1 Friday, 5 May 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.31 p.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
7 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, just briefly, you had -- the Court had
8 inquired yesterday about our motion regarding MM-032. I checked on that,
9 that will be filed on Monday.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Whiting.
11 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. I have some housekeeping
13 matter to do, but we need to go into private session. I'm not quite sure
14 what do we do about the witness while we do that.
15 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I think the witness should be excused.
16 If it's a matter that has to be in private session, I think the witness
17 has to be excused, I'm afraid.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: If the witness -- if you can just excuse us for two
19 minutes, we'll call you back just -- thank you very much.
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 [Private session]
11 Page 4074 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
4 May the witness please be called in.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much for your consideration,
7 Mr. Kerkkanen. Mr. Kerkkanen, you are once again -- I beg your pardon,
8 not once again, but you are reminded that you are still bound by the
9 declaration you made yesterday to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
10 nothing else but the truth. Thank you so much.
11 Mr. Milovancevic.
12 WITNESS: ARI KERKKANEN [Resumed]
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Milovancevic: [Continued]
14 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Good afternoon, Mr. Kerkkanen. We shall now resume your
16 cross-examination. Yesterday we spoke of the text of annex 1, and we
17 reached page 7. Those to say that's annex 1 to your statement. That's
18 the official title. At the very top of this page in B/C/S you state that
19 the law on the ministries of the SAO Krajina provides for the Minister of
20 Interior to be answerable for his work and work of his ministry to the
21 assembly and the government. This quotation has been linked up with
22 footnote 20. And I have a question with regard to this. Did you come
23 across information to the effect that Mr. Martic's responsibility has ever
24 been put to a vote or called into question before the assembly or the
25 government whilst he was holding the post of secretary or Minister of
2 A. No, I didn't come across with this kind of documents.
3 Q. Thank you. On the same page you state that on the basis of order
4 dated 9 October, 1991, units of the MUP could have been subordinated to
5 the Territorial Defence. In reference to this my question is as follows:
6 Why do you state that these units could have been subordinated where below
7 you quote item 1 of that same order where it states that all police units
8 in preparing and executing combat tasks shall be subordinated to the
9 competent officer of the Territorial Defence?
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: What's the substantive difference between your
11 question and what is stated in the -- in the report, Mr. Milovancevic?
12 The difference I see is that in the report it says it is subordinated to
13 the Territorial Defence. Your question says the "officer of the
14 Territorial Defence." Is that the difference?
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I will
16 clarify my question. If the text in the B/C/S is accurate, it states or
17 rather Mr. Kerkkanen states that these MUP units could have been or might
18 have been subordinated to the Territorial Defence whereas the order states
19 affirmatively that they shall be subordinated which means that is not a
20 possibility, rather this is the obligation to subordinate them and I was
21 asking Mr. Kerkkanen's explanation with regard to this.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic.
23 A. Basically because they were not all the time subordinated to the
24 Territorial Defence, I think that I'm correctly stating that they could be
25 subordinated, as this order stipulates.
1 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, am I right in saying that this order provides for
2 the obligation for the MUP units to be subordinated to TO where combat
3 activities are involved, be it on a temporary or permanent basis, but
4 whenever there are combat activities involved? I would like you to
5 respond to my question whether this indeed is provided for as an
7 A. Yes, as per this order, as it reads in preparing and executing
8 combat tasks, it says they are subordinated to the competent Territorial
9 Defence officer.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kerkkanen. In item 2.1 below, entitled, "Milan
11 Martic," and the creation of the Serb police in Krajina, you state that
12 the RSK government officially acknowledged that the 17th of August, 1990
13 marks the beginning of an organised and armed rebellion in the
14 municipalities with the Serb majority in Croatia, and the first armed
15 confrontation between the Krajina Serbs and the Croatian authorities. My
16 question has to do with the text, or rather the text of the Croatian
17 decision to that effect can be found in footnote 22. You say that this is
18 Prosecution Exhibit 1927. However, I don't think we can -- in the text
19 here we can't see the decision itself, so I would kindly ask for the
20 Prosecution Exhibit 1927 to be placed on the screen.
21 This document consists of two pages, I believe that we have page 1
22 on the monitors now, which states that in the annex the decision of the
23 government is hereby delivered, and page 2 is basically the decision
24 itself, and could we please see the text of the decision. That's page
25 7892 in the B/C/S, therefore the next page.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mine doesn't seem to have a second page,
2 Mr. Milovancevic. And it's a document dated much later than 1990, unless
3 I'm looking at the wrong document.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is the wrong document.
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] We have on the monitors now the
7 text of the decision in the B/C/S though because a moment ago we were
8 looking at the cover page of the English version. I was expecting to have
9 the English version actually on the monitor, but nevertheless let us take
10 a look at the decision.
11 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, since I have heard that you are familiar with the
12 language in which this decision is written, is this indeed the government
13 decision dated 28th July, 1990 --
14 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the year.
15 Q. Yes, you can stop here. It is hereby established that the war in
16 the territory of Serbian Krajina started on the 17th of August, 1990.
17 Item 2, this decision shall become effective on the date of its adoption.
18 And in the top bottom [as interpreted] of the page we can see Zdravko
19 Zecevic. Is this indeed what the document says?
20 A. Yes, it's correct. It's not the decision by the Croats, as you
21 said earlier, but by the RSK government.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kerkkanen. If I did say so, I misspoke. I meant
23 the RSK government decision. In this government decision it only mentions
24 that the war in the RSK started on the 17th of August, 1990, but in your
25 text under 2.1, you state that the RSK government officially acknowledged
1 that the 17th of August, 1990, marks the beginning of an organised and
2 armed rebellion in the municipality with the Serb majority in Croatia and
3 the first armed confrontation between the Krajina Serbs and the Croatian
4 authorities. Now, I would like to know on what basis do you, in fact,
5 claim that this is what the decision states?
6 A. Basically it's an interpretation of this decision, but based also
7 on the other facts we know what really did happen on the 17th of August,
8 1990. And this document shows clearly that by the RSK government that
9 date was regarded as a decisive date for the so-called state.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is there an English version of this order? We are
11 all in your hands insofar as interpreting this document is concerned. And
12 when you read it, Mr. Milovancevic, with all respect, due respect, I
13 looked at the letters written here, I didn't hear any sound that sounds
14 like this letter, this letter directed in here in this document. I'm not
15 questioning your interpretation, I'm just saying -- or your reading, I'm
16 just saying, do you have an English version?
17 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I can be of assistance, it does not
18 appear that the second page got translated for some reason, or else the
19 translation has not made it into e-court. I just checked our binder of
20 hard copies and it's not in there either. For that I apologise.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I should
23 apologise. I owe you an apology. I'm sorry, because I really did not
24 expect that this decision has not been translated. Since the document was
25 disclosed to us by the OTP, we assumed that there was a translation. My
1 apologies. May I proceed?
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, can we conclude that the text of the government
7 decision you're referring to reads as follows: That the RSK government
8 officially established in its decision that the war in the RSK started on
9 the 17th of August, 1990? Is that a fair representation?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. Thank you. In the text that follows you speak of facts, and you
12 touched upon them when you explained why you interpreted the government
13 decision the way you did. You stated that Milan Martic, a police officer
14 from Knin, organised barricades on the roads leading to Krajina and Knin
15 in order to prevent the Croatian police from reaching the police stations
16 in these municipalities and disarming them. In reference to this
17 statement of yours, here is the question: Did there come about an armed
18 conflict as these road blockings were erected? And I'm not referring to
19 any specific location.
20 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I apologise for interrupting, but I'm
21 not sure -- the way the question is phrased, if he's asking for a legal
22 conclusion, the witness isn't competent to answer and it's a determination
23 that the Court will have to make. But perhaps I'm missing the point of
24 the question or the meaning of the question. Perhaps he's asking if there
25 is a document that -- that states that there was an armed conflict. I'm
1 just not sure I -- I can understand that question.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] In view of the fact that
4 Mr. Kerkkanen wrote that Martic had organised road blocks on the roads
5 leading to Krajina and Knin, and set forth reasons for this, I asked
6 Mr. Kerkkanen whether he came across any documents or information to the
7 effect that an armed conflict broke out as these road blocks were erected.
8 A. I don't remember any specific documents, particularly related to
9 these road blocks and thus causing armed conflict. But as the previous
10 document by the RSK government states, they felt that that was the
11 beginning of the armed conflict or war in the RSK.
12 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, I hope we have clarified the situation concerning
13 the government decision in terms of the fact that the decision itself does
14 not state in any of its parts that a given date was the start of an armed
15 rebellion. Organised and armed rebellion; is that right?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Hasn't that question been answered already,
17 Mr. Milovancevic? I thought you cleared it up, you said to the witness --
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes, we have
19 received an answer that was satisfactory. However, in his recent answer
20 the witness again spoke of a rebellion when speaking about the armed
21 conflict, and I merely wanted to clarify this in view of his previous
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.
24 A. I must say that in my previous answer I didn't speak about
25 rebellion, I -- I spoke about armed conflict. Or war.
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Thank you. You go on to say that the situation was already tense,
3 as Serbs policemen in Croatia had refused to wear new insignia of the
4 Croatian police. Following this incident Martic, together with several
5 other police officers, was dismissed from duty. In reference to this I'm
6 interested in the following: What sort of new insignia of the Croatian
7 police were these that the Serb policemen, or policemen of Serb ethnicity,
8 refused to wear?
9 A. I must say I don't know exactly how this insignia looked like.
10 Q. With a reference to this refusal to wear the new insignia, I wish
11 to know whether you acquired the text of a letter written by a group of
12 policemen who were ethnic Serbs from the police station in Knin addressed
13 to General Petar Gracanin in early August 1990?
14 A. As far as my recollection, I think that I have seen this letter.
15 Q. In view of your reply, I will put a further question on this
16 topic. Do you remember that in this letter the Serb policemen expressed
17 their disagreement with the insignia and with the changes taking place in
18 the Croatian police and they were writing to the federal Secretary of the
20 A. I must say I don't remember that exactly the content of this
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kerkkanen. You go on to say that as of August,
23 1990, and up until January, 1991, or rather that this period was a
24 formative period for the forces from which the police force of the SAO
25 Krajina would arise. And you also refer to the statement made by
1 Mr. Martic in Politika in July, 1991, concerning the preparations which
2 included clandestine arming of the Serbian population. Do you see this
3 text, Mr. Kerkkanen? With reference to this I wish to know whether in
4 your review of the material you came across any information about the
5 arming of the Croatian police and the new Croatian compositions in late
6 1990 and early 1991.
7 A. There are -- it's possible that there might have been in some
8 documents references, to the arming of the Croatian police, but I don't
9 really remember any specific document.
10 Q. Let me try to jog your memory. Would it help if I were to ask you
11 whether you saw the footage and the transcript concerning General Spegelj
12 in January, 1991, where he is talking to the Minister of the Interior of
13 the Republic of Croatia, Boljkovac, they were discussing the arming of
14 these units and what would be done with those weapons?
15 A. I'm aware of this footage. I haven't seen it. I think that I
16 have read some part of the transcript. But as it was not relevant to this
17 report I was working on, I didn't concentrate more on it.
18 Q. Very well. With respect to the topic we have been discussing, in
19 the materials you reviewed, did you find an order from the Presidency of
20 the SFRY dated the 9th of January, 1991, ordering the return of all the
21 weapons of the reserve police force in Croatia, all the forces there? Did
22 you see such an order?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: For the edification of myself, if not the Chamber,
24 the return of the weapons from whom to whom, Mr. Milovancevic?
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this was an order
1 issued by the Presidency of the SFRY, that is the Presidency of Yugoslavia
2 on the 9th of January, 1991, on disarming all the reserve police forces in
3 Croatia and returning their weapons to depots under JNA control. And I
4 will subsequently put a document to the witness to confirm this. I am at
5 present just asking whether the witness has seen or heard of such a
7 A. I don't remember. It's possible I have seen it, but I have to see
8 the document itself in order to refresh my memory.
9 Q. Could we see on the monitor Prosecution document 645? This should
10 be an order issued by Mr. Martic, the Minister of the Interior, or rather
11 the Secretary of the Interior, in which he is carrying out the Presidency
12 decision, and ordering the return of all weapons in the SAO Krajina to JNA
13 control. Let us just see the introduction, or rather the heading of
14 this document. The top left-hand corner, please.
15 Can you tell us who drew up this document?
16 A. Well, I'm -- I'm familiar with this document, but this is not the
17 document we were talking about, SFRY Presidency decision. It's referring
18 to it, this document is from Secretariat from the Interior of SAO Krajina.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kerkkanen. I was about to ask you whether you were
20 familiar with this decision, or rather that Mr. Martic, as the Secretary
21 of the Interior issued this order acting on the order from the SFRY
22 Presidency on putting all weapons back under JNA control. Does this
23 confirm that Mr. Martic issued an order whereby this decision would be
24 implemented? In paragraph 2 of this decision, this is what he refers to.
25 Can we now see the bottom of the document, please?
1 At the bottom of the document it says that the acting secretary,
2 Milan Martic, drew up this decision. Is this correct, Mr. Kerkkanen?
3 A. Yes, that's correct. This order has been given by acting
4 secretary Milan Martic. But I have to say that from the same time period
5 there are documents stating that he was secretary, so there is incoherence
6 in using this title.
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wish to tender
8 this document into evidence as a Defence Exhibit if it has not already
9 been admitted into evidence. But I don't have that note.
10 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I believe this is already in evidence
11 as a result of the report. It's cited in the report. It has a different
12 65 ter number in the report, but it's the ERN number is the same. So it
13 is in the report. It's in footnote -- I believe it's in footnote 55.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you happy with that, Mr. Milovancevic? Thank
15 you very much.
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Are you aware, Mr. Kerkkanen, of the fact that on the 1st of
18 March, 1991, there was a conflict in Pakrac between Croatian special
19 purpose police forces and the local police, or milicija?
20 A. I don't remember the exact date, but I know that there was this
21 kind of conflict in Pakrac.
22 Q. Thank you. Are you aware of the fact that on the 1st of April,
23 1991, there was also an intervention by special-purpose Croatian police
24 against the Serb side in Plitvice when the JNA intervened as it had done
25 in Pakrac? I may have been wrong about the date. It might have been the
1 31st of March rather than the 1st of April. I wasn't trying to confuse
2 you about the date.
3 A. Again, I don't remember exactly the date, but in the term of March
4 and April, 1991, there was also a small armed incident in Plitvice.
5 Q. Are you aware of the fact, Mr. Kerkkanen, that the Supreme Command
6 of the armed forces of the SFRY proposed to the Presidency of Yugoslavia
7 that a state of emergency be introduced in mid-March, 1991, after the
8 conflict in Pakrac, but that no state of emergency was introduced because
9 the votes in the Presidency were divided?
10 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I may. I apologise for interrupting
11 but I guess I just don't see the point of these questions in
12 cross-examination of this witness. The witness, as Defence counsel
13 himself has insisted repeatedly, is not a fact witness, he is not an
14 expert witness. He really had a very limited purpose here of bringing
15 forward documents for the Trial Chamber to be able to consider and a
16 mechanism to bring those into evidence.
17 If -- if Defence counsel has documents that it wants to propose or
18 wants to ask if Mr. Kerkkanen came across documents pertaining to certain
19 matters that have not been cited in his report, perhaps that would be
20 relevant. But to ask him simply if he knows about these events, he either
21 does or he doesn't, but I don't see what it accomplishes, given his status
22 as a witness.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was thinking of
25 a document issued by the Presidency of Yugoslavia in March, 1991. In view
1 of the status of the witness, I will withdraw my question by Your Honour's
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are given leave to withdraw, Mr. Milovancevic.
4 To withdraw the question, rather. Thank you.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
6 Q. I withdraw this question, Mr. Kerkkanen.
7 And at the bottom of this page, which speaks of the clandestine
8 arming of the Serbian population, where you quoted Martic's interview for
9 Politika in July 1991, you say two paragraphs later on that on the 18th of
10 September, 1991, Milan Martic as minister, together with TO commander
11 Salvorda [phoen] Dulovic signed a request for necessary ammunition and
12 other military equipment sent to the Ministry of Defence in the Republic
13 of Serbia. In footnote 28 you refer to this document, of course. My
14 question is as follows: When reviewing the documents, did you come across
15 anything to show that this request was granted?
16 A. I don't remember seeing anything else than -- in respect to this
17 particular request than the request itself.
18 Q. Thank you. Then you say that the existence of the police was made
19 official by a decision issued on the 7th of November, 1990 by the Knin
20 Municipality Executive Council. This had to do with the founding of the
21 Municipal Secretariat of the Interior, the executive council informed the
22 Croatian government of this decision and requested them to recognise it.
23 With reference to this I wish to know whether you have seen any documents
24 concerning a meeting between Mr. Babic, the president of the executive
25 council, and some other representatives of the Serb side, with a Croatian
1 delegation led by Mr. Slavko Degoricija who was the chairperson of
2 parliamentary committee in Croatia, Josip Boljkovac, the Minister of
3 Interior and Stjepan Pecevski, his deputy. There are minutes of this
4 meeting which was held on the 10th of September, 1991, and they have
5 already been shown in this courtroom. Have you ever seen this document?
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, 1990, not 1991.
7 A. As far as I remember, I haven't seen minutes of this meeting. I
8 have seen, I think, some other documents about the meeting, but I don't
9 recall seeing minutes.
10 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I'm sorry to rise again, but, I mean,
11 this really shouldn't be a memory test for the witness. If -- I mean, we
12 could just show the document to the witness. It's in evidence and if
13 there are questions to be had about it, then we could discuss it. But I
14 don't -- I'm not sure what's accomplished by testing the witness's memory
15 on this.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it would be
18 unprofessional of the Defence to conduct a memory test of the witness in
19 this manner, and that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm simply trying to
20 establish a link between the document mentioned by Mr. Kerkkanen, the
21 decision of the 7th of November, and a meeting held previous to the
22 document. That's why I put this question to the witness. And the answer
23 the witness has given is quite sufficient for my purposes.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much then, Mr. Milovancevic. But if
25 you don't follow up on what is contained in those minutes, then we just,
1 unfortunately we don't understand why you raised the question of minutes
2 at all. You know, rather than just saying to him, look, there are minutes
3 in existence that relate to A, B and C, are you aware of that and what you
4 are saying is this and what you are saying is that, then at least we link
5 up the relevance. If you ask and he says he is not aware, and you leave
6 it at that, then we don't understand why you asked the question in the
7 first place. However, you may proceed, and I hope you can -- I hope you
8 can conduct the trial in the manner that I suggest henceforth.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. My next question refers to this decision of the 7th of November on
11 the founding of the Knin municipal Secretariat of the Interior. The
12 Executive Council informed the Croatian government of this and asked them
13 to recognise this. Mr. Kerkkanen, do you have a document show that the
14 Croatian government recognised this ministry and accepted it?
15 A. No, I don't have this kind of document.
16 Q. Thank you. I put these questions to you, Mr. Kerkkanen, not to
17 confuse you, but because at this meeting a peaceful solution of the crisis
18 was agreed upon between the Serbian and the Croatian authorities, the
19 meeting of the 10th of September. That's why I felt that these questions
20 were important. I will now proceed.
21 In chapter 2.2 entitled secretariat and Ministry for Internal
22 Affairs, you say that on the 19th of January, 1991 the Executive Council
23 of SAO Krajina adopted the Decree of Internal Organisation and Operation
24 of the Secretariat for Internal Affairs. In view of the footnote to this
25 text, could we please see on the monitor the text of Prosecution document
1 646, please? It's the decree mentioned here.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Excuse me.
4 Q. In the text which is now before you, Mr. Kerkkanen, there is
5 mention of a Decision on Internal Organisation and Work of the Secretariat
6 of Internal Affairs. Is this correct, Mr. Kerkkanen?
7 A. Yes, this translation of this document reads, "Resolution on
8 Internal Organisation and Work of Secretariat for Internal Affairs." But
9 at the same time I have to mention that there are two slightly different
10 drafts of the same decree, and the second draft or version is Exhibit
11 Number 1960.
12 Q. We discussed this second version yesterday, Mr. Kerkkanen. I'm
13 interested now in this version, which is the original version. Could we
14 just look at Articles 2 to 14? In each one of these articles is the
15 Secretariat of the Interior mentioned, and the Secretary of the
16 Secretariat? In the last line of Article 2 there is mention of the
17 Secretariat for Internal Affairs Article 3 begins with the words
18 Secretariat for Internal Affairs and this continues through the document
19 646. Is that correct, Mr. Kerkkanen?
20 A. Well, I would like to know how do you determine that this is the
21 original version. The second version, Exhibit Number 1960, is slightly
22 fuller one, and in the end it reads that it's a true copy of the original
23 [B/C/S spoken].
24 Q. In connection with your reply, Mr. Kerkkanen, is it beyond dispute
25 that the second Prosecution document, Exhibit 1960, is a copy of document
1 646? Yes or no?
2 A. I need to see both versions before I answer with this question.
3 Q. Before we look at those two versions, Mr. Kerkkanen, I only wish
4 to explain something so that you can understand my question. I wasn't
5 asking you to compare both versions, but only to tell me, either to
6 confirm or deny, that document 1960 is a copy of document 646. Is that
7 what it says in your footnotes and in document 1960?
8 A. No, that's -- that's footnote -- this is something -- I'm not
9 saying in my footnote is a copy of the first document, as I think that is
10 not the exact copy of the first document. There are slight differences
11 between them. Therefore, in order to explain better these documents and
12 any subsequent questions, I would like to see paper copies of these both
13 documents in English and in B/C/S.
14 MR. WHITING: We have those available if it would be of
15 assistance. The witness could have before him both copies, if it would be
16 of assistance.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Whiting, but we just want to get
18 direction from Mr. Milovancevic.
19 Where -- how are you proposing to go about this issue?
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it would be
21 important for the witness to see these two documents. That's beyond
22 dispute. What I wanted to put to the witness is the following: That on
23 page 10 of the version in the B/C/S, below chapter 2.2, the witness states
24 that the decree on internal organisation was passed and there's footnote
25 41 referenced here. Footnote 41 contains Exhibit Number 464. Now, below
1 this text the witness --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... 464 or 646.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] 646, Your Honours. If I said
4 anything else, I was wrong. But before we carry on, I would like to hear
5 the Trial Chamber's guidance whether we should go on a break now or
6 perhaps a bit later.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe it would be convenient to go on a break now,
8 and in the interim if the witness could be supplied with the documents
9 that he says he cannot answer without looking at first.
10 Court adjourned, coming back at 4.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 4.03 p.m.
13 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I may briefly. Your Honour, we did
14 provide the witness with the two different documents. I also took some
15 time during the break to make copies in case it's of assistance if the
16 Court needs it or everybody else needs it if this issue is pursued.
17 I would, however, having had a chance also to look at the two
18 documents myself, object to the form of a number of the questions before
19 the break where it was repeatedly put to the witness that -- that Exhibit
20 1960 is a copy of document 646. Now, this may have been a translation
21 issue or a manner of speech, but looking at the two documents, it's
22 immediately apparent that they're not -- one is not a copy of the other.
23 They are two versions of a document with differences that are immediately
24 apparent. And so I would submit that those questions are misleading,
25 misstate the evidence, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Whiting. I think it would in fact
2 be helpful if everybody could have copies of those documents so that what
3 you've just said can also be checked out and also the -- any subsequent
4 questions can be tracked.
5 Mr. Milovancevic, I guess you heard what Mr. Whiting had to say.
6 I may just add in addition to what he has said that you will note at
7 footnote 41, which you referred to before the break, that on line 3, the
8 reader is invited to see more detailed version of the resolution in
9 Exhibit number 1960 so that the witness does indicate that they are not
10 exactly the same. The one version is more detailed than the other.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
12 believe that what you have just said should be beyond any dispute
13 whatsoever. By your leave, I shall resume my cross-examination.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please do, yes. And it is indeed beyond any
15 dispute because it's there on paper.
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, in chapter 2.2 entitled Secretariat and Ministry
18 for Internal Affairs, you start the text by referring to the Decree on
19 Internal Organisation and Operation of the Secretariat for Internal
20 Affairs. On the same page below, you quote Articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 6A, 6B,
21 up until Article 14. Is that correct, Mr. Kerkkanen?
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. Thank you. Since you quoted articles of the Decree on Internal
24 Organisation and Operation of the Secretariat of the Interior, you quite
25 rightly in article -- when referring to Article 1 speak of the Secretariat
1 of the Interior. However, subsequently when mentioning Articles 2 to 14,
2 in explaining these individual Articles you refer to the Ministry of the
3 Interior and the Minister of the Interior. How is it possible that a
4 Decree on the Internal Organisation and Work of the Secretariat should
5 contain texts referring to a ministry, if you understand my question?
6 A. Yes, I understand the question. That's basically one of the main
7 differences between these two versions. I regard the first version as a
8 working paper and the second version as one that reflects the -- the
9 original version of the decree. And in the second version, "secretariat"
10 has been replaced by the word "ministry." That's one of the main
11 differences between these two versions.
12 The second difference is that there are more articles in the
13 second and fuller version than in the -- in the first version of this
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I also mention to you, Mr. Milovancevic, that
16 it seems as if it would be logical to refer to the minister, because on
17 the quoted version in the report itself at page 14 of the English version,
18 Article 11 is entitled states about the minister's responsibilities.
19 Article 12, 13, and 14 deals also with the minister's authorities. And
20 Article 13 says, "The Minister of the Interior shall issue specific
21 internal organisation." It does talk about the minister, not the
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the reason why I'm
24 putting these questions is not to catch the witness in an error or an
25 oversight. My question essentially has to do with the statement put for
1 the by the witness contained on page 4 under chapter 1.2, situation in the
2 SAO Krajina. Could I please refer you to chapter 1.2.
3 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, under the beginning of the chapter 1.2, you
4 state: "According to the statute of the Serbian Autonomous District of
5 Krajina promulgated on the 21st of December, 1990, the SAO Krajina
6 executed laws, other ordnances, and general acts of the Republic of
7 Croatia and the SFRY."
8 Is that what you stayed there, Mr. Kerkkanen?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Since the statute was passed in late December 1990, where Krajina
11 is part of Croatia the Croatian laws applied to Krajina, then this text
12 you've referred to under paragraph -- or chapter 2.2, the decree on the
13 work of the secretariat is in fact in accordance with the statute, because
14 in the territory of an autonomous district, there can be no ministry, is
15 that right, Mr. Kerkkanen, only a secretariat? The ministry exists at the
16 level of the Republic of Croatia.
17 A. Well, I ought to refer to the establishment of the secretariat of
18 the SAO Krajina on the 4th of January, 1991, and to the declaration about
19 its establishment on the 5th of January where it explicitly states the SAO
20 Krajina excludes itself from the jurisdiction of the Croatian authorities.
21 Q. Did you quote that well? We're talking about the decision and the
22 powers of the Secretariat of the Interior, because that the power of the
23 Ministry of the Interior shall not apply to the territory of the Krajina
24 without its approval, its consent. Is that right?
25 A. To be honest, I have difficulties to follow you now.
1 Q. We will move on to a different topic, Mr. Kerkkanen. In
2 connection with the decree on the internal organisation and work dated 19
3 January, 1992, that's chapter 2.2, there you quote Article 6(A).
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, the year is 1991, not
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. It's quoted there and talks about the possibility of setting up
8 special police units in time of an imminent threat of war, in time of war
9 and other extraordinary circumstances where the special police units shall
10 be set up from the ranks of the police and other MUP employees.
11 I would like to know the following: This decree on the
12 possibility of setting up special police units, is it in accordance with
13 the Croatian legislation, with the law on the internal affairs of the
14 Republic of Croatia?
15 A. We were just a while ago talking about the differences between
16 those two versions, and this Article 6(A) is included in this second and
17 fuller version of the decree, and that's basically -- and it states about
18 the possibility to form these special police units. That was not
19 mentioned in the working paper or the first version at all.
20 I think that in this context, it's not relevant whether it was in
21 accordance with the Croatian legislation, because the SAO Krajina
22 authorities at that time, on the 19th of January, 1991, they didn't
23 recognise any more the Croatian legislation.
24 Q. On the issue of these special police units, to have them set up is
25 it enough for a unit to exist at a different location and then this person
1 can say, "I'm a member of the Special Police Unit," whether it is
2 Baklajic's group, Knin training centre, another group?
3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't get the name.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. What is your opinion about it?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, I think earlier in the day or
7 even yesterday you contested the status of this witness. He's not giving
8 an expert opinion here. You can't be seeking his opinion on this. He is
9 telling us what is written in these documents, and what is written in
10 these documents is exact -- he's quoting articles from the document. How
11 is he supposed to express an opinion on the documents? Is that what he's
12 called for?
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I had in mind the
14 continuation of the text in mind where Baklajic's group and Silto's
15 [phoen] group is referred to, where the witness gives his opinion as to
16 whether they are special police units or not. In view of the fact that he
17 viewed documents concerning the ministry or the Secretariat of the
18 Interior, my question was whether on the basis of the documents reviewed
19 he had formed a certain opinion about it, not as an expert witness though.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then you must lay a foundation for your question.
21 Don't ask the question when you intend to go back to the foundation a
22 little later. Put the foundation first before you put your question.
23 Tell him that you expressed an opinion on such an issue. Are you able to
24 express an opinion on the other issue?
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Do you understand my question, Mr. Kerkkanen? In the text below,
4 you mentioned Silto group and Baklajic's group, Lapra [phoen] group, and
5 some other groups as well. You presented an explanation with regard to
6 these groups in terms of them being parts of special police units or not.
7 In connection with your writing, my question is as follows: On the basis
8 of this Decree on the Internal Organisation of the Ministry of the
9 Interior or the Secretariat of the Interior, can you give your assessment
10 as to whether these were in fact special police units?
11 A. This decree stipulates the possibility to set up special police
12 units. And as we know, it's also mentioned later in the report that the
13 order to establish them was -- was -- or the establishment of the special
14 police units was formalised in May, 1991, and these few specific groups
15 you were referring to clearly, on the basis of documentation, identified
16 themselves as -- as a part of SAO Krajina special police units.
17 Q. As a follow-up to your reply, I was about to ask you, in fact, the
18 following: The fact that some units presented themselves as being part of
19 the Ministry of the Interior, was -- did that alone suffice for them to
20 actually be considered part of the Ministry of the Interior?
21 MR. WHITING: I'm going to object to that. Considered by whom?
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic? Considered by whom,
23 Mr. Milovancevic?
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this was merely a
25 question further to Mr. Kerkkanen's answer that these units presented
1 themselves as part of the Ministry of the Interior, and my question was,
2 was it enough for someone to introduce themselves as part of the MUP to in
3 fact be considered to be part of that institution, or did anything else
4 have to be presented in support of that?
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: But you know, Mr. Milovancevic, the problem I have
6 with that kind of question is that that's a question appropriately to be
7 asked to the person who set up these MUPs, what did he intend to include
8 and what did he intent to exclude? This witness is dealing with a
9 documents and anybody who then case he is a special unit member and is
10 part of it as a result of these documents have been mentioned here? He
11 can only, say, take it on face value. But, however, if there were other
12 factors to be added which are not apparent from the document, only the
13 person who has those factors can tell us, and that's person who formed the
14 unit. Not this witness. This witness is interpreting documents, not the
15 intentions of the author of the document.
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'll
17 withdraw my previous question by your leave.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. [Microphone not activated]
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, in Article 6(B) on this document on internal
21 organisation, you state that the following is stated about the special
22 police units: "The Minister of the Interior," and we're talking about
23 chapter 2.2, wherein you quote Article 6(B). In the B/C/S, it's page 10.
24 I'm not sure which page it is in the English version. Chapter 2.2,
25 secretariat and the Ministry of the Interior, Article 6(B), you state the
1 following -- did you find Article 6(B)?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. "The minister of the ministry shall issue a document
4 only the establishment of a special police unit as described in Article
5 6(A) of this decree specifying its organisation, manpower and material
6 establishment, strength, and the manner of recruitment of units."
7 I have the following question in reference to this: In order for
8 any special police unit to exist, was it necessary for the minister --
9 Minister of the Interior to pass an enactment setting such a unit up along
10 with all the other elements identified herein?
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're doing the same thing, Mr. Milovancevic. I'm
12 sorry to have to do this to you, but again you're asking this witness to
13 interpret the intentions of the person who drew this document. What you
14 have just read out to the witness is not the words of this witness. This
15 witness is quoting an article, and if there are any meanings hidden behind
16 that article, only the author can answer those questions, not this
17 witness. He is merely quoting, sir. These are not his words. This is
18 not part of his report. It is part of his report to the extent that it is
19 a quotation from an enactment.
20 Now, if you're asking him to explain what went on in the mind of
21 the person who passed this enactment, then you are asking for the
22 impossible, unless he has had an interview with that person.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour. I
24 will rephrase my question.
25 Q. On the basis of the provision of Article 6(B), Mr. Kerkkanen, for
1 any unit of the Ministry of the Interior which was termed a special police
2 unit, did you find any enactment referring to such a unit containing all
3 the other elements mentioned here? Did you come across such a document?
4 A. I can refer to the Exhibit number 78. That's the decision of the
5 Assembly of the SAO Krajina to form Special Purpose Units of the police of
6 the SAO Krajina MUP called, as Milicija Krajina, or [B/C/S spoken] of
7 Milicija Krajina on the 29th of May, 1991. So that's the document that is
8 about the Assembly decision to establish these special police units.
9 Q. You have just mentioned the decision of the Assembly of the
10 Krajina dated 29 May on the establishment of Special Purpose Units of the
11 SAO Krajina, whereas on page 12, which would be the page following the one
12 where the -- where Article 6(B) is quoted, that's the text after the
13 quotation of Article 14, two passages down from there starts or reads as
14 following: "The police forces under the Ministry of the Interior were
15 known under the following titles: Martic's milicija, police; SAO
16 Krajina's police or milicija; and Martic's men, Marticevci." Have you
17 found that part of the document, sir?
18 A. Yes, I have.
19 Q. In view of the text of this decision whereby a Special Purpose
20 Unit shall be called the police of the Krajina, I'd like to know whether
21 these names, Martic's Police, SAO Krajina's Police, and Martic's Men, were
22 these the titles used by the Ministry of the Interior or by some other
24 A. These names I have been referring to on the page 15 of the English
25 version of my report are names how generally speaking or colloquially
1 these police units were known in the SAO Krajina. These are not official
2 names of the police units.
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kerkkanen. A few passages below this one you say
4 that a report of the State Security of the 4th of May gives an indication
5 about the way how people were hired to the SAO Krajina MUP and the quality
6 of them caused some resentment among local population and TO members.
7 What I wish to know is whether what you say here refers to just
8 Bukovica or was this widespread opinion referring to the entire SAO
10 A. This part of the document speaks about this area of Bukovica.
11 That is near Benkovac.
12 Q. Could we see exhibit mentioned -- the exhibit mentioned in
13 footnote 50? That's 1964, and the title is "Subject information about
14 security problems in the area of Bukovica." The document is dated 4th of
15 May, 1992, and issued by the State Security Service.
16 Could we scroll down a little bit, and could you say whether you
17 recognise this as the document referred to in footnote 50?
18 A. Can we scroll it a little bit more down, please? Yes, that's the
19 document I was referring to.
20 Q. In the first paragraph of this document, there is mention of a
21 conflict between a group of military conscripts and two civilians with the
22 commander of the Kistanje security station and an operative of that
23 statement where the conscripts intervened on the side of the civilians
24 using their personal weapons, and they were brought in after this. And
25 then in the middle of this first part, it says that citizens and military
1 conscripts are complaining because -- and they're criticising Lazo Komazec
2 [phoen] because he hired a number of people who did not meet the standards
4 In connection with this, is it realistic to say that there was
5 dissatisfaction with the personnel policy of the MUP or was the conflict
6 about something else? Is that evident from this document?
7 A. It's evident from this document. It illustrates very well that
8 the popular feeling of the citizens in Bukovica was that they didn't like
9 the fact that the many MUP members who were hired were owners of private
10 coffee bars and their friends. So obviously, local citizens were not
11 happy about this -- this MUP personnel.
12 Q. Is there any significance in the text that goes on, which says
13 that the military conscripts are threatening to fire on Kistanje, the
14 public security station there? And it says that Milan Babic's people are
15 active here with a view to forming army units.
16 On page 3, which is marked 3816 in B/C/S -- could we see this on
17 the monitor? The last page, please. Can we see the bottom of page 2 and
18 then page 3? It's different in B/C/S. I apologise.
19 In the passage before the last, the penultimate paragraph, it
20 says: "We wish to draw attention to the fact that General Nikovic, while
21 carrying out the duties of commander of the Knin Corps, that he had close
22 cooperation with Milan Babic, making it possible for moves to be made
23 which have proved to be very detrimental."
24 And then it goes on to say: "Meeting Babic's demands, Nikovic
25 made it possible for members of the SDS to attempt to arm themselves in
1 the form of a TO detachment, a detachment of the Territorial Defence of
2 the local communes of Kosovo, Ramljane, Otisic, Cetinje, Civljane,
3 Padjane, Djevrske. This action was prevented by decisive action by Mr.
4 Martic after he was informed of all this by the state security."
5 I have quoted part of this document in order to ask you the
6 following question: Does this not indicate that there were other reasons
7 for the dissatisfaction among the citizens when they criticised the
8 personnel of the police?
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, doesn't this document clearly
10 state, and I think it's somewhere at page 1, that the reasons for the
11 complaints were multi-faceted? However, the reason that coffee bar owners
12 and their friends are being employed as MUP members is one of those
13 reasons. Does it really matter whether there are other reasons or not? I
14 mean, it doesn't make it incorrect the assertion that the hiring of coffee
15 bar owners was one of the reasons, and that is the only reason that's
16 being mentioned. The other reasons are actually not being mentioned. If
17 you look at page 1.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: You know, you see at the middle of page 1 the
20 statement -- that the document says "And Krajina and MUP Ministry of the
21 Interior members are becoming more and more frequent in the areas of
22 Bukovica. Causes and reasons of the incidents are multiple meaning," and
23 I want to believe that by multiple, what is meant there is that there are
24 many reasons for these things. But immediately after that they deal with
25 the question of the personnel that's involved that are employed, and it
1 looks like that reason becomes the dominant reason. But it is by no mean
2 the only reason.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. May I
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, you go on to speak about the Public Security
8 Service. In the second paragraph, you say that in a dispatch dated the
9 14th of January, 1991, and submitted to the public security stations of
10 Benkovac, Gracac, Obrovac, Donji Lapac and Titova Korenica requests these
11 stations to submit the number of employees in each station and job
12 classifications. This information was needed so that Mr. Martic could
13 draw up new wage and salary regulations and a new job classification.
14 In this respect, do you know whether regulations on job
15 classification and on wage and salary regulations, whether these were ever
16 drawn up? Have you ever come across these documents?
17 A. The reason for selecting this document and including it in this
18 report was the fact that it was sent by Mr. Milan Martic showing that he
19 exercised authority on the public security stations and the secretariat of
20 the SAO Krajina. Whether these responses to this request or dispatch were
21 sent, I don't know.
22 Q. Thank you. You say that on the 16th of January, 1991, Martic
23 submitted a message concerning refusal to sign the Croatian MUP
24 statements. Then you quote the text of the dispatch, which says that this
25 is an illegitimate and provocative act. Gross, unlawful, and provocative.
1 Do you know want kind of statements were supposed to be signed for
2 the Croatian MUP?
3 A. No, I don't know.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. At the end of this chapter, before you go on to point 2.2.2, saw
7 in his order dated the 14th of September, 1993, Martic issued an order to
8 all members of the police telling them to carry out all their tasks in a
9 professional manner and you add footnote 61. Does this show that Martic
10 was requiring all members of the MUP to respect the law and to carry out
11 all work and assignments professionally?
12 A. In order to answer this question, I would like to see this
13 particular document, Exhibit number 9 -- 1971.
14 Q. Could we please have document 1971 on the ELMO. It seems that the
15 text has come up on the monitor. This is the text of the order and, yes,
16 it's in English. That's fine.
17 In the second passage, Mr. Martic says: "I therefore order that
18 in the forthcoming period all work and assignments be carried out
19 conscientiously and professionally, with the necessary measure of
20 determination and promptness. Negligence, indolence, look of initiative
21 and indecisiveness will no longer be tolerated.
22 "Anyone who fails to comply with this order or who fails to behave
23 accord wants Rules Of Service will face disciplinary measures and will be
24 severely punished.
25 "The chiefs of public security stations are responsible for the
1 implementation of this order."
2 Signed by Minister Milan Martic.
3 You heard my question, Mr. Kerkkanen.
4 A. Yes. And in fact, in your question you stated whether this
5 document says that the work must be carried out with respect to the law.
6 The law is not mentioned in this document at all. The document is about
7 to carry out work professionally and in accordance with the Rules of
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is respect mentioned, Mr. Kerkkanen?
10 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, no.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, were the Rules of Service based on the laws and
14 constitution of the SAO Krajina?
15 A. I suppose so, but I'm not a legal expert, so I can't be specific
16 about this question.
17 Q. Thank you. In chapter 2.2.2, entitled "State Security Service,"
18 you deal with the State Security Service. That's page 15 in B/C/S. I
19 think it's 17 or 18 or further on in English. I apologise for not having
20 the precise page number.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: It's page 19.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. My question in relation to this topic is are you dealing with the
24 State Security Service here which was set up by the decision we have just
25 discussed, the one on the internal organisation of the Ministry of the
2 A. As I write in the beginning of this paragraph, "Establishment of
3 the State Security Service was stipulated by those regulations issued on
4 the 4th of January, 1991."
5 Q. In paragraph 1 of the chapter dealing with the State Security
6 Service, you say that Mr. Milan Babic tried on the 1st of August, 1991, to
7 abolish the state security service in the SAO Krajina, but it seems that
8 this order was never executed. What I wish to know in connection with
9 this is, is the reason for Mr. Babic's attempt made clear in his decision?
10 A. I need to see this document in order to answer first this
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see Prosecution
13 document 106 on the monitor.
14 THE WITNESS: Please can you scroll down a little bit more.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. This document contains three Articles. Is that correct,
18 Mr. Kerkkanen? This decision by Mr. Babic's government.
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. In Article 2 it says: "The president of the government of the
21 Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina is charged with preparing, by the
22 next government session, a proposal to establish a government agency for
23 national security."
24 I have already asked you whether you consider that this shows what
25 the reason was for the decision to abolish the State Security Service.
1 A. This document doesn't state the reason.
2 Q. Does Article 2 of this decision oblige the president of the
3 government to prepare by the next government session a proposal to
4 establish a government agency? I think there's no dispute about that.
5 A. Yes. That's what the Article number 2 states.
6 Q. In the course of your work, Mr. Kerkkanen, did you see a proposal
7 issued by the government for the establishment of a government agency for
8 national security pursuant to this decision?
9 A. No, I didn't see.
10 Q. Thank you. And in your text, you go on to say that "The Federal
11 Secretariat of the interior, third administration," so this refers to the
12 Federal Secretariat, "on 23rd of March, 1992, slashes the SAO Krajina
13 security service." And then you go on to quote part of the text of this
14 report which says that, "The SAO Krajina security service led by Orlovic
15 is basically on an amateurish, hearsay level, and not capable of seriously
16 countering the Croatian Security Service."
17 Then you go on to say that, "One document submitted in April 1992
18 indicates that the state security service in Knin reported to the State
19 Security of Serbia in Belgrade."
20 I wish to ask you whether you found the document on the basis of
21 which the state security service in Knin was able to submit reports to the
22 State Security of Serbia in Belgrade.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: What's the relevance of that question?
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the relevance is
25 that the witness proceeds to say in his text that on the 23rd of August,
1 1992, Martic suspended the work of the state security department.
2 Witnesses who testified here said that Mr. Martic suspended this service
3 precisely because they sent information to Belgrade.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I then think you must tell him that, that that's
5 what's been said. Put like that in the air is just irrelevant, because
6 he's just saying "a document submitted in April indicates that," and
7 that's all he knows. He knows what he knows from that document and
8 nothing beyond, and if you want to find out that, you can suggest to him
9 other witnesses said so, and if you didn't get that document from those
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I only felt it
12 important to previously establish whether there was a document authorising
13 such delivery of information to Belgrade. However, I will follow
14 Your Honour's instructions and put a direct question to the witness.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please do, Mr. Milovancevic, and do it in such a
16 manner that the relevance of your question can be apparent. Why the Court
17 keeps interfering is simply because your questions do not on the face of
18 it appear to be relevant, and we're trying to find out the relevance,
19 which is one of the factors that must be taken into account by a Court
20 when questions are being asked.
21 You may ask your question.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour.
23 Thank you.
24 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, there were witnesses who testified here that
25 Mr. Martic suspended the work of the State Security Service because
1 reports had been sent to the State Security Service in Belgrade. In
2 connection with this, I'm interested in finding out whether you found any
3 document authorising the state security service of Krajina to deliver
4 information to anyone else apart from their own government and their own
6 A. I didn't found specifically this kind of document.
7 Q. Thank you. Let us move on to chapter 2.2.3, Special Purpose Units
8 of the Ministry of the Interior. In the B/C/S that's on page 17. That's
9 the continuation of the text following the part concerning State Security
11 In the beginning, you state that the Assembly of the SAO Krajina
12 passed the decision to form Special Purpose Units of the SAO Krajina on
13 the 29th of May, 1991, and that in that decision the Special Purpose Units
14 of the police were named Milicija Krajina or, that is to say, Krajina
15 Police. You go on to say that the decision on the application of the law
16 of -- on defence of the Republic of Serbia in the territory of the SAO
17 Krajina, it was decided that these Special Purpose Units of Krajina would
18 form the armed forces of the SAO Krajina together with the Territorial
20 Did you come across documents which show who was in command of
21 these Special Purpose Units of the Krajina police mentioned in this law
22 dating from August 1991?
23 A. It's clear from various documentations concerning special police
24 units that they were under -- acting under -- they were under the
25 authority of the Ministry of the Interior.
1 Q. In Article 1 of this decision dated 29 May, 1991, on the
2 establishment of Special Purpose Units - that's under chapter 2.2.3 - you
3 quote that: "These units shall be placed under the authority of the
4 Ministry of Defence." That's one article. There is another provision
5 which is quoted from the Law on Defence dating from the 1st of August,
6 1991, which provides for the establishment of the armed forces of the SAO
7 Krajina. The Prosecution document number 105 contains the following
8 provision: That these armed forces shall be commanded ex officio by the
9 Prime Minister. Are you aware of this?
10 A. Yes, I'm aware of this document.
11 Q. Thank you. Two pages before this particular passage we were just
12 looking at, you speak of the fact that Mr. Babic passed a decree on the
13 forces of the SAO Krajina, and below that is the text I'd like to refer
14 you to, that's the structure of the Special Purpose Units which was made
15 systematic. Did you find that particular passage? That's page 18 in the
16 B/C/S. It's immediately before chapter 2.2.3.
17 A. No, I didn't find it.
18 Q. We go back to the beginning chapter 2.2.3, "Special Purpose
19 Units." We read out the text concerning the establishment of the armed
20 forces of the SAO Krajina. Then the next chapter is that Milan Babic
21 passed a decree on the insignia, and that precedes the part of the text
22 that I referred to in putting the question to you.
23 The text starts as follows: "The Special Police Unit structure
24 was also systematised during 1992. Have you found that passage?
25 MR. WHITING: If I may be of assistance, it's the top of page 24.
1 And if I could make a suggestion, perhaps indicating passage by footnote
2 number would be helpful. That would speed finding the passage.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Whiting.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I wish to thank my learned
5 friend for his very helpful suggestion.
6 Q. In this text referring to the structure of special police units,
7 there is a footnote 85 at the end of it. So in this particular paragraph,
8 you speak of Special Purpose Units, and then you go on to speak of special
9 police. Are you referring to the same forces? Because in this case,
10 Mr. Kerkkanen, we are having difficulties with identifying the police
11 formations of the SAO Krajina. Therefore, this structure of Special
12 Purpose Units, that's the sentence which speaks of special police units.
13 What I wanted to ask you was the following: Does the entire passage refer
14 in fact to special police units that were established pursuant to the
15 decision dating from the 29th of May, 1991?
16 A. I think it was possible to establish on the basis of documents
17 used in this report, that is Special Purpose Units established on the 29th
18 of May, 1991, were transformed later during 1992 into the special police
19 units and RSK MUP special brigades.
20 Q. Thank you. In chapter 2.3 entitled "Clashes over Ministry of the
21 Interior," which is the chapter starting with footnote 86, if you can find
22 it. The title of the chapter is "Clashes over Ministry of the Interior."
23 There you state that the SAO Krajina state security report from 11
24 June, 1991, informs about the clashes between Milan Martic and Milan
25 Babic, especially regarding the appointment of new SAO Krajina ministers.
1 Based on the documents reviewed, did you establish who it was who
2 nominated ministers and who, in turn, appointed them?
3 To perhaps give you a more specific question, based on the data
4 that the Defence has, the government of the SAO Krajina nominates
5 ministers and the SAO Krajina Assembly appoints them. Is that correct?
6 A. That at least should be the normal procedure.
7 Q. Thank you. In the paragraph that follows, you state that Dusan
8 Vjestica was appointed Minister of the Interior on the 29th of May, 1991,
9 thus replacing Martic from that same post, and you go on to say that Milan
10 Martic was again appointed Minister of the Interior on the 27th of June,
11 1991. Why.
12 Based on the documents you reviewed, were you able to conclude
13 that throughout this period Milan Martic was -- rather, Milan Babic was
14 Prime Minister and the person who nominated Martic for that post before
15 the SAO Krajina Assembly?
16 A. What I know on the basis of documents, of course Milan Babic at
17 that time was the Prime Minister, and Milan Martic, who was secretary or
18 minister of the Ministry for Internal Affairs until he was appointed for
19 Ministry of Defence on the 29th of May, 1991, keeping this position less
20 than a month and then being renominated as Minister of Interior on the
21 27th of June, 1991.
22 Q. Am I right in saying that he was again appointed minister on the
23 nomination of the Prime Minister, Milan Babic?
24 A. I need to see the Exhibit number 91 about his election to the post
25 of Minister of Interior on 27th of June, 1991, in order to answer this
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Kerkkanen.
3 Your Honour, would this be a convenient moment for a break?
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: It will be a convenient moment for the break. And
5 if in the meantime you can make sure the witness gets document 91.
6 Court adjourned. Come back at quarter to six.
7 --- Recess taken at 5.16 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 5.46 p.m.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. We are nearing the end of the topic concerning State Security
12 Service, Mr. Kerkkanen. Right before chapter 2.4, you state that the
13 state security has particularly focused on the ever-increasing conflict
14 between Mr. Babic and Mr. Martic. Have you found that portion of the
16 You go on to say: "In the report of the State Security Service
17 dated 4th of May, 1992, it is implied that the State Security Service has
18 sided with the policy of Milan Martic against Milan Babic."
19 In connection with this, my question is the following: Is this
20 the report which has to do with Bukovica --
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter isn't sure about the name.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation].
23 Q. -- that we mentioned a bit earlier?
24 A. Yes, that's the same document.
25 Q. I'd like to hear how it is that you explain your conclusion that
1 this document implies that the SDB sided with the policy of Milan Martic,
2 that is to say the State Security Service sided with Martic and against
3 Babic in view of the fact that we saw a document dated 23rd August, 1992,
4 wherein Milan Martic disbanded the State Security Service, which is only a
5 couple of months after this report concerning Bukovica.
6 A. I think it's very well possible. I mean there's no any problem
7 with the fact that the State Security Service was on the side of Milan
8 Martic in May 1992, and the service was later on disbanded by him.
9 Something may have happened in between, after May and before August.
10 Q. The fact that you cite the text, that particular text in footnote
11 68, which is related to the order by Milan Martic suspending the State
12 Security Service, dated 23 August, 1992, and you quote it, and you say
13 that the former employees of the SDB have even been banned from entering
14 the official premises.
15 This is my question: Not only did Mr. Martic disband the service,
16 but even went as far as to ban the former employees from entering the
17 premises, whereas you state that the service had sided with him against
18 Babic. Is that really logical?
19 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, this has been asked and answered. This
20 is exactly the previous question, and it's been answered.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
23 withdraw the question and we'll move on.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. We have now reached chapter 2.4 entitled "Local banned groups
2 affiliated with MUP Special Purpose Units." In the B/C/S, that's on page
3 20. Footnote 92 onwards.
4 In this particular chapter, you state that in addition to -- that
5 at least Sinisa Martic, aka Silt's group, was related to Martic, as well
6 as Predrag Baklajic's group, the Labra paramilitary group led by
7 Milanovic, aka Labra, as well as units at the Samarica training camp.
8 On the basis of which document did you identify some of these
9 groups as paramilitary groups and others as other types of groups?
10 A. Well, I have referred to the documents in the subsequent chapter
11 on these armed groups that were affiliated with the MUP Special Purpose
12 Units, and I was using exactly same names of these units that these
13 documents are using and the unit themselves were using about themselves.
14 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, my question was why did you identify some of these
15 groups as paramilitary groups and others not? I apologise if my former
16 question was not clear.
17 A. I didn't identify. It wasn't my -- it wasn't my decision to
18 identify some of these groups as paramilitary and others not. I used
19 exactly those names that these units used about themselves and are
20 mentioned in those documents I was using when I was writing the report.
21 Q. In this text you state, for instance, the Labra paramilitary
22 group. My question had to do with the following: Why is the Labra group
23 a paramilitary group and Predrag Baklajic's group is not? Why did you
24 style one group as a paramilitary group and the other merely as a group?
25 Do you understand me now?
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Question asked and answered. The witness said that
2 that's how they called themselves and that's why he called them that way.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Milosevic.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. When you speak about Sinisa Martic Silt's group, he state it
7 became active during the summer months of 1991, and you state
8 literally: "It operated mainly in the territory of Glina municipality."
9 You cite the heading of the report submitted by Sinisa Martic on
10 the 22nd of November which states: "The Special Unit of the Krajina
12 Was it only on the basis of this heading, which read "Special Unit
13 of Krajina's police," which was written by the leader of the group, that
14 you concluded that this was a unit which was part of the Ministry of the
16 A. Not only on the basis of this one document. This report, Exhibit
17 number 2018, information about the task of Special Purpose Units in Glina,
18 written by the commander of the Territorial Defence brigade Glina in
19 February 1992, it refers to this -- to this particular Silt's group,
20 stating that a special unit of the Ministry of the Interior of the
21 Republic of Serbian Krajina or the so-called Silto's group of 75
22 soldiers." So this document is referring to this same Silt's group and
23 specifically refers to as a special unit of the Ministry of the Interior.
24 Q. Before this text of the TO Glina Brigade Command that you
25 mentioned, you stated in connection with this Sinisa Martic's report dated
1 22nd of November, that this unit considered itself to be part of the SAO
2 Krajina special police. And in the paragraph below, you mention the
3 report of the Crisis Staff of Glina municipality, which states that armed
4 groups could not operate as part of either the army or the police but
5 engage in criminal activities. And Silt's group is mentioned as an
6 illustration, a group which stole five or six automobiles.
7 In view of the different information given by the command of the
8 brigade of TO Glina and the Glina municipality Crisis Staff, did you find
9 any other document which would indicate that Silt's group indeed formed
10 part of the Ministry of the Interior of the SAO Krajina or the RSK?
11 A. Exhibit number 19267 refers to this same Silt's group that was
12 sent from the territory of Glina to conduct combat operations as part of
13 police forces. So there are several documents that indicate this group
14 being a part of police units.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Police units of the SAO Krajina?
16 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, that's correct. The police units of
17 the SAO Krajina.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Could we please have 65 ter document 668 shown on the monitor,
21 which is Sinisa Martic Silt's report dated 22nd November, 1991.
22 Mr. Kerkkanen, is -- this report by Sinisa Martic dated 22nd
23 November, 1991, you speak of indeed on the monitor where it says "Krajina
24 Special Police," is this the report you had in mind when you wrote down
25 footnote 97?
1 A. Yes, that's the report.
2 Q. Does this document contain a reference number, a stamp, a
3 signature, or any other reference except for the allegation by the person
4 who authored the document that this was the Krajina police Special Purpose
6 A. In order to answer this question I need to see the B/C/S version
7 of the document.
8 There are no stamps or reference numbers on this document. It's
9 basically a report or operational report written by Sinisa Martic, and --
10 but there are, as we already were referring to, other documents which
11 corroborate the fact that this unit was a part of the SAO Krajina police
13 Q. Is what you state here now true since you state in your report
14 that the Crisis Staff, in talking about this group, you state then: "In
15 the regular combat report it is stated that on the 22nd June, 1992, Silt's
16 group from the area of Glina was deployed to carry out an assignment as
17 part of the police force. Does it state here that it was deployed as a
18 Special Police Unit or that it was deployed as a unit forming part of the
19 police, or are these two one and the same thing for you?
20 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I may. I don't really see how the
21 witness can answer that or, if he did, how it would be -- how it would
22 assist the Trial Chamber in its task. The documents say what they say.
23 And it seems to me -- I'm not sure what is accomplished by having the
24 witness go through and read certain parts of the document and compare it
25 with other parts of the document. That's something that can be done by
1 the Trial Chamber. It can be done in argument. I'm not sure there is
2 anything added by putting the witness through this process. This is
3 something that could be done without the witness.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can move on to
6 my next question. I do not wish to insist, and I accept what has been
7 said. I withdraw the question.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
9 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I have to say my objection was more of
10 a general nature with respect to all -- you know, all the questions. I
11 mean, when I object the question gets withdrawn and we move to another
12 question which is -- tends to be similar. I'm just wondering if there
13 could be some direction given to Defence counsel to focus in on questions
14 that really would be -- that really require the witness and not on
15 questions that are simply argument or reading out the documents.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, I think the Trial Chamber has
17 asked you on many occasions to please ask focused questions and questions
18 that really make progress. You seem to be going through this witness's
19 report sentence by sentence and asking him comparative questions. I've
20 tried this whole afternoon. The Chamber is getting tired of interrupting
21 you in your questions because we want to get done the job. Once again I
22 ask you to please be focused, get what you want to get from the witness.
23 Don't try to -- I don't know if you're trying to get contradiction, but if
24 you're trying to go for contradiction, go for the contradiction and get
25 it. But the way you are cross-examining, it really -- the Chamber doesn't
1 see the purpose of your cross-examination to tell the honest true. I
2 don't know how your questions are going to help the Chamber in finding the
3 truth in this matter.
4 Once again, I ask you to please focus your questions to issues
5 that support the case of the Defence or weaken the case of the
7 You may proceed.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. At the end of the text concerning Silt's group, you state that
10 this group, as many other groups, took part in criminal activities and
11 that in September, 1993, Milan Martic issued an order to conduct an
12 operation against the group by a special brigade of the RSK MUP with the
13 support of the Knin SUP -- or MUP. Did you come across any documents
14 indicating that this operation was, in fact, carried out?
15 A. I must say I don't remember. It may be -- it's difficult to
16 recall. It's quite a long time when I was reviewing these documents, so I
17 can't be sure.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: The short answer is you don't recall.
19 Mr. Kerkkanen? Your short answer is you don't remember?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. The next group you mention, Mr. Kerkkanen, is Predrag Baklajic's
24 group for whom you said he had introduced himself to the commander of the
25 2nd Lika Brigade as a captain. You also state that Baklajic and his group
1 did not cooperate with the 2nd Lika Brigade and that colonel Trbojevic
2 asked Milan Martic to remove this unit from his area of responsibility.
3 Did this -- or was this Baklajic's group --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the Defence counsel please repeat his
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could you please repeat your question,
7 Mr. Milovancevic? The interpreters didn't hear you.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. The question was: Was Baklajic's group routed or crushed by the
10 invention of the SAO Krajina or the RSK MUP by way of arresting the leader
11 of the group and several of its members?
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it the evidence of the witness that it was
13 crushed or routed at all, or is this -- or is this a fact that comes from
14 the Defence?
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I asked this
16 because of some documents which indicate that the witness ought to know
17 that it was. This was something referenced in the footnotes, and I just
18 wanted to find out whether the witness was aware of this particular piece
19 of information.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.
21 THE WITNESS: Can you give me the footnote in order to refresh my
23 Yes. May I continue? I have it here. I had difficulties to find
24 it. It's actually Exhibit number 688 where information from Knin SUP
25 indicates that the -- the Vrhovine police Special Purpose Unit led by
1 Predrag Baklajic was getting out of control, and Milan Martic had to give
2 an order to disband his unit in early 1992.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. In addition to the order to disband the group, which was issued by
5 Mr. Milan Martic as the Minister of the Interior, do you recall the
6 information to the effect that the Ministry of the Interior of the RSK had
7 conducted a very detailed inquiry into the activities of this group?
8 A. There are a few documents cited in this report and specifically
9 under this paragraph that refers to investigations carried out in relation
10 to this Baklajic group.
11 Q. Could we see P1419 on the monitor, please? It also refers to a
12 report on the activity of paramilitary groups.
13 In this document, Mr. Kerkkanen, which is mentioned in footnote
14 115 on page 23, on page 2 it says that in the Lika area the activity of a
15 group led by the late Baklajic is being revived. This group had been
16 routed on the 22nd of February, 1992, and its leaders arrested.
17 If we could find that portion on page 2. Have you found that
18 portion of the text, Mr. Kerkkanen?
19 A. No, I haven't found. Must be on the other -- on the other page.
20 MR. WHITING: I think it's at the top of page 3 on the English.
21 A. Yes, now I have it.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] It's evident from this
23 document, then, that Baklajic's group was broken up on the 22nd of
24 February, 1992, and that because of inadequate judicial measures and the
25 poor political situation in the Krajina, the members of this group have
1 become active again.
2 The next passage mentions the explanation provided by Mr. Uzelac,
3 which you also quote in your report. He calls this group a Special
4 Purpose Unit of the SAO Krajina.
5 Mr. Uzelac, however, is mentioned in this report along with other
6 information which compromises his integrity. He has been dismissed from
7 the police as a troublemaker. Is there such a report in this -- contained
8 in this document?
9 A. Yes. The document states that Mr. Uzelac was removed from his
10 post in January, 1992.
11 Q. Thank you. When describing the activity of this group, you say
12 that Major Knezovic from the security organ of the JNA states that this
13 group has been operating almost independently, claiming that they received
14 their tasks directly from Knin. In the report, however, it says that the
15 2nd Lika Brigade was not successful in maintaining control over this
17 All this information about Baklajic's group and its criminal
18 activities, doesn't this indicate that this was a common kind of bandit
19 paramilitary group terrorising the local population? It was just a
20 criminal gang in other words terrorising the entire population?
21 A. It's, in my opinion, interesting to note that this group was by
22 the Korenica municipality [indiscernible] staff understood as being a
23 group of the SAO Krajina Special Purpose Units in 1991, and as well it's
24 interesting to note that when I was reviewing thousands and thousands of
25 documents, I didn't see a single document from 1991 where Mr. Martic, as
1 Minister of the Interior, would have taken any disciplinary action against
2 groups like this.
3 Q. In connection with your reply, Mr. Kerkkanen, in the first
4 paragraph about Predrag Baklajic's group in your report, didn't you say
5 that Colonel Petar Trbojevic informed Mr. Martic about the behaviour of
6 this group on the 13th of November, 1991, and reiterated his request. And
7 in February, 1992, the group was broken up.
8 A. Yes. But there's not any indication that Mr. Martic would have
9 taken any initiative before February, 1992.
10 Q. Do you consider that the Ministry of the Interior and Minister
11 Martic could have taken any initiative before they received information
12 concerning events on the ground?
13 MR. WHITING: Objection, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
15 MR. WHITING: I think it's -- I think it's beyond the capacity of
16 this witness to answer that question. He's not -- he's not -- he can't
17 answer that question.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] My question referred to the
20 point in time when Mr. Martic and the Secretariat of the Interior were
21 informed about the problems being caused by this group, and my question
22 was whether the witness had any information that would show that Martic
23 had been informed about this before November, 1991. That was the point of
24 my question. Could Martic have done anything before receiving this
1 If Your Honours people the question is superfluous I will withdraw
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just want to know whether you have evidence to
4 bring forward to say that when Mr. Martic acted in February, 1992, it was
5 as a direct result of the complaint of November, 1991. If you are going
6 to ask that question -- if you're going to bring that evidence, then I
7 think the question might just be allowed. But in the absence of that kind
8 of evidence up your sleeve when you call your witnesses, I do not
9 understand the relevance, because -- unless you can tell us that Martic
10 does -- when he did act in February, 1992, it was as a direct result of
11 that report of November.
12 In other words, what I'm trying to suggest to you is, it is not
13 clear whether he's acting because of that report or he's acting because of
14 some intervening report that he may or may have received which the witness
15 may not be aware of, or some observation he made on the behaviour of these
16 people. Does he give the reasons for dismissal?
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you for understanding.
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I will not insist on this
20 question. I'm satisfied with the answers I have received.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. You may proceed.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. In chapter 2.4.2, you speak of --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's apology. 2.4.3.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. You speak of the Labra group, and you say that in some actions
2 they acted jointly with the Plaski group and that they presented
3 themselves as employees of the MUP. Can you tell us what the fate of this
4 group was?
5 A. I don't have many documents concerning this group. On the basis
6 of Exhibit number 1419 about paramilitary organisation in the Lika area,
7 it's concluded that this group was dissolved in February, 1992, but it
8 became active again later in the beginning of 1994. That's all
9 information I have about this group.
10 Q. In the document you mention, Mr. Kerkkanen, does it say that this
11 group threatened to attack even the corps command, the command of the
12 military units in the area of its activity?
13 A. In order to answer this question, I have to see this particular
15 Q. I believe it's on the monitor. Could we just scroll it up a
16 little bit. Page 2. Can we scroll up a bit? You can move on to the
17 following page.
18 In the passage before you, it says that the members of the Labra
19 group attacked the 70th Infantry Brigade command, and the text goes on to
20 mention there are other activities.
21 Can we scroll up, please? Scroll down towards the bottom of the
23 In the next two paragraphs there is mention of the demands made by
24 members of this group to the military commanders. They asked that certain
25 units be joined to others and so on. Can you see this?
1 A. Yes, I can.
2 Q. Can we look at the next page, please? At the top of the page
3 there is a text saying that this group continues to be some kind of
4 independent formation. Did you see any documents about this group which
5 would show that it was a group belonging to the Ministry of the Interior?
6 A. No. The only document I saw, the only documents I saw about this
7 group are these two exhibits, 1419 and -- and 1294, and they don't
8 explicitly say that they belong to the Ministry of the Interior, but this
9 group had joined actions with the MUP units, with the SAO Krajina MUP
11 Q. In paragraph 244, you speak of the unit of the Samarica training
12 centre, and you say that this centre was created by the Executive Council
13 of the Dvor Na Uni Municipal Assembly decision on the 18th of June, 1991.
14 The footnote is 117.
15 You say that this was the training centre which trained Special
16 Purpose Units of the SAO Krajina Police and volunteers from the
17 Territorial Defence. My question is: When the decision was issued by the
18 Executive Council of the Dvor Na Uni Municipal Assembly to found this
19 unit, did Milan Martic, as the minister of the MUP, have any kind of
20 influence on this decision or not?
21 A. To be very precise, on -- on -- based on documents we have in
22 our -- at our disposal, on the 18th of June, 1991, officially
23 Minister Martic was the Minister of Defence, not the Minister of Interior.
24 Q. Did Mr. Martic in any capacity participate in the establishing of
25 this centre? Do you have any such document or any such information?
1 A. Exhibit number 1485. I'm referring to this exhibit in the last --
2 in the end of the last paragraph of this chapter 2.4.4, and this -- this
3 exhibit is from the meeting held at the training centre where they stayed,
4 that they gave absolute support to the minister of the SAO Krajina, Milan
5 Martic. This indicates that they were subordinated to Milan Martic.
6 Q. Your conclusion that they were subordinated to Milan Martic, does
7 it find support in the beginning of this last paragraph where you say that
8 the unit of the Samarica training centre expressed its will to serve as a
9 SAO Krajina Special Purpose Unit in August 1991?
10 To further clarify my question, does the expression of its will to
11 serve as such a unit indicate that they were not such a unit, a Special
12 Purpose Unit of the MUP -- of the Krajina and that they wished to become
14 A. The situation in 1991 in certain areas of SAO Krajina -- I mean,
15 the situation was little bit different in different areas. The earlier
16 report I was referring to in footnote 118, Exhibit Number 2110, states --
17 I mean, it's a report on-- about the work of the Special Police Unit of
18 the MUP from 18 June 1991 til 7th April 1992 in Dvor Na Uni, and this
19 particular report states that the training at Samarica training centre in
20 the summer of 1991 was carried out by a special unit of the MUP which
21 itself had undergone training in May and June 1991. This indicates
22 clearly that there's a link between the Samarica training centre and the
23 unit based there and the Ministry of Interior in Knin.
24 Q. Does the fact that someone was trained in Knin automatically mean
25 that that person was a member of the MUP in Knin? I'm asking you this
1 because Mr. Veljko Kadijevic, the Federal Secretary for National Defence,
2 for example, studied at West Point as a JNA officer. Do you therefore
3 think he's an American officer because he went to school there?
4 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I'm going to object. I think the
5 witness testified it indicates a link, and that's all he testified about,
6 whereas Defence counsel is putting it to him as though he said that he was
7 a member of the MUP in Knin if you train there. It's also, I think,
8 beyond the competence of the witness to testify about this. I mean,
9 unless there's a particular document that the counsel wishes to refer to,
10 but then again the documents really speak for themselves.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic? Do you have a response,
12 Mr. Milovancevic?
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The Defence
14 is checking the information having to do with the units of the Samarica
15 training centre. Apart from the link that has to do with the training, is
16 there anything else on the basis of which this unit might be considered to
17 be a unit of the Krajina SUP? I'm asking this in the light of the fact
18 that this unit expressed a wish to become a Special Purpose Unit.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's not the question you asked when you asked
20 whether the fact that somebody trained in the United States that makes him
21 an American officer. I think you must articulate your questions correctly
22 and concisely.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my question was:
24 Does the fact that someone was trained in Knin automatically mean that he
25 was a member of the special units of the Krajina SUP? That was my
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it not so that the training in Knin is alleged,
3 at this stage it's allegation, that it was set up clearly to -- to
4 perpetrate what is alleged to have been perpetrated by the special units
5 from Knin? And that these people are said to be doing what is alleged to
6 have been done by that unit? How is this witness supposed to know the
7 recruitment policies of the Knin training centre or the Samarica training
8 centre? He doesn't know the recruitment policies. He doesn't refer to
9 them either. He draws his conclusion from what documentation he has saw.
10 He doesn't say he has seen any documentation relating to the recruitment
12 You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. In chapter 3, you talk about the developments in 1992 in the
15 Special Police Units of the MUP of the RSK, and you say that in the spring
16 of 1992, the government of the Republika Srpska approved the rules on the
17 job descriptions, job systemisation of the Ministry of the Interior and
18 that Milan Martic issued rules on official identity papers of authorised
19 officials in March 1992.
20 In connection with these documents, I wish to know whether you
21 compared these with the other documents of the other various ministries of
22 the interior on the various Yugoslav republics and whether these documents
23 were similar or almost identical across the board.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Relevance? What's the relevance?
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The relevance is that we are
1 trying to obtain an answer from the witness as to whether the MUP or SUP
2 of the SAO Krajina, by its very structure, method of work and activity,
3 was a regular police unit in the area where it was active and whether it
4 performed the regular everyday duties pertaining to public and state
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: What has that got to do with what happens in other
7 republics of Yugoslavia? What's the relevance of the other republics of
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The relevance lies in the fact
10 that the Vance Plan contained a provision that the Croatian regulations
11 were not valid on the territory of the RSK but, rather, the Yugoslav
12 regulations applied. Mark Goulding, the UN Under-Secretary, informed all
13 the warring parties covered under the Vance Plan about these particular
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: You confuse me even the more.
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I merely wanted to
17 receive an answer to the question as to whether the regulations governing
18 the organisation, the setting up and activities as well as authorities
19 that applied to the RSK territory were similar to or almost identical with
20 the like regulations enforced in the other republics of the former
21 Yugoslavia, because in fact they should have been similar or almost
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Kerkkanen, did you investigate these
24 regulations in the other territories of the former Yugoslavia?
25 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, not in a systematic manner.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure what you mean by not in a
2 systematic manner.
3 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I have read parts of regulations from
4 different republics, but it was not systematic undertaking to compare
5 these regulations with those that were promulgated in the RSK in the
6 spring of 1992.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may put your question, Mr. Milovancevic.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, I ask the following: In footnote 34, you mention
10 Exhibit 1899, which is an analysis by Mr. Pavkovic on the regulations
11 governing the management and activities of the ministries of the Republic
12 of Serbia. In the footnote 4, you mention another piece of legislation
13 issued in the Official Gazette, which was why I thought that you were
14 familiar with these matters and that you could help us. This was the --
15 this was the purpose of my question, but in view of your answer, I will
16 not insist on the matter any further.
17 You go on to report on the Special Police Units of the Krajina
18 MUP. You say in the middle of the page 25 in the B/C/S, this is footnote
19 122 for the purposes of the parties, you state that in the July of 1992,
20 Martic informed UNPROFOR that the regular police forces at the time had
21 7.000 members and the Special Purpose Units had 16.000 men. Did you come
22 across the information that all the heavy weaponry, excluding sidearms and
23 automatic rifles, was in fact under the control of UNPROFOR?
24 A. No, I didn't come across with these kind of documents.
25 Q. Thank you. You go on to say that these MUP brigades, that's to
1 say Special Purpose Police Units, pursuant to Milan Novakovic's dated 27
2 November 1992, were reorganised together with the Territorial Defence into
3 the Serbian army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. This decision is
4 contained in footnote 129.
5 Since this is a rather longish document did you notice towards the
6 end of the text of this document a provision whereby the complete weapons
7 of the Serbian army thus formed, which included the Special Purpose Units,
8 were found to be locked up and the key in the hands of UNPROFOR?
9 A. In order to refresh my memory, I need to see the end of this
10 document where it states so.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have this
12 document on the monitor. This is document 1367, the order setting up --
13 order for forming staffs and units of the Serbian army, dated 27 November,
15 Q. You see that the heading reads "Main Staff the Serbian army.
16 Knin, 27 November 1992."
17 The title of the document is "Re-organising the Territorial
18 Defence and the Special Units of the police into the Serbian Army of the
19 Republic of Serbian Krajina."
20 Below there is the order. Could we please look at page 17. This
21 document has 17 pages in all, so it should be the last page of the
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. You can stop there. Please take a look at item 6, Mr. Kerkkanen.
1 Item 6 reads: The Serbian Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina shall
2 keep and maintain its weapons and equipment in depots with the presence of
3 UNPROFOR and in accordance with the Vance Plan.
4 Do you know until what point in time were the weapons stored in
5 the depots under the control of UNPROFOR? Did there come a time, in fact,
6 when they were no longer under their control?
7 MR. WHITING: I'm just going to object because unless I'm missing
8 something, the sentence in 6 don't say the weapons are under the control
9 of UNPROFOR. It says they're kept in depots with the presence of UNPROFOR
11 Maybe counsel's talking about something else, but it confuses
12 matters if the reference is to this document and this section.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The question was: The Serbian
15 army of the RSK, which was formed in this way to include the Special
16 Purpose Units, was it under UNPROFOR's control or not?
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's just the basis of the objection,
18 Mr. Milovancevic, because we don't -- counsel for the Prosecution doesn't
19 understand where you get the word "control" from, because the document to
20 which you referred the witness talks of "in the presence of," not under
21 the control of. In other words, because that word doesn't appear in the
22 document you're referring the witness to, you're not entitled to use the
23 words "under the control of UNPROFOR," unless you want to confuse this
24 witness or confuse everybody else. That's the basis of the objection.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there was a
1 misunderstanding. I did not understand the point of the objection, and
2 I -- it was an oversight on my part. The text indeed reads as you put it,
3 and it was not my intention to mislead either you or the witness. My
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You now understand the purpose of the objection?
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I do, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would you like to respond to the objection?
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the point I was
9 trying to make in asking the question to which my learned friend objected
10 was to refer to the Special Purpose Units and the activities of the organs
11 controlling these units and whether the witness had any documents or knew
12 of any documents that would either confirm or deny such a decision.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are again talking of organs controlling these
14 units. Now, control is the very basis of the objection, Mr. Milovancevic.
15 The word "control" or "controlling" is the basis of the objection.
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm referring to the presence.
17 I apologise, Your Honour. Obviously I am tired by now, but I was
18 referring to the presence, the word mentioned in item 6.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would you like a break, Mr. Milovancevic?
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I do believe it is the time for
21 us to break for the day, Your Honour, but perhaps the witness could answer
22 my question and then we could finish with this.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Only after you have asked it correctly. There is
24 an objection. You have not replied to the objection. You have been
25 telling us what you meant to say, but you keep going back to "control."
1 Phrase your question so the witness can answer it.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. In view of this portion of the order, Mr. Kerkkanen, did you come
4 across any documents indicating that this order was not implemented or
5 that steps were taken contrary to this order?
6 A. Not documents, but I myself was serving in UNPROFOR in 1993, in
7 the area of RSK, and I saw in my own eyes light artillery pieces in the
8 field that obviously were not supervised by -- by UNPROFOR.
9 Q. My last question further to your reply. Did this happen after the
10 so-called Maslenica operation and the large-scale operation undertaken by
11 the Croatian forces which was condemned by the Security Council? Is that
12 the time period?
13 A. Please, can you be precise about the time period?
14 Q. That was the 21st of January, 1993, when a large Croatian
15 offensive was launched against sector south during which many people were
16 killed and which was condemned by the Security Council.
17 A. I was posted in the RSK, more specifically in Knin, from the end
18 of April to the end of July, 1993.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kerkkanen.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe it is
21 the convenient time for ending our -- today's session.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 The Court will adjourn. We will resume on Monday at 9.00 in this
25 Court adjourned.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Monday, the 8th day
3 of May, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.