
5 de facto to de jure, and that is why I --
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's, then, misunderstood, Mr. Kay. I can tell
7 you, I never asked the witness whether it was within the competence of
8 Mr. Cermak to do certain things. At least the whole of the context is --
9 I always asked whether he considered what I was interested to know and to
10 find out yesterday. And if I look at all the places where -- I always
11 said, Did you consider it to be within the competence? And that also
12 explains my question about the legal basis, because apart from always
13 talking in subjective terms in my questions, I also explored whether
14 there was anything more than what he considered, how he perceived it,
15 whether there was a legal basis for that. And I can point you at
16 pages 27459-460. I really always intended to ask him how he perceived
17 it, and I asked him also what -- whether he had any knowledge of a legal
18 basis for that. And I think the answer was, and I don't have that right
19 on my mind at this moment, but that he'd never -- as he told us today
20 several times, he did not inquire into the legal basis for that. So by
21 that, one could establish that the way in which this witness looked at
22 the competence may not have been primarily supported by the legal texts
23 underlying the competence of Mr. Cermak.
24 If you'd carefully look at it, you'll see that it is -- perhaps I
25 may have missed it once, but at least almost always I asked how he
1 considered it. And I did put a question on a legal basis, but since the
2 witness then said, I think, that he had not looked much into that matter,
3 an answer he gave today several times, that's where I left it, and not to
4 explore with the witness what might have been, although he wasn't aware
5 of, the legal basis for what he considered to be the competence. That
6 would be reconstruction afterwards, which I was not that much interested
7 in at that moment.
8 MR. KAY: Your Honour and I are ad idem on that score, and I was
9 appreciative of the fact of the evidence, that it was not on the basis of
10 something he had done, or seen, or acted upon. But the issue that I was
11 alerted to was, Did you consider this to be a kind of order or giving
12 tasks, as you mentioned before, which was within the competence of
13 Mr. Cermak? And that put me --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, again, Did you consider this to be a
15 kind of an order? Did you consider this to be, that's how I meant it.
16 And if that was unclear -- I'll check first with my colleagues whether
17 the way in which I explained to you what was on my mind when I put the
18 questions to the witness, whether that's how they understood it as well,
19 so as to avoid that we have to resolve the matter later among the three
20 of us.
21 MR. KAY: Yes. And, Your Honour, may I say the other reason for
22 my approach as well was because the five orders were listed, and
23 Your Honour went through them, which sent signals to me. I dare say it
24 sent signals to the other side, the Prosecution, as to issues Your Honour
25 might be looking at in this case. So that has been the essence of my
1 approach. This came in as a supplemental, as Your Honour might recall,
2 of exhibits to be adduced, and as soon as my team and I saw that, we
3 thought, Ah, this is now being looked at in this way.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I could give you the very practical reason why it
5 came so late, Mr. Kay.
6 MR. KAY: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not going to do that.
8 MR. KAY: No.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's the internal work of the Chamber, but it was
10 of a very practical nature.
11 MR. KAY: Yes, I'm -- of course. I'm just putting my position.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, having consulted with my colleagues, I have
15 nothing to add to what I earlier said.
16 MR. KAY: I'm grateful.
17 Your Honour, if we have the break now, I can just consider
18 carefully what Your Honour has said, the guidance given, and just review
19 my cross-examination as to whether I need go further on matters.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll have a break, and we'll resume at five
21 minutes to 1.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, you may proceed.
1 MR. KAY: Your Honour, having read the matters and considered
2 matters, I have no further questions. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kay.
4 Mr. Mikulicic, is the position of the Markac Defence still the
6 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour. No questions.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No questions.
8 Mr. Carrier.
9 MR. CARRIER: I don't have any further questions.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have any further questions.
11 Mr. Juric, no one has questions for you anymore. Therefore, this
12 concludes your testimony in this court.
13 I'd like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague. I'm
14 glad that we can excuse you before the weekend. I wish you a safe return
15 home again.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. [Interpretation] Thank you,
18 [In English] May I leave the court?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Juric
20 out of the courtroom.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Are there any procedural matters which need our
23 attention before the weekend? Mr. Carrier.
24 MR. CARRIER: Just to address the -- MFI the Defence exhibit
25 D20 -- I think it's 26 or 27. That was the -- what's described as an
1 Official Note. We've looked at it. It's fine. I know it was going to
2 be briefly MFI
3 JUDGE ORIE: You said it is number this or number that. I would
4 like to verify, first of all, which number it exactly is.
5 MR. CARRIER: Sorry, I wrote down "2027," and that's what I was
6 looking at, but I was informed it was 2026. So I might be mistaken.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the document that was MFI'd, which
8 is the --
9 MR. MISETIC: Actually I believe it is 2027. I believe
10 Mr. Carrier was right.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar will have the final word on the
13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
14 JUDGE ORIE: D2027 is admitted into evidence.
15 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 And just following up on that, I think there was a request for
17 P2247, to have the last two pages updated. We've e-mailed that. I think
18 everyone's in agreement that those should be uploaded, with the Court's
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because they were not verified. That we worked
21 on the basis of the translation, if at any moment the Defence, because
22 the document was uploaded by the Prosecution, I think, if at any time --
23 MR. MISETIC: It's still a P document, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: It's still a P document. Yes, that's exactly what I
25 meant. If at any moment the Defence would feel that working on the basis
1 of a translation has, in any way, caused confusion or has caused an
2 incorrect understanding of what the document really is, then, of course,
3 we'd like to hear from you as soon as possible.
4 Mr. Carrier.
5 MR. CARRIER: And, finally, whether or not the Chamber's had a
6 chance to consider the map that was tendered today and marked for further
7 identification. The documents that were used to create the map are cited
8 in the document. There's only, I believe, three of them.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I think, first of all, that the Defence would look
10 at the map and then inform the Chamber. I think Mr. Kay referred to a
11 different source, which was already indicated in the legenda of the map.
12 Mr. Misetic would like to have a closer look at it, because he had seen
13 it only for a few minutes. Therefore, the Chamber will first receive
14 further submissions, if any, from the Defence.
15 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, we'll take a look at it this
16 weekend, and I'll send an e-mail around by Monday morning.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and then we'll further formalise that in court.
18 Any other matter?
19 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
20 JUDGE ORIE: In order to avoid whatever confusion, the full
21 document, P2247, is now uploaded, and leave is granted to replace the
22 defective version of this document by the full document. It's only since
23 now we have the two full versions there, that if that, in any way,
24 reveals that the interpretation may not be correct, that we'd then like
25 to hear that.
1 Then we adjourn for the day, and we'll resume Monday, the -- is
2 that -- let me check.
3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think the next witness is scheduled for March the
5 19th, in the afternoon. So we adjourn until Friday, the 19th of March,
6 quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon.
7 However, I make one observation in this respect, that both from
8 within the Chamber and from Defence counsel of one of the teams, a
9 request has been made to see whether we could swap from afternoon to
10 morning. I already started working on it. I don't want to create any
11 false expectations, because I have already one response of one
12 Presiding Judge, who says, Since I'm sitting both in the morning and the
13 afternoon, there's not a lot to swap. But we'll still have to hear from
14 other Presiding Judges now, two candidates, whether there's any chance
15 that we'll be able to swap. It's -- as I said before, there's a wish
16 both from within the Chamber and from one of the parties. Nevertheless,
17 I can't promise anything, but I'll try to do my utmost best.
18 Then with this on our minds, we'll adjourn, and we'll resume on
19 Friday, the 19th of March, hopefully at 9.00 in the morning, but
20 otherwise at quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.10 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Friday, the 19th day of
23 March, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.