1 Friday, 2 June 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Smith.

7 MR. SMITH: Good morning, Your Honours. Just one brief matter I

8 would like to raise in relation to a disclosure issue. As Your Honour is

9 aware, the Defence -- the witness has testified that the missing person

10 reports have been provided to the Tribunal. The Prosecution tendered

11 yesterday about 231 of those missing person reports related to the annex

12 in the indictment. It came to the Prosecution's attention that 15 missing

13 person reports were on the Prosecution system but didn't appear on the

14 65 ter list and, subsequently, the e-court system. Those 15 documents for

15 the particular individuals were provided to the Defence yesterday or last

16 night. And in relation to those 15 documents, 14 of those missing persons

17 were identified at Ovcara, and one of those individuals was not identified

18 at Ovcara. And that material has been given to the Defence.

19 The Prosecution doesn't seek to tender those documents, nor does

20 it view them exculpatory in any way. However, out of an abundance of

21 caution, those documents, once discovered, were provided to the Defence

22 last night and which, in fact, in relation to missing person reports,

23 leaves another 16 that are outstanding in that sense. And that was

24 discussed with the witness yesterday, and he said that approximately that

25 number - I think it's approximately 20 - would be provided by the office,

1 their office, as soon as possible, because the Prosecution hadn't received

2 them. I just thought I would raise that matter. I've spoken with counsel

3 last night about it, and advised them of that.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Smith.

5 Before we get back to the main evidence today, could the Chamber

6 mention that there is a need to adjust the timetable next week. It's all

7 to do with me, I'm afraid, and other commitments that I have. Monday, as

8 you know, is a holiday. We sit on Tuesday and Wednesday at the time we

9 would normally sit on Monday; that is, from 12.30 to 5.00. That's Tuesday

10 and Wednesday of next week. And on Thursday and Friday we sit from 9.00

11 to 1.45. Which is not, as it were, the advertised programme. Monday the

12 following week we would revert to the normal timetable of 12.30 to 5.00,

13 et cetera.

14 Now, Mr. Grujic, may I remind you of the affirmation you made at

15 the beginning of your evidence, which still applies.

16 Mr. Vasic.

17 WITNESS: IVAN GRUJIC [Resumed]

18 [Witness answered through interpreter]

19 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] You, Your Honours. Good morning to

20 everyone in the courtroom.

21 Cross-examination by Mr. Vasic: [Continued]

22 Q. Good morning, Mr. Grujic.

23 A. Good morning.

24 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to inform

25 you that in order to be as efficient as possible in our cross-examination,

1 the Defence teams have split among themselves the topics for

2 cross-examination in order to avoid any overlap, and we will see whether

3 we manage to do that once we reach the conclusion of cross-examination.

4 Q. Mr. Grujic, it seems to me that yesterday we had a good pace of

5 questions and answers, given that what we say is interpreted, so we should

6 probably stick to the same pace today.

7 A. Certainly.

8 Q. Mr. Grujic, in view of the position you held in 1991 as described

9 by you yesterday, I assume that you know that in September and December of

10 1991 Serbian civilians were killed in Sarvas and Paulin Dvor in the

11 vicinity of Osijek. I assume that you know that.

12 A. Yes, I of course am aware of that, but not through my position.

13 Rather, through the job that I do, because my job involves the missing

14 persons and there are some documents confirming what you say in the office

15 that I am in charge of now.

16 Q. Thank you. Please let me know whether you and your commission

17 took part in the exhumation of their mortal remains, and was any

18 identification conducted?

19 A. Pursuant to the request of the International Criminal Court I

20 conducted, or rather, organised an exhumation which was carried out based

21 on the order of the relevant investigative judge in the location where the

22 remains of the victims from Paulin Dvor was located. So everybody from

23 that incident was identified.

24 Q. Thank you. The location where they were found is approximately

25 500 kilometres away from the place where they were killed. Isn't that

1 right?

2 A. Yes. Yes, and that was clearly stated in the documents related to

3 investigation. It was established that this was a secondary grave, which

4 means that the remains were brought there from other location.

5 Q. Thank you. Now, please, in relation to this, please tell me, were

6 these facts entered in one of your lists of the persons who perished

7 during the aggression against Croatia?

8 A. I can't give you the names of these people right now, but as the

9 identification process unfolds, as the administration processes this, the

10 names of these people are placed on the list of those who were killed.

11 However, this grave is not on the list of graves that we presented here,

12 the list containing 142 graves.

13 Q. I understood, thank you. What about the number of these people?

14 Is the number included in the number of killed persons in Osijek and

15 Baranja county?

16 A. Yes. As I told you, all of those who were identified, if the

17 information reached us, just as they are placed in the list of 12.000

18 persons, they were also placed in other lists. The list for the Danube

19 region, and then Vukovar, and then down to closer identification.

20 Q. Yes. You told us yesterday that you divided the Danube region

21 into these two counties, so it's entirely clear to us. Do you know that

22 in the fall of 1991 in Gospic there was also an incident where a large

23 number of Serbian civilians were killed by the ZNG? Did you conduct any

24 work pertaining to exhumation and identification of these persons?

25 A. No. We did not participate in that. As far as I know, a portion

1 of work was conducted by the JNA colonel, Dr. Stankovic. He also

2 conducted some exhumations with his team in Eastern Slavonia in 1991.

3 Some mortal remains were removed from that location. Some were buried.

4 As far as I know, the competent investigative magistrate conducted some

5 steps in order to attempt to identify some of the victims. And this is

6 part of the trial conducted in the Republic of Croatia, a trial for war

7 crimes committed, and I think that the perpetrators were brought to

8 justice.

9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Grujic. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that the

10 perpetrators were tried, especially given that after that crime even the

11 European Commission stepped in and challenged the recognition of Croatian

12 independence. However, after Vukovar events in early 1992, Croatia was

13 nevertheless recognized as an independent state.

14 I'm interested in this now: The list of these Serbian civilian

15 victims, was it included in the total number of victims in the course of

16 the aggression against Croatia?

17 A. It was included to the extent that we were able to establish the

18 identity of victims and if there is a death certificate.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 A. If you allow me, let me reiterate that this is provisional list of

21 the persons who were killed. This kind of list was used, and it was

22 compiled based on the information available so far. Let me also mention

23 that all of the cases you mentioned so far, even if these victims were not

24 included on the list, that would have had no effect on the final number.

25 Let me reiterate that all of the documents that reached us meant that we

1 included these people on the list regardless of their ethnic background,

2 religious background, or the events that led to their death.

3 Q. What I asked you about were just some of the cases, some

4 individual cases, and perhaps they would not have affected the ratio in

5 the analysis, but I'm interested in this: Were they all included in your

6 lists? I took it that your answer that all of those who were identified

7 were included in the lists of those killed during the aggression against

8 Croatia.

9 A. Yes, those who were identified and whose documents reached us.

10 Q. Thank you. In your CV, which is part of your report, it says that

11 at some point in 1992 you moved from the civilian security service to the

12 SIS, which is the military security service. I would like to know

13 something about the reasons for doing that. Are they related to your

14 later appointment as president of commission for the missing?

15 A. Absolutely not. The single reason was that the decision of the

16 then minister of police and defence stated that some of the personnel

17 should move from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Defence.

18 Based on that decision and that agreement that was reached, I was

19 transferred with my job. I kept the same position.

20 Q. Thank you. In your testimony yesterday you told us how these two

21 commissions were formed in 1991, and then your commission put together all

22 of their work in 1993. What I would like to know is if the work of the

23 commissions from 1991 also included work to find missing persons as

24 members of the parties to the conflict, or were these searches only

25 limited to those from the Croatian side?

1 A. Well, of course information had to be gathered on the missing and

2 captured of the other side, because that was the basic mechanism in order

3 to conduct talks and to resolve these issues, if you wish to resolve.

4 Unfortunately, at that time that is how things proceeded, that prisoners

5 were exchanged according to the principle of parity. So if you did not

6 have two prisoners, you could not get two prisoners of your own in return.

7 Unfortunately, that was the principle at the time as well as the one that

8 applied to all other information. So of course you had to gather as much

9 information as you could. Of course, this later changed.

10 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Grujic. Yesterday you told us that the

11 three main tasks of these commissions and then your commission of which

12 you were the chairman or president in 1993, were actually the exchange of

13 prisoners, the monitoring of the treatment and accommodation of prisoners

14 of war, and also gathering and processing of information on missing

15 persons. Is that correct?

16 A. Well, let's clarify. There were two commissions at the time. One

17 was entrusted with repatriation and exchange of prisoners as well as the

18 monitoring of the treatment of prisoners of war and the conditions of

19 their detention. That was one commission. The other commission gathered

20 and processed information on civilian and other victims and missing

21 persons from the territory of the Republic of Croatia.

22 Q. And then from 1993 the commission that you presided over dealt

23 with all of these matters; is that correct?

24 A. Yes, it is.

25 Q. Thank you very much. What I would like to know is if you're

1 familiar with the findings of the commissions relating to the detention of

2 members of the Serbian ethnic group by the ZNG and Croatian paramilitary

3 formations. Do you know the localities and the figures for 1991?

4 A. I don't know the information for 1991, but I could know the data

5 for the whole period. As I said, what I know up to 1993 is based on what

6 I could see from the documents. But I don't know whether I actually had

7 access to the complete documentation on this.

8 Q. And these documents, do they describe the conditions of the

9 detention of these persons at the institutions where they were detained?

10 A. No, I don't have such reports. But all of this can be seen from

11 the report of the International Commission of the Red Cross, who was

12 actually entrusted with visiting these places, seeing what the conditions

13 were, and then after that they made certain suggestions and remarks to the

14 authorities that were in charge of these institutions.

15 Q. Thank you very much. Yesterday in one of your answers you said

16 that the first case of detention of a person was registered on the 23rd of

17 January, 1991, and that the first person that was killed was recorded on

18 the 31st of March, 1991, and the first missing person was recorded on the

19 10th of April, 1991. Is that correct?

20 A. Yes. I'm talking about what is there in the records.

21 Q. You then responded to a question by my learned friend that the

22 violence from June 1991 intensified, that it escalated in September, and

23 culminated in December, 1991.

24 A. Yes, that is correct. That is my view.

25 Q. I assume that these victims that were covered in this time period

1 that we mentioned are part of these lists of yours of missing persons,

2 detainees, killed.

3 A. Yes, of course. I said that the records -- I actually said what

4 these records were and when they begin, meaning that the victims are those

5 who could be established, and all of them are included in these records.

6 Q. Since you set the starting date when you received the first

7 reports about certain events, and in view of this assessment of the

8 intensity of the conflict that you expressed, can you tell us by month,

9 starting from February, 1991, following this first case of detention, what

10 the number of detainees was for February, March, April, June, 1991, and so

11 on and so forth?

12 A. No, I can't really tell you that. I could if we made such

13 analysis - this is not in dispute - but it was impossible to prepare that

14 type of information in a short period of time.

15 Q. Can you perhaps tell us what the figures were for those killed

16 month by month, or is it the same thing that applies to the detainees,

17 that you cannot do that so quickly?

18 A. Yes, but if you look at the figures and the mass graves that were

19 exhumed, then you will easily be able to see what the figures were for

20 each particular period.

21 Q. How can we see what the period is of the exhumed mass graves when

22 we don't see when the persons were buried there, all we see is that they

23 are found?

24 A. If we look at the Vukovar new cemetery, Novo Groblje, where 800

25 persons are buried, they are all buried and processed by members of the

1 JNA until February, 1992. At the same time, there were -- there was

2 information according to the place of disappearance, circumstance of

3 disappearance, and also time of disappearance. So in the same way, we

4 have compiled data on the graves that were found. So if we analyse the

5 victims, what that would indicate is that they were actually killed in

6 that period.

7 Q. I can agree with you that if we have information, we can analyse

8 it and then probably we can draw different conclusions on that basis. It

9 depends on the parameters used to analyse the information. But in these

10 analyses that we're dealing with here now, they were not done in that way

11 and from what I understand you are not able to provide this information to

12 us now, and these would be the figures according to the months of 1991,

13 and you cannot provide these figures for the entire region of Croatia or

14 for certain regions such as Podunavlje region or you cannot provide these

15 figures for the town of Vukovar itself.

16 A. Well, not in the way that you are asking for.

17 Q. I put this question, Mr. Grujic, because I wanted to check and

18 also look at the indicators which led you to conclude that the violence

19 intensified in June, escalated in September, and culminated in December,

20 which is what you said yesterday. This is what I'm asking you. From what

21 I could see, you are not able to provide precise information on which your

22 conclusion is based. Your conclusion is based on some sort of prior

23 knowledge that you have.

24 A. As I said, my conclusion is based on my experience which stems

25 from my duties, and is on the basis of information that I analysed and

1 presented - analyses which were provided to you - and also on the basis of

2 generally known facts, generally known, not only to me, but also to the

3 public. It is known when the intense attacks on Vukovar began. It is

4 known that they were intense from September onwards and until December.

5 If we look at the time that the mass grave of Ovcara was created, that

6 already indicates the intensity of the events. We're talking about 200

7 victims there. If we are not looking just at my experience, but at the

8 facts which you have been provided with, 200 persons at Ovcara, 1991,

9 November. 938 dead people found at the Vukovar cemetery, and buried,

10 dating from the -- from December until February. At the same time, the

11 Lovas farm, 24 persons from the same population -- from the same

12 population where the new cemetery also is. I could even provide you with

13 names, if that's what you're asking me, because these names were also

14 presented to you. I'm talking about 14 graves, if I'm not mistaken, that

15 we're discussing here. This is proof that this was precisely the way it

16 was presented.

17 Q. The conclusion that that is precisely the way it was presented is

18 something that I cannot dispute in advance. All I'm saying is that we

19 don't have analysis that would lead us to this conclusion because we don't

20 have the information. But you talked about the new cemetery in Vukovar.

21 Do you have information when these persons lost their lives, the persons

22 who were buried in the Vukovar new cemetery, when did they lose their

23 lives?

24 A. Yes, there is a series of documents. I have already said that, as

25 far as the new cemetery of Vukovar is concerned, the Federal Republic of

1 Yugoslavia, their official institutions, sent us 1.000 odd files about the

2 dead people in Vukovar, and these files contain the locations for some of

3 them, the locations where they were found, which means that they were

4 brought -- I mean, we can even say 28 killed from the mass graves in

5 Gelesova Dol. This is the period of November. The mass grave at

6 Trpinjska Ceska, 11 victims where prisoners of war were killed that were

7 captured on the 18th of November. The mass grave at Velepromet, 19

8 victims. You have all the first and last names in the attachment, as well

9 as the dates.

10 Q. Mr. Grujic, I did not have the intention to deal with this

11 segment. My colleague is going to deal with the killed persons. But we

12 need to know here when these persons were actually killed, not when they

13 were transferred from one grave to the -- to the other. So this would be

14 the answer to the question on the escalation of violence.

15 A. We can establish that too. It's very clearly evident from the

16 documents. The persons mentioned there, their files were sent to the

17 court, and you have the dates that they were last seen alive in those

18 records. If you would allow me, we cannot know the exact date when they

19 were killed but we can make that estimate within a month or two of the

20 date.

21 Q. I am going to allow my colleague to deal with this particular

22 topic. All I was asking for were indicators for all groups, not only for

23 those killed, but also for the missing and the detained, which led you to

24 conclude about the escalation of such cases in the course of 1991.

25 I embarked on this topic for a different reason, however. Because

1 I see that the information that we are discussing about the detainees and

2 the missing persons, which date from before the aggression on Croatia -

3 and this is the 5th of August, 1991 - you included also that information

4 in your data.

5 A. The fact is that these people were captured and registered as

6 such. It's another thing that the law on defenders will not recognise

7 their status and material rights for the period that the law is in effect.

8 Q. But we can agree that even before this date they were included in

9 your lists and in the events before the 5th of August, 1991.

10 A. Yes, that is correct. This is a normal thing, because the fact

11 that they were captured is something that was established; it's a fact.

12 Q. Then we cannot accept your assertion made to my learned friend

13 that the information about the detainees and the missing had to do with

14 the consequences of the aggression on the Republic of Croatia, because

15 evidently according to the law of the Republic of Croatia on the defenders

16 began on the 5th of August, 1991.

17 A. I cannot go into what the law provides for in terms of the period.

18 What I'm talking about is the fact that a person who was connected to the

19 armed conflict was placed in detention or in prison. This had to do with

20 armed conflict. Not any other type of event, but armed conflict. And if

21 you allow me, nobody says that we cannot find anyone that is still alive

22 and that is perhaps still captured who was involved in the armed conflict,

23 is anyone able to definitely rule such a thing out. And this will happen

24 after the date provided for by the law, but it does not rule out the fact

25 that it happened.

1 Q. But the law recognises the status of the defenders from the

2 beginning of the aggression on the Republic of Croatia, so the law is a

3 kind of parameter delineating; the beginning of the aggression and which

4 activities were connected with this aggression. Would you agree with me?

5 A. I repeat: The law was drafted in order to implement one's

6 benefits. It does not prove anything as far as historical facts are

7 concerned.

8 Q. My opinion, in view of these regulations on the date of aggression

9 against the Republic of Croatia, then indicates that we could not count on

10 -- count those detained before the 5th of August, 1991, and those which

11 were captured after. Would you be able to agree with me on that?

12 A. No, I wouldn't. Given the rules of the international law on the

13 same subject, on tracing and finding the missing persons, these rules

14 provide that the reports on missing persons are accepted regardless of how

15 some legal regulations limit the time duration of the conflict. The same

16 rule applies in the International Committee of the Red Cross. Any other

17 solution would, in fact, be in conflict with the norms of the

18 international community and international organisations dealing with this

19 issue.

20 Q. However, the question here is when did the aggression against the

21 Republic of Croatia start. I don't think that there is any doubt that it

22 started in August of 1991. That's what it says in the law. This is what

23 the law defines. Armed conflicts began in August, 1991, in the territory

24 of the Republic of Croatia.

25 A. As you said yesterday, this is something that the historians could

1 debate at length. I'm testifying here about the facts pertaining to the

2 detained and missing persons, and the records kept regarding that.

3 Q. Thank you. The data on the detained persons in the Republic of

4 Croatia and in the Podunavlje region from August 1991 to the 30th of June,

5 1996, do you have this data?

6 A. No, I don't have this data, but I have data on all persons which

7 are recorded in this documentation.

8 Q. If I understood you well, your data covers the period from

9 January, 1991, to the 30th of June, 1996.

10 A. With your permission, I will repeat: The first registered person

11 in our records of the killed persons was recorded on the 31st of March,

12 1991.

13 Q. I apologise, I'm speaking of the detained persons.

14 A. Yes, but in order to answer your question, I must say this as

15 well, otherwise we are conflicting entirely what we have discussed so far.

16 The person was killed violently on the 31st of March, 1991. If this was

17 not an armed conflict, I don't know what it was. In February, 1991, we

18 recorded the first displaced person. As for the missing persons, the

19 first recorded case was on the 10th of April, 1991. And if you are

20 interested in the location, it was in Glina, where at the time there were

21 already such conflicts in place.

22 As for the first detained person, the first detained person was

23 recorded on the 23rd of January, 1991, and it was in prison until the 4th

24 of August, 1995 -- no. I apologise; no, no. It was the 23rd of January,

25 1991, and this person was exchanged in April.

1 Q. In April of 1991, right?

2 A. No, 1996.

3 Q. Can you give us the identity of that person?

4 A. Just a moment, please. I must have made a mistake. Now, speaking

5 of detained person, out of 7.666 persons, the first recorded person was

6 recorded on the 23rd of January, 1991. The last recorded person was on

7 the 4th of August, 1995. The last exchange of prisoners took place in

8 April of 1996.

9 Q. I'm interested in something you mentioned in your previous answer.

10 Namely, you said that the first person was killed on the 31st March, 1991,

11 and you believe that that was in the circumstances of armed conflict.

12 Yesterday I put some questions to you about the attacks, explosions which

13 took place in the territory of Osijek, and you said that that was within

14 the competence of the Ministry of the Interior, it had to do with public

15 law and order. I assume that a case of death can be caused by a plain

16 murder, a plain crime of murder. Isn't that right?

17 A. Yes, but in this case we had an armed group belonging to an armed

18 formation, and they attacked regular police force, and under the

19 circumstances, this can only be called an armed conflict.

20 Q. Let us go back to the area that we can discuss here. I suppose

21 that you cannot give me a figure of total number of the detained from

22 September of 1991 to late November, 1991, for the Podunavlje region or

23 Vukovar itself?

24 A. I can't give you a month-by-month figure, but if you look at the

25 facts concerning those detained in Vukovar, or rather, persons from

1 Vukovar who were detained, then you will see that in the Mitrovica KP Dom,

2 out of 1.656 prisoners, there were a certain number in Stajicevo --

3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the number.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And then just comparing these two

5 figures, you will see that more than one-third of the detained were led

6 away on the 18th of November. And from that date, for a period of 10

7 days, they were taken to various camps. They were taken to Begejci where

8 there were 1.156 prisoners, for example.

9 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. I'm now referring to the data given in your report and your

11 tables. I don't see specific figures pertaining to this period of time,

12 from September to November of 1991. I can't see, based on this, how many

13 people were taken when to each of the collection centers, so I can't draw

14 any conclusions about this. I suppose that you can't do that either right

15 now, otherwise it would have been included in the tables that you

16 presented here.

17 A. Well, all of these things are possible. This can be done, but it

18 just depends on which particular details you are interested in. My aim

19 was to provide data for these four categories, to provide basic parameters

20 which would clearly indicate the situation as it existed in general, as it

21 existed in the Podunavlje region and in Vukovar, to give you some idea

22 about the number of victims and their ethnic background. Also, we tried

23 to categorise the victims to show whether they were defenders or

24 civilians, to give you some idea about their gender. This is typical

25 information provided for statistical purposes, and there are hundreds,

1 maybe even thousands of angles that one could look at it from, depending

2 on your needs. If you came to us with your specific needs, we would have

3 provided the specific parameters that you are interested in.

4 Q. Yes, Mr. Grujic. But I'm just trying to link this to the

5 indictment in this case. This is why I'm referring to the period of time

6 that we are interested in, based on the indictment, and that's why I asked

7 you about this period of time. I fully agree with you that various

8 parameters can be analysed, but we don't have this information here right

9 now.

10 Let us now please look at tab 2.1. This is Exhibit 539. It is

11 related to the Podunavlje region. Could it be please put on the screen.

12 A. I apologise, you said tab ...?

13 Q. 2.1, which is Exhibit 539. This is your report for the Podunavlje

14 region. I am personally interested in this portion towards the bottom of

15 the page which pertains to the detained persons. Let us now see whether

16 everybody can see it on their screens. Very well.

17 So towards the end of the page, towards the bottom of the page, we

18 see the data on the detained, categorised by gender, age, and length of

19 detention.

20 A. Yes, I see it now.

21 Q. Would you agree with me that the conclusion that you reached in

22 percentages is that 94 per cent of those detained were male and the rest

23 were female, and that the majority of those detained, 89.42 per cent, were

24 between 18 and 60 years old, and that in terms of the length of detention,

25 up -- the people who were detained up to 30 days were 22.69 per cent;

1 those detained up to a year, 70.08 per cent; and that only in 0.96 per

2 cent of the cases people were detained longer than one year but not longer

3 than two years. Is that right?

4 A. Yes, this is the information that we compiled based on the general

5 statistics.

6 Q. Based on these statistical figures, can we agree that it was

7 mostly the men who were detained, those fit for military service, aged

8 between 18 and 60, and that most of them were detained up to 30 days

9 during which time it was decided whether there would be criminal

10 proceedings instituted against them or not, and that if so, they were kept

11 in detention for up to one year. And then the further outcomes were that

12 they were tried and then either acquitted or the trial was never

13 concluded.

14 A. I don't have any information about these trials that were

15 conducted. That's one thing. The other thing that I can fully agree with

16 you on has to do with the general population that was detained. However,

17 we also must not ignore the fact that a large number of women left that

18 area as refugees or displaced persons. Now, as for the length of

19 detention, yes, this information here is accurate, but you also have to

20 bear in mind that a large number of detainees, numbering 600 and more,

21 that was led away on the 18th of November and exchanged six -- seven

22 months later, which is to say that there were in triage for that period of

23 time; quite long. But this number also has an impact on the general

24 statistical data. This is what we provided, and you can draw different

25 conclusions based on this.

1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Grujic. Yesterday on page 52, line 21 to 25, you

2 said in examination-in-chief that out of these detentions, 45 per cent

3 were conducted by the JNA, 25 per cent by paramilitary formations, and 25

4 per cent was unknown, or unrecorded. Do you remember saying this

5 yesterday?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. As for the people who were detained by the JNA members, you said

8 to us yesterday that some of them were kept in temporary transit camps

9 until they were transferred to some detention centres or penitentiary

10 centres. Isn't that right?

11 A. Once again, when it comes to terminology, I cannot agree with you.

12 There were detention locations in Vukovar, such as Velepromet. It's a

13 well-known fact. The barracks as well, and the Komerc facility. These

14 were locations where people were detained. They were transported from

15 these locations towards other places of detention which I wouldn't call

16 detention centres, such as those Stajicevo and Begejci. The one in

17 Sremska Mitrovica was a proper detention institution because it was a

18 regular prison. As for Stajicevo and Begejci, they are agricultural farms

19 and they cannot be referred to as detention centres, not proper ones.

20 Q. Mr. Grujic, you misunderstood me. When I said detention centres

21 or detention institutions, I was referring to the map that you enclosed

22 with your report, depicting locations of detention. Let me find the

23 exhibit number. It's Exhibit 543. I was referring to Nis, Valjevo,

24 Sremska Mitrovica, Padinska Skela, Novi Sad, and detention institutions

25 there. In the beginning of my question I mentioned temporary or transit

1 centres such as those in Stajicevo and Begejci from where the detainees

2 were transferred to other locations. Isn't that right?

3 A. This is tab 2.8. It is clearly stated here, places of detention,

4 2.796 persons from Vukovar. These are places, locations of imprisonment.

5 You called them institutions. I allow that. But if you permit me, the

6 answer here is that almost 3.000 people, practically 40 per cent of the --

7 those imprisoned in the period of November, 1991. So we have actually now

8 come to the answer that I was not able to provide earlier.

9 Q. I don't see on this diagram or chart when these people were

10 imprisoned. I just see the location and the number, but I don't see when

11 each one of them was imprisoned. Do you agree with me?

12 A. Yes, that is correct, you cannot see that here, but it is a

13 generally known fact that all of those from Vukovar or those who were on

14 the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for the most part were

15 taken away in that period and on that day. And we can see that in the

16 questionnaires for the missing and the detained, which you do have access

17 to.

18 Q. I would not agree with you that we have that at our disposal,

19 those questionnaires. But what I can agree with is that analysis can be

20 done. What I'm noting is that we do not actually have it at the moment.

21 But, Mr. Grujic, could you please tell me, this analysis of the detained

22 persons for the Podunavlje region and the indicators relating to the

23 gender, age and length of detention would be similar as the one for the

24 Osijek-Baranja and the Vukovar-Srijem counties. And the percentage would

25 be similar for the actual town of Vukovar itself, you can agree with me?

1 A. Yes. All the statistics that were given are more or less

2 identical. They can be -- they reflect each other also in the way that

3 they were compiled.

4 Q. We are talking about Vukovar now, and the detentions -- and we're

5 talking about something that has nothing to do with these tables and that

6 is that do you know that before the fall of Vukovar on the 17th of

7 November, 1991, one of the topics of a meeting of the Croatian government

8 was to allow the commissioner of the municipality of Vukovar to negotiate

9 with Goran Hadzic on the surrender of the Croatian forces in Vukovar. Are

10 you aware of this?

11 A. No, I don't know any particulars on this topic. I can perhaps

12 know as much as any average citizen would know about that, but not more.

13 Q. In line with the duties you were performing at that time, do you

14 know that Goran Hadzic was actually an associate of the JNA

15 counter-intelligence group that was active on the area of Eastern

16 Slavonia, Baranja and Srem and that he had a code-name?

17 A. I cannot remember that. I did not work directly on this, so I

18 really cannot. It's possible that he was.

19 Q. Thank you. We are not going to deal any more with that, we're

20 going to come back to our statistics.

21 You told us that the information about the number of detainees

22 were compiled on the basis of several sources; on the basis of reports of

23 exchanges in 1991, which were compiled by the Defence Ministry of the

24 Republic of Croatia, then on the basis of records of exchanges conducted

25 by the commission of which you were president, with the mediation of the

1 Red Cross on the basis of reports on registered detainees drafted by the

2 Red Cross at the actual locations of detention, and on the basis of

3 statements by detainees themselves when they were submitting requests in

4 relation to securing some rights arising from that status. Is that

5 correct? Were those the sources used?

6 A. Yes, that is correct.

7 Q. Can you please give us the numbers or the percentages of the

8 numbers of these persons receiving such status only on the basis of their

9 statements.

10 A. What do you mean only on the basis of their statements?

11 Q. You told us yesterday that summing up the information of the

12 detainees was done with problems in 1991 and that you received documents

13 on the exchanges that you did receive. Then you mentioned these other

14 sources on the basis of which you formed your records, and this list of

15 detainees, but you also told us that a number of persons, after being

16 released from detention, reported by making a statement that they were

17 actually detained in order to gain some benefits and then you said that

18 you signed those statements. Is that correct?

19 A. I'm afraid we didn't understand each other. What I said was - I

20 don't want to repeat it - the sources that you mention now, but I also

21 said that a number of persons who were released from detention, that means

22 through exchanges - how else could they have been released? - that a

23 number of such persons also provided statements on the basis of which we

24 could get more information about the -- their period of detention and also

25 about other people who were possibly detained. This is what I talked

1 about, and not that we entered them into the records on the basis of their

2 statements. Even to this day there is still a possibility of an

3 administrative procedure whereby a person can subsequently be entered into

4 the list or the records of prisoners of war or detainees, but this can be

5 done only for persons about whom documents exist that they were exchanged,

6 documents by the institution that conducted the exchange, or documents of

7 the international organisation mediating in the exchange. A statement by

8 a person who was in detention is not sufficient to have that person

9 entered into the records. If I was not clear, I'm sorry, but I believe

10 that I have clarified this matter a little bit.

11 Q. Yes, it's quite clear to us now. Does that mean that each person

12 from your list of detainees has documents that you have just indicated,

13 such certificates?

14 A. You mean certificate of detention.

15 Q. Certificate of detention or that they were recorded or registered

16 in the institution of their detention.

17 A. Each person that is on our list of detainees is on that list on

18 the basis of information on exchange or release by authorised institution;

19 the previous commission or our commission. A number of those persons has

20 such confirmation by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch the last part of

22 the answer.

23 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Yes, that is clear to me. Does that mean that you have all the

25 documents, all the lists of exchanged persons from 1991 until 1996 when

1 you said that the last exchange was carried out?

2 A. Yes, we do.

3 Q. For each person?

4 A. Each person that was in prison has a file that contains the place,

5 the time of detention, the circumstances of detention, possibly

6 information that they saw such and such a person also in detention, that

7 the commander of the camp was such and such a person. So information that

8 a person in such a situation was able to provide.

9 Q. That is clear to me. Mr. Grujic, does that mean that each of

10 these files that you are speaking about, file of detained persons, would

11 contain the proof of detention or proof that they were recorded by the Red

12 Cross at the location of detention, or confirmation of the exchange of

13 that person --

14 A. No.

15 Q. Yes, I would just like to finish. And that there is no file that

16 is open or outstanding with a person that has been recorded as detained

17 only on the basis of their own statement or statement of another witness?

18 A. There is no one in the records who was entered into the records

19 just by providing a statement that they or someone else were detained.

20 That was not a way to be entered into the records. I repeat: Persons

21 were registered on the basis of lists of exchanges and on the basis of

22 records of the previous commission that conducted the exchanges, and these

23 would be lists or files. We're not talking about files or dossiers, but

24 we're talking about cards, registers that were transferred into electronic

25 form, giving the first and last name, date of detention. No one is in the

1 record because they came and said, "I was detained, so could you please

2 put me on the records." This was simply unacceptable, then and now.

3 Q. So let us conclude so that it is quite clear to me. Does that

4 mean that each person on that list as a detainee has a certificate of

5 detention, a certificate of exchange, or a certificate of detention or a

6 certificate of them being registered by the Red Cross?

7 A. No, they don't have certificates, this is not our method of work.

8 Nobody issued certificates of exchange. Exchanges were conducted in the

9 following way: After the authorised organs reached an agreement, lists

10 for exchanges were made. These exchange lists -- and that was the only

11 document because there were no other data available. After the exchange

12 was carried out, all the persons that were exchanged on that list were

13 entered as exchanged persons. Some of the information is what it was at

14 the point of exchange. Then we continued to expand these -- these

15 records. When we would have a person that would need a certificate of

16 exchange, then their personal data would be expanded with other necessary

17 information that was required. So the list of detainees was formed on the

18 basis of exchange lists drafted at the location of exchange.

19 Q. And the card or the dossier or file of every person, on the basis

20 of information on exchange, says the record of exchange on such and such a

21 date and such a such and location?

22 A. No, it does not say that. It says exchange on such and such a

23 date at such and such a location, or liberated in the following

24 circumstances.

25 Q. Did you receive any requests for the recognition of status of a

1 detained person when a person did not have any of those certificates, no

2 records by the Red Cross, or confirmation that they were detained in a

3 certain institution, or confirmation that they were exchanged? Did you

4 have such cases?

5 A. Not only did we have such cases, we have them to this very day.

6 Since I said that the commissions began to work in 1991, late 1991, there

7 were detentions prior to that. These people were exchanged at the local

8 level, and it was possible that some of those people were not entered into

9 the records. In order to be fair and just, we decided that persons can be

10 entered on the lists later, persons who were detained, but in order to

11 include them on the list those persons had to provide valid documents,

12 such as the document of the authorised institution carrying out the

13 exchange or a document of the International Committee of the Red Cross,

14 registering that person in detention or the way they were freed. Because

15 there were cases when people, for example, were in prison in Sremska

16 Mitrovica, were registered by the International Committee of the Red

17 Cross, but for various reasons were freed, released. They were released

18 and they left the prison before any exchanges took place. Such a person

19 obviously was not on the list precisely because the person was not

20 exchanged. But it's a fact that the person was in prison. In order to

21 prove that, the person would secure certificate of registration in prison

22 from the ICRC and on the time spent in prison, and such a person would

23 then subsequently be entered into the register. This is a small number of

24 cases, and we still have such requests of all those; however, all those

25 who cannot meet the criteria cannot be entered on these lists.

1 Q. A person who cannot obtain the certificates that you just talked

2 about cannot be entered on the list of detainees and you did not include

3 such persons on the list; is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Could you please tell us, although I think that that is clear,

6 that the Vukovar-Srijem region that we talked about does not totally

7 correspond to the territory of the municipality of Vukovar from 1991; is

8 that correct?

9 A. Yes, that is correct.

10 Q. Or the territory of the Osijek-Baranja county does not completely

11 correspond with the then territory of the municipality of Osijek in 1991;

12 is that correct?

13 A. Yes, it is.

14 Q. Also, Eastern Slavonia and its territory in 1991 does not now fit

15 into any of the newly-created counties. Actually its territory covers the

16 territory of two or more countries at present; is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. All these tables that you presented to us yesterday were

19 regionally deployed and analysed according to the current counties and the

20 boundaries of the Republic of Croatia; is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. When you were totalling the information, you clearly used this

23 principle. So the numbers from the population census of March, 1991, that

24 I see were used when talking about the total number of population

25 according to the counties were actually totaled according to the new

1 administrative division of counties of the Republic of Croatia and not the

2 one that was valid in 1991. Can we agree on that?

3 A. Let me clarify this a bit. You mentioned Vukovar municipality.

4 Q. No, I didn't.

5 A. Vukovar municipality. Now that we're talking of Vukovar and the

6 Vukovar analysis, let's start with that. Had we analysed the then Vukovar

7 municipality, which at the time had 29 locations or settlements, then the

8 numbers of victims would have been larger. Which means, had we analysed

9 all of these 29 settlements comprising Vukovar municipality, then the

10 number of missing would be 423, where in Vukovar it would be 353.

11 Q. Just a minute please, Mr. Grujic. I understand what you're trying

12 to say now, but what I'm trying to say is that the figures that we have

13 here do not pertain to the territory as it was in 1991, which means that

14 they don't reflect the situation as it was in 1991, regardless of whether

15 it was -- whether the effect would be to have larger numbers or smaller

16 numbers. Whatever the outcome, you did not analyse the situation as it

17 was in 1991 when the events took place. I hope that we can agree on this.

18 A. The figures here and the number of residents relate to the

19 occupied portion of the Republic of Croatia. That is to say,

20 Vukovar-Srijem county had or has two thousand three hundred one thousand

21 two hundred forty-one thousand [as interpreted] residents, whereas the

22 occupied portion had 101.000 and something residents.

23 Q. Let us see if we understand this. This is not the number of

24 residents who lived in the Vukovar municipality in its boundaries back in

25 1991. That's all I'm asking you, regardless of whether the number you're

1 giving me is greater or smaller.

2 A. When we're talking of Vukovar, the town of Vukovar --

3 Q. No, I'm referring to the Vukovar municipality.

4 A. No, no, no. I Gave my data for the town of Vukovar. I'm

5 reiterating: The municipality of Vukovar at the time in 1991 had 29

6 settlements in its territory.

7 Q. All right. Mr. Grujic, based on your data, can you tell me,

8 please, how many residents lived in Eastern Slavonia back in 1991 and what

9 was the ethnic composition of the residents percentage-wise?

10 A. I can tell you about the occupied portion because we analysed the

11 occupied portion. The occupied portion of two counties where there were

12 the victims that we analysed. People did not go missing in the portions

13 which were not occupied. So we are now referring only to the territory

14 that was occupied, and all the information we provided is for that portion

15 of the territory.

16 Q. Now it seems that a number of questions arise from your answer.

17 First of all, I am interested in the number of residents and ethnic

18 composition of residents in Eastern Slavonia. Can you give us these

19 figures? Also, can you give us the figures for the number of residents

20 and their ethnic composition in the occupied portion of Eastern Slavonia,

21 as you are calling it?

22 A. Yes, I can give you this, these figures. The occupied portion of

23 the Podunavlje region comprising two counties, Vukovar-Srijem county and

24 Osijek-Baranja county. So the occupied portion back in 1991 had 193.135

25 residents. If we look at the county in whole or if we add up these two

1 counties, then - just a minute - then it would be about 600.000 residents,

2 and I can give you the precise figure, if you want. That is to say, I

3 guess that's what you were interested in.

4 Q. No, Mr. Grujic. That's not what I asked you. It seems that we

5 failed to understand each other. You spoke about the Podunavlje region

6 and the occupied portions of two counties. And as far as I am aware, that

7 covers the region of Baranja, Eastern Slavonia, and Western Srem. Am I

8 right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. I'm saying that these figures pertain to the entire region and I'm

11 interested in the figures for Eastern Slavonia, not in those for Baranja

12 and Western Srem. And I think that, based on the tables provided by you,

13 you can't give me those figures now. That was my question: You can't

14 give me those figures for Eastern Slavonia.

15 A. Listen, let's try and clarify these geographic terms. If we're

16 talking of Eastern Slavonia now, then we have to talk of Slavonia, which

17 includes Eastern Slavonia, Western Slavonia. That's a geographical

18 concept. What I told you here were figures for counties which now

19 administratively cover the area that we're dealing with. How can I now

20 give you data for Slavonia, Slovenia, or Austria, for that matter?

21 Q. Mr. Grujic, I didn't ask you randomly for Eastern Slavonia. I

22 asked you because it is in our indictment. That's why I asked you about

23 it. I didn't put that question to you in order to confuse you. No; on

24 the contrary.

25 As for Vukovar municipality, back in 1991, did it have 84.000

1 residents? To be more precise, 84.189. And that includes Vukovar

2 municipality with the neighbouring villages.

3 A. What did you say?

4 Q. I said 84.189.

5 A. That's possible.

6 Q. Do you have such information in any of your lists?

7 A. No, I didn't provide that figure to you.

8 Q. Can you tell us the number of residents in Vukovar in August of

9 1991, those residing in Vukovar, as well as their ethnic composition?

10 Also, can you tell us to what extent did the ethnic composition change

11 from early 1991 to August 1991?

12 A. I could only speak of the official data, the number of residents

13 provided by the state Bureau for Statistics. What you asked me just now

14 is something that nobody knows, nobody can give you even any assessments

15 and it is up to demographers to come up with that information.

16 Q. Yes, certainly, Mr. Grujic. However, the census from 1991 that

17 you referred to was made for these geographical regions, not for counties

18 which were established later.

19 A. The census that I was referring to was produced by the state

20 Bureau for Statistics, and it pertains to 1991 when this data was

21 published. I can't give you a month-by-month overview to tell you whether

22 there were any changes in the movement of residents and what kind of

23 changes, all I can tell you is that, yes, there were some changes in

24 Vukovar, and I can tell you that on the basis of the number of displaced

25 persons from that town. So if we look at that number and if we look at

1 different periods of time, then, yes, in that case we can talk about the

2 number of people who left Vukovar and their ethnic composition. And yes,

3 I can do my calculations right here, right now, if you're interested in

4 that.

5 Q. Mr. Grujic, it seems we misunderstood each other once again. I

6 told you this: The data in 1991 that you used in your report pertained to

7 different administrative boundaries than those that you analysed in your

8 report. Can we agree on this?

9 A. No. What I'm telling you is that the data I provided here for the

10 town of Vukovar were compiled just for the town of Vukovar, not for the

11 administrative unit, municipality of Vukovar, which had 29 settlements.

12 When we speak of the town of Vukovar, we are referring only to the inner,

13 urban area, based on the data provided by the state Bureau for Statistics.

14 Q. And they date from when, this data of the state Bureau for

15 Statistics?

16 A. From 1991, it says up there at the top.

17 Q. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Grujic, I think that it will be up to

18 somebody else to analyse this, and everybody knows that administrative

19 borders were different in 1991 than later on. I have no further questions

20 for you.

21 A. Thank you.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Vasic.

23 We must now have the first break. And we will resume at five

24 minutes to 11.00.

25 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

1 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Tapuskovic.

3 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

4 Cross-examination by Ms. Tapuskovic:

5 Q. Good morning, Mr. Grujic.

6 A. Good morning.

7 Q. My name is Mira Tapuskovic, I will be putting questions to you.

8 Yesterday you told us that in 1991 in Croatia, as the state

9 administration evolved, certain administrative changes were made,

10 including organisational changes of the body that you were the president

11 of. Is that right?

12 A. Yes. I was in that position in 1993, and another organisational

13 structure existed prior to that.

14 Q. First it was a commission, then an office, and then an

15 administration; is that right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. The material that accompanied your report stated that this body --

18 I will be using the term "body" so as not to refer specifically to the

19 time when it was either a commission or an office or an administration.

20 So, the material that accompanied your report indicates that this body

21 compiled information, processed information, it kept records on the

22 exhumed and identified persons, mortal remains, detained and missing

23 persons. Is that right?

24 A. Yes. All of the tasks within the scope of responsibility of the

25 office were listed.

1 Q. Can you please tell us, in view of Croatian legislation, what did

2 the task of processing data entail?

3 A. Briefly speaking, the analysis of data. The analysis of data on

4 all of these persons.

5 Q. The decree from 2001 stipulated that that body has to keep records

6 on the basis of a number of parameters, and that certificates could be

7 issued by that body. Is that right?

8 A. Yes, that's correct. And that regulation is still in force. This

9 body issues certificates on detained and missing persons. This is done

10 pursuant to the request of the family members. Also, similar certificates

11 can be issued concerning detention.

12 Q. So it's a kind of an administrative document that has certain

13 force in administrative proceedings; is that right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. As for the analysis of data, as one of the tasks performed by the

16 body whose president you are, does that also include the verification of

17 collected data?

18 A. Absolutely, yes.

19 Q. And that's due to the fact that the certificates issued by you

20 have a certain legal force. That is to say, your body certifies the facts

21 recorded.

22 A. Yes, absolutely. These documents, these certificates can be used

23 in any legal transaction and can also be used in order to confirm the

24 status which in turn entails certain effects and benefits.

25 Q. Thank you. Yesterday you touched upon the questionnaires which

1 were tendered into evidence here yesterday. Analysing your yesterday's

2 testimony, I concluded that that was the basic document, the starting

3 point when it comes to a missing person, and that it could lead to some

4 other categories which were under the jurisdiction of your body.

5 A. Yes. That's correct. So that was a basic document, and on the

6 basis of that document we launched tracing steps when it comes to missing

7 persons, and then I said that missing persons could be found either alive

8 or dead.

9 Q. That means that this questionnaire which was filled in by the

10 persons initiating tracing, were the basic source of information for you;

11 is that right?

12 A. Yes, the basic source of information.

13 Q. You told us yesterday that the old questionnaires which were used

14 between 1991 and 1993 proved to be incomplete; they did not have

15 sufficient information. As a result of that, you embarked on this project

16 to create new questionnaires; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And the decision on doing that was adopted in 1993 and these

19 questionnaires were put in use as early as in 1994?

20 A. Yes. When I came to the helm of that institution I realised - not

21 only I, the entire commission realised, that the information provided in

22 order to trace somebody was insufficient, and that it needed to be

23 harmonised with the regulations of the ICRC and other international

24 bodies, and it was then the decision was made to improve this

25 questionnaire in order to improve the quality of the information needed in

1 order to trace somebody.

2 Q. You told us yesterday that the UN forms were used, and the ICRC

3 forms as well, in order to create this new questionnaire. Can you please

4 tell us now whether in your archives you still have old questionnaires.

5 A. Yes, but these are not questionnaires. Rather, these are various

6 lists and statements of family members. So mildly speaking, this is a

7 disorganised documentation. Simply speaking, we did not have sufficient

8 information in order to do quality tracing.

9 Q. But this documentation, was it created in such a way as to pertain

10 to an individual person or was it collective?

11 A. Each person had its own records.

12 Q. Then please tell me whether your archives still have this

13 documentation.

14 A. Yes, and we use it in order to conduct verifications, to compare

15 data, and so on.

16 Q. Can you tell me whether all questionnaires which were submitted in

17 this case, those that pertained to Ovcara, were compared to those dating

18 from the period up to 1993? I'm saying "questionnaires" even though you

19 said that those were not questionnaires, rather different types of

20 documents.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Can you tell me, these earlier documents, early version documents,

23 were they submitted to The Hague Tribunal at their request?

24 A. No. Because these are old records which gave birth to new

25 records, which are of much better quality.

1 Q. Thank you. You told us that data collection from 1993 on was an

2 organised campaign in about 102 branch offices of the Croatian Red Cross.

3 A. Yes. 102 branch offices, plus about 10 collection centres where

4 refugees were. We informed all embassies and consular offices about this

5 campaign. All of embassies and consular offices of Croatia, in order to

6 inform everybody of this campaign.

7 Q. Did you train the persons who filled in questionnaires or assisted

8 persons who were tracing their family members in order to fill these

9 questionnaires?

10 A. Yes. The office which created this new questionnaire carried out

11 a training for those filling it. This is normally done when it comes to

12 all questionnaires.

13 Q. When The Hague Tribunal sought -- can you tell us, when did The

14 Hague Tribunal sought these questionnaires from you? When they did that,

15 I assumed that these questionnaires were scanned or copied. Did scanners

16 exist at the time?

17 A. No, scanners did not exist at the time. They were photocopied and

18 provided in hard copy.

19 Q. Reviewing these 200 and something [Realtime transcript read in

20 error "100 and something"] questionnaires, which we as the Defence

21 received, we noticed that what was added uniformly -- I would like to

22 intervene. In the transcript, it would be line 25 on page 38, I said "200

23 and something," and it says "100 and something." Thank you.

24 Most often on page 2 there was a uniform entry of asterisks or the

25 phrase "turn over." Can you please tell us, if you had the questionnaires

1 in your hand, what this particular thing would indicate.

2 A. One of the instructions or advice to those doing the interviews

3 was that if a person filling in the questionnaire wished to say something

4 which was not included in the questions, they could then use the asterisks

5 and then on the empty page could note down all the remarks, all the

6 requests that the person filling in the questionnaire would make.

7 Q. Can you confirm that all the additional pages were photocopied and

8 given to The Hague Tribunal as well as can you confirm that additional

9 remarks of the persons filling in the questionnaires were noted down on

10 the back of the questionnaires while only the facing page was actually

11 copied?

12 A. Well, I couldn't say anything about that. The copying was done by

13 those who were doing the interviews. They were present during the

14 photocopying, they did the photocopying themselves.

15 Q. I'm saying that because the documents that we received do not

16 contain these additional comments, so what I wanted to see is whether, if

17 you know that the information that we received, these forms, are

18 incomplete. In any case, can you please tell us what the response was to

19 filling in the questionnaires in 1993 in terms of Vukovar, specifically

20 Ovcara, compared with the first period when the questionnaires were being

21 filled in?

22 A. What do you mean "the first period"?

23 Q. Until 1993.

24 A. I cannot give you such an analysis at this moment, comparison

25 between the first database and the second database on Ovcara. We have a

1 new database now, and you know that out of 264 persons, 262 questionnaires

2 were filled in. So we can't discuss the absolute existence of

3 questionnaires in relation to the names mentioned in the indictment.

4 Q. Can you tell us the name of the requests or interviews filled in

5 in relation to Ovcara until 1993?

6 A. This is something that we cannot know. As I said, the information

7 was sketchy, no locations or circumstances were noted, and precisely that

8 was the reason why we sought the questionnaires to be filled in again in

9 this way. Because it's practically impossible to find this information in

10 the old questionnaires.

11 Q. In your report you said that the media also participated in the

12 whole procedure; newspapers, television, and that there was also a TV spot

13 produced on this.

14 A. Yes, that is correct.

15 Q. Can you remember that when the spot was broadcast and when the

16 messages were broadcast, so that you would get the largest number of

17 people to respond and to fill in these questionnaires, whether documentary

18 films were shown on television about the suffering on the territory of

19 Croatia during the armed conflict?

20 A. The press published these notices or advertisements on special

21 pages at the explicit request to do that. I cannot really talk about how

22 this was treated in relation to daily events. They were probably covered

23 too. As far as television is concerned, I know that we specifically

24 requested the spots to be broadcast at peak times, at prime time, and

25 prime time on television is usually when news shows are broadcast, so this

1 TV spot was broadcast just before the evening news. I don't know whether

2 it was also broadcast before some documentary films or other types of

3 programmes.

4 Q. Can you tell me with certainty that the propaganda activities of

5 the Croatian media at that time did not significantly influence the

6 contents of the information that was entered in the questionnaire?

7 A. I can say that with certainty. I personally organised this media

8 campaign, and the only purpose of the campaign was to get the greatest

9 number of people involved and to get them to respond so that we could

10 obtain this information.

11 Q. I would like to ask you to turn to tab 1.6, and could we look at

12 Exhibit 535 on the screen. That is the questionnaire.

13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please speak into the

14 microphone.

15 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. And before we see the questionnaire on the screen --

17 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please speak into the

18 microphone.

19 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. This is a question on the persons who were the commanders of

21 forces taking away the sought person. That was the question. That should

22 be on page 3, because page 1 is not marked. The number of the page is

23 actually 2.

24 I asked you about the influence of the media on the veracity and

25 the entry of information that the questionnaires contain. And I did that

1 because in one of the questionnaires - and Mr. Grujic, we will try to

2 mention names as seldom as possible and we will try to do all of this

3 through numbers, thank you - we're talking about person -- person 697,

4 according to the 65 ter number, and the ERN number in English is

5 0100-6078. In response to a question, who was the commander who took away

6 the person sought, it is said that it was Vance Owen.

7 Mr. Grujic, you don't have that. I didn't ask for that document

8 to be placed on the monitor, because that would take a lot of time. But I

9 did provide the information for the Trial Chamber and for my learned

10 friends from the Prosecution about exactly which form we're talking about

11 so they will be able to find it easily. Since you have already told us

12 that all the information was verified, would it be an alarming thing for

13 you to learn that somebody wrote that the commander of the units that took

14 away the sought person was Vance Owen? Of course we know this is Cyrus

15 Vance and David Owen; these are two different people. The person who

16 signed the questionnaire, would you warn them about the inaccuracy and the

17 illogical nature of that particular piece of information?

18 A. Had I been the interviewee, I probably would have the -- said yes.

19 But since you have put this question to me, allow me to just say a couple

20 of things. This same questionnaire, could you please look at the

21 education of the person who provided this information. This is one thing.

22 I don't believe that that person would know who we're talking about. Even

23 the name wasn't given properly. So when we had responses like this, and

24 we did have responses like this, what we need to know is that the

25 questionnaires were compiled exclusively for the purpose of seeking

1 persons. They were not made for any kind of court proceedings where we

2 are using them now. The question that you mentioned was placed into the

3 questionnaire for only one reason, and that was that during negotiations

4 it would be possible then to say to the other commission, gentlemen, we

5 have information that for 50 or 100 persons the name of a certain person

6 is mentioned who commanded the unit who could have been responsible for

7 that, so could you please check that so you could provide an answer to

8 that.

9 Q. So that was the point and the purpose of that question?

10 A. Yes, I agree with you about the point and purpose of the question,

11 and this is, at least for me, not in dispute here when we're talking about

12 the level of education of a person that is looking for someone. What

13 we're talking about is the level of training of the person who is filling

14 in the interview, and who, in a way, would need to assist the person

15 providing the information for the interview, and who is seeking a close

16 relative.

17 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would just like

18 to intervene for the record. This is page 43 line 14, and line 14 starts

19 as question, line 15 starts as answer, and we have information that should

20 be the other way around. Thank you.

21 Q. What I would like to ask you now is to turn to page of the

22 questionnaire where you can see question number 18. And that is the

23 question, "What would be the eventual categories that the sought person

24 belonged to?" Can you please tell us, did you find that, Mr. Grujic?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Could you please tell us now what is the category next to the

2 letter f) "Domobran," Home Guard?

3 A. All the categories or names in that question, except for members

4 of the civilian protection and civilian, refer to official armed forces of

5 the Republic of Croatia and to the Home Guard. That was a formation

6 bearing that name at that time, and that's what it was about.

7 Q. Could you please tell us when this formation was formed and who

8 formed it?

9 A. I really couldn't say when it was formed, but as such it is

10 included in the official armed forces of the Republic of Croatia, just

11 like the ZNG, and we even have a category for "other defenders of the

12 Republic of Croatia" as a category because at that time different names

13 were given to units and we allowed the possibility for people to refer to

14 them.

15 Q. Do you have any reasons for not mentioning another category, the

16 HOS? Because all the questionnaires that we received we also have

17 articles for Ovcara 92, 93, 96, 104 and 142 that the persons being --

18 being sought did refer to HOS, but for number 92, referring to Ovcara, we

19 did receive confirmation for the Ministry of the Defence that this -- the

20 HOS is mentioned.

21 A. That would be under section g), that's the category under which

22 you could entry HOS or the Frankopan unit or anything like that.

23 Q. I just wanted to correct myself. It's my mistake. When I

24 mentioned the case Ovcara 1992, and I talked about the ministry, I'm

25 talking about the Ovcara number 93.

1 Could you please tell us the following: The forms were filled in

2 and 90 per cent of the forms that we received here were filled in in

3 February, 1992 [as interpreted]. Could you please tell me, when did

4 Croatia have its own armed forces? When did it officially get its own

5 armed forces?

6 Again intervention for the transcript. We did not get the page

7 number. It should be February '94 and not February '92.

8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down, especially

9 because there are so many figures.

10 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. To repeat the question, Mr. Grujic, when were the armed forces of

12 the Republic of Croatia officially formed?

13 A. That is not a date that I would be able to recall, but I can say

14 the following: I said when the questionnaire was being drafted the

15 members of the commission, including a representative of the Ministry of

16 Defence, participated in drafting the form, and that was the term or the

17 category devised so that the entire range of the armed forces of the

18 Republic of Croatia could be included.

19 Q. Does that mean that your body, whether it was a commission or an

20 office at the time, did not independently decide on the categories to be

21 included in question 18 of the questionnaire, but these categories were

22 set up by the Ministry of Defence?

23 A. Well, just one moment. We need to state things very clearly here.

24 When I spoke about the questionnaire, I said that a working group was

25 formed which included people from criminal -- the investigation field,

1 psychologists, computer specialists, analysts, and members of the

2 commission. The commission numbered 10 people at that time, I think, and

3 it was a cross-section of people from all the ministries that would be

4 relevant in seeking missing persons.

5 Q. Mr. Grujic, I have to interrupt you. My question was very clear:

6 Did your office independently formulate question number 18, or was this

7 question number 18 formulated by the Ministry of Defence? Please answer

8 yes or no.

9 A. The entire questionnaire was formulated by this working group,

10 including question 18. So the Ministry of Defence didn't say this must be

11 formulated in these terms. Nobody else did that.

12 Q. Let us go to my previous answer -- question to which you failed to

13 answer. Can you tell me with certainty that all of these formations

14 listed under this question, under a) we have Croatian army, under b) we

15 have reserve force of Croatian army, under c) we have ZNG, under f) we

16 have Home Guard. So can you tell me that all of these forces were the

17 legitimate units or legitimate forces of Croatia?

18 A. Yes, I can. Absolutely.

19 Q. So they were the legitimate forces of Croatia?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. I'm not asking you whether they were the legitimate forces in 1994

22 when these questionnaires were filled in. The questionnaires usually

23 refer to the events back in 1991 and 1992, which is after the armed

24 hostilities ceased. So all of these forces that I just listed to you,

25 back in 1991, were they the legitimate forces of Croatia?

1 A. You just put a question to me about the legitimacy of a unit.

2 Q. You can just say that you don't know.

3 A. Yes, I can say that I don't know, and I'm saying that I don't

4 know, but I also have to say that the purpose of this questionnaire is not

5 to establish whether they were legitimate or illegitimate, these units.

6 When we created this questionnaire, we needed to specify the formation to

7 which the person belonged in order to be able to trace them. Even if that

8 unit was illegitimate, we had to know which unit they belonged to in order

9 to be able to trace them.

10 Q. Thank you. Let us now move on. Could we please see Exhibit 545.

11 This is the Vukovar table, the Ovcara table. Let me just find out which

12 tab it is. It's tab 2.7. Can we now please look at page 8. Do you have

13 it, Mr. Grujic, page 8? This is the chart reflecting the facts for

14 Ovcara. You have the B/C/S version. On the screen we have the wrong

15 table. The one on the screen is for Vukovar, and we are interested in the

16 one for Ovcara, which is page 8 of 8 of the English version. Thank you.

17 Mr. Grujic, in the upper left table you have methods of

18 identification. And in it we see that 102 persons were identified via

19 using classic forensic methods, and that 90 persons were identified by

20 means of the DNA analysis.

21 A. Yes. That's the information we received from forensic experts.

22 Q. Just before you came to testify, we had Dr. Davor Strinovic

23 testifying here, and he spoke of exhumation procedure, autopsy and

24 identification of mortal remains. He provided different information to

25 us. In his data, as much as -- as many as 93 persons were identified via

1 the DNA analysis. His report and accompanying material were tendered into

2 evidence as Exhibit 451. Dr. Strinovic is a member of the commission,

3 isn't he, the commission which exists in your body.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Can you then explain this discrepancy, this discrepancy that was

6 presented here to this Trial Chamber by the same body?

7 A. I can attempt to do that. In relation to these three persons,

8 both classic forensic method was used and the DNA analysis. So initially

9 it was the classic forensic method, and later on, additional DNA analysis

10 was done, and this reflects the difference in approach.

11 Q. No, there is a difference in numbers. Statistics is all about

12 numbers. As far as I remember the testimony of Dr. Strinovic - I can't

13 remember the exact page of the transcript - he told us that in all cases

14 the classic forensic method was used, and only in cases where it produced

15 no results did they conduct the DNA analysis, which, in certain number of

16 cases, once again, was not successful.

17 A. Let me please explain this to you. This is very important; we

18 should not ignore this issue. All of the persons were processed using

19 classic forensic methods. Not all of them could be identified via this

20 method, but rather, the DNA analysis, and in those instances we had a

21 special method, and the special method produced a number that I gave here.

22 We have samples taken from all of these persons for the DNA analysis.

23 Later on, we proceeded to analyse collectively all mortal remains,

24 including the remains of these three persons. Therefore, they also have

25 the DNA analysis for these three persons. I'm not denying that 90 [as

1 interpreted] persons were analysed via the DNA method.

2 Q. Yes, but that's not included in your table here. If I were to

3 take these tables, then I would have two different tables with different

4 sets of results. Tell me, are these public records? Could anybody have

5 access to them? Anybody studying this issue, the issue of the number of

6 the exhumed and identified persons from Ovcara or from any other location

7 in Croatia?

8 A. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. And they were included in the

9 report.

10 Q. Intervention for the transcript. 49, line 6, it should say 93

11 persons.

12 Mr. Grujic, comparing various tables we received from you, we

13 established that you had a number of categories when it comes to mortal

14 remains as well as to the persons who were sought, detained, and so on.

15 Only in this table, the one for Ovcara, do I see that in addition to the

16 status listing defenders, civil protection, civilians, and unknown status,

17 you also have something referred to as "special status." Do you agree

18 with me?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. So no other table has this category, "special status," except for

21 this one in Ovcara?

22 A. You're right.

23 Q. Now, tell me, please, since we see here that 192 persons were

24 identified, if we add up the figures in the table reflecting status, we

25 see there 155 defenders, 15 members of civilian protection, 20 civilians,

1 and two of unknown status, we come to the number of 192 or 200. So these

2 97 plus 12 means 111 persons. So tell me, please, the special status,

3 what are they? They can't be categorised as unknown, they can't be

4 categorised as civilians or civil protection members, which means that

5 they have to go into the category of defenders.

6 A. I tried to add up figures, and I did it quickly. So status has a

7 total of 192 persons. Within them we also have those who had a special

8 status, which is to say that they were 97 wounded; out of them, 12 were

9 members of medical staff, and two were journalists. So a person who is

10 wounded as in in the hospital may not be properly referred as a member of

11 armed forces. So this is why we used this solution, to show that there

12 were persons belonging to these categories as well. This was also done in

13 our questionnaires.

14 Q. Yes, all right. But in that case you created a double status for

15 some persons, so there is some overlap. Somebody can also be a defender

16 and a member of medical staff. Because this number of 111 is included in

17 this number reflecting the general status, if I may call it that.

18 A. Well, listen, can a journalist be a soldier, a member of armed

19 forces? If you believe so, then all right. Or, if -- can a member of

20 medical staff be also a member of armed forces? Well, if yes, then you're

21 right.

22 Q. All right. We shall now proceed with further analysis. So there

23 is some overlap in status here. Isn't that right?

24 A. Journalists and members of medical staff, as you can see, these

25 categories were divided even in the questionnaire, and when we discussed

1 status, you omitted this part, didn't you?

2 Q. Mr. Grujic, in order to abbreviate this overlap issue and also the

3 numbers that overlap when it comes to status, I am now going to put to you

4 the analysis conducted by all three Defence teams. For my learned friends

5 from the Prosecution and for the Trial Chamber I'm going list numbers.

6 Ovcara 90 -- Ovcara 33, 65 ter numbers 694; Ovcara 48, our 65 ter 697;

7 Ovcara 53, our 65 ter -- I said I wouldn't mention the number. Ovcara 87,

8 we did not receive the 65 ter number because that document was disclosed

9 to us last night. And as Mr. Smith said, this was not on the 65 ter list.

10 Ovcara 114, our 65 ter number 654. Ovcara 117, 65 ter number 780. Ovcara

11 155, our 65 ter number 786. Ovcara 176, our 65 ter number 782.

12 Mr. Grujic, what would your comment be if I were to tell you that

13 in all of these questionnaires the persons tracing their relatives wrote

14 that their relatives or friends were primarily medical workers in the

15 Vukovar Hospital, and in addition to that, they also stated that they were

16 also members of one of the units listed by you in your questionnaire under

17 number 18? That is to say, in these cases that I just read out to you,

18 regardless of whether there are 10, 12, or just five of them, we have an

19 obvious example where there is an overlap in status. Can you then please

20 tell me whether these tables are accurate and whether the classification

21 of the status of these persons is also accurate, and which status did you

22 emphasise when compiling this; the defenders or the medical staff?

23 A. I can tell you assuredly that this table is accurate, that it was

24 compiled based on the information in the questionnaires, and that the

25 special status is a subcategory that is within it. We did not conduct any

1 further classification where we would say that out of 97 wounded perhaps

2 there were 80 defenders and 12 civilians. No, we didn't do that. So the

3 special status is a subcategory that speaks for itself. And as you could

4 see in the questionnaire, this is not included in the basic category.

5 This is a subcategory. You are right in everything else you put to me.

6 However, it is a fact that we have three categories in this status; those

7 of defenders, civil protection, and civilians, whereas a subcategory can

8 fall under the first one.

9 Q. And if I were to tell you, Mr. Grujic, that all of these names - I

10 don't know exactly how many I've read out to you - are just a combination

11 of one type of status, that is to say medical staff worker from the

12 special status category, and defenders from the status category. I told

13 you that all of these people were actually defenders. Mr. Smith and the

14 Trial Chamber can verify it based on the exhibits that I just mentioned.

15 And I can list another eight persons for you for whom it was stated that

16 they were members of civilian protection, and simultaneously members of

17 one of the formations included in your questionnaire under number 18.

18 Plus the HOS units which were not listed in your questionnaire.

19 I am now going to give you the numbers for the benefit of the OTP

20 and the Trial Chamber, the numbers of questionnaires where, under "status"

21 we have two categories from your tables. And those are cases Ovcara 28,

22 our 65 ter 650. Ovcara 38, our 65 ter number 694. Ovcara 46, our 65 ter

23 number 778. Ovcara 72, our 65 ter number 24. I don't think, though, that

24 this is the proper number, because normally all of these questionnaires

25 have a three-digit number. This can be verified. Ovcara 91, our 65 ter

1 number 633. Ovcara 145, our 65 ter number 845. Ovcara 194, our 65 ter

2 number 747. There are six or seven there within that number.

3 Can you tell me that in this case where in all questionnaires it

4 is stated that the persons traced were members of civilian protection and

5 simultaneously members of armed forces, there is no overlap of status from

6 your table?

7 A. I'm going to repeat: In all the questionnaires where the civilian

8 protection status is noted, it's stated in the category of civilian

9 protection. So that is why we have the small number 15 civilian

10 protection while the other numbers that are being cited are under the

11 status of overlapping status belonging to another category, so they are

12 part of a different category.

13 Q. I don't know which other category you're talking about now, but

14 you do admit that in cases where civilian protection is mentioned and any

15 other membership, you declared the person as belonging to the civilian

16 protection regardless of the fact that, for example, Ovcara 91, where the

17 same person was a member of the 204th Vukovar Brigade and that Cyrus Vance

18 was present while he was being taken away.

19 A. I'm going to say this again: The educational status of the

20 persons involved were what they were. And the questionnaires were what

21 they were. So I had to use the information in the questionnaires in the

22 best possible way. You will allow that the interview form, which has 25

23 pages, you have 3.000 people filling in those forms, most of those people

24 have less than a full primary school education, there are bound to be

25 mistakes cropping up. But what we can say is that on the basis of the

1 information that was available to us we made the best possible and the

2 most correct version of the reports that we could.

3 Q. Mr. Grujic, now you are evidently telling us that you are not

4 ruling out the possibility that the information is not quite correct.

5 A. No, I wouldn't say that the information is not correct. I would

6 not say that at all. We have now gone to completely the other extreme.

7 If we take the status and we count the number, we come to 192 identified

8 persons at Ovcara. And as we said, 155 of them were defenders and 15

9 civilians.

10 Q. Mr. Grujic, I must interrupt you. I'm saying -- I'm not saying

11 that the information in the questionnaires is not correct, but it's not

12 correct in your tables because you did not mention all these overlaps in

13 status.

14 A. But okay, could you please tell me, if this is not correct, would

15 you be able to show that to me? How many persons from the civilian

16 protection did you find?

17 Q. I have just read that to you, but I will continue. I have more

18 things. I wish I didn't have to do this, but you mentioned that there

19 were 20 civilians. Now I am going to dictate 12 cases of questionnaires

20 indicating that the person sought, besides having the status of civilians,

21 were either members of the regular Croatian army or a member of the

22 reserve forces or regular ZNG or reserve ZNG forces. Ovcara 16, our 65

23 ter number 730. Ovcara 23, our 65 ter 831. Ovcara 34, our 65 ter 694.

24 Ovcara 37, our 65 ter 675. Ovcara 53, our 65 ter 719. Ovcara 117, our 65

25 ter 780. Ovcara 119, our 65 ter 657. Ovcara 120, our 65 ter 766. Ovcara

1 163, our 65 ter 711. Ovcara 166, our 65 ter 761. Ovcara 183, our 65 ter

2 741. And the last one, Ovcara 196, our 65 ter 709. A total of 12 cases.

3 Can you please tell me how these 12 cases, stating that the

4 persons were both civilians and members of one of the formations you

5 mentioned in the questionnaire under question 18, you categorised and

6 entered into your tables in this report.

7 A. Well, the procedure was as follows: Asked to provide the number

8 of civilians, the computer provided the number of civilians. Asked for

9 the number of civilian protection members, the computer came up with the

10 number of civilian protection members. And also the same procedure was

11 used for the defence, because the system to do the computer calculations

12 was set up and calibrated very specifically.

13 Q. Does that mean that your software programme selected whether it

14 was going to use option a), f), g) or d) under question 18?

15 A. Yes, it made the selection according to the question that was

16 asked. If we asked for the number of civilians in the records, we would

17 get the total number of civilians. It's a computer calculation.

18 Q. Can you please tell us whether if at any point you double-checked

19 manually whether there was an overlap in status?

20 A. No, there was no need. We didn't think that there was any need to

21 double-check the computer data that we got, especially because we were

22 familiar with some of the names.

23 Q. All right, Mr. Grujic. We are now going to move on.

24 You also provided a special table for the special status. Could

25 you please tell us while you were processing the data relating to Ovcara

1 if you received or asked for any information from Dr. Vesna Bosanac.

2 A. Not directly from her, no. I again would like to emphasise that

3 the data that I am talking about is exclusively the result of reviewing

4 the documents that I have in my office.

5 Q. Did you maybe use data that was requested from the MUP?

6 A. How do you mean "from the MUP"? I'm going to repeat again how we

7 worked with the MUP: The register of all missing persons that we

8 maintained was sent to the MUP so that they could cross-check their

9 records, and if there was any information they had about the missing

10 person in terms of resolving that particular case of a missing person,

11 only for those purposes, if they had any information.

12 Q. Now we're going to move to a new topic, and we are going to speak

13 a little bit about the problems of exhumations that were carried out

14 primarily in the Vukovar region. Today you replied to a question by my

15 colleague, Mr. Vasic, and that this was the case in other locations too,

16 that in order to approach an exhumation it is necessary to have an order

17 by the investigations judge; is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Could you please tell us whether there was such an order by the

20 investigations judge to embark on exhumations in the case of Ovcara.

21 A. No, the exhumations at Ovcara were not conducted by the Croatian

22 authorities, the exhumations were organised at the request of the

23 International Criminal Tribunal, and it was done under the auspices of the

24 UN, and Human Rights Physicians conducted these exhumations. We, from

25 Croatia, appeared at those exhumations as observers, observers of the

1 procedures and we did not have the opportunity to create any documents or

2 to participate in that process. There were also observers from the

3 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and also from the temporarily occupied

4 territories of the Republic of Croatia.

5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the first part of

6 the question.

7 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Since you said the exhumations were organised and conducted by

9 this International Tribunal and that the exhumations and autopsies were

10 carried out in the organisation of Physicians for Human Rights, can you

11 please tell us whether the Croatian government has all the complete

12 results of the exhumations and autopsies carried out in the locality of

13 Ovcara?

14 A. My office does not have all of that information. All we have is

15 the data relating to identification. While parts, or actually documents,

16 relating to autopsies were sent to the Institute for Forensic Medicine and

17 they have those available, but we don't have the actual documents on the

18 exhumations itself -- themselves.

19 Q. Dr. Strinovic told us that your body, your administration, your

20 office, does not even have detailed information about the autopsies, that

21 they never received those parts relating to the cause of death.

22 A. Yes, that is correct.

23 Q. Do you know where the complete material relating to Ovcara is

24 kept?

25 A. I don't. I don't even know whether that was ever sent to the

1 government of the Republic of Croatia.

2 Q. Now we're going to look at the tables some more that refer to

3 Ovcara -- or rather, Vukovar. Mr. Grujic, you remember that for the needs

4 of the Slobodan Milosevic case you also prepared a report, and the

5 original report dates from 2002, when it was actually prepared for that

6 case; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And you just worked on it a little bit more, you updated it with

9 the most recent information now that your administration has at its

10 disposal.

11 A. Yes. It was updated with new information, basically changing just

12 a few details.

13 Q. Do you remember the letter and the list you provided, referring to

14 the case of Slobodan Milosevic, in which you informed the Tribunal that

15 one of the persons who was in the indictment - and this letter is from

16 1997 or 1998, there is no date on it - that you indicated that one person

17 was found alive, Zarko Vilenica, I am going to mention the name now. Do

18 you remember that particular matter?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. Thank you very much. You've made it easier for me, because now we

21 don't have to refer to any documents. Zarko Vilenica is still registered

22 as a missing person in your office, or no?

23 A. No, he's no longer recorded as a missing person.

24 Q. All right, thank you very much. Because at the Tribunal his name

25 is officially part of the material, and he's been recorded as a missing

1 person.

2 A. Please allow me to give an explanation. The questionnaires were

3 sent on the basis of possible candidates who could be in the mass graves

4 at Ovcara in 1995. The list of 262 persons and the amended indictment

5 were made much later. We had this information at that particular time,

6 and we sent all the information together with the files. Once we

7 established that the person in question was alive, of course we

8 immediately notified the International Criminal Tribunal, provided all the

9 information, and we took him off the list of missing persons. So he is

10 not on this particular list of 262 persons.

11 Q. Thank you. In any case, that person is alive.

12 A. Yes, thank God.

13 Q. Thank you. We spoke a lot about the Ovcara papers, the

14 questionnaires, and the correctness or accuracy of the information on the

15 basis of the tables or the questionnaires. Did it ever happen in your

16 work that numbers of documents, questionnaires, overlapped, and that you

17 would have different information under the name of the same person, under

18 the same name?

19 A. I did not quite understand your question, but if it's what I

20 think, then I will try to answer. At the very beginning, when the

21 campaign was being carried out to gather data about missing persons - and

22 I explained how this was conducted on the territory of the Republic of

23 Croatia and outside of it - it happened that at the same time perhaps the

24 brother in Zagreb and father in Sarajevo would both report that a person

25 was missing. Regardless of the fact that they filled in all the required

1 data, when we were entering the data into the database, we would merge

2 those two dossiers so then it would be possible that there would be two or

3 three missing reports about a particular person, but that would eventually

4 become one file.

5 Q. Yes, correct, Mr. Grujic. We have several cases where there are

6 two or three questionnaires reflecting that different family members were

7 trying to trace the missing person. But I'm referring to a different

8 case. For example, Ovcara 106 and Ovcara 107. Ovcara 106 is 65 ter

9 number 735. Why don't you write it down. We have a questionnaire for

10 this person, and also an autopsy record, because we received autopsy

11 records that we are now analysing. Both you and Dr. Strinovic confirmed

12 to us that your office, as an official body of the Republic of Croatia, in

13 fact, does not have in its possession the full amount of autopsy reports

14 for the people found at Ovcara. But now to go back to Ovcara 107 and

15 Ovcara 106. As for Ovcara 107, we have information that this person was

16 exhumed but not identified. We have some sort of an autopsy report as

17 well as the report of Dr. Milewski, and she said for Ovcara 107 that its

18 name was the same as the name of Ovcara 106 person. Can you tell us, are

19 there two persons in this case, or just one?

20 A. Based on the information available to me, I can tell you that all

21 names from the list provided by us, all of these persons went through the

22 identification process. Even though we do not have autopsy reports and

23 cause of death reports, the autopsies were conducted at the Forensic

24 Institute and all of these persons were identified by name by their family

25 members. All of them were recorded as dead persons and registered as

1 such. So all of these persons were identified, but we can't speak of

2 causes of death because, as you said yourself, and Dr. Strinovic said, we

3 do not have complete documentation.

4 Q. You said to us that your office issued certificates. Do you also

5 issue any kind of documents which pertains to the data that you use? Do

6 you issue any kind of certificates for exhumed persons and those

7 identified in various localities in Croatia?

8 A. No, we do not have such a standard type of certification, but at

9 the request of a court, we can provide some kind of a certificate stating

10 that a certain person was exhumed anywhere, anywhere in the Republic of

11 Croatia, and that the file number is such and such. So we can provide

12 certain elements that are needed to establish certain rights before

13 courts.

14 Q. And you can also provide such information at the request of the

15 state, based on which I conclude that at the request of Ovcara 107 case

16 any name issued concerning that person would be the name of Ovcara 106

17 case.

18 A. The persons under 106 and 107 of this list were identified and

19 recorded as dead. Certificates were issued, death certificates, and as

20 such their relatives could obtain relevant documents in various registry

21 offices. We do not issue certificates concerning this number or that

22 number. We know that if a person was identified, identified by the

23 Forensic Institute, then that information is entered into registry books

24 of dead persons and, based on that, death certificate can be issued, and

25 these are normal death certificates that are issued in case of any death.

1 Q. All right. Thank you. Now we will turn to other tables. The

2 next table after Ovcara table is about Novo Groblje, new cemetery in

3 Vukovar, Exhibit 545, English page 7 out of 8. It's the same tab number.

4 Mr. Grujic, yesterday you told us that you believed that the new

5 cemetery in Vukovar was created when the sanitisation of the terrain was

6 conducted.

7 A. Yes, absolutely.

8 Q. Sanitisation is conducted once a conflict ceases anywhere; is that

9 right?

10 A. Yes, roughly so.

11 Q. You also told us that the persons found in that mass grave were

12 most likely -- this was on page 58, line 14 of yesterday's transcript --

13 that persons buried in that grave -- or, rather, that's page 9956 of the

14 transcript. That the persons buried there are persons who died as a

15 result of aggression, and then people who died when Vukovar was taken,

16 occupied, and then people who died after the fall of Vukovar.

17 A. Yes. As for the period of time, it was before, during, and after.

18 Q. You know that Vukovar fell on the 18th of November, 1991?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Please tell me what time reference was used for this chart, for

21 this table? You gave us certain temporal references about the creation of

22 that mass grave.

23 A. Yes, we spoke about when the mass grave was created. But if you

24 ask me from what period of time are the victims -- is that what you're

25 asking me?

1 Q. Yes.

2 A. Well, in that mass grave we have victims from mid-September

3 onwards. From the period of time after the 18th.

4 Q. Mid-September, 1991?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And you are claiming that on the basis of autopsy reports or cause

7 of death reports, or some other information you have for these identified

8 mortal remains, and they were a total of 800 of them; isn't that right?

9 A. Yes. We should also say from which categories these persons were

10 following the sanitisation, and then everything would be clear.

11 Q. But you didn't tell me whether you established causes of death in

12 relation to all of these persons, how they were injured.

13 A. When it comes to identifications and those who were identified and

14 exhumed by us, wherever possible we established the cause of death. If it

15 was impossible, we wrote down that the cause of death was not established.

16 That's what we did in 1998, though. On the other hand, in that grave it

17 was clearly visible that bodies were transported into that grave, persons

18 who were killed and are on the list of those who were killed from October.

19 There was a mass grave at the Sloga stadium, and people were buried there

20 with certain markings, because there was no other place. Two-thirds of

21 that mass grave was exhumed and transported to the new cemetery. And

22 these people are on the list, and in certain cases we were able to

23 establish the cause of death.

24 The second category of people are those who were found by the JNA

25 in mass graves, and I told you 28 in Sajmiste, Trpinjska Cesta so many --

1 Q. That's fine.

2 A. So those are the victims. Also, some victims, for example, died

3 in early November and were buried in the Catholic cemetery. For example,

4 I know the last name of Zadro. This person was transported, moved, and

5 then left as unidentified. So we also have that category. And then we

6 have categories from before. And then there are also categories of those

7 who died at the moment when the army entered Vukovar, and we have

8 documents supporting this from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These

9 victims are easily recognised - easily recognised - and they are from that

10 period of time. So following the occupation of Vukovar, we also have

11 victims who were prisoners of war. There were 11 of them, and they were

12 from Trpinjska Cesta. They surrendered there. One last name that I can

13 give you from that category is Savoric, and I can remember some other ones

14 perhaps.

15 Q. You say that it's very easy to recognise. If these bodies were

16 indeed transported from various other locations in Vukovar and then

17 finally deposited at the new cemetery in Vukovar, I would like to know

18 about these 800 identified cases and what exactly can you tell us about

19 them? Was the time of death established, cause of death, and how the

20 death came about?

21 A. Let me repeat: We established the cause of death on one hand by

22 our forensic experts after autopsy and identification in 1998. For the

23 majority of such cases we also have dossiers which we received from the

24 military court in Belgrade where, in the dossier, they listed injuries,

25 and in the majority of such cases they also marked violent deaths which

1 came about due to fire-arm wounds.

2 Q. And you have it?

3 A. Yes, we have it.

4 Q. You have it in regard to these victims. Do you have it here?

5 A. No, I don't have it here. Maybe I have one copy of it here.

6 Q. But in relation to each of these victims listed in this table, you

7 can't tell us anything about time of death, manner of death, types of

8 injuries they received and the cause of death?

9 A. Of course I can. Let me take the dossiers out and then I can do

10 it during the break.

11 Q. We don't have the papers that all of us can analyse here.

12 A. I fully agree with you. But I am referring to the documents which

13 I have in my office. I have these documents, and had anybody asked for

14 them, these documents would have been delivered to you. In addition to

15 that, these documents exist at the court in Belgrade.

16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think it's time

17 for our break.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. How do you see the progress in time of

19 your cross-examination?

20 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am doing my best,

21 I'm abbreviating my questions. I think I need another 10 minutes after

22 the break. We split the questions among us, and the topics, so as to

23 comply with the time you gave us, although it is very difficult, in view

24 of the amount of documents.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic, does that give you any reasonable hope?

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, so far I have always

2 tried to be as efficient as possible, but I have a serious concern. I

3 believe I won't be able to conclude. You saw that we split the topics.

4 Mr. Vasic mostly covered the detained, and you see what Mrs. Tapuskovic is

5 discussing now. I think we came to really important issues --

6 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues] ... not the

7 causes. Is the answer no or maybe?

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think I need about an hour and a

9 half to two.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I'm afraid we can't finish. Very well.

11 We will have to have the break now and we will look at the

12 consequences at the end of the evidence today. Thank you.

13 --- Recess taken at 12.27 p.m.

14 --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Judge Thelin is, unfortunately, unable to continue

16 this afternoon, so we will continue the sitting as two, under the Rule,

17 for the last session.

18 Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.

19 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I tried,

20 over the break, to cut down the number of questions. I don't know how

21 successful I will be. The material is enormous, the material that all the

22 teams had to cover, and even with the division of topics amongst us we are

23 quite overwhelmed with all the papers. But anyway, thank you.

24 Q. Mr. Grujic, we're going to come back now to the question of the

25 new cemetery in Vukovar. We would need to establish a few other things

1 there. As can be seen from your table -- and I would like to remind

2 everyone that this is Exhibit 545, and the English page number is 7 out of

3 a total of 8 in that exhibit. What we have is that 937 persons were

4 exhumed, and 800 --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 938 were exhumed and

6 800 identified.

7 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Mr. Grujic, you said that these bodies were covered by documents

9 which you received from the authorities of Serbia and Montenegro; is that

10 correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Can you now please tell us if, according to the documents received

13 from Serbia and Montenegro, were you able, when you examined the documents

14 later, to establish the day of death for which number of cases, and was it

15 possible at all to establish the day or time of death?

16 A. The documents do not give the time of death. What they do give is

17 the time when the mortal remains were found. The date of death can be

18 established on the basis of a number of parameters, such as when something

19 happened which is documented, there are documents to substantiate that,

20 and also on the basis of examining the mortal remains that were found in a

21 certain place.

22 Q. We've already heard something about these parameters used from

23 Dr. Strinovic too. But as for you, these 800 persons that were identified

24 have no established time of death, as far as you're concerned.

25 To continue then, we have a breakdown, and these 800 mortal

1 remains -- we have a breakdown for these 800 mortal remains, and it is

2 stated whether the death was a violent death, whether it was a gunshot

3 wound as the cause of death, or whether the cause of death was an

4 explosive device.

5 A. I don't have the exact numbers. This is not exactly in my line of

6 work. This is something that forensic medicine would deal with. But what

7 I saw was that the majority of deaths were caused by violent means and by

8 gunshot wounds, and that there was a considerable number of injuries

9 caused by explosive devices, and this is something that can be seen from

10 the documents received in Belgrade, and then later from the documents that

11 we generated.

12 Q. But at the moment you don't have these documents, and you cannot

13 give us the -- these figures for the names and the numbers?

14 A. Yes, we did not provide such a list. We're talking about a very

15 large number of these people.

16 Q. Thank you. You also told us yesterday that it's possible with

17 this graveyard -- or grave, that people were buried there who had died of

18 natural causes; is that correct?

19 A. Yes, I did mention that possibility, and it's possible that a

20 small number of people could be amongst these total number of people who

21 had died of natural causes.

22 Q. And this could be death from old age or from illness?

23 A. Probably. I remember information regarding the oldest person.

24 The oldest person found there was 103 years old.

25 Q. Very well. But if we look at the tables that you gave us, at all

1 the locations, or rather all of the mass graves you also established the

2 average age or the age of the person, as well as their gender. Would you

3 agree with me that all other localities -- at all other localities the

4 number of women is not -- does not exceed 20 per cent, whereas the Vukovar

5 cemetery, the number of women is over 23 per cent. Could you please

6 explain to us why this is so?

7 A. Yes. There is an explanation.

8 Q. Would that lead us to the conclusion that women do not participate

9 in such numbers in combat, and that the numbers then here of persons who

10 had died outside of armed conflict is slightly greater?

11 A. I'm sorry, I did not understand that.

12 Q. The percentage of women who died of natural causes is slightly

13 higher here than is usual, as demonstrated in your other tables.

14 A. I don't know the cause of death, we cannot talk about the cause of

15 death. All we can talk about here is that the percentage of women who

16 died here is higher than at other locations.

17 Q. What I'm asking you is whether this can lead us to the conclusion

18 that this percentage is higher because you mentioned the possibility that

19 persons were buried in the grave who had died of natural causes, and that

20 would be the reason why the percentage of women is higher.

21 A. It would be hard for me to conclude something like that. The

22 reason probably is that if we're talking about natural causes of death,

23 that these were elderly people who happened to be in their houses and

24 simply died of old age because of poor food, their health was damaged, and

25 so on and so forth. But we could not establish causes of death in such

1 cases.

2 Q. So you don't have that information, then, do you? All right.

3 Very well.

4 Your information for the new cemetery in Vukovar indicates - and

5 this appears in two tables - that we have a total number of 938 exhumed

6 and 800 identified persons. And I've already said that we have heard here

7 from Mr. Ivan Grujic, who -- excuse me, Dr. Strinovic. Dr. Strinovic, who

8 gave us slightly different data on the new graveyard -- new cemetery in

9 Vukovar. Could you please explain this difference in the figures of the

10 exhumed and identified persons as provided by two persons who work in the

11 same official body of the government of the Republic of Croatia and who

12 are appearing before this Tribunal as court experts -- or as experts.

13 A. I don't know what other information or different data he could

14 have in relation to the Vukovar cemetery, but perhaps I can explain that,

15 if he did happen to have different information, different data.

16 Q. Mr. Grujic, I think the information varies in relation to two or

17 five mortal remains. What I'm interested in is, however, how can we have

18 a statistic information drafted by the same body and that the outcome

19 would be different in -- in the final result?

20 A. Well, I don't know exactly what the difference is. What are we

21 talking about so that I could then try to clarify that?

22 Q. Well, I'm going to say that we're talking about Exhibit 451 now.

23 It's the table attached to Dr. Strinovic's report, which has been tendered

24 here as an exhibit, where it is stated that there were 990 persons. His

25 figure is higher than the figure that you provide.

1 A. Well, let us provide an explanation immediately, if you allow me,

2 so as not to waste time. Dr. Strinovic included a figure where he

3 included the Sloga stadium, and I discussed this before. So the location

4 where there were 210 mortal remains, if I'm not mistaken, 140 of whom were

5 taken out by the members of the JNA and moved to the new cemetery, while

6 70 were left at the Sloga stadium. When we did the exhumations at the new

7 cemetery, the Sloga stadium grave was exhumed as well, so he provided the

8 total figures, because this was done during the same time period and at

9 the same location.

10 Q. Very well, Mr. Grujic. I accept when you say that the figure

11 includes the mortal remains from other localities, but this is something

12 that is not evident from the tables, that the tables provide the final

13 figures. At this stage we are operating with the final figures. So we

14 need to know how many were found at which localities, which time period,

15 and so on. We need to have the precise data. Your body has been working

16 on this data for 15 years.

17 A. I state that the new cemetery had 938 victims that were exhumed

18 there at the new cemetery. Also, the 70 persons were exhumed at the same

19 time, and that is why Professor Strinovic placed them in the same figure.

20 On the other hand, official statistics are issued by my institute, and his

21 figures come from the Institute for Forensic Medicine.

22 Q. You have members of your commission and then you engage the staff

23 who are participating in your work. So what I would like to know is do

24 you compare the data? I can give you cases where the data was not

25 compared.

1 A. I can say the following: All institutions, including the

2 Institute for Forensic Medicine, need to send the results they have or the

3 findings they have to our administration. All the information is

4 officially recorded and it becomes part of the official record. So it's

5 possible that some findings are not sent to us because of an

6 administrative mistake. But all the information should be sent to us, we

7 compile it, and this is all then sent from us to the Croatian government,

8 to the relevant bodies, to the international institutions, and also to the

9 public.

10 Q. So the information that we have analysed so far, and on that basis

11 you drafted the final statistical figures -- we looked at the overlaps in

12 status that were there, but you drafted the official statistics for the

13 government and for the Croatian Assembly after working on all of these

14 cases for 15 years.

15 A. If you permit, we have indicated the statistical data here, and

16 the data you claim that overlaps, I say it does not overlap. And it was

17 done for the purposes of visually representing the whole event. The

18 official statistics are the tables and we have the basic parameters there.

19 Q. Thank you. We have to move on, Mr. Grujic. We are now going to

20 look at Exhibit 542. That is in the file in front of you, tab 2.11.

21 We're talking about the mortal remains found at -- I'm going to read

22 exactly the heading of that table. List of mortal remains exhumed at Novo

23 Groblje in Vukovar which, according to documents received from Serbia and

24 Montenegro, were found in graves at Velepromet.

25 We're talking about 15 sets of remains; is that correct,

1 Mr. Grujic?

2 A. Yes, that is correct.

3 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, there was an

4 intervention for the transcript.

5 MR. SMITH: Your Honour, I think it's Exhibit 552.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

7 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Your Honours, I apologise.

8 I noted down 542, but yesterday when the numbers were dictated it was a

9 mistake, and I forgot to correct that mistake, so I apologise to all the

10 participants. It is my mistake. It should be 552.

11 Q. Mr. Grujic, you have the table in front of you, and it's a list of

12 15 persons. As you can see the first three persons are unidentified; is

13 that correct?

14 A. Yes, that's correct.

15 Q. I would like for us now to look at person 3, listed here as

16 NN II/186, and an asterisk; is that correct, Mr. Grujic?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. There is no other data entered in the table for that person; is

19 that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. At the bottom of the table asterisk denotes that this person,

22 NN II/186 was not accompanied by any documentation, nor were the remains

23 found that could be linked with this reference II/186; is that right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Can you tell me, please, then, in this case where you don't have a

1 body and you have no documentation, how come you put this person on the

2 list?

3 A. I'll try to clarify. As you can see, all of the persons on this

4 list were given numbers when they were buried, which means that they

5 comprise a group. The same event, same time of autopsy, and same time of

6 burial. In that group we found this reference that we listed here, which

7 means that there are documents pertaining to that person, but we did not

8 receive them from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and that this person

9 was exhumed before we got to our work.

10 Q. Mr. Grujic, I would like to know what parameters you used to link

11 this person NN II/186 with new cemetery in Vukovar and Velepromet? How

12 did you establish the connection?

13 A. I'll try to explain again. We received from the Federal Republic

14 of Yugoslavia a list. First we received a list with all dossiers. In

15 that list there was a dossier NN II/186. When the documentation was

16 turned over to us, this particular dossier was not given to us. That's

17 one thing.

18 On the other thing, when we conducted exhumation at the new

19 cemetery, the mortal remains, both before and after, have their own marks

20 on the body bag. This number was between the two bodies, but there was no

21 body accompanying it. There was just an empty space. So, based on that,

22 we concluded that, yes, there was documentation, and yes, there was a

23 body. Because, had there not been a body, there would have been no

24 documentation, no dossier offered to us in the initial list. That's one

25 thing.

1 The second thing is that all of these persons who are from

2 Velepromet have their ordinal numbers and they were listed under those

3 numbers.

4 So we have a total of three elements based on which we concluded

5 that, yes, this person existed and there were mortal remains. I'm not say

6 that anything bad took place here. Most likely a family member provided

7 us some information.

8 Q. All right. Tell me, when did you receive dossiers from Serbia and

9 Montenegro?

10 A. That process took almost three years.

11 Q. When did you receive the last dossier or protocol?

12 A. In 1998.

13 Q. From 1998 you did not receive a single piece of information which

14 would in any way provide any kind of parameters for this person NN II/186,

15 especially confirming that this person was exhumed at the new cemetery in

16 Vukovar?

17 A. Despite all of our efforts aimed at receiving not only this

18 document but also documents from the Vukovar Hospital and other places,

19 unfortunately, we did not receive these documents, and there are records

20 to confirm this.

21 Q. Together with this table we received another document accompanying

22 it. We received it from the OTP. That's the following page, ERN number

23 0600-3794. Do you have that page in front of you, Mr. Grujic?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us then, can you anything be seen on the

1 note which we see here in this photograph? We see a hand holding a note.

2 Can anything be read from that note?

3 A. I can't read it. It's not clear enough.

4 Q. All right. Can you tell me, in the bottom right corner, in the

5 bottom right corner we have some sort of a stamp, and then above it we

6 have II-181.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. We see that the three unidentified persons from the previous list

9 are all marked with NN. So, this marking here, NN 181, can it be linked

10 at all with the three NN persons from the list?

11 A. These numbers II/189, II/188, II/186, are numbers of dossiers or

12 protocols we received from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. So that's

13 the main number of the dossier which was found on the cover of the dossier

14 and is then repeated in all of the documents within that dossier.

15 Q. What about this dossier, NN -- or rather, the one marked with

16 II-181. At the bottom it says "NN, male body." We don't have it on the

17 list. Can we then conclude that II-181 and II-186 have nothing to do with

18 Vukovar and bodies who found there, because it says here that those were

19 plain graves in Velepromet?

20 A. No, those were not plain graves. These were mass graves. And

21 that can be shown by documents that came later on. The same three mass

22 graves were the ones that were found across from Velepromet, as is stated

23 here. The JNA took out mortal remains from these graves and transferred

24 them to the new cemetery. We have additional four similar documents found

25 on mortal remains which were exhumed and mentioned on the list.

1 Q. Mr. Grujic, my question was very simple. Your table containing

2 this page was exhibited. I asked you whether you can link this number,

3 II-181 with any of the 15 listed persons on the list.

4 A. Yes, I think I can list -- link it with Senica Boris [phoen].

5 Q. That's what you think, but can you corroborate it, can confirm

6 that that is that person?

7 A. I don't have it on me, but I can send you these documents, I can

8 obtain them for you.

9 Q. All right. You wrote down that the dates these persons went

10 missing was the 18th of November. 18th, 19th, and 21st of November. Two

11 persons went missing in Borovo Naselje and the rest went missing in

12 Vukovar. We know nothing about these three persons, the first three

13 persons. Do you know for any of these persons the time of their death,

14 the manner and cause of their death?

15 A. I don't have the document here, but I can tell you, for example,

16 about the person whom I remembered.

17 Q. Sir, we are dealing only with papers here. We can't rely on

18 memories here.

19 A. Well, I could not have brought my entire records here. I only

20 brought what was necessary, and if you find any other piece of

21 documentation necessary, I am prepared to send it. We have dossiers. All

22 of the numbers you mentioned have corresponding dossiers created by the

23 JNA. We also have our autopsy reports. So the documentation is of a good

24 quality and is quite voluminous.

25 Q. All right. But you brought this list, it was tendered into

1 evidence, and you now cannot give us a single relevant piece of

2 information as to the time of death of these persons. You only have the

3 date when they were last seen, the date when they went missing. But you

4 also can't tell us anything about the cause of death or --

5 A. In the table here you have the dates when these persons were last

6 seen or when they went missing. One of the dates -- or rather, the dates

7 are 18th, 19th to 21st of November. The fact that they were killed before

8 the 7th of December, 1991, that is the fact. I can't tell you exactly

9 when they were killed, but somewhere between these dates. And we know

10 this on the basis of fact that the mortal remains were found on the 7th of

11 December, and they went missing on the 21st of November, so in that period

12 of time.

13 Q. Yes. But in relation to person II-181, I cannot accept you

14 linking this date, the 7th of December, as the last day they could have

15 been killed, and you linking it with the 15 persons on the list. This

16 person II-181 is not on the list.

17 Did you try to obtain any other information from Serbia and

18 Montenegro in relation to this table?

19 A. I told you in my previous answer that not once but in many

20 contacts that we had, also attended by the representatives of the

21 international organisations working within this field, in these contacts

22 we asked not only for documentation about the new cemetery but also

23 documentation on mass graves in the territory of the Republic of Croatia,

24 victims from those graves, documentation about the mass graves that were

25 relocated in the territory of Croatia, especially in the Podunavlje

1 region. Those were our basic requests in our contacts with the Federal

2 Republic of Yugoslavia. That was all properly recorded in minutes from

3 these meetings and verified by international monitors. In addition to

4 that, we also asked for documentation from the Vukovar Hospital which had

5 been taken away. These are all the documents that we requested but never

6 received. What I presented here was based on what we did receive.

7 Q. All right. Thank you.

8 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm now going to use this

9 opportunity, Your Honours, to introduce here a questionnaire that we just

10 received yesterday. It was not exhibited and it doesn't have a 65 ter

11 number because it wasn't on the list. However, we received it last night

12 from the OTP; it's in the system. Could we please put it on the screen.

13 0102-4237 to 4250.

14 Your Honours, we wonder whether this document has been put into

15 the system since last night. If not, I have a hard copy here, and I can

16 give it to the witness now. Could the usher please assist me.

17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

18 MR. SMITH: Your Honour, that document is not in the system.

19 These are the 15 I was referring to this morning.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

21 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could this be placed on the ELMO,

22 but we do not want to display the name, Your Honours. Could the name be

23 protected, please. We will try not to mention it, but to mention it as

24 little as possible.

25 JUDGE PARKER: [Microphone not activated].

1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

2 JUDGE PARKER: [Microphone not activated] ... displayed.

3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

4 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Sir, do you see the questionnaire?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Could you please turn to the last page of this questionnaire. And

8 we can see here that it was possible to enclose various documents with the

9 questionnaire. This is the last document. We don't have the translation,

10 but can you please read it out, sir, without mentioning the name. This is

11 a very brief letter. It was sent by the International Committee of the

12 Red Cross.

13 A. Do you want me to read this out?

14 Q. Yes, please.

15 A. It says here: "Dear sir, We are pleased to inform you that

16 Ribicic Marko, the person you were tracing, has been found. He was

17 registered by the ICRC on the 28th of December, 1991, at the camp in Nis.

18 If you wish to send a message, we are enclosing a form for writing a

19 message which you may send to the following address."

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could this be tendered into

22 evidence, Your Honours? And we will put it in the system when possible.

23 It is clear why we haven't been able to do it so far.

24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received. And the name is not

25 protected, obviously.

1 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, no, Your Honour. Just out of

2 respect for the victims and their families, I tried that the name not be

3 mentioned. Thank you.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this document will become Exhibit

5 556.

6 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Mr. Grujic, can you tell me, once you receive such information,

8 what steps do you undertake?

9 A. This is not the only such document or notification that we

10 received in different ways indicating that a person being traced was

11 alive. In such cases at the first upcoming negotiations or talks we tried

12 to establish that it really is so. And then if we do prove that, and

13 secure agreement from the other side that the person is alive, then we

14 embark on negotiations for their release. Unfortunately - and I say

15 unfortunately - this is probably some sort of substitute identity, because

16 a person that was born on the 11th of November, 1951, is called Marko

17 Ribicic, and I'm going to say that publicly precisely because the

18 information that can be then understood can reach their family and can

19 cause suffering again. That person, unfortunately, was found and

20 identified on the 5th of February, 1998. They were exhumed from the

21 Ovcara mass grave. And I'm very sorry that that document was not actually

22 true.

23 Q. We have another case, it's Ovcara number 78. In your list you can

24 find out who that is about. From the questionnaire, and the Trial Chamber

25 and my learned friends can see, that the seeker attached with the

1 interview form with the questionnaire a tape recorder, audio tape. Audio

2 tape that was recorded in January, 1992, at a hospital in Nis where the

3 person being traced was together at the hospital with the person who had

4 the -- made the audio tape and gave it to the person's brother. Could you

5 please tell us whether you submitted that audio tape to the Prosecution.

6 A. No, we did not. I don't know if that tape is still amongst our

7 documents or whether it was returned to the person seeking the person.

8 But if you allow me to say something very briefly. In a series of

9 situations, unfortunately, we did encounter such evidence that somebody

10 was alive somewhere. But what usually happened in practically all of the

11 cases, in fact, and that was later proved, that it was a question of

12 providing the relatives false hope that somebody was still alive,

13 exclusively for the purposes of material gain. So the relatives would

14 actually pay for such audio tapes, they would pay a lot of money for that.

15 I can recall the number of the son of Mrs. Oliveric [phoen] who was alive

16 and he was in the JNA, and she happened to pay 5.000 euros for such a

17 tape. Unfortunately, these are situations where people in bad faith try

18 to gain material profit from such cases, but usually the case is that that

19 person was already dead.

20 Q. Now, could you please tell me whether there is the possibility --

21 would you be able to confirm that in none of the remaining cases we cannot

22 say -- or rather, in the rest of the cases we cannot say that there

23 has been no misuse in using the data? Can you guarantee the accuracy of

24 the data in all the questionnaires?

25 A. Absolutely not. As I said, this is information provided by the

1 relatives for the exclusive purpose of tracing the person. It's in the

2 interest of the family for us to find the person that is being sought.

3 Q. Thank you, sir. I am now going to move to my last group of

4 questions, and that relates to persons on the indictment, and who,

5 according to your information -- or actually whose mortal remains were

6 found in different places.

7 Could you please tell me, for example, we are talking about the

8 mortal remains marked - and probably that is your marking - 1.105, and

9 these are ERN number 0100-6299. It's information referring to a person, a

10 gentleman born in 1915, and in your documents it says that he was treated

11 in Novi Sad. What can you tell us? How did he get included on the list

12 of persons allegedly missing from the hospital when it says that he was

13 transferred to the Novi Sad hospital much earlier and before the JNA units

14 arrived at the Vukovar Hospital?

15 A. I don't know when he was transferred to Novi Sad. I don't have

16 official information about that. It's not a question. If we're talking

17 about the same person, that person is not born in 1915. We would have to

18 correct that.

19 Q. Yes, sir. It is correct. I'm going to tell you his name now.

20 The date of birth of the person in question is the 1st of June, 1915.

21 This is 65 ter number 715. Mr. Grujic, I asked you whether you requested

22 or received any information from Vesna Bosanac, and you denied receiving

23 any kind of information; is that correct?

24 A. I did not receive any information from Mrs. Vesna Bosanac.

25 Q. Can you please tell me, what were the criteria under which these

1 questionnaires were presented to the Tribunal?

2 A. Anywhere where the Vukovar Hospital was mentioned. And that was a

3 broader analysis because we couldn't know and did not know who the people

4 were who were in the hospital. All we could do was to make an analysis,

5 and I said that for precisely those reasons we researched -- actually, we

6 requested documents from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia so that we

7 could establish that. And all the documents that were presented to the

8 Tribunal were drafted on the basis of a possible reconstruction, and the

9 success of the reconstruction is indicated by the number that, out of 264

10 people, 192 have already been identified.

11 Q. Now I'm going refer, for the benefit of my learned friends and for

12 the Trial Chamber, to a number which does not have an Ovcara number

13 because the person is still being registered as a missing person. This is

14 65 ter number 686. Now I'm going to read, and my colleagues will be able

15 to check, that in that case the Vukovar Hospital is not mentioned once and

16 that the person was last seen near the building of the former Territorial

17 Defence, near the house with the basement. Then do you have an

18 explanation of how this particular case came to the Tribunal if you were

19 asked to deliver all the cases that were related to the Vukovar Hospital?

20 A. Our records were available to the investigators, and on the basis

21 of their own information and experience they decided what documents would

22 be copied and sent to the OTP. This is one thing.

23 Secondly, and when you mentioned this, and I can clarify that, you

24 said that the gentleman was taken to Novi Sad for treatment, and that you

25 have that information.

1 Q. Yes.

2 A. Well, we carried out an exhumation together with the Federal

3 Republic of Yugoslavia of all the unidentified persons being sought by the

4 Republic of Croatia. This did take place in Novi Sad, and we did not find

5 the person that you are talking about. So something is not quite right in

6 the assertions made by your investigators, you are talking about

7 investigators. So this has not been proved in Novi Sad to date. All the

8 exhumations were carried out in Novi Sad, DNA samples were taken, and such

9 an identity has not been confirmed.

10 Q. What I can say to you now is -- all right, very well. Obviously

11 the investigator did not provide accurate data, and this is what we were

12 talking about, how much the information was verified, and that was your

13 duty in accordance with the laws in accordance with which you were

14 established. All I want to say is that among these 60 persons that were

15 not found that are still being considered as missing, I'm going to name

16 another few cases where we again -- where it is not mentioned in any way

17 -- where the hospital is not mentioned in any way as the place where the

18 traced person is -- was seen for the last time. For example, we are

19 talking about document, for the benefit of my learned friends and the

20 Trial Chamber, 65 ter 680. There is no Ovcara number because the person

21 is still being registered as a missing person. We're also -- have the

22 example of two more persons. One of them is 65 ter 803, and another

23 person, 65 ter number 622 [as interpreted].

24 MR. SMITH: Your Honour, if I can just briefly object to that

25 question. The witness has answered this question in a way in relation to

1 another case, stating that in situations where in the missing person's

2 report the Ovcara hospital [sic] was not stated, the investigators from

3 the Tribunal may have had other criteria to select that documentation, so

4 it would be simply be a repeat of the same answer.

5 JUDGE PARKER: That's not a basis for objection, Mr. Smith.

6 Carry on.

7 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours, for

8 interrupting you. Intervention in the transcript: Page 85, line 6.

9 Instead of "investigators," the B/C/S term used was "trazitelj,"

10 "trazitelj."

11 Q. We now talked about the persons whose mortal remains were not

12 found, who were not identified, and we said that they are in no way

13 connected to the hospital, which was one of the criteria to present the

14 material. The Ovcara-related cases, and I'm interested in your comments,

15 we checked and saw that at least 20 cases - and now I don't have time to

16 give you all the names - are also the persons that are in no way connected

17 to the hospital. My question is: Is there any other external factor that

18 influenced you and made you send these documents to The Hague Tribunal?

19 A. I must repeat, and I will repeat, that we sent all the cases

20 requested. There was a much broader list which was the element on the

21 basis of which the investigators requested the documents to be sent, and

22 they provided a list of the people they wanted the documents on. And this

23 is what we did. That doesn't mean that the hospital needed to be

24 mentioned in the questionnaire. If you permit me, it does not mean --

25 there are other people who were identified and the hospital is not

1 mentioned in their questionnaires either. And also, if you permit me, you

2 said something to which I must react. I must ask, actually, for your

3 advice. You said that we never verified for so many years where all these

4 people disappeared to. What I would like to know is what would be the

5 mechanism, the way and the possibility for us to be able to do that. This

6 is the only source of information that we were able to obtain.

7 Q. Mr. Grujic, I did not make that comment, and I take into account

8 what you are saying. I am aware of your position, your function. All I

9 said was that in 15 years, cross-checking of information was not carried

10 out. Also I would like to say that the information that we had for which

11 I don't have time for but the colleagues from the Prosecution and the

12 Trial Chamber, when they review that, will see that in a large number of

13 cases these questionnaires do not state that the persons being sought were

14 injured or wounded in any way.

15 Still, I only have one more question for you, sir. Since you were

16 in the function that you were in, was there any possibility for a certain

17 person to receive posthumously a rank or some form of recognition for

18 having participated in the armed forces in any of the units that were

19 mentioned in question 18 of your questionnaire, although they, in

20 actuality, had nothing to do with the armed forces during the relevant

21 time period? Do you know of any such cases?

22 A. I really don't know who received which benefits or did not receive

23 certain benefits by name, first and last name. It's something that I

24 really cannot tell you anything about.

25 Q. So you don't know whether any benefits were secured and you did

1 not maintain such records?

2 A. No, we did not.

3 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have finished my

4 cross-examination. Thank you.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Tapuskovic.

6 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just one

7 intervention to the transcript. This is page 85, line 23. It should be

8 65 ter number 802, and not 622. Thank you very much.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that.

10 I'm afraid, Mr. Lukic, we're going to have to put off your

11 cross-examination. Unless you think you can manage in one minute.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The only thing that makes me happy now

13 is that I'm not beginning my cross-examination now. I would like to do it

14 all in one sitting, so to speak, rather than have interruptions.

15 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry that

16 it will be necessary for you to return. Arrangements will have to be made

17 by the Office of the Prosecutor for that to occur. And of course the time

18 within which it is to occur is now very limited. We've really only got

19 some two weeks remaining. So we leave it in your hands, Mr. Smith.

20 MR. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour. The plan was that the witness

21 would come back on the 12th and testify first thing on the 12th.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Excellent. But we're just not in a position to

23 allow this Prosecution case to keep just stretching out. So attention is

24 going to have to be paid very closely in the limited time remaining to

25 keeping the examination of witnesses down to what is really important.

1 MR. SMITH: We understand that, Your Honour. Thank you.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

3 We resume on Monday at 12.30 -- Tuesday. Let me put it with the

4 switch on: Tuesday, not Monday.

5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,

6 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 6th day of June,

7 2006, at 12.30 p.m.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25