1 Wednesday, 12 April 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, Mr. Grujic. Just to remind you that
7 you are still bound by the declaration to tell the truth, the whole truth,
8 and nothing else but the truth. Thank you very much.
9 Mr. Milovancevic.
10 WITNESS: IVAN GRUJIC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Milovancevic: [Continued]
14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Grujic.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. Yesterday during my cross-examination, we left off with the
17 subject of expelled persons, and we showed on the ELMO one map of expelled
18 persons broken down by counties. That is map number 6 in the addendum
19 related to expelled persons.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] May I ask the usher to put this
21 map on the ELMO again.
22 Q. Mr. Grujic, we see now this map on the monitor or, rather, we see
23 the territory of the Republic of Croatia with counties designated. And in
24 addition to that, we have a table showing the number of expelled persons
25 broken down by counties. We have viewed it -- reviewed it yesterday; is
1 that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Tell me, how many counties do we see in Croatia on this map?
4 A. Thirteen.
5 Q. Mr. Grujic, can you tell us is this the total number of counties
6 with county being the basic unit of territorial organisation in Croatia?
7 A. No. What we see here are only the counties from which a certain
8 number of expelled persons was recorded.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] May I ask the usher to replace
11 that map with this one. That is map number 3 related to Prosecution
12 Exhibit called Martic Court Binder. Excuse me.
13 Q. This map shows the territory of the Yugoslav Republic of Croatia
14 in 1991, divided into the then-existing municipalities. Are you familiar
15 with this division into municipalities, Mr. Grujic?
16 A. I know that it was divided into municipalities, but I cannot
17 confirm that it is exactly as shown on this map.
18 Q. This map was developed by the Prosecution, and according to this
19 under the territory of Croatia in 1991 there were about 110
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Can I ask the usher to show us
22 map number 7.
23 Q. Mr. Grujic, this is the map of the Republic of Croatia showing the
24 municipalities that were covered by the then-existing SAO Krajina as of
25 end 1991, and red lines show the borders of the area controlled by the
1 then SAO Krajina, later the Republic of Serbian Krajina. Do you see the
2 municipalities that belong to the territory of the SAO Krajina as shown on
3 this map?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I wonder if you can assist the Trial Chamber by telling us how
6 many persons were expelled from the territory of these municipalities
7 bordered by the red lines which were the SAO Krajina in 1991.
8 A. I can only repeat what I said the last time. I provided you with
9 numbers that apply to the existing, current division into counties, and
10 basically it covers these municipalities as well. Counties were partly
11 occupied, and the people recorded as expelled were expelled solely from
12 these occupied territories.
13 Q. Mr. Grujic, does that mean that you cannot give us the number of
14 expelled persons broken down by municipalities bordered by this red line
15 that shows the territory of SAO Krajina, later RSK?
16 A. I told you, I don't have numbers by municipalities. I have
17 numbers by counties. But since these counties cover the same territory as
18 the former municipalities, the numbers correspond. But the current
19 prevailing division into counties is the basis of all the material I have
21 Q. Regarding the number of expellees, and you mention that in para
22 34a of your report, the number being 220.338 persons, with a breakdown by
23 ethnicity, do you stand by that number, even broken down by ethnicity in
24 your report?
25 A. I certainly do. This data was gathered from people who were
1 expelled. Each of them has their ID as an expellee. Their dossiers were
2 formed, and on the basis of this information we have obtained the picture
3 as I have presented it.
4 Q. According to item 2 of an agreement between the Defence and the
5 Prosecution, one of the stipulated facts is that according to the census
6 of 1991, there were 3.736.353; Croats -- 12 per cent of Serbs, 106.461
7 Yugoslavs, and 244.381 persons who did not declare their ethnicity. That
8 is 6.1 per cent. I didn't mention Muslims there. There were 0.5 per cent
9 of Muslims. Are you familiar with these numbers?
10 A. Could you repeat the total number of the population in 1991?
11 Q. According to this agreement between the Defence and the
12 Prosecution, on the territory of Croatia there was a total of 4.784.265
13 citizens, out of which 581.663 Serbs, or 12 per cent. Do you know these
15 A. Yes. According to the numbers we have from the institute for
16 statistics, that is the exact number of the population in 1991, and the
17 breakdown by ethnicity as you mentioned. That is a general piece of
18 information, not something specific to your agreement with the
20 Q. Thank you. In this agreement that I just mentioned, another
21 stipulated fact is that this area was covered by UNPAs, United Nations
22 Protected Areas, and that there existed three zones, Eastern Slavonia,
23 Western Slavonia, and Krajina. These zones encompassed certain
24 municipalities. Do you know that there were three zones?
25 A. Well, not exactly as you specified them. I know that certain
1 sectors existed that constituted UNPAs, but I don't know them as krajinas
2 or something like that.
3 Q. Mr. Grujic, maybe I wasn't clear enough. Do you know that on the
4 territory of the Yugoslav Republic of Croatia certain UNPAs were
5 established by decision of the United Nations Security Council, and there
6 were three of them?
7 A. I know that, but that's not the subject of my testimony.
8 Q. Do you know that Eastern Slavonia, as one of the zones,
9 encompassed municipalities Beli Manastir? Can you show it on the map?
10 A. [Indicates]
11 Q. Parts of Osijek lying to the east of Osijek town.
12 A. The municipality but not the town.
13 Q. Yes. Part of the municipality to the east of the town.
14 A. [Indicates]
15 Q. Vukovar and certain villages in the farthest eastern part of
16 Vinkovci. Can you show that on the map?
17 A. [Indicates]
18 Q. Thank you. As for Western Slavonia and Krajina, the
19 municipalities covered by UNPAs were enumerated according to United
20 Nations document as Grubisno Polje, Daruvar, Pakrac, Western parts of Nova
21 Gradiska and eastern parts Novska. Do you see these areas on the map?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. As for Krajina as an UNPA, it encompassed the municipalities of
24 Kostajnica, Petrinja, Dvor Na Uni, Glina, Vrginmost, Vojnic, Slunj, Titova
25 Korenica, Donji Lopac, Gracac, Obrovac, Benkovac, and Knin. Are these
1 bordered by the red line on the map?
2 A. Yes, that's perfectly clear.
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Grujic. In annex 3 of the amended indictment
4 against Mr. Martic, the composition of the population in municipalities
5 covered by this indictment is as follows regarding SAO Krajina: For
6 Benkovac which had a total of 33.378 citizens, 13.353 Croats, 25 Muslims
7 and 18.986 Serbs. The population of local communes near Zadar that
8 annexed themselves to Benkovac had a total of 302 -- 500, 249 [as
9 interpreted], out of which 1.992 Serbs.
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't follow the other
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I told you will already that this is
13 not the subject of my testimony, and I have not spoken about the ethnic
14 composition of municipalities. I spoke about the ethnic composition of
15 expelled persons by counties. And on this map I just confirmed to you
16 those borders. Let me show you again on the map. It's very clear that
17 those municipalities that you designated, Beli Manastir and eastern
18 Osijek, that comes under the Osijek-Baranja county we spoke
19 about. Vukovar and the eastern part of Vinkovci comes under the
20 Vukovar-Srem county. So all these areas are parts of the counties for
21 which I provided you with statistics.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, the interpreters said they didn't
23 hear the rest of the numbers in your question. You talked about 302 to
24 549 or 500, 200, I don't know what we are saying there, and what is
25 written there is "500, 249," which is not actually intended to be 500.249.
1 I don't know what number it is you wanted to say.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I was talking about Benkovac,
3 which was part of SAO Krajina as stated in the indictment. 5.294 was the
4 total population of those municipalities that annexed themselves to
5 Benkovac and that became part of Krajina. So it's 5.294, if that's the
6 number you asked me about.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Having asked you about that, this witness has
8 repeatedly been saying to you that he didn't deal with these numbers by
9 municipality, but he dealt with them by -- what did you say? What did you
10 call them again? By counties. I'm just sitting here and trying to figure
11 out where you're going with all this cross-examination, and I really don't
12 see where you're going.
13 He's told you again, and again and again, that he has not dealt
14 with the census of the populations of the various places, that he has
15 dealt with the numbers of the expellees from the various counties. What
16 do you expect him to tell you? Just what do you want from him? Maybe we
17 can understand what you want from him.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my next question,
19 in order to understand why I put the previous question, was as follows --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Don't tell us the next question. Tell us what you
21 want from this witness. You'll ask the next question once we've
22 understood where you're going and we allow you to ask the next question.
23 I've been trying to hold myself to say the witness will deal with you and
24 he has tried to deal with you as best he can, to tell you exactly what he
25 knows and what he doesn't know, and what it is he has prepared for this
1 Court. But I want to know what is it you want him to tell you so that
2 maybe we can put the question to him and he can tell you. But if he
3 doesn't have the answers, then he doesn't have the answers. What do you
4 want from him?
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll tell you
6 right away. In annex 3 of the indictment, there is a list of the
7 municipalities making up the SAO Krajina, and these were Benkovac, Knin,
8 Obrovac, Gracac, Donji Lapac, Korenica, Slunj, Vrginmost, Glina, Dvor Na
9 Uni, Kostajnica, Petrinja. These were the municipalities individually
10 listed in annex 3 of the amended indictment along with a number of
11 inhabitants in each of these municipalities.
12 On page 4 of this annex, and this is the essence of my question,
13 it says that the overall population of the SAO Krajina in 1991 was
14 286.716. Of these, there were 78.611 Croats, 1.932 Muslims, and 193.649
15 Serbs. Therefore, according to the amended indictment, there were 78.611
16 Croats living there, whereas the expert insists that the number of Croats
17 expelled was 209.000 plus an additional 220.000 people, which means that
18 more than half of the people who were expelled were Serbs. So I would
19 like to know --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why don't you just put that to him? How is it
21 possible that 220.000 Croats are expelled when the total population was
22 78.000? You do that in one sentence, not in ten pages. You just put that
23 to him.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I'll do that, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, your opposite number is on her feet.
1 Ms. Valabhji.
2 MS. VALABHJI: Pardon me. I think my opposite number has listed
3 the municipalities in the SAO Krajina from the annex in the indictment.
4 However, my opposite number has failed to address certain areas such as
5 Vukovar, Srem, Osijek, Baranja, Sisak, Moslavina, which are represented in
6 the charts presented by the witness. These have been omitted from what
7 Mr. Milovancevic presents in his total population figures. I just wish to
8 point that out.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Ms. Valabhji.
10 May I just add, Mr. Milovancevic, that in fact what I see you
11 doing is you are arguing with the witness. What you are -- you're not
12 cross-examining the witness. What you are doing is what you should be
13 doing in argument at the end of the trial.
14 If your case is that the total number of Croats was -- in the
15 whole of the SAO Krajina was 78.000, just tell him. Tell him that it is
16 impossible to have 220.000 Croats being expelled because that is far in
17 excess of the number of the Croats that existed -- that lived in that
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I may
20 have been going there in and roundabout way, and this is due to
21 misunderstandings about the territorial division.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is a very roundabout way, and your
23 cross-examination, let me tell you, Mr. Milovancevic, is very roundabout,
24 you know. You're really not getting to the points that you need to get
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Grujic, according to the indictment against Mr. Martic from
3 which he is defending himself, in annex 3 the total population of the SAO
4 Krajina in 1991 was 286.716 persons. Of that, 78.611 were Croats, 1.932
5 were Muslims --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have told us that. Just carry on, please. You
7 have told us all that. No, no, no. You have told the witness that.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Can you tell us how you explain the fact that the number of
10 expellees in your report who are of Croat ethnicity is 3 times bigger than
11 the total number of Croats inhabiting the territory covered by this
13 A. I did not provide demographic information about the population
14 figures. I doubt there is any mistake in the information I have provided.
15 I doubt that it's possible, because there is a file number for each and
16 every expellee I have counted, with their first and last name, other
17 details, and the place from which they were expelled. Therefore, I have
18 provided official information from the Bureau for Expellees, and I have to
19 say that this information has been public and there have never been any
20 objections to it. Also, that it corresponds to the information of the
21 UNHCR. I have not, however, testified about the demographic situation in
22 the Republic of Croatia. That is not the subject of my expertise.
23 Q. Mr. Grujic, the Prosecution claims that often the territory
24 covered by the indictment, which is now on the map, and I have given you
25 the population figures, that non-Serbs were expelled. The Prosecution has
1 broken down the population by municipality, which is why I put those
2 numbers to you. I'm asking you now how what you say is possible if in
3 1991, at the time of the conflict, according to the allegations of the
4 Prosecution and according to the census of 1991, there were 78.611 Croats?
5 Can you explain how it came about that 202.000 Croats were expelled from
6 the area?
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, the question has been asked and
8 answered. Can you ask the next question, please?
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. When you were speaking about the number of expellees, you also
11 mentioned 250 to 300.000 persons expelled according to estimates in 1995
12 during Operations Flash and Storm. You did not put them into the category
13 of expellees. Are you aware of the fact that in that period during
14 Operation Storm and after Operation Storm, according to the information of
15 the UN, 22.000 homes of Serbs were destroyed by the end of October? And
16 can you tell us what the status of those persons is, the persons who fled
17 from the area in order to save their own lives, people whose homes have
18 been razed to the ground, who cannot come back and yet you do not count
19 them as the expellees?
20 A. There are two kinds of status, the status of an expellee and the
21 status after refugee. I do not want to enter into a discussion but, but I
22 have to say that is a big difference between the expellees from Vukovar.
23 If you looked at the images, the videos, you saw them being expelled,
24 escorted by armed men. They were threatened by weapons -- with weapons.
25 They were also made to abandon their property in writing, signing
1 documents. They were expelled at gunpoint.
2 When we are discussing Operation Storm, you will allow for the
3 fact that these people left in an organised manner, in columns. The Red
4 Cross and other humanitarian services made it possible for them to receive
5 food and drinks. They wanted to leave the area, and you will allow that
6 the president of the republic and the government broadcast public
7 announcements calling upon these people to remain in their homes. This
8 population are defined as refugees. Not by me but by others, and this is
9 a status that is recognised worldwide. Refugees are people who have
10 crossed an international border and gone to a different country. These
11 people have the status of refugees. These people are able to come back
12 and, as I have said, 120.000 have already returned. The return is under
13 way. There are 12.000 new applications for return which have been
15 Let me also to remind you, and I told you I don't want to enter
16 into discussions with you which are not the subject of my testimony, but
17 now that you ask me that, let me tell you that, yes, certainly there were
18 many houses that were destroyed in those operations. Criminal actions
19 have been tried within the Republic of Croatia, and these houses are now
20 being restored. The government of the Republic of Croatia has a programme
21 for the rebuilding of all houses destroyed, and these people are now
22 returning. They have the status of returnees, and they are coming back to
23 their homes. But that, again, is not the subject of my expert testimony.
24 Q. We are now talking about whether all expellees are included in
25 your report. According to official Croatian information, do you know that
1 in Operation Storm, for example, it ended officially between the 4th and
2 7th of August, 1995, whereas 22.000 houses were destroyed after that
3 period, by the end of October? You say that new houses are being built
4 for those people now, and you say that between 250 and 300.000 people left
5 and that a certain number have returned. But for 11 years these refugees
6 did not go back. Far fewer have come back than left, and the people who
7 are coming back are facing enormous problems. Do you know anything about
9 A. I really don't know what you expect me to say. If you want to
10 enter into a discussion with me, we can have a very broad discussion, but
11 I did not testify about this, and it is not the topic of my expertise.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Grujic. Are you aware of the fact that the
13 Secretary-General of the UN presented to the General Assembly, on the 15th
14 of May, 1993, information showing that on the territory of the Republic of
15 Croatia, outside the territory of the SAO Krajina and outside the area of
16 armed conflicts, from territories under the control of the Croatian
17 government 251.000 Serbs were expelled? Do you know about this?
18 A. No, I don't know about this information. According to my
19 information, about 30.000 people changed their place of residence within
20 the Republic of Croatia.
21 Q. Are you aware --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. Mr. Milovancevic, are you still going to
23 use the map that's on the ELMO?
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] No. Thank you, Your Honours.
25 The map can be removed.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. You may proceed.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. In connection with the number of expellees you mention in point
4 34a of your report, are you aware of the fact that the Presidency of
5 Yugoslavia, on the 10th of April, 1992, sent a memorandum to Mr. Boutros
6 Boutros-Ghali the Secretary-General of the UN pointing out that only in
7 1991, on the territory of Western Slavonia, 282 citizens of Serb ethnicity
8 were killed, that many villages were destroyed, and that about 70.000
9 people were forced to leave their homes because of military operations by
10 Croatian armed forces? Are you aware of this information?
11 A. That, again, is not the subject of my testimony. I am here to
12 testify about official records, not about certain political events. I am
13 speaking of the official records kept by my office and the job that I'm
14 doing, also about information that I received through official channels
15 that have to do with my job. I put forward this information during my
16 testimony, and I abide by it.
17 As for your questions referring to certain political events, I
18 really cannot testify about those. They are not the subject of my
20 Q. I am not referring to political events, Witness. I am simply
21 trying to check the validity of the official information that you are
22 presenting to the Trial Chamber.
23 Prosecution witness Mr. Dzakula who testified in these
24 proceedings, when answering to questions in cross-examination confirmed
25 that in 1991 on the territory of Western Slavonia, according to
1 information from April 1992, 129 villages were burnt, burnt down. 4.118
2 houses were destroyed, and all the population was expelled from those
3 villages and houses.
4 Do you have this information? Because these people are not on
5 your list of expellees.
6 A. Well, I'm not absolutely sure that they don't exist. But when you
7 ask a question like that, you should come up with names and surnames and
8 ask to compare my lists with yours. I cannot tell you who was expelled by
9 name and from which area. I have numbers about people who were expelled
10 from a certain area, accompanied by statistics that are normally shown.
11 And if you allow me just one more comment. Each person who came
12 to the office for expelled persons, regardless of ethnicity, religion or
13 whatever, was recorded as an expelled person. After that, they were put
14 up in specialised camps or settlements or appropriate accommodation until
15 the moment when they were able to return to their homes. All of those
16 people, and they are, as I said, 220.338. And it's possible that they are
17 recorded among those I have recorded by county. But if you want to
18 compare my data with yours, I'll be happy to provide it. Our work is
19 completely transparent.
20 Q. Well, you didn't give me lists with names and surnames, so I
21 didn't produce any myself, but you said in report that a number of
22 expelled Serbs, in paragraph 34a, is 3 -- 3.104. Witness Dzakula,
23 however, testified that only from Eastern Slavonia 70.000 people were
24 expelled. But you have already answered my question, so I'll move on to
25 another one.
1 The Crisis Staff of Slavonska Pozega municipality announced on the
2 29th October, 1991, an order to evacuate all the citizens, all the
3 residents of 24 villages, and item 2 orders the populous to go to other
4 places in Slavonska Pozega municipality because of oncoming operations,
5 and the residents are told to take only personal effects, valuables and
7 According to the testimony of Witness Dzakula, those people were
8 driven out and the villages burned. Do you have information about that?
9 A. No. It doesn't fall within the scope of my work.
10 Q. What I want to know, and I would appreciate an answer, is how is
11 it possible for the list of expelled persons from this territory to
12 include 3.104 Serbs only when a wealth of other evidence is completely
14 A. I repeat, this is official data. It's transparent, and I produced
15 it as such. You are trying to impose something on me all the time, and
16 you neglect what I said earlier, that in addition to this number there
17 was -- there were 7.000 others who did not specify their ethnicity, and
18 there can be many Serbs among them. You stick to your numbers, and you
19 completely disregard the other number that I mentioned in my testimony.
20 You correctly quoted me as saying that there were 3.100 or so
21 Serbs among the expelled, but there are also 7.032 others who did not
22 state their ethnicity, including certainly Serbs. But I recorded them
23 only as people who did not state their ethnicity. I couldn't do
24 otherwise. But I certainly admit that they include Serbs as well.
25 Q. Well, that is the purpose of my question. Can these 7.000
1 accommodate the 70.000 others who have not been mentioned at all?
2 But let us move to imprisoned persons. That is paragraph 29 of
3 your report, and we'll look at chart number 10. When you speak about
4 imprisoned persons - that is paragraph 39, rather - do you mean only those
5 who were exchanged?
6 A. 7.666 persons are on record as having been detained in camps and
7 prisons on the territory of the occupied Republic of Croatia, in the
8 territory of Serbia and Montenegro, which was then FRY, and the territory
9 of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it can be said that these formed a single,
10 unified system of camps.
11 Q. Thank you. Since you keep referring to the occupied territory of
12 Croatia, to avoid all misunderstanding I will put to you one fact that is
13 stipulated between us and the Prosecution, and it is mentioned in 31(a) of
14 the agreement on stipulated the facts and it says on 21st of February,
15 1992, this UN Security Council adopted Resolution 743 proclaiming a peace
16 operation of the United Nations in certain areas in Croatia designated as
17 United Nations Protected Areas. Furthermore, in this text, it is stated
18 that UNPAs shall be established in areas where Serbs form a majority or a
19 significant minority and where intra-communal tensions have led to
20 conflict in recent past.
21 Do you know that UNPAs were set up precisely in those areas where
22 Serbs formed a majority or a significant minority?
23 A. I have already answered this question. I told you that I know
24 that UNPAs were established under the aegis of the United Nations, but I
25 also said that those areas were and still are parts of the territory of
2 Q. In the amended indictment, we see that the number of Serbs in
3 these areas is 268.000 in total -- sorry. The total population of these
4 areas is 268.000, out of which 78.000 Croats. The rest were Serbs. Are
5 you telling me --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it 268 or 286?
7 MS. VALABHJI: May I while my opposite number is searching for
8 some material?
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
10 MS. VALABHJI: I see that he has equated the population of
11 286.000, which he probably made a mistake and 268.000, inversed the
12 numbers. In the indictment he's equated the figure with UNPAs whereas
13 that figure pertains to the SAO Krajina. I think I mentioned this before.
14 So I would really advise my learned counsel to double-check before he
15 presents his questions.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Ms. Valabhji.
17 You hear that, Mr. Milovancevic. Any response?
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. So the gist of my question was this: According to the indictment,
20 the total population of SAO Krajina was 286.000. 78.611 were Croats and
21 the rest were Serbs. Is Mr. Grujic claiming that --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have put this question so many times, and I've
23 asked you at some stage that when you have put the question, get on to the
24 next question. What do you want this witness to say, Mr. Milovancevic?
25 He's not dealing with the statistics of the SAO Krajina. He's dealing
1 with the people who have been reported to him as either dead, expelled,
2 deported, displaced. What do you want this witness to do?
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Prosecution
4 does not use the term "occupied areas." United Nations referred to United
5 Nations protected areas. It is the witness who uses the term "occupied
6 areas." I want him to tell us why.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Because that's where he worked from his office. He
8 worked with occupied areas. He doesn't work with UNPAs. You can't force
9 him to use your terminology. What you have agreed with the Prosecution is
10 the agreement with the Prosecution. You have to extrapolate that he told
11 you from what is relevant to your case. Do you want him to go back to the
12 drawing-board and then start drawing his papers using the term SAO Krajina
13 instead of occupied areas? He surely can't do that.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: And please let's get on with the case,
16 Mr. Milovancevic. You have been really going in circles around the same
17 issue, you know, this whole question of numbers, which I don't think
18 anybody else understands in this court except yourself.
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Grujic, in paragraph 39 we have a list of detained persons.
21 Is your office the source of this information?
22 A. Yes, my office is the source of this information.
23 Q. Thank you. 88 per cent are males according to this information;
24 is that correct?
25 A. Allow me to have a look. 88 per cent are men, yes.
1 Q. Is it the case that 89 per cent out of those whose age is known is
2 between 18 and 60?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. But you say that for 1.789 persons detained the age was unknown.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. How come this number is so high?
7 A. In every previous chapter we've discussed, expelled persons and so
8 on - we are now talking about camps - I provided you with the data that is
9 available to me, and on several occasions I explained, but I have to
10 repeat, obviously, that statistics are compiled based on available data.
11 In all those cases when details incomplete and could be misleading, the
12 case is placed in the category "Unknown." Either the person did not state
13 their year of birth, or in other cases they did not state their ethnicity,
14 or for some administrative reason this detail was not recorded. But very
15 clearly we have a certain number of detained persons with a specified age
16 and a certain number of people whose age has not been stated.
17 We saw on previous examples that this is a statistically valid
18 picture, because 75 per cent of it is properly recorded information,
19 complete information, and provides a representative picture. I don't know
20 if I was clear enough.
21 Q. I ask you this question for a particular reason. If we talk about
22 dead who were exhumed and it is impossible to determine their age by
23 post-mortem, I understand, but if we are dealing with living persons, I
24 didn't -- I wasn't able to understand how come their age is unknown, but
25 you've just explained.
1 You also say that for 47 per cent of the detained it is not
2 determined, it is not known, whether they were civilians or members of
3 armed force.
4 A. Yes, because we don't have that detail. We don't have that
5 information, and we categorise them as unknown.
6 Q. Out of those whose status is known, 52 per cent are classified
7 as -- as defenders, 2.094 members of armed forces. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. In your report, you state that the ethnicity of as many as 1.878
10 detained persons is unknown?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. Can you tell us why this number is so high?
13 A. As in the previous statistics, let me repeat. A person does not
14 have to tell us what their ethnic affiliation is. Those who wanted to
15 provide this information provided it. Those who didn't want to didn't,
16 and they were classified as persons of unknown ethnicity. According to
17 all international standards, you cannot coerce a person into telling you
18 what their ethnic affiliation or their religion is.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Grujic, you did give this answer yesterday,
21 didn't you, several times?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when speaking about the
23 statistics, in every chapter about which counsel has asked me questions, I
24 stated very clearly that -- where information was unknown I stated that it
25 was unknown for the sake of clarity.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: And all I'm saying is you did give this answer
2 yesterday several times and today, too.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour, yes.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'll ask you to ask new questions,
5 Mr. Milovancevic, otherwise I'm going to have to stop you each time you a
6 question that has already been asked.
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Q. In your report referring to length of detention, you say that as
9 many as 2.052 persons is not known for how long they were detain. Is this
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you tell us why this number is so high?
13 A. Yes, I can.
14 Q. Please do.
15 A. I'll try to explain. Some people were captured -- or, rather,
16 these people were captured, and when they left, when they were exchanged,
17 and you will allow that their experience was very difficult, I won't go
18 into that, they could not recall the date. And you will allow that it's
19 quite normal and human that they couldn't remember the date of their
20 capture, whether it was the 13th or the 15th. In order to have precise
21 information, we had to put these people into the category of unknown.
22 Q. According to your report, out of the persons for whom it is known
23 how long they were detained, 72 per cent were imprisoned between 30 days
24 and one year. Is this correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. This seems a very long time. Do you have -- or, rather, the span
2 is too long. The range is too long. Do you have precise information as
3 to how many were imprisoned for 30 days, six months, and so on?
4 A. No. These were statistics relevant for the provision of
5 psychosocial assistance. If necessary, of course we can go back and do
6 this kind of analysis that you're asking about.
7 Q. Can you tell us what time period and what territory this
8 information about imprisoned persons refers to?
9 A. Yes. The first imprisonments began in July 1991, and as I said,
10 the last prisoner was release the in 1996.
11 Q. Thank you. According to the information in graph 10, these
12 persons were imprisoned on the territory of Serbia, Montenegro,
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and, as you say, the occupied territories of the
14 Republic of Croatia. Is this in your report?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. According to your information, a total of 2.044 persons were
17 imprisoned in these areas. As these proceedings relate to the SAO
18 Krajina, do you have information referring to the SAO Krajina or the
19 municipalities which it comprised?
20 A. Yes. It's provided in table 9, which clearly states that 2.404
21 persons were imprisoned in the previously occupied areas of the Republic
22 of Croatia.
23 Q. In paragraph 38 of your report, you talk about the reliability of
24 the information gathered on persons in detention, and there you say that
25 most of those persons were registered by the International Committee of
1 the Red Cross. Is this correct?
2 A. Information is provided as to the number of persons registered in
3 detention by the ICRC.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you give us an exhibit number of this graph
5 that you're talking about, Mr. Milovancevic, then?
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise for
7 not having done that previously. This is the analysis of the information
8 on persons detained, and I believe that this is Exhibit 298. If my
9 learned friend can assist me.
10 MS. VALABHJI: It's ERN 04693033, and --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would you please switch off your microphone while
12 you're flipping paper, Ms. Valabhji.
13 MS. VALABHJI: My apologies, Your Honour. It's Exhibit 300.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Exhibit 300 it is.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, my learned friend.
16 Q. Mr. Grujic, in graph 10, which you prepared, it says that 2.404
17 persons were imprisoned in the occupied territories of the Republic of
18 Croatia and that the ICRC confirmed only 499 of these, whereas they did
19 not confirm 1.905 of them; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. We will now move on to document number 11, and these are
22 statistics by settlement, referring to Bacin, Dubica, Cerovljani, and
23 Nadin. My first question in connection with these statistics referring to
24 these villages is as follows: You provide information on the population
25 in 1991, and as your source you mentioned the state bureau of statistics
1 and other statistics. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you tell us what your other sources are?
4 A. Information received from the present-day municipalities and
5 villages mentioned, the literature about those places, and I can list what
6 that is, but the basis is the bureau of statistics.
7 Q. You have just said that the information also comes from the
8 municipalities in which these villages are located. However, you say that
9 you mention -- you say that you only used information from counties.
10 A. In the present-day counties there are also municipalities. For
11 example, the municipality of Hrvatska Dubica which is part of the
12 Sisak-Moslavina county where these two villages are, Bacin and Cerovljani.
13 Q. So this municipality existed then and it exists today and it's
14 part of this county. Is that what you're saying?
15 A. Hrvatska Dubica did exist. I don't know whether it was a
16 municipality in 1991 or not, but it's a municipality now. And as I was
17 now working on this information, I used the information from that
19 Q. Does that mean that for some categories in your report you did use
20 information from municipalities and not for others. In the case ever
21 expellees or detainees you didn't and now you did.
22 A. Well, you will allow me the right to use my sources and check my
23 sources when drawing up my expert report. I'm allowed to use different
24 sources and different kind of literature.
25 Q. Thank you. In connection with Bacin, Dubica, Cerovljani, Nadin,
1 you say the number killed was unknown. Is that what you say?
2 A. That's correct. We don't have the precise number of those who
3 were killed.
4 Q. In connection with the villages where it's stated that there are
5 those who were killed, I'm referring to Skabrnja, Bruska, Saborsko,
6 Lipovaca, and Poljane, the status of those who were killed is mentioned
7 for only one of those places. That is whether they were soldiers,
8 civilians, or members of the civilian protection; is that correct?
9 A. I would have to check, but let me repeat. I have provided the
10 information I had. I cannot provide information where I don't have it.
11 You can ask me about the information I have provided. You can ask me
12 whether it's correct or not. You cannot ask me that about information I
13 don't have.
14 Q. As this information is provided only in the case of Lipovaca, does
15 your reply mean that you didn't have in information for the other places?
16 A. Yes, that's correct. If I didn't have information, I didn't
17 provide it.
18 Q. With respect to Nadin, according to the information you provide,
19 the number of expellees is larger than the number of inhabitants. You
20 speak of 699 expellees, whereas Nadin had 666 inhabitants in total. How
21 do you explain this?
22 A. Evidently there has been a permutation between the population and
23 the expellees. 699 should be the number of inhabitants, and 666 should be
24 the number of expellees. So there has been a permutation of figures.
25 Q. When referring to Bacin, and that's document number 12, its ERN is
1 0649-3262-0469-3264, the document about Bacin represents a list of 108
2 persons from Bacin, Dubica, and Cerovljani. According to paragraph 26 of
3 the indictment these people were killed. Is this correct?
4 A. How many did you say? Would you be kind enough to repeat?
5 Q. Mr. Grujic, on the last page of this list it says that there are
6 108 persons on the list. You can check that.
7 A. Yes, that's correct. The list includes 108 names.
8 Q. Just before the break, let me put another brief question. You
9 compared this with your information; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I think, Your Honours, this is
13 a convenient moment.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
15 Court adjourned, and will come back at quarter to eleven.
16 Court adjourned.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.
18 [The witness stands down]
19 --- On resuming at 10.48 a.m.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Whiting. I see you are on your feet.
21 MR. WHITING: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. If I might just take
22 a moment of the Court's time to -- with regard to a scheduling matter, and
23 I raise it now because it may require certain preparations be made today.
24 As the Court is aware, we have two witnesses remaining for this
25 week. The next witness, Mr. Strinovic, is making his second appearance at
1 the Tribunal because he was here ready to testify during the week that was
2 cancelled after -- because of the illness of Mr. Martic. So he's here for
3 a second time ready to testify.
4 The third witness, who is a short witness -- oh, actually, if I --
5 I'm sorry, Your Honour. If I -- before I make reference to this if we
6 could move into private session.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
8 [Private session]
11 Page 3623 redacted. Private session.
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. May -- before we forget then,
3 we will sit in Courtroom I tomorrow morning.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Mr. Grujic, before the break we left off with a list of victims in
8 Bacin. That is related to paragraph 26. That's from October 1991. Did
9 we agree that according to this list there are 108 persons on this list?
10 That was my last question before the break.
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. You compared this list to your information, and that is accurate.
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. I see from the document that out of those 108, 48 were exhumed and
15 identified. Is that correct?
16 A. 48 persons were identified.
17 Q. Therefore, only 48 of them have been confirmed as dead.
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Among them is Ana Tepic, of Serb ethnicity, as we can see from the
20 documentation of your office, 60R, Exhibit 373. Do you remember this
22 A. Ana Tepic is on the list, but I don't see the ethnicity at this
24 Q. Thank you. 25 persons, according to the official records of your
25 office, are registered as missing.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Are they still being sought?
3 A. Yes. Those are people about whom we have no information
5 Q. From this list of 108 persons recorded as victims in Bacin, you
6 say that we have no information about 26 persons or they are absent from
7 all of your records.
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Does that mean that nobody reported them as missing?
10 A. It's possible that nobody reported their disappearance, which is
11 an evermore frequent occurrence.
12 Q. Does that mean that those 26 persons are not even on the list of
13 those 12.078 persons we have mentioned?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't turn on my microphone. We'll move on to a
16 document related to Vukovici village. You say that two persons were
17 exhumed from individual graves and that four are registered as dead?
18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Excuse me, Mr. Milovancevic. Could you tell us to
19 which exhibit you are referring, exhibit in terms of the admitted
20 evidence, so then we could follow.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, document 12 in
22 B/C/S. It's ERN 0469-3266.
23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: [Previous translation continues] ... exhibit
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I think all this information is
1 contained in Exhibit 301.
2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Grujic, did you process the list of 210 persons from Vukovici
5 registered as victims?
6 A. Yes, and it's contained in the annex.
7 Q. You say that 96 were exhumed -- sorry, two persons were exhumed
8 from individual graves, and four are registered as dead.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. One person is still on record as missing.
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Concerning this list of 210 people from Vukovici, you have no
13 information about three of them.
14 A. Yes. They are not in any of the official records.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Milovancevic.
16 MS. VALABHJI: I wonder if I'm on the same page here as my learned
17 colleague. 210 people? The English translation we have is 210, and if
18 I'm looking at the page from this exhibit pertaining to victims in
19 Vukovici, I don't have a list of 210.
20 THE INTERPRETER: It must be the interpreter's error. We
21 misheard, sorry.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I assist?
23 I'm talking about victims in Vukovici. That's list linked to paragraph
24 29, 7th November 1991, and there are 10 persons on it. And if I
25 understood Mr. Grujic correctly, he confirmed that there are 10 persons.
1 It's obviously a misinterpretation.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic.
3 MS. VALABHJI: Yes. Thank you.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. You said, Mr. Grujic, that you have no information whatsoever
7 about three persons from that list. Does that mean that those three
8 persons are also absent from the list of dead?
9 A. That means they are not on the list of dead.
10 Q. Thank you. When you speak about information regarding Nadin,
11 that's document 04693269, the first case is Brus and Bruska, and Skabrnja,
12 did your commission deal with these persons from Nadin, Skabrnja, and
14 A. Can you specify what you mean when you say "deal with"? It is
15 said in the document that we performed exhumations and identifications, so
16 we were directly involved. Where it is stated that a certain victim is on
17 the list of dead, we were involved administratively. So we did deal with
18 all these persons in the way I have described throughout, if I understood
19 you correctly.
20 Q. I'll ask you one more brief question to make it completely clear.
21 The information about these victims, Nadin, in the first case, and
22 Skabrnja, did you receive this from other agencies?
23 A. Yes. Yes, that was my meaning.
24 Q. When you spoke about the number of expellees from Lipovaca, you
25 stated that accord together list of population from 1991, the total number
1 was 267, and expellees were 210. Can you confirm that?
2 A. Yes. Lipovaca, according to the state institute for statistics,
3 had a population of 267, and 210 were expelled as registered by the office
4 for expellees and refugees.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this information
6 is contained in the collective exhibit 301.
7 Q. Mr. Grujic, you talk about 210 expelled persons from Lipovaca,
8 (redacted) that
9 before the arrival of the JNA at the village in end September or early
10 October, the locals left the village and only 15 elderly persons remained.
11 Are you aware of that?
12 A. Well, they probably waited -- if they had waited for the armed
13 forces to arrive, they would probably now be in a different category, not
14 in the category of the expelled.
15 Q. You refer to them as expelled, but another witness says that they
16 had left the village a day earlier. Does that mean anything to you?
17 A. No, it doesn't. I'm telling you that 210 people are registered by
18 the office for expellees, and they were accommodated as expellees in
19 appropriate camps, and they had the status of expelled persons in Croatia
20 until they returned to their homes.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a send, Mr. Milovancevic. That name -- the
22 name that you referred to of that witness, is it not a protected witness?
23 Is that witness - I don't want to repeat the name a second time - on
24 line -- page 35, line 12, was that not a protected witness? Shouldn't we
25 delete that name?
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you are right. I
2 made a mistake inadvertently.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Can we delete that name, please.
4 Thank you very much. You may proceed. Were you rising on the
5 same issue?
6 MS. VALABHJI: Yes, Your Honour, it was the same issue.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. When you talk about the number of expellees from Cerovljani, you
10 say that the population according to the census of 1991 was 512, and
11 expellees were 203. Is that correct, Mr. Grujic?
12 A. Let me check. Yes. Would you please repeat the number?
13 Q. I asked you about Cerovljani. It is stated at the top of the
14 report that according to the census of 1991 there were 512 residents and
15 203 were expelled. Is that in your report?
16 A. Yes, it is in my report.
17 Q. Two Prosecution witnesses who appeared earlier in the proceedings
18 testified that Tomislav Mateljak, head of the Crisis Staff of Hrvatska
19 Dubica ordered the evacuation of residents of Hrvatska Dubica and
20 surrounding villages. Another witness who is from Hrvatska Dubica itself
21 also spoke about the evacuation of the population from Hrvatska Dubica and
22 the surrounding villages before the 14th of September, before those
23 villages were captured, occupied. Do you know that?
24 A. I'm not going into the circumstances under which somebody left
25 their home. I have information, and I stand by it, that those people are
1 categorised as expellees, and I don't want to go into the way in which
2 they left their homes. That is not the subject of my testimony. I'm
3 telling you about official records, and each person listed in those
4 records has a file behind them.
5 Q. Well, that was the thrust of my question. When you talk about
6 expellees from Cerovljani, do you dispose of information that the Crisis
7 Staff of Cerovljani, Dubica, and Nadin had ordered an evacuation of the
9 A. No, I don't have that at my disposal nor am I supposed to.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Grujic. The next point I wanted to raise with you
11 relates to events concerning Zagreb, document number 12. The last digits
12 of the document number in B/C/S is 3274. That's Exhibit 303.
13 On the list of dead in Zagreb on the 2nd and 3rd of May, 1995,
14 which is appended to the indictment there are seven persons. However,
15 according to your records five persons were killed and there is no
16 information about two of those people. Is this correct?
17 A. According to the information I have about the persons who were
18 killed, five persons were killed.
19 Q. This then does not include Ivan Brodac and Luka Skracic who are on
20 this list of seven persons; correct?
21 A. I don't know. I have to check that. There are two persons about
22 whom I do not have information, which doesn't mean that this is not
24 Q. Your office deals with prisoners and missing persons. Do those
25 killed in Zagreb come under your purview?
1 A. Yes, of course they do. Their mortal remains were examined in the
2 Institute for Forensic Medicine, and this information has been included in
3 the information on persons who were killed.
4 Q. Yesterday, when responding to my questions, you said that in
5 Operations Flash and Storm between 250 and 300.000 persons fled. You said
6 most of them were of Serb ethnicity. Can you tell us the number of
7 persons who fled during Operation Flash from Western Slavonia in May 1995?
8 A. I said that these were estimates, estimates coming from various
9 sources. This is not official information. This is just information I
10 have, and it is an overall number. I cannot provide information about
11 particular areas or municipalities. I can only speak about returnees who
12 are registered as such because I have precise information about them.
13 Q. You say you can speak about returnees. Is that something your
14 office deals with? Because you are the Office for Expellees and Missing
16 A. No. But let me explain.
17 Q. Go ahead.
18 A. More than once during your examination I stated very clearly why
19 this information is kept in my office although it is not listed in the
20 decree. I said that the administration of which I am the head also
21 negotiates with the Commission for Humanitarian Issues and Missing Persons
22 from Serbia and Montenegro. It is for this reason, as the leader of the
23 delegation, that I must have information about all the issues raised
24 during such negotiations. Therefore, this information is delivered to me
25 in an official capacity for the purposes of my work.
1 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us what number of persons were killed
2 during Operation Flash in Western Slavonia? You spoke about the number of
3 victims in Zagreb. Do you know about the number of victims on the
4 territory of Western Slavonia?
5 A. According to the information at the disposal of my office and
6 falling within its purview, 168 persons were killed whose remains were
7 found and buried in cemeteries. As I said, the international community
8 and the representatives of Serbia and Montenegro were informed about this.
9 The documentation for preliminary identification was delivered to them in
10 the case for all persons for whom we had such documentation.
11 Q. Do I understand you correctly: These were persons whose remains
12 were found and who were killed during Operation Flash?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you. I have another question for you. Do you know
15 something about the victims from Paulin Dvor village near Osijek who were
16 transferred in containers or barrels to the area of Gospic where they were
17 exhumed in 1997, and are these victims included in the list of victims you
18 have presented?
19 A. Yes, I'm aware of this case. This case was tried before the
20 national court. It was my administration that carried out the exhumation
21 together with the representatives of the International Criminal Tribunal.
22 Some of these victims have already and identified. The others are still
23 in the process of are identified. I cannot tell you if they are included
24 in the updated list of those killed. If you were to give me the names, I
25 would be able to check that.
1 Q. Let's just check that we're talking about same case. I am
2 speaking about 19 Serbs who were killed in a house in November 1991 and
3 who in 1997 were transferred from one place under the control of the
4 Croatian authorities to another territory under Croatian control, Gospic.
5 Is that the case that you're referring to?
6 A. Yes. The International Criminal Tribunal entrusted me with
7 organising the exhumation.
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Grujic.
9 A. You're welcome.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence has
11 finished its cross-examination.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic.
13 Any re-examination, Ms. Valabhji?
14 MS. VALABHJI: Nothing from the Prosecution. Thank you,
15 Your Honour.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
18 Questioned by the Court:
19 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Mr. Grujic, may I ask you about the exhumations in
20 general terms. With what forensic experts have you been cooperating?
21 A. During the exhumation and identification, which are closely
22 linked, we cooperate with experts of forensic medicine from various areas.
23 There are forensic experts, and the whole process involves dentists,
24 forensic technicians, anthropologists, X-ray specialists, a whole spectrum
25 of forensic experts. Experts for DNA analysis are also involved in the
1 process. All the various segments of forensic science are involved in the
2 process of identification. On the location, the site of the exhumation,
3 there are forensic experts who work there.
4 JUDGE HOEPFEL: To what extent were international experts
6 A. Your Honours, we have had several different situations. There
7 have been situations where we have been assisted by forensic experts, for
8 example, from the Smithson [as interpreted] Institute in the USA. We have
9 also cooperated with experts of the ICTY.
10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Can you repeat the name of the institute in the
12 A. Smithson -- the Smithsonian institute. They were the ones who
13 gave us our first information as we had no experience. That was the
14 beginning of our work with their assistance. We have had contacts with
15 the forensic department of the human rights organisation that did
16 exhumations at Ovcara. We were there as monitors. We have also had
17 relationships with experts coming from the ICTY. There were situations
18 where we were the monitors, but it was ICTY experts who were in charge of
19 the whole procedure. We have also had situations where we worked jointly
20 on projects, and there have been situations where we were in charge of the
21 exhumation and ICTY experts were observers. Of course, different kinds of
22 experts were involved, the geologists, anthropologists, forensic
24 JUDGE HOEPFEL: What was the role of this expert of the European
25 Union which was to be seen in the video yesterday?
1 A. In the Republic of Croatia, the standpoint was that everything
2 that had to do with exchanges of prisoners of war, exhumations of mass
3 graves and individual graves, all these issues had to be fully
4 transparent. That is why we issued invitations and still issue
5 invitations to international organisations dealing with such issues. The
6 gentleman who observed the process in Bacin was part of the European
7 Community Monitoring Mission which was active on the territory of the
8 Republic of Croatia. They were always informed of our activities and
9 involved as monitors. We still deliver information about our activities
10 to the OSCE, to the ICTY, and to the International Commission for Missing
11 Persons. They participate as international monitors.
12 We are also transparent for representatives of Serbia and
13 Montenegro in case they are interested in any of our projects.
14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. Can we now go back to this issue of
15 the expellees, the figures where the Defence counsel, Mr. Milovancevic,
16 suggested there was some clear discrepancy between your figure of over
17 220.000, expellees and the figure mentioned in the amended indictment in
18 annex 3, which is 78.000? Can you help us to clarify that in the
19 following terms: Do you know in which of the counties which you mentioned
20 in your tables these municipalities mentioned in annex 3 of the amended
21 indictment are located, to which counties these municipalities, the
22 following municipalities are related? May I cite from annex 3 of the
23 amended indictment? It gives an overall figure of 78.611 Croats as part
24 of the population in SAO Krajina, and it is divided into 13
25 municipalities. Can you maybe help us to -- to show to which regions they
1 are related? There is Benkovac, Knin, Obrovac, the first three. And you
2 did, in your tables these -- this computer document concerning -- in
3 English it says "displaced persons," but we clarified that it should be
4 expelled persons. Document Exhibit number 299. You had these -- you had
5 this -- can you -- on page 6 you have a map with -- of all Croatia and
6 with red figures which are then summarised in the table on the right hand,
7 starting with Vukovarska-Srijemska, 55.644. Do you see that? This is
8 page 6.
9 A. Yes.
10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Could you clarify what is mentioned in the annex 3
11 of the indictment contains the following municipalities, and you can maybe
12 tell us to which of these counties these would relate. So it was first
13 Benkovac, Knin, and Obrovac, these three.
14 A. Benkovac, Knin, and Obrovac are at present, I believe, in the
15 Zadar county. I'm not absolutely sure about Knin.
16 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay. But Zadar county or near to that?
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes.
19 A. Yes, it's in Zadar county.
20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Then it's Gracac -- or Gracac, Donji Lapac, these
22 A. Gracac is either in or on the border of the Zadar county, whereas
23 Lapac might be in the Lika-Sinj county. It's very difficult for me to say
24 but I believe that's how it is.
25 A. Lika-Sinj. I understand. Then Korenica -- or Titova Korenica.
1 You will allow me to correct myself. Knin belongs to the Sibenik-Knin
3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes. Sibensko-Kninska. Korenica, where is that
5 A. Korenica should be in the Lika-Sinj, Licko-Senjska county.
6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Slunj.
7 A. Slunj ought to be in Karlovac county or on the border of the
8 Lika-Sinj county. I do believe, though, that it's in Karlovac county.
9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Vojnic?
10 A. I also believe it's in Karlovac county.
11 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Vrginmost?
12 A. It's possible that it's in Karlovac or maybe partly in the
13 Lika-Sinj county. I couldn't say precisely.
14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Glina?
15 A. Glina is in the Sisak-Moslavina county.
16 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And then we have three left. This is Dvor Na Uni;
17 Kostajnica, Hrvatska Kostajnica; and Petrinja. First Dvor Na Uni.
18 A. The Sisak-moss what convenient and county.
19 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Kostajnica?
20 A. Kostajnica is also in the Sisak-Moslavina county.
21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And Petrinja?
22 A. Petrinja, also the Sisak-Moslavina county.
23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. I think this kind of comparison was
24 needed and was what the Defence counsel was asking for to have a picture,
25 both in terms of the municipalities from 1991 and in the county structure
1 of today.
2 Thank you very much for this clarification.
3 A. I hope that I have managed to explain. We have dealt with only a
4 part of the counties in occupied Croatia.
5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. Nothing further.
6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Grujic, I'd like to find out from you, and
7 it may seem overly simplistic, but what circumstances or what conditions
8 had to apply for a person to be designated a missing person?
9 A. According to the criteria we use to record missing persons and
10 which are almost identical to the criteria of the ICRC when registering
11 missing persons, the family reports that a person has gone missing. The
12 family has no information about that person. Subsequently, we check
13 whether the family has received any kind of information through various
14 mechanisms. The fundamental criterion is that the family has no knowledge
15 about the family member and that they report this, that they give a
16 statement, fill in a questionnaire, and sign as people searching for
18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Did the missing person have to be missing for
19 any particular period, a stipulated period before the designation was
21 A. Not in our case, but there is in the case of the ICRC, which is
22 why we are constantly comparing our lists and updating our records between
23 our office, the Croatian Red Cross, and the ICRC. These are control
25 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm sorry. ICRC? Please tell me. I'm sorry, I
1 want to know what it means.
2 A. The International Committee of the Red Cross.
3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. Now, concerning, for example, the
4 data analyses of persons killed, where these statistics referred to men
5 and women, would those statistics include children, or would there be a
6 separate category for children? I don't really see a separate category on
7 any of the graphs or data.
8 A. No, we did not analyse the information in this way. There are
9 several different criteria. Sometimes a person under the age of 14,
10 sometimes a person under 16, and sometimes a person under 18 is considered
11 a child. That is why we did not go into this kind of analysis, because
12 there's no clear-cut criterion.
13 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: So children would be included in those figures
14 or not? That's what I was trying to get from you.
15 A. Yes, that's correct. They are included in those figures.
16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. I'd like to turn to Exhibit 318, and
17 the first clip. If you recall, you were present and something was removed
18 from the ground, a small green object which was looking rather like a
19 vegetable to me, and it was picked up and wiped off. Can you say what
20 that was? If you cast your mind back for me, please, to that first clip,
21 Exhibit 318. I believe it was by a grave site.
22 A. Yes, I remember that now. It was a hand grenade which was found
23 when searching the terrain and attempting to establish a mass grave site.
24 The hand grenade was found in the broader area of the mass grave.
25 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. And I'm now going to move on to the
1 third clip. About ten metres from the grave site cartridges were found.
2 I just wanted to know if you were able to say what type of cartridges
3 those were.
4 A. To the best of my recollection, there were cartridges belonging to
5 several groups. To the best of my recollection, these were from automatic
7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: And the next question is could you say whether
8 these cartridges were found, although 10 metres away, were they scattered
9 or were they in one area?
10 A. They were in more than one area. They were concentrated on a
11 surface of several square metres, five, six, up to 10 square metres in
12 several clusters. There were three or four such clusters, to the best of
13 my recollection. They were found in clusters, and they were marked as
14 such, and you can see that on the footage.
15 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Who marked them?
16 A. They were marked by the criminal police following orders from the
17 investigating court that was in charge of the investigation there.
18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. Now, I'm going to ask you about the
19 handling of your report, and Defence counsel, Mr. Milovancevic, has
20 touched on this in his cross-examination, but I want to ask this question
21 directly and pointedly. Did the source of your information and data
22 affect in any way how you handled the data professionally in producing
23 your final results?
24 A. Absolutely not. Generally speaking, my position is that the
25 professional attitude comes first and is subject to no influence. All the
1 data that I have at my disposal I have shown in an objective manner as
2 best I could. So I provided the information in good faith as evidence
3 that I hoped would be of assistance to this Tribunal, as impartial
4 evidence. Maybe I have made some genuine errors, but none that I have
5 noticed so far. And I have acted in good faith as in all other activities
6 that I perform either before this Tribunal or in other courts or in
7 negotiations with other states. That is a clearly stated position within
8 these agencies.
9 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Now, you had mentioned in relation, I believe to
10 an initiative that you took at a meeting with Serbia and Montenegro, and a
11 document was signed defining the question of missing persons, and you had
12 mentioned before that, I believe, in that context that you wanted the
13 abuse of the figures to be stopped. What do you mean by that?
14 A. I will try to explain in a few words. The problem of missing
15 persons is not only the problem of Croatia but also a problem shared by
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro. Very often, figures of
17 missing persons were used to promote political agendas of the day and that
18 has armed the entire process. We have faced situations when some NGOs,
19 later supported by politicians, came out with figures of missing persons,
20 persons let's say Serbs in Croatia, of 4, 5, or 6.000. Even the deputy
21 Prime Minister, Mr. Lajic, came out with a number of Serbs sought by
22 Serbia and Montenegro in Croatia of 2.500. That's the information he
24 In order to put a stop to this, I went to a meeting in Belgrade,
25 and that was confirmed at another meeting in Zagreb, where it was agreed
1 that the numbers of missing persons have to be agreed, and the criteria
2 have to be similar or the same as criteria used by the international
3 committee. After adopting this joint position, we came out with numbers
4 in keeping with those criteria, and it was established and recorded in the
5 paper that resulted from that meeting that territorially speaking, 1.140
6 persons are still sought for, and they are registered in the office for
7 missing persons, and 915 persons went missing in the Operations Flash and
8 Storm, whereas 500 persons are sought in Croatia by Serbia and Montenegro.
9 So on the territory of Croatia, 2.400 persons are missing.
10 We invested that effort in order to remove this whole issue out of
11 the field of politics in order to promote the process of looking for
12 missing persons, and I have presented this evidence to the Court in this
14 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I wanted to ask you, were persons displaced from
15 the territory of the SAO-K only or also from outside of the SAO-K?
16 A. When we talk about the displaced persons -- I don't know if I
17 understood your question correctly, but we have discussed three categories
18 of persons who left their homes.
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: No, I'm sorry. I'm talking about specifically
20 the SAO-K. Was that the only territory from which persons were displaced
21 as far as your information disclosed?
22 A. No. I said in my presentation that according to my information,
23 around 30.000 people - that's an estimate - changed their place of
24 residence and they of moved to area not afflicted by the war. For example
25 to Osijek which was not occupied a certain amount of people went to Pula.
1 Some people from Pula --
2 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I think you have answered my question. You said
3 in answer to Defence counsel that essentially this is the substance of it.
4 Whether or not you use counties or municipalities, the numbers that you
5 have produced would come out to the same. Why did you give that answer?
6 A. I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand your question. What exactly
7 did I say in my reply?
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: My recollection is that you were asked -- well,
9 you were being questioned about the fact that in 1991, municipalities
10 existed, whereas now counties existed, and it was being suggested that
11 your figures might not be correct because of the fact that you didn't
12 address the issue through municipalities as opposed to counties, but you
13 answered that whether or not which one you applied the figures would be
14 the same. Why did you give that answer I want to know. Or did I
15 misunderstand your answer?
16 A. No, you did not misunderstand. Whatever principle we use,
17 whatever territorial principle we use, the numbers have to remain the
18 same. I'll try to clarify on a small example.
19 If we talk about, let's say, Beli Manastir municipality, it
20 belongs to the Osijek-Baranja county. So it is part of the county that
21 has been taken into account in my numbers, because according to the
22 territorial division, the territorial units were smaller. Several of them
23 were united into a county, and when I talk about a county, I talk about
24 the entire county. But only one small part of if was occupied, and from
25 that occupied part those 220.000 were expelled. So the numbers have to
2 I know where the confusion comes from. Distinguished Defence
3 counsel said that a certain number of people were registered as living
4 there, and it's a small number than the ones that I quoted, but it's
5 either that not all the territories were taken into account or some other
6 reason, but there is a logical explanation. If we know that one-third of
7 the territory of Croatia was occupied and there were 4 million and
8 something population, one-third of the population has to be a million or
9 something. It can't be 70.000. The population of one-third of Croatia
10 cannot be 70.000. That is what creates confusion.
11 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm most grateful to you. Thank you,
12 Mr. Grujic.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Grujic, I think it was yesterday or could it be
14 day before yesterday, I'm not sure now, you said that in compiling the
15 list of the killed people you used information from the Ministry of Health
16 and the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia, and then you went
17 on to say these lists were unified, and the number of exhumed persons was
18 added to that list. You remember that?
19 A. I remember that.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Does this then mean that the lists from the
21 minister -- from the two ministries contain the number of persons whose
22 bodies had already been found and therefore without doubt were not among
23 the persons exhumed?
24 A. I don't know if I understood your question correctly, but that
25 number includes all persons about whom we knew that they were dead. Some
1 we had information they were members of armed forces killed in combat, and
2 they were on the list of the Ministry of Defence. We had another list
3 from the Ministry of Health that some persons were killed in areas close
4 to the battlefield or otherwise as a result of combat, and this data
5 flowed into the Ministry of Health where it was aggregated. And the third
6 source were exhumations, persons we -- or, rather, bodies we exhumed and
8 So we integrated the records of soldiers from the Ministry of
9 Defence; the records of persons killed as a result of armed conflict,
10 through hospitals; and the bodies we identified. But 580 mortal remains
11 still remain identified [as interpreted], and they are still not included
12 in any lists. But we still have 580 dead people from the period 1991 to
13 1995 who are not identified.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me put my question slightly differently. How
15 did you determine that the exhumed persons whom you added to the list from
16 the ministries were not already mentioned in the ministries' lists so that
17 you avoid duplication?
18 A. All records have been cross-checked several times. That was
19 precisely why the government of Croatia gave a mandate to my office to
20 integrate all the records, because the same persons were sometimes
21 recorded both on the list of Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Health.
22 Why? Because reports were sent from localities along two channels, one
23 towards the Ministry of Health and one to the Ministry of Defence. So
24 those lists included also some persons who met a violent death as a result
25 of armed conflict but could not be placed in that context because they
1 were killed in Bosnia, for instance. And that's why the decision was made
2 to sort of clean-out all those lists so that we have a clear picture. And
3 when we identified the bodies from exhumations, we put them only the same
4 list and verified for repetitions. So the list was checked by computer
5 cross-checking, and the second was by manual cross-checking of every name
6 and surname.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We've gone beyond the time
8 for taking the break. We will take the break and come back at half past
9 twelve. Court adjourned.
10 --- Recess taken at 12.03 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Grujic, on Exhibit 300, you gave a list of
13 names of people who you said were in concentration camps. Do you remember
15 A. That's correct, yes.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why -- why are those places called concentration
18 A. Those places we call in the Croatian version prisons and camps,
19 not concentration camps. This is just the translation. In the Croatian
20 version, in my report this number is said to have been kept in prisons and
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. And by "camps," I believe you mean detention
23 camps of some sort, detention units?
24 A. That's correct. Those are places which are not real prisons but
25 are, rather, places in which detainees were held. They were usually in
1 farm buildings such as barns.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: On Exhibit 309, I don't know whether it can be
3 found quickly, there is a question on that list and the questionnaire
4 relates to Andrija Likic. Do you remember being asked about him yesterday
5 or the other day?
6 A. Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, Andrija Likic is listed on that list as a
8 male, and yet he's given a maiden name. Could that be a mistake?
9 A. It is probably his mother's maiden name. I would have to see
10 this, but I believe this is probably a reference to the maiden name of his
11 mother. When filling in the form, this is probably what was understood.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Maybe if that exhibit can be shown, because
13 the impression that the Chamber got in looking at those lists was that the
14 particulars therein contained were the particulars of the person about
15 whom the questionnaire was, not about the person's parents. So the
16 understanding by the Chamber was that a maiden name was given to -- a
17 maiden name of the person about whom the questionnaire was. If we could
18 get it on the monitor, please.
19 We have it on the monitor.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Pardon. We have that name on the monitor. Could
22 we go to the item that talks about maiden name. I'm not able to read in
23 B/C/S which item this will be, but as we can see, at number 9 he's circled
24 as a male.
25 Now, which one is maiden name here? I'm sorry.
1 A. Your Honour, under number 8, it's exactly as I said in my previous
2 reply. The question under number 8 is "Mother's maiden name." The
3 previous question, number 7, is "Mother's name," and it says "Katarina."
4 Number 8 is "Mother's maiden name." That's "Krivajic." 9 is
5 "Sex," "Male."
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: My apologies. Thank you very much. Now, this
7 morning during cross-examination you were asked quite a number of
8 questions relating to some people that you said had not been included in
9 the list of the 12.078 killed, and some of those questions related to
10 missing people, to dead people. What I do want to find out from you is,
11 do you have a comprehensive number that gives all missing people,
12 irrespective of how they went missing, whether they are dead, exhumed,
13 detained. Do you have a comprehensive number of all people that according
14 to your research were affected or don't you?
15 A. Your Honour, there is no unified statistics because these are
16 different categories. Missing persons need not necessarily be dead. We
17 do believe that most of the missing persons are dead, but we cannot say
18 that until it has been confirmed. Also, persons who were imprisoned and
19 who are released are still alive. So people were victimised by being
20 imprisoned but they have been released.
21 The persons listed as dead are those persons whom we have
22 established beyond any doubt to be dead. We can think that a large number
23 of persons currently listed as missing will eventually end up on the list
24 of dead persons, but that will happen only once they are identified.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: And that's fine. That satisfies my query. We
1 shall relate it to the question that was put to you.
2 Thank you very much. That's all I wanted to ask you, Mr. Grujic.
3 Any questions arising from the questions from the Bench?
4 Ms. Valabhji.
5 MS. VALABHJI: None from the Prosecution, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Mr. Milovancevic?
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] One question, Your Honours.
8 Further cross-examination by Mr. Milovancevic:
9 Q. Mr. Grujic, in connection with a question put to you with respect
10 to the municipalities mentioned in the indictment, when you were asked to
11 compare them with counties, in your view all the municipalities which
12 belonged to the SAO Krajina which are listed in the indictment and about
13 which you were asked by His Honour, they belong to the Lika-Sinj,
14 Karlovac-Sibenik, Knin-Zadar [Realtime transcript read in error "Knin"],
15 and Sisak-Moslavina counties. That was your reply.
16 A. I will repeat what I said. I said that I think that's how it is
17 but that I cannot be absolutely certain. I said that I think that those
18 towns either belonged to that municipality or border it. I said that more
19 than half of the territory that was occupied has not been included in
21 Q. Well, a simple adding up of the figures found in graph number 6 in
22 Exhibit 299, which contains an analysis of displaced persons as it says
23 here --
24 MS. VALABHJI: Objection, Your Honour. Going back to the
25 testimony earlier, my learned colleague summarised it as follows: He said
1 they belonged to the Sibenik, Knin, and Moslavina counties. That was your
3 My learned colleague has missed out Zadar county or nearby was
4 also mentioned, and again I would emphasise that the witness has responded
5 to the best of his ability and has mentioned that he was uncertain as to
6 some of -- exactly where the lines were. Thank you.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Mr. Milovancevic.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't understand
9 what the objection is about. As I said, I have listed the Lika-Sinj
10 county, the Karlovac county, the Sibenik-Knin county, the Zadar county,
11 and the Sisak-Moslavina county. Those are the ones mentioned by
12 Mr. Grujic in response to Judge Hoepfel's questions.
13 When you add up the figures on page 6 listed next to these
14 counties you arrived at about 105.000 expellees, as the witness calls
15 them. That's simple arithmetic, adding up the numbers mentioned by the
16 expert in his description of the counties. What I'm interested in is
17 whether the expert can explain to us how it comes about that the number of
18 expelled persons, that is 105.000 is possible when in the census from 1991
19 that the Prosecutor relies on says that there was 78.000 Croats in the
20 population of these areas.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: These 105.000 that you refer to, are they Croats?
22 Or did the witness say these are Croats?
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I expect the
24 witness to respond to what persons at the thinks were expelled.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: But then there is no basis for your question.
1 Until you know whether the witness has said these 105 are Croats, you
2 can't put the question that how does he come to 105 when the Croats were
3 78.000. You have made no basis for your question.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness spoke
5 about expulsions. I will rephrase my question.
6 Q. Can the witness tell us what ethnicity this figure of 105.000
7 refers to that's mentioned for these five counties?
8 A. In the addendum I provided the ethnicity of all expellees. This
9 is not, however, broken down by county. I have answered this question
10 more than once. I have nothing more to add to what I've already said.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I
12 have no further questions.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic.
14 Mr. Grujic, thank you very much for coming to testify. This
15 brings us to the end of your testimony. You are excused. You may stand
16 down. Once again, the Chamber thank you for your time.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, for your
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You want to catch up on time. You may carry on.
22 MS. VALABHJI: Simply that my colleague Mr. Black will be
23 examining the next witness, and may I --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: You want to be excused.
25 MS. VALABHJI: At the present time, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are excused.
2 MS. VALABHJI: Thank you very much.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black.
4 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, the next witness is Dr. Davor Strinovic.
5 If he could be brought in, please.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: May Dr. Davor Strinovic please be brought in.
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please make the declaration.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
10 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Doctor. You may be seated.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 WITNESS: DAVOR STRINOVIC
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black.
16 MR. BLACK: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
17 Examination by Mr. Black:
18 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Strinovic. Thank you for coming. I know you
19 speak English very well, but you've elected to testify in your own first
20 language, Croatian; is that correct?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. Are you receiving the translation properly? Are you hearing my
23 words being translated into your language now?
24 A. Yes, thank you. All is in order.
25 Q. Even though you may understand some of my questions in English,
1 I'd ask you to just please wait until they're translated into your
2 language before you answer. That will allow the interpretation to
3 complete and it will make everyone's life a little easier. Do you
4 understand that?
5 A. Yes, fully.
6 Q. Thank you. And if at any time you don't understand one of my
7 questions, please just say so and I'll try to state it more clearly. Do
8 you understand?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. First a couple of questions about your professional background.
11 Where are you currently employed, Doctor?
12 A. I'm employed at the institute of forensic medicine and criminology
13 at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Zagreb as an associate
15 Q. In December of 1991, did you become a member of the Croatian
16 Government Commission for Detainees and Missing Persons?
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. Could you briefly explain the mission of that commission, please?
19 A. Initially meaning from 1991 or early 1992, the basic aim of the
20 commission was to gather information about missing persons and to
21 communicate with all other parties interested in this issue in order to
22 resolve the problems as successfully as possible. Until 1995, the
23 commission had the task of gathering information, holding meetings, and
24 preparing for the work that was to follow after 1995. From 1995 onwards,
25 work in the field began. Exhumations of graves began, both mass graves
1 and individual graves, followed by identification and everything else
2 connected with this job.
3 Q. What role have you yourself played in the work of the commission
4 since 1991?
5 A. From 1991 to 1995, I was a member of the commission as a doctor
6 and a forensic specialist, and as a person who was able to put questions
7 having to do with issues of missing persons, possible identifications,
8 possible grave locations, grave sites and so on. After 1995, in the
9 government commission for detainees and missing persons, I became the
10 coordinator for the medical part of the work in the field. This means
11 preparing exhumations, exhumations, identification, processing mortal
12 remains, and everything else necessary in order to complete identification
13 and establishing the cause of death of all persons found in graves.
14 Q. Did you personally participate in exhumations and examinations, or
15 did you supervise them or both?
16 A. I can say I did both. I attended a certain number of exhumations,
17 and I let other colleagues do others so that I was in charge of
18 coordinating the work even when I wasn't physically present there.
19 Q. Are you still a member of the commission today?
20 A. Yes, I am.
21 Q. Doctor, you are a forensic pathologist; is that correct?
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. Could you briefly explain what it is that a forensic pathologist
24 does? Just very briefly.
25 A. A forensic pathologist -- I assume that your questioning is linked
1 to wartime and times following a war. Am I right in assuming that?
2 Q. Yes. Please focus on what a forensic pathologist would have done
3 since 1991 in Croatia.
4 A. Forensic specialists are experts who deal with all kinds of
5 violent death, whereas pathologists deal with diseases. Forensic doctors
6 in cases of disasters, such as air crashes, railway accidents where there
7 are large numbers of victims and identification is difficult, they process
8 the remains and identify the victims in such cases.
9 I wish to point out that forensic medical specialists are trained
10 to do this kind of work, so that from 1991 onwards they carried out
11 post-mortems on the vast majority of all those killed in the Republic of
12 Croatia who died a violent death. They also carried out exhumation and
13 identification of persons who were in graves for a certain period of time.
14 The task of a forensic medical specialist is to carry out a
15 post-mortem, to establish all the features on the body which might be of
16 importance to a court later on. For example, they can describe the
17 clothing, other objects found on the body, what was found on the body,
18 what kind of injuries or other conditions, previous illnesses, deformities
19 or injuries that might have occurred previously, all this in order to
20 later establish the cause of death and the identity of the person.
21 Q. Thank you, Doctor. You've mentioned both identification and
22 determination of cause of death. My questions will focus for the most
23 part on determining cause of death. First, how is a cause of death
24 established in a typical case if there is such a thing as a typical case?
25 A. Cause of death is one of the hardest problems that a forensic
1 faces on his job, bearing in mind that most of those people were in the
2 grave for a long time after death and the processing of the body is
3 usually done only after exhumation.
4 In view of the large number of fatalities, especially in 1995
5 onwards, after the exhumations began, accompanied by forensic work, the
6 focus of our work was on the identification of those bodies, and we always
7 tried, when possible, to establish the cause of death. As time went on,
8 the level of our equipment improved. More time was available to devote to
9 establishing the cause of death, certain experience had been acquired, and
10 therefore, the cases processed later, that means after 1995, have the
11 cause of death established with greater precision.
12 It is noteworthy that the sophistication of equipment available to
13 the identification team has a great importance, especially when it comes
14 to establishing the cause of death, because in those cases when the
15 beginning of the post-mortem was marked by taking X-rays that could show
16 the presence of metal objects such as projectiles or parts thereof, and
17 especially shrapnel, which are very difficult to find by post-mortem, were
18 very easy to detect in this way.
19 After this examination by radiologists, the forensic medical
20 doctor starts his work establishing damage on clothing that could be
21 significant and typical of certain injuries. For instance, regular
22 circular defects on several pieces of clothing at the same level indicate
23 a high probability of damage by projectile from a handgun, that is damage
24 by bullet. Irregularly shaped defects of varying sizes and shapes on the
25 clothing are indicative of a different mechanism of damage and are
1 frequently found in the use of shrapnel, blast injuries, et cetera.
2 After this, we move to the examination of skin, if the skin is
3 present, and we have to know that the skin can be preserved for five or
4 more years provided that during the processes this occur after death
5 mummification or saponification is present. Such defects on the skin also
6 indicate with a high degree of probability that these are caused by
7 bullets. Circular defects on the skin indicate injury by bullet.
8 Irregularly shaped, irregular sized defects on the skin may originate from
9 either blasts or other reasons as well, or they can be caused by the use
10 of some other ordnance.
11 After that comes the examination of bone structures and internal
12 organs if preserved. Organs are relatively rarely preserved, although in
13 some cases they exist, and in those cases we can follow the damage done to
14 the organ, and they can also provide indications of the mechanism of
15 injury, be it a gunshot wound or a blast injury, a stab wound, or similar.
16 Most frequently, though, in cases where death occurred several
17 years before exhumation, before the autopsy, the bone structure is
18 preserved. On some bones one can recognise very clearly the instrument
19 that caused damage such as, for instance, the skull. On the skull there
20 are certain regular defects that point with a great certainty to the fact
21 that it was damage by bullet, by projectile, and we see very similar
22 defects on the bones of the pelvis, the chest, the thorax, the shoulder
24 Other bones, depending on the intensity and/or localisation of
25 injuries, may have either regular damage or multiple damage, and in that
1 case it would be very difficult to determine the actual mechanism whereby
2 the damage occurred. In saying so, I mean primarily the long bones of the
3 limbs, the ribs --
4 Q. Dr. Strinovic, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I have the feeling
5 that you're being very considerate of the interpreters and you're kind of
6 waiting for the interpretation to catch up with you which I'm sure they
7 appreciate. But I just want to encourage you to speak at your normal
8 rhythm. The interpreters are very able and they will keep up with you.
9 So you don't have to slow down for the interpretation too much. If you go
10 too quickly, I'll tell you.
11 A. Thank you very much. And now when we have received the
12 descriptions of all these types of damage, after all that damage has been
13 examined by an anthropologist, which is the case very frequently, the body
14 will be in the stage of putrefication. The bodies will be all mixed up.
15 They will have to be sorted out, and fractures will have to be
16 reconstructed as well as damage so that on the basis of such
17 reconstruction we could make conclusions about the mechanism of injury, be
18 it from a projectile, shrapnel, trauma, et cetera.
19 When we have collected all this data that I have enumerated,
20 together with X-rays, at that stage we can make an estimate with a high
21 degree of certainty of the mechanism of injury. And every forensic doctor
22 who is performing this autopsy will independently determine the cause of
23 death, and he will indicate that the cause of death is certain or possible
24 or probable, or he will indicate that the cause of death is not possible
25 to determine or explain by analysis. So in every -- each one of these
1 categories we get the cause of death as certain or possible or probable or
2 impossible to determine.
3 That would be my briefest possible answer to the question how a
4 forensic doctor determines the cause of death.
5 Q. Thank you, Doctor, I'm grateful?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Doctor, I see you keep -- your earphones keep
7 almost falling off and they disturb you. Maybe if you bring them up to
8 over your head they might just be -- hold a little better.
9 THE WITNESS: It's short. It's short. Okay. Thank you.
10 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Dr. Strinovic, thank you for that explanation. Just a very brief
12 question. Is there a difference in technique when determining the cause
13 of death of a person whose -- who died fairly recently as opposed to
14 someone who has been exhumed after several years? Is there any difference
15 in the technique that's used?
16 A. [Interpretation] I have just tried to explain the difference that
17 exists, because I was speaking about a typical case where the cause of
18 death was determined several years after death occurred, or, rather, if we
19 are autopsying a bodies just several days after death, the autopsy is much
20 simpler and you can almost always determine the cause of death with great
21 certainty because there are certain vital pre-mortal reactions on the
22 tissues, haemorrhaging, et cetera, and the mechanism of injury, the axis
23 of stabbing or injury, other injury, is very clear. And the autopsy of a
24 fresh corpse is much different in way, and the cause of death can be
25 established with much greater certainty.
1 Q. Thank you. And you mentioned that there are cases where a cause
2 of death cannot be ascertained. Is it possible that a person can die a
3 violent death and yet several years later the cause of death cannot be
4 determined based on a forensic examination?
5 A. To our great chagrin, it is possible. That happens. There are
6 cases when we cannot establish the cause of death, that is damage to a
7 soft tissue, damage to the throat, the neck, or to the heart where the
8 person will bleed out but there will be no damage to the bones or there
9 will be no other injury that will remain visible on some other part of the
10 body because the bones are not damaged. Then the cause of death will
11 remain unclear to us, although it will be clear that the death was
12 violent. But we could not ascertain that because we don't have the
13 necessary elements.
14 Q. Thank you, Doctor. I'm going to move to a slightly different
15 topic now. Did you prepare an expert report for this Tribunal in
16 connection with the Milosevic case?
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. And did you subsequently come here to The Hague to testify in the
19 trial of Mr. Milosevic?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 MR. BLACK: Your Honours, the witness's expert report has already
22 been admitted in this case by your decision of 13 January 2006, and it is
23 Exhibit 10. I have hard copies with me in case the Chamber would be
24 interested, but otherwise I think there's -- I do not intend to make
25 specific reference to it.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: It might just be helpful if you can give us the
2 copies, please.
3 MR. BLACK: Absolutely, Your Honour. That's why I brought them.
4 Let me, with the assistance of the usher, please.
5 Your Honour, I have several English copies for the Bench and a
6 copy in B/C/S for the Defence as well.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
8 MR. BLACK: Your Honours, by the same decision of 13 January 2006,
9 Dr. Strinovic's Milosevic testimony was also admitted pursuant to Rule 92
10 bis. That testimony has now been uploaded into e-court. It bears two
11 different ERNs because it covered parts of two different days. The ERNs
12 are 05045592 to 5605, and 05045606 to 5693. And, Your Honour, at this
13 point I would ask that they receive a number, please. And it's --
14 actually, I leave it to the court officer in the court as to whether it
15 should be two numbers or one number.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Court will leave it to the court officer to
18 Can you give us an exhibit number or numbers to that report,
19 Mr. Court officer?
20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. That will be for exhibit -- or
21 for document number 05045592, Exhibit number 321; and for document
22 05045606, that will be Exhibit number 322.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 MR. BLACK: Thank you very much, Your Honour. I don't intend to
25 give a detailed summary of that testimony however I think it's appropriate
1 to very extremely briefly summarise it.
2 In his Milosevic testimony, Dr. Strinovic talked about his work
3 with the government Commission for Detainees and Missing Persons, as well
4 as his qualifications. In addition, a number of documents were tendered
5 into evidence in that case. Those documents prepared by Dr. Strinovic
6 summarised information about the victims at several locations relevant to
7 the Milosevic indictment, including information regarding cause of death.
8 A number of those locations are also relevant to this case, Your Honour,
9 including Skabrnja, Nadin, Bacin, and some other locations.
10 That's all I have to say directly about the Milosevic events.
11 Q. Dr. Strinovic, before you came here this week to testify in this
12 case, were you asked to prepare some updated materials related to your --
13 to your expert report?
14 A. Yes, correct.
15 Q. What specifically were you asked to prepare?
16 A. As far as I remember, I was asked to follow the list that I
17 received, the list of persons broken down by individual graves, to
18 determine the -- to list the causes of death for those people.
19 Q. And did you provide that to the material -- that material to the
20 Prosecution last week? Do you recall that?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. With the assistance of the usher, this can be done on e-court and
23 perhaps in hard copy as well, I'd like to show the witness ERN 04693958 to
24 3967. And I have some copies in English as well as in B/C/S for the
25 witness and for Defence counsel.
1 Dr. Strinovic, please just take a moment to look through that
2 document, the different pages, and tell me whether these are the updated
3 materials that you provided last week. Doctor, do you have a copy of
4 these in your own language? I see you're looking at the English there,
5 but do you have a copy in your own language in front of you?
6 A. Yes, I do. I do.
7 Q. Okay. And are these the materials that you provided last week?
8 A. Yes, they are.
9 Q. Did you prepare these lists yourself?
10 A. With the assistance of a colleague of mine from the institute.
11 Q. Where did you obtain the information that's shown on these lists?
12 A. This information is contain in the database of the Institute for
13 Forensic Medicine, and they were uploaded from the protocols that we keep
14 at the institute.
15 Q. You mentioned that they were uploaded from the protocols that we
16 keep. Could you be -- could you give a little more information about
17 where the information that's in the database, where that information comes
19 A. The information that is included in the database comes from
20 protocols of the Institute for Forensic Medicine or in some cases that we
21 get from the government office for cases that were not processed by our
22 institute. We receive such data from the government when we are dealing
23 with a specific grave site.
24 Q. Doctor, what I would ask of you now is just take us briefly
25 through each of the locations in your list and just briefly summarise the
1 information that is there for each location, please.
2 A. All right. Can I start? According to my own sequence or do you
3 have something to suggest?
4 Q. No, please. Any sequence is fine. The way they appear in these
5 documents will be ...
6 A. I have it organised -- well, can we start with Bacin?
7 Q. Actually, so that it's easiest to follow, I think the English copy
8 I have begins with Vukovici. Do you mind beginning with Vukovici?
9 A. No problem. I can say the following about Vukovici: The
10 disappearance of persons in that place was registered on the 7th of
11 November, 1991, and the bodies were exhumed on the 13th of August, 1996.
12 Ten bodies were found. Sorry. That was the list of missing persons.
13 There were ten persons on the list of missing persons.
14 In the field, two were autopsied, Vukovic Ivan and Vukovic Nikola,
15 and both causes of death were gunshot wounds. After that, the mortal
16 remains were processed at the Institute for Forensic Medicine, and they
17 were found to belong to at least three persons, because the remains were
18 all mixed up. They were found in the site of a former large fire, and the
19 identity was not established in the cases of these three persons. The
20 cause of death was impossible to ascertain because the fragments of bones
21 were badly burned, and they were too small as they were found. That is
22 one of the cases when it is impossible to perform a positive
23 identification, because the regular methods cannot be applied, and the
24 fragments of bones are so small and so badly burned that it is difficult
25 to establish --
1 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Can we now turn to Lipovaca, which is the next
3 A. The place is called Lipovaca Dreznica. The persons went missing
4 on the 28th of November, 1991. The bodies were exhumed on the 12th of
5 June, 1996. The processing and identification were carried out in the
6 field. Seven persons were found. All of them were identified. And in
7 the case of all seven persons, it was established that they had gunshot
8 wounds. The late Mirko Brozincevic was found to have no visible traces
9 that might indicate the cause of death, but according to information
10 provided by eyewitnesses who stated that he had been shot through the
11 neck, the pathologist in charge of the autopsy wrote down that the cause
12 of death was a gunshot wound.
13 These are seven persons. The cause of death has been established
14 in six of them being a gunshot wound, whereas in the case of the seventh
15 person the cause of death is based on eyewitness accounts rather than the
16 autopsy itself.
17 Q. Thank you, Doctor. In the list under cause of death for Mirko
18 Brozincevic. It says gunshot wounds. When did you determine that was
19 based on information from witnesses rather than from the forensic
20 identification -- forensic examination, excuse me?
21 A. On reading the pathologist's report, the pathologist who was
22 there. Protocols were not compiled in that time to be sent to the
23 institute but rather a record was taken in the presence of an
24 investigating Judge who dictated into the court record. And it transpired
25 from the court record that the doctor who carried out the autopsy received
1 information which led him to conclude that this was the cause of death. I
2 read this information and I am now conveying it to you.
3 Q. And just so it's clear, was that on Monday after you'd arrived in
4 The Hague that you had a chance to review this particular protocol?
5 A. Yes, that's right.
6 Q. And did you have a chance to review protocols related to the
7 other causes of death indicated in your lists?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did you find any other cases, while we're on the topic, that you
10 thought maybe there should be that kind of qualification of the cause of
11 death that's given in the lists?
12 A. Not in the case of Lipovacka Dreznica, to the best of my
14 Q. If as we go through these various locations you see any other
15 instance like that, please mention it. We'd like to have that
16 information. If you have no further comments on Lipovacka, please turn to
17 Saborsko, the next location.
18 A. In Saborsko, the fact that the persons went missing was recorded
19 on the 12th of November, 1991. The bodies were exhumed on the 30th of
20 October, 1995. 28 persons are listed, 24 were autopsied. Of the
21 remaining four, Mate Matovina is listed as dead, which is why he's not on
22 the list, and Leopold Conjar, number 5; Ivanti Cantin [as interpreted],
23 number 6; and Ivan Matovina, number 11, were autopsied in the field and no
24 record was made which is why we did not include the cause of death on this
1 Of the 24 persons autopsied, ten had gunshot wounds, probable
2 trauma, one, and the cause of death unascertained in the case of 13.
3 Three unknown persons were also autopsied from the Saborsko location.
4 They were not identified. One had gunshot wounds as the cause of death
5 and the others the cause of death was unknown.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I interrupt?
7 MR. BLACK: Please.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Doctor, you said that Mate Matovina was listed as
9 dead, which is why he's not on the list. I see he's number 18 on the
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, he is on the list.
12 On the list of persons missing in Saborsko. Mate Matovina, the person we
13 are talking about now, is on the list, but he was not found or autopsied,
14 which is why the cause of death is not listed.
15 As for the three other persons I mentioned, they were autopsied.
16 But this was done in the field, which is why we don't have the
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see that number 17 is also Mate Matovina. Are
19 there two Mate Matovinas? Were there two Mate Matovinas who are distinct
21 A. Yes, that's correct. Two different persons of two different ages
22 but with the same first and last name.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 You may proceed, Mr. Black.
25 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Dr. Strinovic, unless you have further comments on the Saborsko
2 location, perhaps we could turn now to Bacin.
3 A. In Bacin, the persons were reported as missing in October 1991.
4 They were exhumed from the 13th through the 25th of March, 1997. These
5 are 44 persons who are on the list, and there were a further five from
6 other locations so that there were 49 persons found in Bacin. The causes
7 of death are as followings: 36 gunshot wounds, 4 probably gunshot wounds,
8 two cases explosive wounds, two cases probable explosive wounds, one case
9 of trauma, and unascertained in four cases.
10 I wish to mention that there were a further 14 unidentified
11 persons in Bacin. Of these, seven died of gunshot wounds and the others
12 the cause of death was not ascertained.
13 Q. This list has 108 people total, of which you've said now how many
14 were exhumed. What about the bodies of the other people? Have those been
16 A. We don't know that for now. They have not been identified.
17 Whether they have been found and are listed as unidentified or whether
18 they have not been found at all is something we won't know until all the
19 bodies are identified. As I stated, we have 14 bodies not yet identified.
20 They are probably persons on this list, but we don't know who they are.
21 We autopsied them and they are probably from the Bacin list, but we
22 haven't identified them.
23 Q. Doctor, let's turn now to the Nadin location, please.
24 A. In Nadin, the fact that the persons went missing was recorded on
25 the 19th of November, 1991. Five days later, the bodies were handed over
1 to the Croatian side and autopsied. These were seven persons. In the
2 case of all seven, they died of gunshot wounds. In addition to this list
3 of seven persons, two other persons were autopsied, Marko Zupan, Marija
4 Drazina, in both cases they also died of gunshot wounds.
5 Q. Thank you. Perhaps we can turn to the next location, Bruska.
6 A. In Bruska, the fact that the persons went missing was recorded on
7 the 21st of December, 1991. They were exhumed on the 26th of April, 1996.
8 There are ten persons on the list, nine of whom died of gunshot wounds,
9 and one person, Svetozar Draca, was listed as killed and not autopsied.
10 Another person was exhumed in the Bruska location. That's the Josip
11 Marinovic who went missing on the 10th of June, 1992, and the cause of
12 death was trauma, contusion -- concussion, that is, and lung fracture.
13 Q. Thank you. Perhaps we can turn to Skabrnja. There are two
14 events. Let's start with the first event in Skabrnja, please.
15 A. The first event in Skabrnja, the fact that the persons went
16 missing was recorded on the 18th and 19th of November, 1991, and the
17 bodies were taken over on the 23rd of November, 1991, when they were
18 autopsied. These were fresh corpses, in other words. There were 28 --
19 or, rather, 38 persons. 23 of them had gunshot wounds, 11 explosive
20 wounds, one person had trauma, and for three persons there is no
21 information about the cause of death.
22 Q. Thank you. And the second event in Skabrnja?
23 A. The second event was that persons went missing on the 18th of
24 November, 1991, until February 1992, in this time period, and they were
25 exhumed on the 5th and 6th of June, 1996. There are 26 names on the list.
1 In 15 cases the cause of death were gunshot wounds; in five persons,
2 explosive wounds; trauma in four cases; and in two cases there is no
3 information about the cause of death.
4 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Your Honours, I would ask that this document
5 receive an exhibit number and be admitted into evidence, please.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is received into evidence. May it
7 please be given an exhibit number.
8 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 323, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. I realise we still have about
11 two minutes. The next short topic involves playing a video, which is
12 about two or three minutes long itself, so I'm afraid it would take us
13 past the hour, Your Honour. It might be a convenient just to stop now and
14 resume in the morning, unless you prefer, I can just push on.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you can play it --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you're going to play it, our going to ask
18 questions on it. Isn't it better just to play it tomorrow and then follow
19 on with your questions?
20 THE PROSECUTOR: I think that's the best, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Unless you want to sit right through.
22 MR. BLACK: Now until tomorrow?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, whenever.
24 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I think it's convenient time now. Thank
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll then adjourn until tomorrow morning. We're
2 coming back to this courtroom at 9.00 in the morning -- I beg your pardon.
3 We're going to Courtroom I in terms of the arrangements we made this
4 morning. Yes. Courtroom I tomorrow morning at 9.00. Court adjourned.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day
7 of April, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.