1 Thursday, 4 May 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
6 MR. WHITING: Good afternoon, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon, Mr. Whiting.
8 MR. WHITING: Given the weather out, I wish I could say we had
9 another gap in our witnesses but as you can see before you, we have our
10 next witness. It's Ari Kerkkanen.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Whiting. I guess I'll
12 deal with the housekeeping at the end of the witness's testimony.
13 May the witness please make the declaration.
14 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
15 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 WITNESS: ARI KERKKANEN
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Kerkkanen. You may take a
19 Yes, Mr. Whiting.
20 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Examination by Mr. Whiting:
22 Q. Good afternoon, sir. Could you just state your name, please, for
23 the record.
24 A. My name is Ari Kerkkanen.
25 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, obviously we both speak English. For the benefit
1 of the interpreters it's important that, number 1, we don't speak too
2 quickly, number 2, that we insert a pause between question and answer. So
3 when I finish my question just pause for a moment before you answer and
4 I'll try to remember to do the same when you finish your answer.
5 MR. WHITING: With the assistance of the usher, I'd like to pass
6 out a statement of the witness. We have copies of the statement in
7 English for the Trial Chamber. We also have B/C/S versions for Defence
8 counsel and the accused. While it's being passed out, I can say that it
9 had, pursuant to the Trial Chamber's order of last week, the 28th of April
10 2006, the statement has been redacted as ordered by the Trial Chamber, and
11 the annex, the heading that was missing from the annex has been inserted
12 so I believe we've complied with the order of the Trial Chamber.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know whether members of the Trial Chamber
14 were present when that was done are able to confirm what you say.
15 MR. WHITING: This was a written order that came out on the 28th
16 of April 2006. We tried to carefully do the redactions that were ordered
17 by the Trial Chamber but if it's found that we made a -- any error, then,
18 of course, that will be corrected. But I'm pretty sure we got it right.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Whiting.
20 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, could you look at that document that's in front of
22 you and first of all can you tell us whether this is your statement and
23 the -- annex 1 being your report and annex 2 being a spreadsheet
24 containing documents?
25 A. Yes. This is my witness statement, with basically two annexes.
1 Annex 1 is the review of documentary evidence on Serbian Autonomous Region
2 of Krajina and Republic of Serbian Krajina Ministry of Internal Affairs
3 and annex 2 is basically exhibit chart on documentary evidence on which
4 annex 1 was based on.
5 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour, I noticed that Your Honour's
6 microphone is on by --
7 Q. I just want to ask you a few questions about this -- about this
8 document before I offer it into evidence. In paragraph 2 of your
9 statement, which is just the second page after the cover sheet, it states
10 that you joined the ICTY on the 22nd of November 2002 as a criminal
11 intelligence analyst. Are you still employed in that position?
12 A. No, not any more. I left the ICTY on the 5th of July 2005.
13 Q. And after you left the ICTY where did you go in terms of work?
14 A. I was working -- after I left the ICTY, I was working as a
15 political adviser to the multi-national task force north, EUFOR, in
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina until the end of November 2005, and since the beginning
17 of this year, 2006, I have been working as a researcher at the University
18 of Helsinki.
19 Q. Now, the task force that you worked for the multi-national task
20 force known as EUFOR, that's spelled E-U-F-O-R, when you were working with
21 them, where were you based?
22 A. I was based at camp eagle base, that is EUFOR base very close to
23 the town of Tuzla in the northern part of Bosnia.
24 Q. Now, Mr. Kerkkanen, before coming today to testify, did you have
25 an opportunity again to review your statement, your attached report, and
1 all of the documents cited in your report?
2 A. Yes, I had an opportunity to review them.
3 Q. And in the process of doing that review, did you have a few
4 corrections or amendments to make to your statement and to your report?
5 A. Yes. I had.
6 Q. I'd like to go through those now, if we may. First, on page 3 of
7 your statement, in paragraphs 10 through 14, you describe five different
8 document missions that you undertook with others from the Tribunal. Was
9 there an additional document mission after this report -- after this
10 statement and the report were completed?
11 A. Yes. There was one more additional mission that took place in the
12 beginning of June 2005, to Petrinja, an archive collection of the Croatian
13 state archives, basically the collection is located in Petrinja in
15 Q. Now, could we look, please, at footnote 231 of your report, which
16 is annex 1 to your statement? It's on page 59 of the English. And at
17 that footnote it says "underlying evidence will be provided when
18 confidentiality is lifted." Can you explain what that means and why that
19 phrase was included in the footnote?
20 A. Yes. While I was writing this report, and statement, this
21 particular document was still placed under Rule 70 restriction, and
22 therefore I couldn't put more details about this document into the
23 footnote, but I understand that the confidentiality of this document was
24 later lifted.
25 MR. WHITING: Could we look, please, at 65 ter Exhibit 1491?
1 Could we have that on the screen?
2 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, are you able to see that -- are you able to see
3 that document and is it big enough for you to read?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. Is this the document that you were referring to in footnote 231?
6 A. Is it possible to see a little bit more of it?
7 Q. Yes, if we could scroll down, please.
8 A. Yes. I can confirm that this is the document.
9 Q. Do you know what the source of the document is, how it was
10 obtained by the ICTY?
11 A. I know that this document has been obtained by one of the OTP's
13 Q. And from -- and do you know how the investigator obtained it?
14 A. From one of his witnesses.
15 Q. Now, I'm done with that document, thank you.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you are done with the document, I assume
17 that your opposite number has a B/C/S copy of this as we are looking at
18 the English copy.
19 MR. WHITING: Well, Your Honour, the way this should work is
20 the -- because the witness speaks English, the Defence can look at the
21 same document on B/C/S on their monitors. The B/C/S version of the
22 document should come up on their monitors and they can, of course, confirm
23 for us if that's what has happened. But that's how it should happen.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you confirm, Mr. Milovancevic?
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have the
1 English version. We recognise the document but it's in English.
2 Mr. Martic, however, cannot understand it.
3 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, there may need the assistance of
4 technical personnel but they should be able to open up their -- not the
5 courtroom screen but their individual monitor, you can open up the e-court
6 and pick the language of the document and if they pick B/C/S then the
7 document should come up in B/C/S.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could the Court Officer please check with
9 Mr. Martic's screen to see whether he's got the B/C/S on the screen?
10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wish to inform
12 you that we do have the document in B/C/S, but we have to find it in
13 e-court to avoid any misunderstandings. We have no problem with this
14 document. It can be found in e-court in B/C/S. Thank you.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that, Mr. Milovancevic, and thank you
16 very much for your consideration but I would like to be sure that
17 Mr. Martic is up to speed and is not left behind.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Martic does not have the
19 document before him in B/C/S. That is a technical problem we have at
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I'm advised that a technician is coming to
22 help Mr. Martic with that problem. Let's hope that it will be resolved
23 fairly soon. Thank you very much.
24 You may proceed, Mr. Whiting.
25 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. There will be -- I won't be
1 looking at any more documents for a little bit so perhaps that will give
2 time for that problem to be addressed.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
4 MR. WHITING:
5 Q. If we could turn back to the report which is annex 1 of your
6 statement and turn to page 60, please, it's page 60 in the English. For
7 the B/C/S it's just at the end of the section 3.1. I can't say precisely
8 which page it's on but it's at the end of section 3.1. There is a
9 sentence there at the top of the page which states, "A report from RSK MUP
10 special unit administration to MUP Serbia in July 1995 states that
11 six Serbian MUP members were killed in action in the RSK." Is there a
12 mistake in that sentence?
13 A. Yes, indeed. When I was reviewing again these documents, I
14 realised that there is a mistake, and this last sentence or the end of the
15 sentence should read that six Serbian MUP members were wounded in action
16 in the RSK.
17 Q. Now, let's look, please, at annex 2, which is entitled, "Exhibit
18 chart on documentary evidence on Serbian autonomous region of Krajina, SAO
19 Krajina, and Republic of Serbian Krajina, RSK, Ministry of Internal
20 Affairs MUP." Now my first question about this annex is, just to be
21 clear, are the documents that are listed on the spreadsheet that is here
22 in annex 2 all documents that are cited in your report?
23 A. Yes. This is exactly the case. All documents I was referring to
24 are in annex 2.
25 Q. Now, on this spreadsheet, in the column on the far right-hand side
1 there is a field for the source or what you've called the origin of the
2 exhibit. Could you tell us, please, how did you determine the origins of
3 these various exhibits?
4 A. There is a one way of determining it, and that's so-called MIIF
5 evidence record or tracking system that is in place in the Tribunal. MIIF
6 abbreviation stands for mini information index form, and it means that
7 each and every evidence irrespective of the type of evidence that is
8 brought into the Tribunal will be MIIFed, meaning given a specific
9 evidence number and in this MIIF record also the source or origin of the
10 evidence is written, as well as who brought it into the Tribunal wherefrom
11 it was obtained so I was using this MIIF database or record database in
12 order to determine origin of these documents, but in addition of this, of
13 course, many documents cited in my report were from those document
14 missions I was carrying out, and therefore for those documents I knew that
15 they are from those specific archives or document collections.
16 Q. Now, just for our benefit, could you describe, please, the various
17 ways just generally that documents that the documents that are cited in
18 this annex were obtained by the OTP in this case?
19 A. There are at least four different ways of -- for OTP to obtain
20 documents. Of course, the first one is as it was used in this case and in
21 writing this report with those so-called document missions when a team of
22 analysts, investigators, from the OTP went physically to visit archives
23 and document holdings and retrieved some documents from there. This is
24 one way. The second is -- was -- is -- or was to send a request for
25 assistance for various institutions or governments and asking for some
1 specific documents or document collections. The third is that OTP
2 investigators sometimes get documents from their witnesses and the fourth
3 basically are open-source documents like newspaper articles or similar.
4 So basically these four ways of obtaining documents were used also in
5 writing this report.
6 Q. Now, I'd like to ask you about some of the sources that you cite
7 here, which may be not completely familiar to us. If you could look,
8 please, for the source for footnote 7, 65 ter Exhibit 2033, the source
9 there is Glasnik Krajine. Could you tell us what that is, please?
10 A. There is open source, meaning a newspaper.
11 Q. Now, if you look at -- thank you. For footnote 8, 65 ter Exhibit
12 47, you have listed there as a source, Amir Ahmic, office of the Bosniak
13 liaison officer to the ICTY.
14 Could you explain that source, please?
15 A. Basically it means that this document has been obtained from the
16 Bosnian government. This person is a liaison officer by the Bosnian
17 government to the ICTY and most likely the document has been obtained
18 through RFA, request for assistance.
19 Q. Do you know by the way -- those requests for assistance, are they
20 made pursuant to the Statute and Rules of the Tribunal?
21 A. Yes, they are.
22 Q. Now, I'd like to ask you about the source for footnote 9, 65 ter
23 Exhibit 55. You have there listed Orsat Miljanic Croatian Office for
24 Cooperation. In other places, you have a reference just to the Croatia
25 Office for Cooperation. For example, on the next page of this spreadsheet
1 that can be seen. Could you explain that, please?
2 A. Yes. It's basically exactly the same situation than with the
3 previous one except for the fact that these documents have been obtained
4 from the Croatian government through their office of cooperation with the
6 Q. Now, in item -- for footnote 10, rather, 65 ter Exhibit 1960, the
7 source is Croatian state archive, Zagreb, Croatia. Could you explain
8 that, please?
9 A. There was a quite a significant amount of SAO Krajina and RS
10 Krajina documentation that was held by the Croatian Ministry of Defence
11 and the Croatian counterintelligence agency. This material was
12 transferred in 2004, perhaps a part of it even a little bit before, to the
13 possession of the Croatian state archives in Zagreb.
14 Q. And were some of your document missions that you describe in your
15 statement to do searches of the Croatian state archives in Zagreb?
16 A. Yes. We had at least two extensive missions of two weeks of each
17 to the Croatian state archives in Zagreb.
18 Q. Now, in footnote -- for footnote 11, 65 ter Exhibit 2035 the
19 reference is to Narodne Novine. First of all before I ask you what that
20 is, I forgot to ask you, do you speak B/C/S?
21 A. I have an intermediate knowledge of B/C/S due to my studies of
22 this language at the University of Helsinki.
23 Q. Now back to this source Narodne Novine can you tell us what that
24 is, please?
25 A. This is an Official Gazette of SFRY.
1 Q. What do you mean by that, an Official Gazette of the SFRY?
2 A. An official paper or newspaper where all laws that were
3 promulgated were published.
4 Q. Now, in footnote 18, 65 ter 1943 the source is Sluzbeni Glasnik RS
5 Krajina. Could you tell us what that is, please?
6 A. This is Official Gazette of the RSK.
7 Q. In item 45, rather footnote 45, and specifically 65 ter 1999, you
8 have as the source RH MUP. What is that a reference to, please?
9 A. This reference is to the Republic of Croatia Ministry of the
10 Interior, Republika Hrvatska.
11 Q. If we look at footnote 66, 65 ter Exhibit 1902, the source is the
12 Banja Luka CSB. Could you explain what that is, please?
13 A. This means Banja Luka security service centre.
14 Q. At footnote 106, 65 ter 1256, the source is Goran Granic,
15 president of the council for cooperation with the ICTY. Can you explain
16 what that source is, please?
17 A. This source is -- means also that the document has been obtained
18 from the Croatian government.
19 Q. Looking now at footnote 127, 65 ter Exhibit 715 -- I mean, sorry,
20 716, the source there is -- it says DKPO. Should it read DPKO?
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are testifying. You should ask him what it
22 should read.
23 MR. WHITING: Okay. Your Honour, I'm sorry, I led him on this
24 because I thought it was not in dispute.
25 Q. But why don't you tell us, Mr. Kerkkanen, what's there and what
1 you think should be there and what it means.
2 A. When I was reviewing this annex 2 I realised there was a mistake
3 in this abbreviation. It means peacekeeping department of the UN, so it's
4 a UN source.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: But is the acronym correct as it stands?
6 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it's not correct.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could you correct it, please?
8 THE WITNESS: It should read PKDO.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: PKDO. Which means? Peacekeeping department of?
10 What did you say, the full name, peacekeeping?
11 THE WITNESS: Now, I do not recall. It's -- I know this
12 department. It's UN peacekeeping department for -- I'm not --
13 Your Honour, I'm not sure about the exact name of this department but I
14 know that it stands for UN peacekeeping department.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. That will suffice.
16 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Now, if we could look at footnote 143, 65 ter 1352, there are a
18 number of documents for footnote 143 but it's the last one, 65 ter 1352,
19 source that's listed there is 1 KKVRS. Could you tell us what that means,
21 A. It means the 1st Krajina Corps of Republic of Serbia in Bosnia and
22 Herzegovina, and its army Vojska [Realtime transcript read in error "was"]
23 Republika Srpska, the army of the Republic of Serbia in Bosnia and
24 Herzegovina. Not to confuse with the Republic of Serbia.
25 Q. Okay just so we are clear, what does VRS stand for again?
1 A. It stands for the Bosnian Serb army in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2 Q. But what are the initials stand for? You said it but it didn't
3 get recorded. You said it in B/C/S?
4 A. The initials stand for Vojska Republika Srpska.
5 Q. Okay. Now, elsewhere, there is a reference to the 1 KK Banja
6 Luka. For example, footnote 195, 65 ter Exhibit 707. What is that?
7 A. It's the same corps, the 1st Krajina Corps in Bosnia.
8 Q. Now, looking at footnote 215, 65 ter Exhibit 1901, the source
9 that's listed is RS MUP CJB Sprsko Sarajevo, Pale. Can you explain what
10 that is, please?
11 A. This is public security centre of Serbian Sarajevo, located in
12 Pale, and of Republika Srpska MUP, meaning Ministry of the Interior of the
13 Republic of Serbia.
14 Q. Looking at footnote 236, 65 ter Exhibit 2031, the source is Zlatan
15 Ramic, AID Sarajevo, and in other -- other documents, for example,
16 footnote 256, footnote 257, there is an a source reference to AID
17 Sarajevo. Can you explain what this is a reference to, please?
18 A. This reference is to basically to the Bosnian government and to
19 their intelligence agency. So these documents have been obtained from
21 Q. A number of sources that the source is listed as OTP investigator,
22 for example, footnote 258, 259, 260 and others, which is on the
23 next-to-last page of the document, can you explain what that is a
24 reference to, please?
25 A. Yes. Basically it's one of those ways our OTP has obtained
1 documents, meaning that the OTP investigator has received documents from
2 his or her witnesses.
3 Q. Now, I'd like you to turn, please, to the page that has footnotes
4 136, 137, 138 and 140. And if you'll see on that page, for those
5 footnotes that I just read out, there is no source listed. It simply
6 says, delayed disclosure, though the documents are identified by 65 ter
7 number, 2039, 2099, 2100.
8 MR. WHITING: Your Honours just to be clear those documents have
9 now, of course, been disclosed to the Defence.
10 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, with respect to those three documents, 2039, 2099
11 and 2100, do you know what the source of those documents is?
12 A. Yes. I know the source of these documents is Petrinja archive
13 collection of the Croatian state archives but at the time when I was
14 writing this report, we didn't have a confirmed information about their
15 exact origin, and for this end, we put a request for assistance to the
16 Croatian government, requesting to have these three particular documents
17 and the place of their origin. We received as a response to our RFA,
18 these documents that were coming from the Petrinja archive collection and
19 then later, on my mission to this particular collection in June of 2005, I
20 double checked that these documents were in that archive.
21 Q. Now, looking at the footnote 223, 65 ter Exhibit 260, the source
22 that you have there is Diana Dicklich in trial support, and the document
23 is described as an ECMM document. First of all, can you explain what is
24 ECMM and second, explain why the source is listed that way?
25 A. ECMM stands for European Community Monitoring Mission. That is a
1 civilian monitoring mission reporting to the council of European Union,
2 and it was deployed in the area of the former Yugoslavia already I think
3 in the end of 1991 or from the beginning of 1992, and this mission has
4 been -- is known nowadays, from the beginning of year 2002, as European
5 Union Monitoring Mission, EUMM. Obviously, this document from ECMM, which
6 headquarters by the way is in Sarajevo, has been obtained through an RFA
7 to them.
8 Q. So what should be the source listed for that document, just to be
10 A. It should read ECMM.
11 Q. Now, Mr. Kerkkanen, aside from these changes and corrections that
12 we have made today to your statement, annex 1 and annex 2 of the
13 statement, is everything in these documents true and accurate, to the best
14 of your knowledge?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, pursuant to the Court's ruling of last
17 week, 28 April 2006, I'd move into evidence now this statement and the two
18 annexes, please.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The statement is admitted into evidence. May it
20 please be given an exhibit number. And the statement is admitted together
21 with its two annexes.
22 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 459, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: And does the exhibit number combine the statement
24 and the annexes?
25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, it does, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
2 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, in addition to the documents that are contained in
4 the spreadsheet that is annex 2, did you review other documents during
5 your document missions and while writing this report?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. Can you give us some idea of the volume of documents that you
8 reviewed, tens, hundreds, thousands?
9 A. Perhaps it gives a kind of idea about the volume of this material,
10 as I say, that on those six document missions we carried out, we selected
11 about 20.000 pages of documents, that is approximately as I counted, about
12 3.000 different documents, but this is a very small amount of the whole of
13 -- of whole documentation we were reviewing on those missions. So what
14 we are talking here, if we are talking about the whole documentation of
15 the SAO Krajina or RSK documentation in Croatia it's hundreds of thousands
16 of pages.
17 Q. Now, did you yourself review hundreds of thousands of pages or was
18 that done by more people than yourself?
19 A. Our team of reviewers consisted always at least from at least two
20 reviewers but usually more than two, from two to five analysts and
21 investigators so my estimation by myself I reviewed between 50 to 100.000
22 pages of documents.
23 Q. Now, based on your review of all of those documents, is there
24 anything -- did you see anything in the documents that are contained in
25 annex 2 of your report that would cause you to doubt the authenticity of
1 those documents?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Now I'd like to show you another spreadsheet and make it available
4 to the Trial Chamber and to the parties, with the assistance of the usher.
5 MR. WHITING: Your Honour this is a spreadsheet I'm really going
6 to be using for logistical reason, to move documents into evidence. It
7 will make it, for reasons that should become clear very quickly it will
8 make it easier to use this spreadsheet. This spreadsheet obviously,
9 closely, is identical to the annex 2 with some differences and I'll just
10 explain what the differences are, if I may. And this is not relevant to
11 the testimony. This is just -- this is just to -- this is just mechanics
12 to get the documents into evidence.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Proceed, Mr. Whiting.
14 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. First of all, where
15 documents have already been admitted into evidence in the case, that's
16 indicated on this spreadsheet. Secondly, there were some -- on the
17 original annex two spreadsheet there are a number of indications where
18 it's a translation in progress, and there was no ERN number for the
19 translation. Obviously those translations have been completed and in this
20 spreadsheet the ERN of the translation has been included.
21 Third, there is a -- one document, it's for entry 150, it's 65 ter
22 Exhibit 2000 that we'll seek admission under seal and that's indicated on
23 the spreadsheet for the benefit of the court officer.
24 Finally there are three entries that are deleted from the annex 2
25 spreadsheet. Those entries are 3, 5, and 88. The reason for that is 3
1 and 5 both, as you can see from the annex 2 spreadsheet, both refer to an
2 expert report in another case. We didn't think that it was appropriate to
3 seek admission into evidence of an expert report through this process.
4 And so we deleted it. Footnote -- footnote 88 was deleted, I believe, as
5 a result of the court's order of last week.
6 Finally, there are a small group of documents which have a
7 different 65 ter number. It's the same document with a different 65 ter
8 number and I'll explain why that happened. It's -- but first let me tell
9 you what the documents are. It's 1996, 2006, 1989, 1974, 1981, 1986, 1905
10 and 1910. Those numbers appear on annex 2, the annex 2 spreadsheet which
11 is now in evidence. On this spreadsheet they have a different number,
12 same document, different number and here is why: It's because some
13 documents appear twice on our 65 ter list and when they uploaded the
14 documents into the e-court system they would detect that and they would
15 pick one of them and upload only one of them. So these numbers did not
16 get uploaded but the same document with a different number got uploaded
17 and so we have indicated what the new number is and that is on the new
19 Now, there are -- there is one question that I would like to put
20 to the witness and that he can explain with respect to this new
22 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, if you look at item 25 on the spreadsheet, there is
23 a reference to 65 ter Exhibit 1451. Interview with Milan Martic, BBC,
24 Death of Yugoslavia. Below there is something new that appears on this
25 spreadsheet, which is tape 1 of Martic interview for Death of Yugoslavia,
1 BBC and translation. Can you explain why that's been included?
2 A. Yes. When I was writing this annex 1, there was at that time only
3 a transcript of this interview at our disposal. So later, the fuller
4 video of this interview was obtained by the OTP and that's the second tape
5 1 of the same interview. Basically the content is exactly the same except
6 for the fact that in the latest version also questions are included that
7 were excluded from the first version of the interview.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: On how many tapes was this interview recorded?
9 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I don't know because I was using only
10 the transcript.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is there a possibility that there could be a tape 2
12 or subsequent tapes?
13 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, yes, theoretically, yes.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Practically? Judging by the content of tape 1,
15 does it -- did it give you the impression that it is a complete interview
16 or that it continues beyond tape 1?
17 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it's a complete interview of this part
18 of the tape, of the video, of the interview, so the interview is complete.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Were there many parts of the interview?
20 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the whole programme of this BBC
21 programme is a very long one so I don't remember whether Mr. Martic was
22 interviewed on this tape or this programme or on several different
23 occasions. I was referring only to this particular interview.
24 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I can actually provide more information
25 on this topic if the Court desires that.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: From the bar?
2 MR. WHITING: Yes. It's a -- I don't believe it's -- I don't
3 think there is any problem with me explaining it. It would be apparent if
4 it were provided to the Court. What happened is, as Mr. Kerkkanen said
5 when he wrote the reference that's included in his report is to a
6 transcript of the interview, the transcript only has the answers, does not
7 have the questions. And it's just a transcript. After the report --
8 after Mr. Kerkkanen left and the report was completed, the Tribunal, the
9 OTP, made a request to the BBC to get a tape of the interview or else a
10 transcript which contained both the questions and the answers. What was
11 made available to the OTP was a part 1 of the interview, the first part,
12 and in video, and we have transcribed that first part. It is not the
13 complete interview on video. So we have the complete interview,
14 transcript with just answers, and we have part of the interview, video,
15 questions, and answers transcript. And that is what is reflected here on
16 the spreadsheet.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: You don't have subsequent parts of the interview?
18 MR. WHITING: No we tried everything possible and those parts have
19 gone policing, those tapes have gone policing from the BBC for reasons we
20 don't know.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: There were certainly other parts?
22 MR. WHITING: Certainly were, absolutely.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Whiting.
24 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Your Honour, at this time I'd like to move into evidence the
1 documents that have not already been admitted that are reflected on this
2 revised spreadsheet, and as we've done before, what I would suggest is
3 that we, I don't think it's necessary to go through each one and assign it
4 a number. I've already spoken with the Court officer and this can be done
5 outside of hours, the Court officer could assign each document a number.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: And the Court officer is in possession of those
8 MR. WHITING: They are all in the e-court system.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
10 Mr. Milovancevic?
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in connection with
12 this submission from the OTP, the Defence wishes to give an objection in
13 principle because so far, in examining the witness, it was established
14 that he was not an eyewitness, and that he was not an expert witness.
15 This leads to the following question. On the basis of what and how will
16 the authenticity of the documents be established? And I mean the
17 documents that are supposed tonne tendered through this document. To us
18 as the Defence, it would be very important to receive guidance and
19 instructions from this Trial Chamber because this situation is quite
20 similar to a situation that existed in the Limaj case where the OTP tried
21 to tender some documentation through their own OTP expert and the Trial
22 Chamber in that case found that such documents would only be considered as
23 a continuation of the opening statement of the OTP.
24 The testimony of this witness has been dealt with here by the
25 Prosecutor and we would like to receive guidance from the Trial Chamber as
1 to how to deal with this witness and the documents that are attendant to
2 his testimony.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Documents attendant to his testimony or documents
4 that are mentioned in the spreadsheet that is sought to be tendered into
5 evidence? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, Mr. Milovancevic,
6 because the documents that relate to the witness's testimony have already
7 been admitted under the previous -- the previous bunch, 03646958. Are you
8 referring to the new document now, this new spreadsheet? Is that what you
9 mean to refer to?
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in addition to the
11 documents that are contained in the spreadsheet and that have already been
12 tendered into evidence, there is a number of documents that have not been
13 tendered into evidence so far and that the Prosecutor has moved that they
14 be admitted into evidence through this witness, and my submission had to
15 do with these new documents. In essence, this witness is neither an
16 eyewitness, a fact witness, nor an expert witness.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure I understand you,
18 Mr. Milovancevic. I thought Mr. Whiting had indicated that where
19 documents are not -- have not been admitted, they have been it has been
20 indicated that these have not been admitted and you don't seek to have
21 them admitted?
22 MR. WHITING: No, Your Honour. Actually, what we seek is the
23 admission of all the documents that have not already been admitted into
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
1 MR. WHITING: And if I -- if the Court wishes, I could address
2 counsel's objection.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please do.
4 MR. WHITING: Number one, with respect to Defence counsel I think
5 the Trial Chamber has given very clear guidance both in its orders and its
6 rulings in court as far as admissibility and authenticity. I think what's
7 very clear from the Court's guidelines and its rulings is that ordinarily
8 authenticity issues will go to weight, will not be a bar to admission, and
9 I think it's fair to say that the Court has adopted what we think is an
10 excellent practice of admitting the documents that are offered for
11 admission and considering the weight of those documents later. I know that
12 documents have been offered by both the Defence and the Prosecution where
13 no witness, neither a fact witness nor an expert, has been able to
14 authenticate the document in a way we are familiar with. In this respect
15 this is no departure whatever from previous practice. It's completely
16 consistent with previous practice.
17 In fact the witness here has provided a basis for -- he has
18 provided a basis for admission. It's not just throwing documents in,
19 because he's provided information about the source of each document. And
20 he has provided some information about authenticity in comparing these
21 documents to all the 50 to 100.000 documents that he reviewed. Secondly
22 with respect to the Limaj case, I happen to know what Defence counsel is
23 talking about because I did that case and I led that witness that he's
24 referring to, and counsel, with respect, is incorrect in what he says. In
25 fact, what happened with the OTP investigator who was the first witness in
1 the case, is the documents that he spoke about were admitted into
2 evidence. What -- it was the comment of the witness that were considered
3 by the Trial Chamber to be not expert witness comments or not fact-witness
4 comments but just a guidance, just a helpful indication or as the Trial
5 Chamber in that case put it, a continuation of the opening statement. In
6 other words, a kinds of road map.
7 And that is exactly what has happened in this case with the Rule
8 89 F statement. We have offered the Rule 89(F) statement quite clearly as
9 just being a road map to these documents to assist the Trial Chamber in
10 making sense of them. But it's the documents that are going to be the
11 evidence and it's the documents that will speak for themselves. So on
12 that basis, I think that the admission of these documents is warranted and
13 fully consistent with the way we've been proceeding in this case.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: With perhaps a little small exception, Mr. Whiting,
15 and please do correct the Bench if I'm wrong, here it looks like we've
16 been asked -- the Bench has been asked to admit documents, a list of those
17 documents, not the actual documents themselves.
18 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry that I wasn't clear on that. What I
19 wanted to -- I wanted to use this spreadsheet as a guide but I want to
20 admit the actual documents themselves. Not the spreadsheet but the actual
21 documents themselves. This is just to assist the Trial Chamber and most
22 particularly the Court officer in seeing which documents go into
23 evidence. But it's the documents themselves we want in evidence.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what I'm saying and I'm saying that the
25 Prosecution is using a spreadsheet, a list of those documents, to admit
1 those documents. So that this witness, and the Court, does not seem to
2 have seen the documents that are sought to be admitted into evidence.
3 This is the distinction I think I see between your particular case now and
4 what you refer to in the other cases, like the Limaj case.
5 MR. WHITING: It's true I have not pulled up each document and
6 examined it in court. However, that was the purpose of the Rule 89(F)
7 statement, because the Rule 89(F) statement discusses and cites each
8 document so that process which we could have done in court, we could
9 have -- I could go through and pull up each document, in order to save
10 time we offered the Rule 89(F) statement which accomplishes that exact
11 same purpose and, of course, the documents will be available to the Trial
12 Chamber to examine one by one. The parties will have the opportunity to
13 argue about those documents, about what they mean, how they relate to the
14 events and so forth.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do I understand you to say that the actual
16 documents yourself are annexes to the 89(F) statement?
17 MR. WHITING: No. What's an annex to the 89(F) statement is the
18 spreadsheet which lists the documents and their sources. And now, in
19 order for the Trial Chamber to be able to evaluate the documents
20 themselves, we need to move the documents themselves into evidence
21 because, of course, this witness is not offered as an expert and we would
22 not want the Court to rely, although I think what he says about the
23 documents is accurate, he's not offered as an expert and we are not asking
24 the courts to rely on his description. The Court can use that as
25 guidance, as a road map, but I think the Court needs the documents
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. Thank you very much, Mr. Whiting. Any
3 reply to that, Mr. Milovancevic?
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
5 We stand by our objection, because we do not see that there has
6 been an independent confirmation of the sources. Secondly, the documents
7 can't speak for themselves. Thirdly, the Trial Chamber has not been made
8 familiar with these documents. The Trial Chamber should become familiar
9 with these documents through -- during the trial in order to be able to
10 establish what their authenticity is or attach weight to them. And the
11 gist of our objection is that this is not the way in our submission one
12 ought to proceed in relation to these documents.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: But Mr. Milovancevic, the Trial Chamber is not
14 going to attach authenticity and weight to those documents now during the
15 trial. It is going to do that at a later stage when it assesses the
16 entire evidence.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our concern is the
18 obligation of the Trial Chamber to assess the admissibility of documents
19 during trial. Either of the sides have to tender a document to the Trial
20 Chamber and then the Trial Chamber has to decide on its admissibility.
21 That is what our objection is based on. In the situation as it is now,
22 the Prosecution is offering an enormous number of documents without
23 basically presenting them to the Trial Chamber. That is why we are
24 objecting to that form of tendering documents, since the Trial Chamber did
25 not have occasion to see the documents.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: However, the Trial Chamber will have an opportunity
2 to see those documents at some stage and assess the weight. I would
3 imagine that there is a reason for this kind of procedure,
4 Mr. Milovancevic, particularly given the completion strategy of the
5 Tribunal. Otherwise we are going to spend hours here in court going
6 through each document and admitting it individually when the Trial Chamber
7 can assess it later. And obviously, the Defence always has the
8 opportunity and the right, once it has already read through the documents,
9 to object to any specific document in there that it wishes to do so. Is
10 that not -- isn't that the practical procedure?
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. In that
12 case, the Defence will use its right and put questions to this witness
13 which have to do with the documents mentioned here.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: So be it.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Based on the guidelines on admission of documents
17 into evidence, the documents are admitted into evidence. May they please
18 be given exhibit numbers out of court.
19 THE REGISTRAR: They shall, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
21 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, I'd like now to go through a small group of
23 additional documents which were not cited in your report but which have
24 relation to certain things that are discussed in your report. But before
25 I start to do that, and I'm going to ask you with respect to each document
1 what the source of the document is. Before I do that, could you tell us
2 if you've done anything to prepare for this? In other words, have you --
3 for this part of the examination, what have you done to prepare?
4 A. I had a possibility to see these documents, and to check from MIIF
5 records the source of these documents, originals of these documents.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: To check from what records?
7 THE WITNESS: From -- Your Honour, I was able to check from our
8 OTP MIIF tracking system.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: MIIF records.
10 THE WITNESS: MIIF records, the origins of these reports.
11 MR. WHITING:
12 Q. Was a spreadsheet prepared with the description of these
13 documents, their numbers, and the source as indicated on these MIIF
15 A. Yes, it was prepared.
16 Q. Did you review that spreadsheet and did you confirm the
17 Q. Did you review that spreadsheet and did you confirm the accuracy
18 of the sources as indicated on that spreadsheet?
19 A. Yes, I did so.
20 Q. With the assistance of the usher, I'd like to distribute --
21 provide to the witness and distribute to the Court and the parties this
23 Mr. Kerkkanen, is this the spreadsheet we were talking about?
24 A. Yes. This is the spreadsheet.
25 Q. When we go through each document and discuss each document will
1 you need this spreadsheet in order to tell us the source of each document?
2 A. Yes. I need this spreadsheet.
3 Q. I'd like to look, please, at 65 ter Exhibit 630 -- I'm sorry, 432,
4 but before I do that I'd like to go back to your report. On pages 34 and
5 46 of your report, do you talk about Captain Dragan in documents
6 pertaining to his role in the SAO Krajina?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. If I could just have one moment, Your Honour, please.
9 [Prosecution counsel confer]
10 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, we are going to go through a series of
11 documents and I had prepared copies, hard copies for the interpreters
12 because they have asked to us have hard copies. But apparently they
13 haven't made it into the interpreters and I would like them to have it. I
14 see we're a little bit, a few minutes early for the break. I wonder if we
15 could take the break just a few minutes early and I can make sure the
16 interpreters can the hard copies. I can also provide a hard copy in both
17 languages to the accused which will solve any problems that we might have
18 with the e-court.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Very well, then. We'll take a short break and come
20 back at 4.00. Court adjourned.
21 --- Recess taken at 3.28 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 4.02 p.m.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Whiting?
24 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Before I proceed, just to be clear we've provided hard copies to
1 the interpret force tore their assistance, and also, to the Defence
2 counsel for the benefit of the accused, because as I understand it, with
3 e-court when you have an English-speaking witness, the -- you cannot get
4 B/C/S up on the accused's monitor. You can only get English because you
5 have English for the witness so it's the same for the accused. So in
6 order to remedy that -- that's not a problem for Defence counsel. It's
7 only a problem for the accused but in order to remedy that we've provided
8 hard copies of the documents in B/C/S.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Whiting.
10 MR. WHITING:
11 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, if you could look, please at the document on the
12 screen and if we could scroll down a little bit, just -- and just for the
13 record, this is 65 ter Exhibit 432. Can you tell us, Mr. Kerkkanen, what
14 the date of this document is and what it is about?
15 A. Can you roll it up a little bit more?
16 Q. Like that, you mean?
17 A. Yes. This document is from Ministry of the Defence of the
18 Republic of Serbia dated the 20th of January 1992. Basically an answer to
19 the national assembly of the Republic of Serbia concerning volunteers,
20 including Captain Dragan, and this letter states that Captain Dragan has
21 been training units in -- of the Territorial Defence of the SAO Krajina.
22 Q. What is the source of this document? How did the OTP obtain this
24 A. According the MIIF record, this document has been obtained from
25 the Serbian government.
1 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I would move this document into
2 evidence, please.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
4 please be given an exhibit number.
5 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 460, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
7 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, I want to refer now to page 51 of your report, and
9 there you state that in fact it seems that Martic and his RS Krajina MUP
10 units were deployed in Bosnia-Herzegovina as of 10 June 1992. And then
11 you go on to discuss some of the documents that show that.
12 MR. WHITING: Could we look, please, at 65 ter Exhibit 2080? If
13 we could just scroll down to give the witness an opportunity to see the
14 document. Could we look at the next page of the document, please?
15 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, can you tell us what this document is, what its
16 date is and what it is about?
17 A. Please, can you roll it a little bit down more? This document is
18 from the RSK MUP, Ministry of Internal Affairs, to several Secretariats of
19 Internal Affairs of the RSK, as well as for few police brigades of the
20 RSK. Basically ordering them to move following the certain route to
21 Bosnia, to Banja Luka, and the date of the document is 10th of June 1992.
22 MR. WHITING: Could we look at the last page of the document,
24 Q. And who is the document from, specifically?
25 A. This document is from Mr. Milan Martic.
1 Q. What is the source of the document?
2 A. The source of this document is Croatian state archives.
3 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I would ask that this document be moved
4 into evidence, please.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
6 please be given an exhibit number.
7 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 461, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. Mr. Whiting?
9 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Could we turn please to page 15 of your report? And in the last
11 paragraph on that page in the English version you list some of the first
12 police officers to serve in the Knin SUP and there are some names
13 provided, for example, Dragan Karna, Goran Opacic, Ace Draca [phoen].
14 MR. WHITING: Could we look, please, at 65 ter Exhibit 2152?
15 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, could you take just a moment to look at that and
16 then, when you're ready, tell us what this document is.
17 A. Please can you take it a little more down? This document is a
18 list of police personnel, MUP personnel, who were awarded by the RSK -- I
19 don't now recall the name of this award but the medal or recognition on
20 the security day of the RSK on the 5th of July but there is no year
21 indicated in this document but as it speaks about the RSK, it can't be
22 before 1992. So therefore the date must be between 1992 and 1995. And
23 many of those persons listed in this document are the same that I have
24 mentioned on the page 15 of my report.
25 Q. And Mr. Kerkkanen, could you tell us what the source of this
1 document is, please?
2 A. This document is also from the Croatian state archives.
3 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this document be moved into
4 evidence and receive a number, please?
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is received into evidence. May it
6 please be given an exhibit number.
7 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 462, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 Mr. Whiting?
10 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. We spoke earlier in your testimony about references in your report
12 to Captain Dragan.
13 MR. WHITING: Could we look, please, at 65 ter Exhibit 2327?
14 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, can you tell us what this document is, please, what
15 the date is of the document and what it's about. If there is a date.
16 A. I don't see the date. Perhaps it's more further down. Yes, now I
17 see. The date is 8th of November 1991, and this is a letter from Captain
18 Dragan to the Territorial Defence of the Republic of Serbia in Belgrade,
19 stating basically that he doesn't want to be called or to be just one of
20 many reserve captains and he doesn't like that the [unintelligible] of
21 Captain Dragan has been or will be downgraded and in addition to this, he
22 refers to the Serbian State Security in this document.
23 Q. What is the source of this document?
24 A. This document -- this document has been provided to the OTP by
25 Dr. Latgojic Glisic [phoen], who was chef de cabinet of Mr. Simovic in the
1 Serbian Ministry of Defence in 1991.
2 MR. WHITING: Could this document be admitted into evidence and
3 receive a number, please?
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is received into evidence. May it
5 please be given an exhibit number.
6 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 463, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
8 Mr. Whiting?
9 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Could we look at page 46 of your report? Do you talk about
11 training at Golubic?
12 A. Yes. I do write about the training in Golubic in my report.
13 Q. Could we look at 65 ter Exhibit 2349, please?
14 Mr. Kerkkanen, can you tell us what this is, please?
15 A. This document contains names of those from the region of -- or
16 from the area of Knin municipality who finished their training at the
17 Golubic training camp.
18 Q. What is the source of this document, please?
19 A. This document is also from the Croatian state archive.
20 MR. WHITING: Could this document be admitted into evidence and
21 receive a number, please, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
23 please be given an exhibit number.
24 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 464, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Mr. Whiting?
1 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. If we could look at page 30 of your report, on page 30 and also on
3 page 31, do you talk about a training centre at Samarica?
4 A. Yes. I talk about the training camp in Samarica in my report on
5 page 30 and 31.
6 Q. On page 31 about midway down the page do you talk about some
7 events that occurred in August of 1991?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 MR. WHITING: Could we look at 65 ter Exhibit 2368, please? Could
10 we just scroll down?
11 Q. And could you -- do you see what the date of the document is,
12 Mr. Kerkkanen?
13 A. The date of this document is August 1991.
14 MR. WHITING: Could we turn to the next page, please? If we could
15 just scroll down and then turn to the next page? And the next page,
16 please? And the next page?
17 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, what is this document about?
18 A. This document is about the personnel at the Samarica training
19 centre in August 1991. There are names of commanders, names of members of
20 military police platoon, officers of different sections, and then there
21 are also tasks for a duty officer. So basically this document gives names
22 of personnel at the Samarica in August 1991.
23 Q. And what is the source of this document?
24 A. This document comes also from the Croatian state archive.
25 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this document be admitted into
1 evidence and given a number, please?
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
3 please be given an exhibit number.
4 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 465, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
6 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Now I'd like to refer to page 17 of your report. On that page, do
8 you reference public security stations in Petrinja and in Glina, and their
9 status in January of 1991, at the bottom of that page?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. And for the benefit of the Trial Chamber, the Petrinja and Glina
12 can be found on the atlas pages 20 to 21 in grid C-3, the atlas being
13 Exhibit 23.
14 MR. WHITING: Could we see 65 ter Exhibit 2398, please? Could we
15 turn to the next page of the document, please?
16 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, can you tell us what this document is about and its
17 date, please?
18 A. This document has been dated 23rd of October 1991, in the military
19 prison in Petrinja. It's an official note concerning mistreatment or
20 maltreatment of detainees at Glina prison.
21 Q. And does the document, if we could just scroll down, does the
22 document -- no, sorry, not so far. Bring it back, please.
23 Does the document say what sorts of persons are being detained at
24 the prison in Glina?
25 A. Yes. The document states that those persons who are detained at
1 the Glina prison are either members of paramilitary formations of the
2 Croatian National Guard Corps or Croatian MUP personnel or civilians.
3 Q. What is the source of this document?
4 A. This document comes also from the Croatian state archive.
5 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this document be admitted into
6 evidence and given a number, please?
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
8 please be given an exhibit number.
9 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 466, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 Mr. Whiting?
12 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Still on the subject of Glina, could we look at 65 ter Exhibit
14 2409, please? What is the date of this document?
15 A. The date of this document is 31st of March 1991.
16 Q. And if we could just scroll down, continue, could we look at the
17 next page, please? Could you tell us what this document is about, please?
18 A. This document is basically decision by the Glina municipal
19 assembly to separate Glina police station from the Croatian MUP and to
20 join it to the Secretariat of SAO Krajina, in the end of the document the
21 document states also that this decision rules out any jurisdiction on the
22 part of the Croatian MUP over the public security station in Glina and the
23 document has been signed by the president of the assembly, Dusan Jovic.
24 Q. What is the source of this document?
25 A. This document has been obtained from the Croatian state archive,
1 archive storage in Petrinja.
2 Q. Still -- I'm sorry, could this document be admitted into evidence
3 and given a number, please?
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
5 please be given an exhibit number.
6 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 467, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Mr. Whiting.
8 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Still on the subject of Glina could we look at 65 ter Exhibit
10 2422, please? What is the date --
11 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm sorry, Mr. Whiting, I'm getting some
12 background noises and feedback.
13 MR. WHITING: That may have been -- I might have been hitting my
14 microphone, I apologise, Your Honour. I'll turn it off when I'm not
16 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, what is the date of this document?
17 A. This document has been dated on the 13th of October 1991.
18 Q. And if we could just scroll down, can you tell us what this
19 document is?
20 A. Basically this document is a request from the Glina war staff to
21 the town secretary of the National Defence in Belgrade, requesting
22 different kind of arms as well as other supplies.
23 Q. What is the source of this document?
24 A. This document is also from the Croatian archive, state archives
25 and its archive storage in Petrinja.
1 Q. Are these documents that were from the Croatian state archive in
2 Petrinja, are these documents that you selected during your mission
3 to --that document mission to Petrinja?
4 A. Yes, that's correct. These documents were selected on our last
5 mission in June 2005 in Petrinja.
6 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this document be admitted and
7 given a number, please.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence and may it
9 please be given an exhibit number.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 468, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm at a bit of a loss, Mr. Whiting, if you could
12 just guide me. I thought the documents the witness referred to have been
13 admitted in two sets of spreadsheets. Which documents are these now that
14 are being admitted individually?
15 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, these are documents that were not
16 referenced in his report, largely I think because they were obtained after
17 he completed his report but pertain to issues in his report so they are
18 not -- these are documents that are not contained on the spreadsheet that
19 we have spoke about before. And there are only a small number of
20 documents that are left, a small handful.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are they the documents in the spreadsheet that was
22 given later?
23 MR. WHITING: Yes. I can see which spreadsheet Your Honour is
24 looking at and they are the documents in that spreadsheet.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
1 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. Still on the subject of Glina could we look at 65 ter Exhibit
3 2423, please? Can you tell us first what the date of this document is?
4 A. The date of this document is the 3rd of December 1991.
5 Q. And if we could scroll down? Could we look at the next page,
6 please? Mr. Kerkkanen, could you tell us what this document is about,
8 A. This document is a request by the Glina municipal assembly and War
9 Presidency to the MUP, Ministry of the Interior of Serbia, requesting two
10 all-terrain vehicles for the use of the security organ in Glina.
11 Q. What is the source of this document?
12 A. The source for this document is also Croatian state archive and
13 its archive storage in Petrinja.
14 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this document be admitted into
15 evidence and given a number, please.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
17 please be given an exhibit number.
18 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 469, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 Mr. Whiting?
21 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Now at page 17 of your report, you also talk about Dvor Na Uni
23 being under the control of the SAO Krajina Ministry of the Interior. Now,
24 first of all, are you able to explain the name Dvor Na Uni, what that
1 A. Yes. Na Uni basically means on the Una River. So it's a small
2 Dvor, town, that is located on the river, on the Una River, Dvor Na Uni.
3 MR. WHITING: Your Honour for the benefit of the Chamber, I would
4 refer to the atlas Exhibit 23 again page 20 to 21, in the same grid, C 3,
5 Dvor is visible and it sits on the river Una there.
6 Could we look please at 65 ter Exhibit 2430?
7 Q. What is the date of this document?
8 A. The date of this document is the 11th of June 1991.
9 Q. And if we could just scroll down, please? Could you tell us what
10 this document is about?
11 A. This document is a decision by the Dvor Na Uni municipal assembly
12 to separate the Dvor public security station or police station from the
13 Croatian MUP and to join it to -- and to join the SAO Krajina MUP.
14 Q. What is the source of this document?
15 A. This document was also obtained from the Croatian state archive,
16 and archival storage in Petrinja.
17 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this document be admitted into
18 evidence and given a number, please?
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
20 please be given an exhibit number.
21 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 470, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 Yes, Mr. Whiting?
24 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. Still on the subject of Dvor, could we look, please, at 65 ter
1 Exhibit 2437? What is the date of this document?
2 A. The date of this document is the 31st of May 1991.
3 Q. And if we could just scroll down, please? Can you tell us what
4 this document is?
5 A. This document basically is a decision by the Dvor municipal
6 assembly and its executive council to send volunteers from the Dvor
7 municipality to Knin in order to get the training as special purpose unit
8 training there for the purpose or in order to be use them later in the
9 Dvor municipality.
10 Q. What is the source of this document?
11 A. This document was also obtained from Croatian state archive and
12 its archival storage in Petrinja.
13 MR. WHITING: Could this document be admitted into evidence and be
14 given a number, please.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted moo evidence. May it
16 please be given an exhibit number.
17 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit 471, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
19 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. If we could still on the subject of Dvor look at 65 ter Exhibit
21 2445, please. What is the date of this document?
22 A. The date of this document is the 24th of June 1991.
23 Q. And what is this document?
24 A. It's a decision to appoint a certain Dragan Vranjesevic as an
25 acting commander of the Dvor Na Uni Secretariat of the Interior.
1 Q. What is the source of the document?
2 A. This document is also from the Croatian state archive and its
3 archival storage in Petrinja.
4 MR. WHITING: Could this document be given a number, please,
5 Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
7 please be given an exhibit number.
8 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 472, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
10 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Still on the subject of Dvor could we look at 65 ter Exhibit 2447,
12 please? What is the date of this document?
13 A. The date of this document is the 26th of June 1991.
14 Q. Can you tell us what the document is?
15 A. This document is a declaration of a state of emergency by the Dvor
16 Na Uni municipal assembly executive council in the area of the
18 Q. Could we scroll down to the bottom, please? Could you tell us who
19 is it addressed to?
20 A. This document has been addressed to the Dvor Territorial Defence
21 Staff, to Dvor National Defence Secretariat, to certain military post
22 Cerkezovac, meaning some JNA military post, and then also to the Dvor
23 Secretariat of the Interior.
24 Q. What is the source of this document?
25 A. This document is also from the Croatian state archive and its
1 archival storage in Petrinja.
2 MR. WHITING: Could this document be admitted into evidence.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, may it please be given an exhibit number.
4 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit 473, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
6 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. We spoke earlier about Petrinja. Could we look now at 65 ter
8 Exhibit 2452, please? What is this document entitled, please?
9 A. The document has been titled as follows, "Basic concepts of works
10 acknowledge activities for the Petrinja municipality steering committee
11 for the establishment of the Serbian democratic party for the Serb lands.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that a stirring committee or a steering
13 committee? What does it stir?
14 MR. WHITING: I assume that that's a typo and it's supposed to be
15 steering committee, Your Honour, but it might -- maybe it was stirring
17 Q. If we could scroll down, please, on this page, what is the date of
18 the document?
19 A. The date of this document is February 19, 94.
20 Q. Could we look at the next page, please? Now if we could look at
21 the next page -- finish scrolling down and then turn to the next page,
22 please? Are you able to tell us what this document is, Mr. Kerkkanen?
23 A. This document basically tells about the establishment of the
24 steering committee for this particular Serbian Democratic Party of Serb
25 lands in Petrinja.
1 Q. Could we look at the next page, please? And what is this page
3 A. As this page is titled, it's a history of the Serbian Democratic
4 Parties and their situation today at this date.
5 Q. Could we scroll down to the bottom of the page? Can you read that
6 last paragraph for us? There is on page 4. It's on page 4 of both the
7 English and the B/C/S. If you could just read that last paragraph,
9 A. The last paragraph on this page states as follows: "A state of
10 war was declared on the 17th August 1990 [indiscernible] and it was in
11 this period that an organised armed struggle of the Serb people ..."
12 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Kerkkanen. If you could just read a little bit
13 more slowly because the court reporter will have difficulty keeping up.
14 A. And the paragraph continues: "The first armed forces of Krajina
15 were set up by the current president of the Republic of Serbian Krajina,
16 Milan Martic. The war still goes on and with the same goal, that of
17 liberating and separating from Croatia and creating a unified state,
18 greater Serbia." Full stop.
19 Q. What is the source of this document?
20 A. This document was also obtained from the Croatian state archive
21 and its archival storage in Petrinja.
22 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this document be admitted into
23 evidence and given a number, please?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic?
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have an
1 objection to my friend's moving that it be admitted into evidence, because
2 from the document, one cannot see who authored the document, when or
3 where. There is no reference number, there is no stamp, there is no
4 signature. There is nothing on the document to that effect. Such a
5 document can be drafted by anyone. The only thing the witness sitting
6 here did was to read out parts of the text. Another thing, Your Honour,
7 there are no minutes from this meeting. There are no minutes in
8 handwritten or typewritten form. It does not state who took the minutes
9 or where the meeting was held. The text as it stands is quite arbitrary.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Whiting?
11 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I may the document it's incorrect to
12 say that it's -- that there is no reference to date because there is a
13 reference to a date. And secondly, I think the Trial Chamber has held
14 certainly in its rulings and I believe this is even this may even be
15 addressed in its guidelines for admission of evidence that such things as
16 a stamp or a signature are not requirements for admission into evidence.
17 Third, the witness -- this document just doesn't come out of no where.
18 The witness has testified where the document came from. It came from the
19 archive, and he explained earlier that this is a document that he himself
20 selected from that archive and how documents came to be in the archive.
21 So I think with respect that the objections raised by counsel, Defence
22 counsel, go to weight but should not bar the admission into evidence of
23 the document.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you referred also to the fact
25 that there are no minutes. It doesn't seem to have taken place in a
1 meeting which could contain minutes. It's just a working paper, a basic
2 concept of work and activities for the Petrinja municipality steering
3 committee for the establishment of the Serbian Democratic Party of the
4 Serb lands.
5 I'm not sure why you say that there should be minutes accompanying
6 this document, Mr. Milovancevic.
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, to make myself
8 fully clear, after the cover page where it says the steering company for
9 the establishment of this party and where it reads Petrinja municipality,
10 February 1994, there are the contents of the document, where the steering
11 committee's establishment is being moved, as well as its prospective
12 members and then it goes on to items 2, 3, and 4. After that, there is
13 the typewritten text of an introduction, an introductory speech. Someone
14 is addressing citizens, honourable citizens, brothers and sisters and so
15 on. And then the subsequent text is the one that the Prosecutor was
16 referring to. One can absolutely not see who the author of the text is,
17 because the text does propose that some persons become members of the
18 steering committee but it's a proposal. You could have included my own
19 name there as a proposal to be part of the committee. I see this document
20 now for the first time. What I wanted to point out was that such a
21 document could in fact be an absolute manipulation. There is not a single
22 fact on the basis of which we could establish that this is indeed a
23 genuine political initiative launched by someone. This is the difficulty
24 that this document in our submission poses.
25 Another matter which is quite interesting, the document was
1 written in the Latin script. At the time the Krajina used the Cyrillic
2 script as its customary script. That was normally used.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, I do not understand why you say
4 this is a proposal. Why do you say so?
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was merely
6 reading the text before me. The title of the document is basic concept of
7 work and activities of the steering committee. The contents or rather the
8 following page reads, "The establishment of the steering committee in the
9 following composition," and then the text flows on. So this is something
10 that is only about to materialise itself, if this is indeed an initiative,
11 and what also needs to be said is that this is a document originating from
12 the Croatian state archives.
13 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Sorry, Mr. Milovancevic, I'd like to pose a
14 question to you. What is the inference to be drawn from the fact that the
15 document was written in Latin script whereas the Krajina at the time used
16 Cyrillic script as its customary script?
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, one cannot exclude
18 a single possibility or a possibility that this may be -- may have been
19 the case. However, all those who were involved in the public life of the
20 Krajina used the typewriters that had the Cyrillic script, whereas Latin
21 script was used by the official Croatian authorities. This in itself does
22 not necessarily have to mean anything, but this -- these are aspects that
23 give rise to doubt, whereas on the other side, there is nothing that would
24 induce us, the Defence, to really arrive at the conclusion that this in
25 fact was a political initiative.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, Mr. Whiting, is on his feet. Yes,
2 Mr. Whiting?
3 MR. WHITING: Recognises, I'll try to address the points raised by
4 Defence council but I think over all again they all go to weight and not
5 to admissibility. I would say, however, that while we do not necessarily
6 know the specific author of this document, we do know from the document
7 that it's a member of the Serbian Democratic Party of the Serb lands. And
8 I think that the document can be evaluated in terms of its authenticity
9 with respect to the -- what's in the document and the context, what it
10 refers to, which I would submit refer to other things that are in evidence
11 in this case.
12 With respect to the final point, that the document is not in --
13 that's in it's Latin script and not in Cyrillic, we have earlier today
14 admitted a document from Milan Martic himself, it's 65 ter Exhibit 2080
15 and I don't know what the exhibit number is but it's one of the ones I've
16 gone through and it is in Latin script, it's typed in Latin script, it's
17 not typed in the Cyrillic script, and all the other -- nearly all the
18 other documents that we have admitted -- I'm just flipping through my
19 bundle here, nearly all of them are in Latin-typed script. There may be
20 one in here that's in Cyrillic but I haven't found it yet. So I think
21 that objection is plainly unfounded. But again I think these all go to
22 weight and can be argued by Defence counsel when the Trial Chamber has to
23 consider this document.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, is it therefore your position
25 that the points you have raised, that the document is in Latin script and
1 not in Cyrillic script and the other points you raised be considered when
2 considering the weight of the document?
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this has nothing
4 to do with the probational value of the document, but with elements which
5 serve to show the authenticity of a document. Since this is a document
6 which speaks of a political initiative, then one would expect to have --
7 to expect to have members of the steering committee signing the document
8 or at least is someone signing the document, but we don't have that, which
9 means that such a document could have been drafted by anyone.
10 Your Honour, this seems to us to be a pamphlet of a sort. That's how the
11 document transpires to us. In order to assess its authenticity, we need
12 to have some elements that would serve as a foundation for either
13 conclusion but we have none of that here.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You say yourself, Mr. Milovancevic, as you start
15 your last argument that this has nothing to do with probative value of the
16 document but with the elements which serve to show the authenticity of the
17 document. So that -- and as I understand the guidelines are that the
18 Trial Chamber shall admit into evidence any document that has probative
19 value, which is exactly what you are not addressing. You are addressing
20 authenticity, which to my understanding, I think are issues to be
21 addressed when looking at the weight to be attached to the document.
22 Do I understand you correctly?
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, what is at the centre of
24 the matter is the authenticity of the document.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Very well, then. In that event, based on the
1 guidelines, the document will be admitted into evidence and given an
2 exhibit number and the authenticity of the document will be looked at when
3 the weight to be attached to the document is considered. Thank you very
4 much, Mr. Whiting.
5 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. I think it needs to be
6 given a number.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: May it please be given an exhibit number.
8 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit 474, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Now, Mr. Kerkkanen, I want to draw your attention to section 2 of
12 part 3 of your report, which in the English begins on page 49. Does this
13 section talk about the relationship between forces in the RSK and Serb
14 forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
15 A. Yes, it does.
16 Q. And turning to page 55, in the English, which is -- it's the last
17 paragraph of this section, does it state that Martic maintained contacts
18 with both RS police and army of the Republika Srpska VRS?
19 A. Yes. That's what I state here in this paragraph.
20 Q. Could we look at 65 ter Exhibit 1448, please? What is the date of
21 this document?
22 A. The date of this document is the 5th of September 1994.
23 Q. And if we could just scroll down, now just scroll back up, please.
24 There. Could you tell us what this document is about, please?
25 A. This document is a request from the Main Staff of Bosnian Serb
1 army, and Ratko Mladic, to President of the Serbian Republic of Krajina,
2 RSK, Mr. Milan Martic, for the loan of 15 Orkan rockets for the needs of
3 the Republika Srpska army.
4 Q. What is the source of this document?
5 A. The OTP has obtained this document from the Croatian government.
6 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this document be admitted into
7 evidence and given a number, please?
8 JUDGE MOLOTO:
9 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit 475, Your Honour.
10 MR. WHITING: Mr. Kerkkanen could we look at page 8 of your
11 report, please, and do you talk there about the beginning of the armed
12 conflict in the SAO Krajina in August of 1990?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. And on pages 9 and 10 of your report, do you talk about assistance
15 that the SAO Krajina received from Serbia?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. Could we look, please, at 65 ter Exhibit 1494? Mr. Kerkkanen, do
18 you know what this document is?
19 A. This document is a translation of Borisav Jovic's book, the last
20 days of the SFRY.
21 Q. Who is Borisav Jovic, and in particular, do you know who he was at
22 that time, during the year 1990-91?
23 A. Mr. Jovic was the president of the Presidency of the SFRY
24 Presidency at that time.
25 Q. Was this book published and is it publicly available?
1 A. This book has been published and it's available.
2 Q. Could we go to page 159 of the English and page 177 of the B/C/S,
3 and if it's of assistance, I can also provide the ERN numbers of the
4 pages. And if we could scroll down to the bottom?
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: 159 and what?
6 MR. WHITING: This is page 159 in the English. On the B/C/S
7 version, it's page 177.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
9 MR. WHITING:
10 Q. What's the date at the bottom there, Mr. Kerkkanen?
11 A. The date on the bottom is the 17th of August 1990.
12 Q. On the English could we go to page 160? On the B/C/S it's still
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Whiting, I didn't see the date of the 17th
15 August 1990 at page 159. And my -- am I missing something?
16 MR. WHITING: Well, it's on -- no. Or yes. Hang on one second.
17 If we could go back one page previously, could we go back to -- I think
18 you're on 160. Could we go back to 159, please? And let's go to the
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm obviously on the wrong page.
21 MR. WHITING: Well, if Your Honour looks at the court monitor it
22 should be correct on that page, on the court monitor.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I can see it on the Court monitor. Okay. Thank
24 you very much.
25 MR. WHITING: Okay, thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. By the way, does this book take the form of a published diary?
2 A. Yes. Basically in a sense this book is a diary of events from
3 that time.
4 Q. Okay. Could we go to the next page, please, on the English, to
5 160? Could you tell us what this entry is about for the 17th of August
7 A. Basically for this particular date, Mr. Jovic writes that there
8 has been an uprising of Serbs in Croatia.
9 MR. WHITING: Could we look now, please, at page 283 in the
10 English and it's page 316 on the B/C/S. And if we could scroll down for
11 the entry of 5 April, 1991, that's the one I'm interested in.
12 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, could you just take a moment to read that entry and
13 tell us what it's about? And I think we'll have to scroll down a little
14 bit. That's fine. Could you tell us what this entry is about, for the
15 5th of April 1991?
16 A. Basically it's a summary from the meeting that Mr. Jovic had with
17 Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, Arijevic [phoen] and Adzic concerning the police
18 in Croatia. Basically the middle paragraph states they will take the
19 following course of action in the -- if the Croats attack them they will
20 take armed action, meaning that they are prepared to use military means in
21 this situation.
22 Q. Do you see the sentence that begins, "it is clear that acceptance
23 of the position, that the military" --
24 A. I do see it.
25 Q. Could you just read that sentence, please?
1 A. The sentence states as follows: "It is clear that the acceptance
2 of the position, the military cannot use weapons. Would be catastrophic
3 for the Serb nation in Croatia. The MUP, which has not armed itself but
4 is instead counting on protection by the JNA, while Croatia has armed its
5 own pro-Ustasha secessionists units." Full stop.
6 Q. Finally could we look at page 358 in the English and page 401 in
7 the B/C/S, the entry for the 25th of October 1991?
8 MR. WHITING: Oh, I see the time, Your Honour. If I could just
9 finish with this, it will just take another minute. Thank you.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Whiting.
11 MR. WHITING:
12 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, could you tell us what this entry is about?
13 A. Well, in the beginning of this entry, it's clear that there has
14 been a dispute between let's say political and military leadership about
15 the policy they are having and then further down, Slobodan must be
16 referring to Mr. Milosevic, responds about the actions they have taken,
17 that they have helped them, meaning the Serbs in Croatia, apparently.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, are you saying Slobodan is referring to
19 Mr. Milosevic?
20 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, that's correct.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is there a Slobodan by another surname? Could you
22 give us the surname of that Slobodan?
23 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, in this context, I can't think about
24 anyone else than Slobodan Milosevic.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: So he's referring to his own -- he's referring to
1 himself? Slobodan refers to Mr. Milosevic? Oh, Jovic. Sorry, I beg your
3 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I continue. And then basically Jovic
4 is telling what took place, what happened in this meeting and what
5 Slobodan, meaning Slobodan Milosevic, was responding, they will -- they
6 have helped the Serbs in Croatia apparently and they will continue to do
7 so until the end.
8 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I move this document into evidence and
9 ask that it be given a number, please.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
11 please be given an exhibit number.
12 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 476, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Is that now a convenient
14 time, Mr. Whiting?
15 MR. WHITING: It is, and I apologise for going over, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: No problem. Thank you very much.
17 The Court will adjourn and reconvene at quarter to six.
18 Court adjourned.
19 --- Recess taken at 5.19 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 5.49 p.m.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Whiting?
22 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. Now I'm just going to show
23 three brief video clips.
24 Q. Before I show the first one we've already noted, Mr. Kerkkanen, in
25 your report, earlier in your testimony, where you talk about assistance
1 from Serbia to the SAO Krajina. The first video clip is 65 ter Exhibit
2 657 which is V 0002220. Before we play the clip, could you tell us what
3 the source of this video clip is, please?
4 A. This video clip has been obtained from Natasa Kandic who is head
5 of humanitarian law centre in Belgrade, Serbia.
6 Q. And in order to play the clip I think we need to switch over to
7 the Sanction from the AV booth.
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Whiting, whilst we are waiting, could I find
9 out what Sanction is?
10 MR. WHITING: Yes, Your Honour, if I may answer that. Sanction is
11 just the computer software programme that plays -- allows us to play the
12 videos in court. It's just a software programme.
13 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you.
14 MR. WHITING: It seems to be on the screen now in computer
15 evidence. If we could play that now.
16 [Videotape played]
17 MR. WHITING:
18 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, could you tell us what that clip is about, please?
19 A. This clip is an interview of secretary Milan Martic. There was a
20 subtitle telling that he's secretary of SAO Krajina MUP, in the very
21 eastern part of Croatia, in the vicinity of Borovo Selo and Bilje. There
22 were captured with the help of his units or troops and a number of Croats
23 were detained in this action and one of these detainees was interviewed in
24 the end of this clip.
25 Q. You made a reference to the caption on the screen, and if we could
1 just look at the clip again, I had intended to pause it on that caption
2 but I forgot to.
3 [Videotape played]
4 MR. WHITING: If we could pause it there.
5 Q. Is that the caption that you were referring to?
6 A. Exactly. It reads, as follows, "Milan Martic, secretary of
7 Ministry of the internal affairs of autonomous region of Krajina."
8 Q. Now, during the clip, there is an a reference to the liberation of
9 Bilje. Do you know the date that that occurred?
10 A. The liberation of Bilje took place or the so-called liberation of
11 Bilje took place on the 4th of September 1991. So this clip must be
12 either from that date or the day after.
13 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this clip be admitted into
14 evidence and given a number, please?
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: The clip is admitted into evidence. May it please
16 be given an exhibit number.
17 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 477, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
19 Yes, Mr. Whiting?
20 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Now, we also talked earlier in your testimony about how in your
22 report you talk about the beginning of the armed conflict in the SAO
23 Krajina and Martic's role in it. And we are going to look at a second
24 clip which is 65 ter Exhibit 665, it's ERN number V 0002250.
25 MR. WHITING: Now -- before we play this clip I have just a word
1 of explanation about this clip. It's a rather lengthy clip. I think it's
2 about ten minutes long. And the first part of the -- the part that we are
3 particularly interested in is the end of the clip and that's the part that
4 we have the translation for and the translation will play for. However,
5 the beginning part of the clip is included without a translation in order
6 to give context and give a sense of the time that this occurred. And we
7 will -- we can at a later time provide a translation for the first part of
8 the clip. We don't have that available today, I'm afraid. There are, in
9 that first part of the clip that's not translated, you'll see there is a
10 kind of press conference with Milan Babic and in fact many of the answers
11 are translated into English during the press conference so there is to
12 some degree a translation. But as I said it's just in order to give
13 context that I play that part so I just ask the Court to be patient, sit
14 through it, we won't understand all of it but at a certain point the
15 transcript will start rolling and that's the part where the transcript
16 applies to at the end of the clip.
17 If we could play that clip now, please?
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Whiting.
19 MR. WHITING: Thank you.
20 [Videotape played]
21 "I also would like to say that particularly [indiscernible] that
22 we were recommended that we would be persuaded to accept what the European
23 Community is offering to us regarding our future status.
24 "In SAO Krajina, there is no political dissension.
25 "But in my view, we have the influence of some who have not
1 participated in the actions in the Krajina and who are not represented in
2 the authorities for [indiscernible].
3 "Let me just to mention the League of Communists' movement against
5 "You are probably aware of some other interests and some other
6 influences on Krajina from outside Krajina.
7 "They are present and evident in various ways and particularly
8 through activities of some individuals.
9 "You mentioned Captain Dragan [indiscernible]. I don't know his
10 first name and family name.
11 "And who was engaged by minister Martic [indiscernible]"
12 MR. WHITING:
13 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, what was that -- could you tell us what that clip
14 was about, please?
15 A. Very shortly, in the beginning, as it was obvious, there was this
16 press conference in Belgrade, and the second part of this clip was an
17 interview of Mr. Martic, and basically, this interview was about internal
18 conflict in the leadership of SAO Krajina.
19 Q. What is the source of the clip?
20 A. This clip has also -- has been also obtained from Natasa Kandic in
22 Q. What is the date of this clip? As best as you can tell.
23 A. The first part of this clip makes it clear that it took place soon
24 after the peace conference in The Hague in October or -- no, I can't
25 recall exactly whether it took place in October or November but October or
1 November in 1991.
2 Q. And are there references in the clip to SAO Krajina, are there
3 references to Republika Srpska Krajina?
4 A. Certainly, there are many references to SAO Krajina. Now, I do
5 not recall any other references.
6 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this clip be admitted into
7 evidence and be given a number, please.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The clip is admitted into evidence. May it please
9 be given an exhibit number.
10 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 478, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
12 Yes, Mr. Whiting?
13 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. We also talked earlier in your report about -- earlier in your
15 testimony about how your report talks about Captain Dragan and also on
16 pages 25 and 26 of your report, there is -- you talk about Milan Babic.
17 If we could look at the third clip which is 65 ter Exhibit 642, it's V
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: While we are waiting for that clip, can I ask a
20 question? You've referred to pages 25 and 26, and I see there are certain
21 deletions on page 25 and page 26. What are we to make of those deletions?
22 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, those were the deletions that were
23 ordered by the Court in its order of 28 April 2006.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
25 [Videotape played]
1 MR. WHITING:
2 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, what was that clip about?
3 A. The first part of this clip was an interview of Milan Martic,
4 about the conflict between him and Milan Babic, and the second part of
5 this clip is an interview of Captain Dragan.
6 Q. The interview with Captain Dragan, can you tell where that --
7 where that takes place? Where is that location? Are you able to tell?
8 A. It's very obvious from the image that this interview is taken
9 place either in the fortress of Knin or near the fortress in Knin.
10 Q. Have you yourself been to the fortress in Knin?
11 A. Yes, several times.
12 Q. Can you tell what the date of the clip is?
13 A. Yes. In his interview Captain Dragan refers to the fact that they
14 were sent away or expelled from SAO Krajina five months earlier, and they
15 were sent away in the autumn of 1991 so this clip must therefore be from
16 the first part of 1992, most likely February or the beginning of March
18 Q. What is the source of the clip?
19 A. This clip has been obtained from the Croatian government.
20 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I would ask that this be admitted into
21 evidence and receive a number, please.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: The clip is admitted into evidence. May it please
23 be given an exhibit number.
24 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 479, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
1 Yes, Mr. Whiting?
2 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you, Mr. Kerkkanen.
3 I have no further questions. Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
5 Mr. Milovancevic, could we deal with housekeeping matters before
6 you cross-examine the witness?
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Chamber recalls that the Prosecution -- recalls
10 the Prosecution of notice of submission of previously admitted Rule 92 bis
11 evidence. In it mention is made of a new motion vis-a-vis witnesses
12 MM-024 and MM-032. MM-024 motion has been received. What the Chamber
13 would like to know is what is the position with MM-032.
14 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I could get back to the Court on
15 that tomorrow, I can't answer that question as I sit here. I'm just not
16 sure. I just don't have track of that.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, if you can just make a note of
19 Look at Prosecution's notice dated the 17th of March 2006 in
20 relation to that -- those two witnesses.
21 Then yesterday, the Chamber raised some issue concerning Witness
22 MM-808, and -- 080, I beg your pardon. What day say? Okay. 080. Are we
23 able to get a response to that motion, Mr. Milovancevic? There is a bit
24 of urgency around those two issues.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] We have filed the response,
1 Your Honour, today. We submitted it to the Registry. We took it upon
2 ourselves yesterday to file it today, and we have indeed done so prior to
3 the start of today's session.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic. The Chamber
5 has not been made aware of it.
6 Yes, Mr. Whiting?
7 MR. WHITING: I can confirm just that we've received it.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. We haven't received it yet. Thank you
9 very much. I will track it down.
10 Those are all the housekeeping issues that we wanted to raise.
11 Mr. Milovancevic, the witness is yours.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Milovancevic:
14 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, my name is Predrag Milovancevic, attorney at law,
15 Defence counsel for Mr. Martic. We will start now with your
16 cross-examination, which is something you are surely familiar with. I
17 will put questions to you which the Defence deems relevant and important.
18 In order to ensure that the interpreters can do their work well, I kindly
19 ask you to pause after I put a question to you before giving your answer,
20 although I don't believe we will have any problems in that regard.
21 We will start with annex 1 to your statement. That's the document
22 that both you and the Honourable Trial Chamber should have before you.
23 In this annex, on page 3 in the B/C/S, that's part of what you
24 entitled, "Introduction," in paragraph 1, you state that units of MUP of
25 SAO Krajina or rather RSK and especially special purpose units of MUP took
1 part in various military operations which the self-declared SAO Krajina
2 conducted in 1991. In connection with this, can you tell us which
3 military operations did the self-declared SAO Krajina carry out in 1991?
4 A. Yes. When I was writing this report, I was, of course,
5 concentrating on events mentioned in the indictment of Mr. Martic, and
6 those operations or armed actions that are mentioned in his indictment
7 were obvious military operations I'm referring to in the beginning of this
8 report, and as per the documentary evidence, different units of SAO
9 Krajina Police took part in those operations.
10 Q. If I've understood you well, Mr. Kerkkanen, what you had in mind
11 were precisely the allegations contained in the indictment concerning some
12 specific military actions and it was with regard to those actions that you
13 wrote that MUP units of SAO Krajina or the RSK took part in military
14 actions conducted by the self-declared SAO Krajina in 1991.
15 I have another or a further question in relation to this. Did you
16 observe in the indictment that with regard to every single operation
17 alleged in the indictment, when it comes to the period of 1990 and 1991,
18 there is mention of the activities of the so-called Serb forces which
19 includes the JNA, the Territorial Defence, the police of Krajina, the
20 special units of police of Krajina, or however they are termed in the
21 indictment? The question is, on the basis of the documents you reviewed,
22 were you able to arrive at the conclusion that the SAO Krajina conducted
23 military operations in 1991 and that these were in fact operations carried
24 out by the SAO Krajina?
25 A. Well, first, I want to refer to the previous question. I wrote in
1 my report also about fighting that, for example, in Glina, that is not, as
2 far as I remember specifically mentioned in the indictment, in July 1991.
3 Regarding these armed operations or fightings in the area of SAO Krajina
4 especially in 1991, on the basis of documents I reviewed, and I wrote this
5 article, it's very clear that SAO Krajina was very actively participating
6 with its units in those operations.
7 Q. Precisely in relation to 1991, which I believe is quite typical of
8 this, I have the following question: Did you come by any document or
9 piece of information which speaks of the action aimed at deblocking the
10 blocked military garrisons and features throughout the Republic of Croatia
11 including the territory of the SAO Krajina which were conducted or rather
12 which was conducted by the JNA?
13 A. Yes. As far as I remember correctly, I have seen documents that
14 speak about the JNA trying to deblock some military garrisons.
15 Q. Further to your answer to my last question, Mr. Kerkkanen, these
16 military operations you mention in the introduction, were they separate
17 and independent from these actions aimed at deblocking conducted by the
19 A. Yes. At least some of these operations were independent, and it's
20 well known also on the basis of this documentation I reviewed and I used
21 in this report that they were operations that were carried jointly by the
22 JNA and different SAO Krajina units, police units and Territorial Defence.
23 Q. Thank you. In the course of your cross-examination, we will
24 probably get back to these -- this topic but we will refer to specific
25 actions. So I will not dwell on this matter. Let us look at the second
1 page of your introduction, or rather the page after the introduction,
2 which is entitled, part 1, Milan Martic and SAO, RS Krajina, Ministry of
3 Interior, namely items 1 and 2 -- or rather item 1.2 where you talk about
4 the situation in SAO, RS Krajina, and you state that according to the
5 Statute of the Serbian autonomous district Krajina dated 21 December 1990,
6 the SAO Krajina executed laws, other ordinances and general acts of the
7 Republic of Croatia and the SFRY. In the following sentence, you state
8 that on the 18th of March 1991 the Statute was amended and that wherever
9 the Republic of Croatia and its laws were mentioned, the federal state was
10 now introduced as a result of these amendments. My question is the
11 following: Do you know that the Croatian authorities in February 1991
12 took a decision to secede from Yugoslavia whereby the federal regulations
13 ceased to be valid in the territory of the Republic of Croatia?
14 A. Well, I feel that this is not within the scope of my testimony to
15 really answer this question. I'm testifying about these documents and
16 what I wrote on the basis of these documents.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: But I would imagine, Mr. Kerkkanen, that it's a
18 simple question to answer. If you do know, you do say you know. If you
19 don't know, you say you don't know.
20 Independent of what your testimony was, do you know of this
21 decision to secede or don't you know about it?
22 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I'm not familiar with this decision.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
24 Mr. Milovancevic, carry on.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. On the next page, Mr. Kerkkanen, at the very top of the page,
2 that's a continuation of the text I just read out to you, you state that
3 the powers of the Ministry of Interior in the territory of RSK were
4 abolished on the 19th of January 1991, when a notification or information
5 was issued on the establishment of the Ministry of the Interior of the SAO
6 Krajina. My question is: Is the statement in the paragraph 1.3 correct
7 that on the 19th January 1991 a decree was passed on the internal
8 organisation and work of the Ministry of the Interior of SAO Krajina, or
9 to simplify my question: Was it the case of a decree establishing the
10 Ministry of the Interior of SAO Krajina or the Secretariat of the SAO
12 A. No. The Secretariat of the SAO Krajina was already established on
13 the 4th of January 1991. This decree from the 19th of January 1991 is, as
14 its title states, decree on internal organisation and operation of the
15 Ministry of the Interior.
16 Q. In paragraph 1.3, you state at the very top, that the decree on
17 the internal organisation of the ministry was issued on the 19th of
18 January 1991. Now my question to it you was it a decree on the internal
19 organisation of the Ministry of the Interior or of the Secretariat of the
20 Interior of the SAO Krajina in relation to this there is the Exhibit 1960
21 but there is actually another exhibit that you mention, which talks about
22 the Secretariat and not of the ministry. My colleague is on his feet,
23 Your Honour?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Whiting?
25 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry to interrupt but I thought that perhaps
1 these documents that are being referred to are -- could be called up on
2 e-court for the witness to look at if there are going to be questions
3 about it. Also, we have on the cart here in front of us in hard copy all
4 of the documents that are cited in this report of the witness, and I don't
5 know if it would be of assistance for the witness to have these hard
6 copies available so he could refer even more quickly to documents. I
7 leave that to the Court and to Defence counsel but I just thought I would
8 make them available. It makes it easier for him to flip through them and
9 refer to them.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Whiting.
11 May I just add this little point, Mr. Milovancevic? I think the
12 witness's report at page 5 states quite clearly that it is the internal
13 organisation and operation of the Ministry of the Interior. If -- no
14 point is being served by asking him whether it is the ministry or the
15 Secretariat. If according to your instructions it was not the ministry
16 but the Secretariat, confront him with the evidence that says it was the
17 Secretariat and let's hear what he's got to say.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, you state that the executive council of the SAO
20 Krajina took a decision on the 1st of April to unify the SAO Krajina with
21 the Republic of Serbia, whereby it was also decided that the laws and
22 regulations of the Republic of Serbia were to be valid and in force in the
23 entire territory. Here is my question: Do you know that in order for any
24 specific regulation of the Republic of Serbia to apply, it was necessary
25 to pass a special decision to that effect? Therefore, this was a general
1 decision on the unification with the Republic of Serbia on the 1st of
2 April 1991 but do you not know that the executive council was also duty
3 bound to pass a separate decision stating such and such regulations apply
4 to the territory of the SAO Krajina?
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry to interrupt your cross-examination,
6 Mr. Milovancevic. I'm not quite sure I understand either your question or
7 its purpose. The witness has given a report of what he was aware of, that
8 a decision was made to incorporate the SAO Krajina into the Republic of
9 Serbia and apply the laws of Serbia in the territory of the SAO Krajina.
10 And if you want to ask that question that you have asked, I don't see why
11 you asked it in relation to this point. You can just find out if he's
12 aware that specific laws were incorporated specifically each time.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] That was precisely what I
14 wanted to ask the witness. Thank you for your suggestion.
15 Could we please see on our screens Prosecution Exhibit 2034, which
16 is linked with footnote 9? That's the law on the application of the laws
17 and regulations in the territory of the SAO Krajina, dated 5th of June
19 Q. While we are waiting for the document, Mr. Kerkkanen, I would like
20 to put to you that this law dated 5 June 1991, concerning the application
21 of regulations of Serbia in Krajina, provides in Article 1 that these laws
22 of the Republic of Serbia would apply in those areas where there are no
23 RSK regulations existing, and in paragraph 2, that the decision shall be
24 taken by the government of the SAO Krajina or by ministers individually.
25 Therefore, in order for a piece of legislation to apply, a decision to
1 that effect had to be taken.
2 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, the document has come up on my monitor
3 but I'm not sure if it's come up on the court monitors. I don't know if
4 the witness is able to see it or not.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: It has come up on my monitor. I'm not sure whether
6 the witness has it. Mr. Kerkkanen, do you have the document?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I have it and my screen. I would
8 like to go further down. Stop. Okay.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. It's possible, rather, if possible, can Article 2 be shown on the
11 monitor of the law on the implementation of regulations of the Republic of
12 Serbia on the territory of the SAO Krajina.
13 In Article 2, it says that the government of the SAO Krajina or
14 the appropriate minister will reissue a decision on each and every case of
15 implementing these regulations. Is that correct?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's not what my article 2 says. My article 2
17 says, "Cases in judicial administrative and misdemeanour proceedings,
18 administrative disputes and all other proceedings instigated pursuant to
19 the laws of the Republic of Croatia shall be completed in accordance with
20 such laws."
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, excuse me, there
22 may be a misunderstanding here. Let me just check whether we have the
23 correct document on the monitor.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] This should be Exhibit 2034
1 from the Prosecution list, the law on the implementation of regulations of
2 the Republic of Serbia in the territory of the SAO Krajina. Can we scroll
3 up to the beginning of the document, just so we can check it's the right
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document we have on the screen says, "law on
6 the application of regulations of the Republic of Serbia in the Serbian
7 Autonomous District of Krajina."
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. In Article 2 in B/C/S, Your Honours, the text reads in the way I
10 cited to Mr. Kerkkanen. It appears to be mistranslated here.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then we have a problem, Mr. Milovancevic. We must
12 get the correct translation.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in order to settle
14 this matter, I suggest that we return to this document later on, in order
15 not to waste time now. So I will move on and we will return to this
16 question later on.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. The reason I put the previous question to you, sir, was that there
20 is something in paragraph 1.3, the second passage, which says that based
21 on the SAO Krajina executive council decision on the 1st of April 1991,
22 the law on internal affairs of the Republic of Serbia was de facto in
23 force in the SAO Krajina from the beginning of April 1991. I will not ask
24 you what de facto means here. I will, rather, go on to the rest of the
25 sentence, which says, that in addition, or the rest of the passage, in
1 addition on the 2nd of April 1991, a decision was published on the
2 implementation of laws and other regulations on the territory of the SAO
3 Krajina providing that federal regulations and regulations of the SAO
4 Krajina shall be implemented on the SAO Krajina territory. These two
5 sentences seem to contradict each other.
6 A. Yes. I have to say that I'm not a lawyer. I'm a researcher and
7 as a researcher I was writing this report and reading these documents that
8 were -- I was paid -- I was basing -- on which I was basing this report.
9 The fact -- de facto in the middle of this paragraph means because on the
10 1st of April 1991, on the basis of cited document, the laws and
11 constitution of the Republic of Serbia in general were recognised and more
12 specifically it was on the 1st of August 1991, as exhibit number 1044
13 states that the decision to implement specifically the law and internal
14 affairs of the Republic of Serbia in the territory of the SAO Krajina was
15 taken by the SAO Krajina government. So there is a gap from the 1st of
16 April until the 1st of August 1991, where laws of the Republic of Serbia
17 were valid as far as I understand, on the basis of these documents in the
18 SAO Krajina but specifically the law on internal affairs was accepted on
19 the 1st of August 1991.
20 Q. I just showed you, evidently by mistake, Article 2 of the law on
21 the monitor, whereas I should have put to you paragraph 2 of Article 1,
22 which is on page 1 of the translation, so please let's go back to this
23 document now.
24 Could we see Article 1 of this law, not Article 2 but Article 1?
25 In the second paragraph of this Article, the text reads in the way
1 I quoted to you, Mr. Kerkkanen, that is that the laws and other legal
2 enactments of the Republic of Serbia shall be applied if there were no
3 such regulations passed by the SAO Krajina, and that it would be the
4 government of the SAO Krajina making the decision on this. Is that
6 A. Yes. That's --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, I don't see the phrase "if no such
8 enactments" -- I beg your pardon if there were no such regulations passed
9 by the SAO Krajina, in that paragraph. It just says that the laws and
10 legal enactments of the Republic of Serbia shall apply in the Autonomous
11 District of Krajina cited by the government of the Serbian Autonomous
12 District of Krajina or its individual ministries, where the legal
13 issues concerned fall within the jurisdiction. But it doesn't say if
14 there were no such regulations passed by the SAO Krajina.
15 It is important to quote correctly to the witness,
16 Mr. Milovancevic, so that he doesn't get confused and the record doesn't
17 get confused.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the first
19 paragraph, excuse me, in the first paragraph of this Article, that is
20 precisely what it says. My question had to do with the witness's
21 statement that the law on the interior was in force from the 1st of April,
22 whereas it was in fact passed in August by a decision of the government as
23 provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 1, which we see on the monitor.
24 That was the point of my question.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then it becomes important, Mr. Milovancevic, to
1 focus the attention of the witness to the correct paragraph. You focused
2 the attention of everybody on the second paragraph of Article 1. That's
3 where we looked at. And we looked at that as the basis for your
4 questions. Now, if your questions relate also to paragraph 1, then focus
5 the witness's attention on the entire Article.
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I will do so in future,
7 Your Honour. Thank you. I was not sufficiently precise, and I apologise.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic. You may
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, do you know whether this decision passed by the
12 government of the SAO Krajina on the 1st of April 1991 on joining the SAO
13 Krajina to Serbia was accepted by Serbia?
14 A. No. I don't know.
15 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 3 or rather the third paragraph on page 5
16 you say that these rulings effectively meant that the self-declared SAO
17 Krajina unilaterally excluded itself from the Croatian jurisdiction and
18 placed itself under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Serbia and SFRY.
19 With reference to this let me ask you the following: Did Croatia issue a
20 decision on disassociation from Yugoslavia before this decision was made,
21 that is in February 1991?
22 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, he's been asked this question and he
23 answered it.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I need to reformulate my
1 question. On the basis of which documents and which evidence does the
2 witness claim that the Krajina unilaterally extracted itself or excluded
3 itself from the Croatian jurisdiction, and on the basis of what the
4 witness considers that it placed itself under the jurisdiction of the SFRY
5 when in fact it never left the SFRY.
6 THE WITNESS: Basically, we are talking exactly about those
7 documents that are cited on the page 5 and 6 of this report. As it has
8 been discussed already earlier, the document from the 5th of January 1991
9 states it clearly, that SAO Krajina excludes itself from the jurisdiction
10 of the Republic of Croatia and then these decrees and decisions taken by
11 the SAO Krajina government later in the spring and summer of 1991 refer to
12 SAO Krajina regulations or SFRY laws.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. On the next page, page 6, you say that on the 31st of November, it
15 should probably be the 30th of November because the month of November has
16 only 30 days, but that at the end of November 1991, a law on internal
17 affairs of the SAO Krajina was issued or passed and that it was enacted on
18 the 1st of December 1991, and that the law on internal affairs of the SAO
19 Krajina was adopted on the 26th of February 1992. With reference to this
20 legislation, my question is as follows: Did the decisions of the
21 executive council of the SAO Krajina and the decisions of the assembly
22 when passing these laws provide for the Ministry of the Interior of the
23 SAO Krajina becoming or being a constituent part of the ministry in the
24 Yugoslav federation and cooperate with it -- cooperating with it?
25 A. In order to answer this question, I should refresh my memory by
1 seeing these documents in front of me. I don't remember by heart all the
2 content of these different documents.
3 Q. Could we please see on the monitor document 208 from the
4 Prosecution list? It's the law on internal affairs of the SAO Krajina
5 signed by Mr. Milan Babic, the Prime Minister. Before the document
6 appears on the monitor, we will look at Article 30.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you want us to call Article 30 on the screen or
8 to call the law on the screen, Mr. Milovancevic?
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as the law is now
10 on the monitor, I wish to scroll down to Article 30 of this law.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Now I understand you. If you
12 can scroll down to Article 30 of the law, please?
13 JUDGE HOEPFEL: It should be page 10.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Article 30 provides that the Ministry of the Interior shall
17 cooperate with the organs of internal affairs in the federation and in
18 other republics and give them help in executing tasks from their
19 jurisdiction. These relations are provided for by the law; is that
21 A. Yes. That's correct.
22 Q. The law on internal affairs of the Republic of Serbian Krajina on
23 the 26th of February 1992, Prosecution Exhibit 1943, and footnote 18 on
24 this page, this document refers to command authority. And Article 33 of
25 the law passed in November or Article 42 from the law passed in February
1 are one and the same and provide for employees of the Ministry of the
2 Interior being duty bound to carry out all orders issued by the minister
3 or other superior. That's on page 6 in B/C/S. Apart from orders the
4 implementation of which would constitute a crime. When looking through
5 these documents, and you have mentioned almost 100.000 pages, did you ever
6 come across any orders issued by Mr. Martic ordering the commission of any
8 A. No, I didn't come across with this kind of documents or orders.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Your Honours, I think this is a convenient time to break for the
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic. Then the
13 Court will adjourn until tomorrow at quarter past 2.00 in the same court.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Friday, the 5th day of May,
16 2006, at 2.15 p.m.