Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 17300

1 Tuesday, 4 March 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.


9 [Witness answered through interpreter]

10 Examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff: [Continued]

11 Q. Mr. Grujic, I have already mentioned that I would like to address

12 a few matters in relation to detection facilities. And with the help of

13 the usher, I would like to put to you tab 5 of Exhibit 402.

14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: You can get it from here.

15 Q. And I just want you to look at the page Camps Sorted By States

16 where you also have the locations of the camps listed.

17 First of all, in relation to the states, you have for Croatia, you

18 have listed 2.404 detainees. Does this mean detention facilities in the

19 RSK or does this also include camps run by the Croatian authorities?

20 A. It refers exclusively to the camps in Srpska Krajina.

21 Q. And in relation to 802 detainees, you have listed here, "No

22 information." Is that the same explanation that you gave yesterday, that

23 some of the material was so scarce that you couldn't really say?

24 A. Yes. The material was scarce, and we were dealing with detainees

25 who were freed on a local level up until 1991, in the first stage, until

Page 17301

1 official commissions, state commissions, had been set up.

2 Q. During the preparation of your testimony, did you look at camps in

3 particular that are listed in the Croatia indictment?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You also mentioned during your testimony that a number of

6 detainees were transferred from one camp to another. Would they be

7 registered several times or just once?

8 A. Well, the data I presented, a data -- when they were last in the

9 camp. So that is to say from the camp they left. And they were recorded

10 by the ICRC and through statements themselves saying that they had passed

11 through several camps.

12 Q. So they would only show once in your files and that's the last

13 camp they were in.

14 I would like to turn first now to the -- to the camps in

15 Montenegro, and I would like you to tell us, for the specific camps that I

16 addressed, in addition to the number of detainees that are actually listed

17 here, the time period of -- during which these detention camps existed,

18 the kind of place it was, as far as you know, and whether you can say

19 anything about the conditions in the camp, in particular about -- whether

20 they were -- any abuse took place in these camps.

21 The first camp I would like you to talk about is Morinje in

22 Montenegro where you have listed the 346 detainees. What can you tell us

23 in addition to that?

24 A. According to the information that the office has, 346 detainees

25 were listed as having been released from the Morinje camp. The camp in

Page 17302

1 Morinje had the largest number of detainees between the 1st of October,

2 1991, and the middle of December 1991. According to the statements of the

3 detainees themselves, the camp was within a military compound of

4 warehouses where the conditions were extremely bad, without any sanitary

5 conditions.

6 Q. And the detainees in this camp came from which region? Do you

7 know that?

8 A. The detainees in the area of Crnogora, Montenegro, Morinje and

9 Kumbor were from the Dubrovnik area in actual fact. So those camps

10 catered to detainees from the Dubrovnik region. They were taken to those

11 camps there.

12 Q. You have next the camp Kumbor. When did it exist and was it a

13 transit facility, and what can you tell us?

14 A. The Kumbor camp existed during that same time, between October and

15 December 1991, and a small number of detainees we have listed with us was

16 small because it was a transitory camp and detainees from Kumbor were

17 later transferred to Morinje and other areas of Montenegro.

18 Q. And was it a military facility? Do you know?

19 A. I don't know whether it was a military facility or not.

20 Q. Let's now turn to Bosnia, and I would only like to address the

21 camp Bileca. What can you tell us about this camp?

22 A. From the Bileca camp, 131 detainees were exchanged. The camp was

23 set up between October and December 1991. That is to say before any

24 conflicts had started in the region. And in Bileca, there was a great

25 deal of abuse and mistreatment of detainees, and we have evidence about

Page 17303

1 that.

2 Q. In relation to the previous camps in Montenegro, did you have any

3 indication of abuse there?

4 A. As a rule, in all the camps that we listed, there was physical

5 abuse of detainees.

6 Q. Now I would like to go to -- turn to Serbia, and you have -- and

7 first of all, Stajicevo. What can you tell us about Stajicevo?

8 A. Stajicevo was a camp to which detainees were brought mostly from

9 the Vukovar area. And we have 661 detainees registered for Stajicevo.

10 The camp had the largest number of detainees between the 18th of November,

11 1991, and the 21st of December, 1991. That particular camp was a facility

12 that was on a factory farm, an agricultural concern, so quite

13 inappropriate for accommodating human beings. And we evidenced the

14 killing of war -- of war. For example, Branko Koch, Ivan Kunac.

15 Q. How many people -- do you know how many people were killed there?

16 A. At least about ten people. But let me say specifically. Let me

17 tell you something specifically about these two men that I mentioned by

18 name.

19 Q. Yes. Yes, please.

20 A. That is to say all I can talk about is about Branko Koch and Ivan

21 Kunac, if you wish to hear some details concerning them.

22 JUDGE MAY: Well, unless there's a particular reason for hearing

23 those details, I think there is so much evidence that we need to keep

24 moving.


Page 17304

1 Q. In relation to Stajicevo, I just want to know, was it also a

2 transit facility?

3 A. Stajicevo was also a transit facility. Detainees from Stajicevo

4 were later transferred to the prison in Sremska Mitrovica where detainees

5 and prisoners were concentrated from other camps and prisons.

6 Q. And Begejci, when did it exist, in which time period, and was it

7 also a transit place?

8 A. Yes. It was also a transit camp. Most of the -- from the 1st of

9 October, 1991, until the end of November 1991 was when the camp had the

10 largest number of detainees. Once again, it was a farm managed by the

11 JNA, and there were 55 detainees.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the number, please.

13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We have actually the number in the list;

14 Five hundred fifty-five.

15 Q. And to which place were they transferred from there?

16 A. From there, they were transferred to Sremska Mitrovica.

17 Q. In relation to Zrenjanin, just one question: Was that also a

18 transit place?

19 A. According to our information, they would stay in Zrenjanin for a

20 short period of time as well, and there was a place by Zrenjanin called

21 Ecka.

22 Q. And then now turning to Sid. Was that a military prison, and when

23 did it exist?

24 A. The prison in Sid was set up already on the 20th of July, 1991,

25 and it existed until the 21st of January 1992. It was a military prison,

Page 17305

1 and the detainees were transferred between the prison in the Secretariat

2 for Internal Affairs, that is to say in the police station, to that

3 military prison which was in a facility managed by the automobile school.

4 And it was -- and there were 23 detainees listed in that particular

5 prison.

6 Q. You've already mentioned the number for Sremska Mitrovica, but can

7 you tell us at which time periods detainees were detained there?

8 A. The detainees in Mitrovica were also held from November 1991, and

9 after they were transferred from the Stajicevo and Begejci camps, which is

10 where there were a large number of detainees, this penitentiary or house

11 of correction in Serbia is where they were taken to, or rather, the last

12 detainees were liberated from that particular facility in 1994.

13 Q. And can you say anything about the conditions? But only briefly.

14 A. The conditions were somewhat better than they were in Stajicevo

15 and Begejci, but there were a large number of detainees in a small space.

16 There were no hygienic, sanitary facilities, there was scant medical

17 assistance, and it boiled down to detainees helping each other. That is

18 to say if any of the detainees had any knowledge professionally in the

19 field of medicine, they would help each other. And there were also some

20 killings in the Sremska Mitrovica prison.

21 Q. And now I would like to turn to Croatia, and first of all Knin.

22 In which time period did the detention facilities in Knin exist, and what

23 can you tell us about the conditions?

24 A. In Knin, there were 671 detainees that were evidenced between

25 August 1991, up until November 1991. And the detainees were put up in the

Page 17306

1 old hospital building and in the barracks. The conditions were listed as

2 being exceptionally poor. The detainees were ill-treated and there was

3 some killings as well.

4 Q. Dalj. What can you tell us about Dalj? When was it in operation?

5 A. There was a camp in Dalj as well, yes, and it was located in the

6 farm facilities, farm buildings, and in the police station itself. The

7 camp was in existence from August 1991 to November 1991 with large numbers

8 of detainees. There were 29 detainees, in fact, and some of the detainees

9 were killed. And the names of the detainees are on a list in Annex I,

10 paragraph 50, 51 and 55.

11 Q. In relation to Vukovar, what can you tell us about the camp there?

12 When did it exist? What was it?

13 JUDGE MAY: If the registrar would assist me, please.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Vukovar, there were two main

15 locations, although there were much more, but these two main ones had a

16 large concentration of detainees, prisoners, and that was in the

17 industrial facilities and industrial halls of Velepromet. That was one.

18 And Komerc was the other, where at one point there were at least 723

19 individuals who were transferred from there to Stajicevo and Begejci in

20 Serbia. And another portion was at Ovcara, also in the hall of the

21 factory farm from which they were taken to the execution site at Ovcara.

22 Q. At what times did this detention facility operate?

23 A. Those detention facilities were in existence -- or rather, from

24 the 18th of November up until the end of November was when most of the

25 detainees were held there.

Page 17307












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 17308

1 Q. And the last one; Borovo Selo.

2 A. In Borovo Selo, we had a camp, and it was located in part in the

3 school building, the sports hall of the school building, and the other

4 half was in an industrial complex or, rather, the farm, the Lovas farm, as

5 it was called.

6 Q. And when did these two camps operate; what time?

7 A. Those camps operated during that same period, that is to say from

8 October -- and actually, the one in the sports hall itself was in

9 existence already in August 1991. It had already been set up there then.

10 And the Lovas farm facility came into being when large numbers of

11 detainees came in from Vukovar.

12 Q. The detention facilities in which no detainee was officially

13 registered, would they show up in your list at all?

14 A. No. Facilities did not show up on my list from which detainees

15 were not freed on an exchange basis or were registered on the part of the

16 ICRC. So this is the smallest number of camps, and the criteria was

17 registration by the ICRC - the International Red Cross Committee - or the

18 detainees being freed on an exchange basis.

19 Q. And you mentioned that detainees were killed in these facilities.

20 Do you know how many altogether?

21 A. It's difficult for me to say here and now, to give you a total

22 number, but it increased as our investigations progressed. I know that

23 about ten people at least were killed in Sremska Mitrovica, for instance,

24 and we said that a large number of people were killed in the Borovo Selo

25 camp. In the camps in Vukovar that we mentioned which were placed under

Page 17309

1 Vukovar, the Borovo Komerc and Velepromet, many people were killed there

2 whose bodies were later found in the mass graves.

3 Q. Just one last question: You mentioned that -- you mentioned the

4 mistreatment in camps. Did you observe signs of this mistreatment on

5 detainees that you personally met and dealt with?

6 A. Yes, I did. I was engaged in the exchange of prisoners of war

7 between 1993 -- from 1993 onwards, and I met a large number of people who

8 had visible signs of injury when they were being exchanged. Let me also

9 mention that all these detainees, the ones who were exchanged, after the

10 exchange process, had to be treated medically where injuries were noticed,

11 observed. And as I say, there is extensive medical documentation to bear

12 that out. And I personally can testify to the fact that I saw some people

13 who were physically abused, and this was quite obvious when they came up

14 from the exchange.

15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, these are the questions of the

16 Prosecution.

17 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, it's now for you to cross-examine the

18 witness. If there are matters which you want to challenge in his

19 evidence, of course you're entitled to do so, but I must remind you that

20 you must stick to his evidence, and we don't want a wide-ranging

21 cross-examination about which he knows nothing. So you will be confined

22 to asking about matters which he can deal with.

23 You can have, if you require it, two and a quarter hours to

24 cross-examine him. I hope you can perhaps do it more quickly. Yes.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't understand, Mr. May, why

Page 17310

1 these warnings, because if I ask a question that you consider to be

2 irrelevant, you warn me of that very attentively.

3 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Grujic, you're a policeman, you have been a

5 policeman since 1972; isn't that right?

6 A. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

7 Q. What were the positions that you held in the Croatian police?

8 A. In the statement that I gave, a detailed description is given of

9 everything I did in the police, and I said that I was engaged in virtually

10 all types of police work, ranging from a police clerk or a regular police

11 officer right up to the level of inspector.

12 Q. And tell me, since when have you been a member of the HDZ?

13 A. I think that my political affiliation is not of importance, but I

14 can tell you that I am not a member of the HDZ.

15 Q. And you never were?

16 A. No, never.

17 Q. And as a policeman, did you work in Osijek?

18 A. Yes, I did, Mr. Milosevic. That is also contained in my

19 statement.

20 Q. When did you work in Osijek?

21 A. From 1972 up until 1992.

22 Q. In view of the fact that in that period of time you were working

23 in Osijek, you certainly know Branimir Glavas, Vladimir Seks, Vekic and

24 others, don't you?

25 A. I don't quite know what you mean by knowing them. Yes, I know

Page 17311

1 Vladimir Seks as a member of parliament. I also know Mr. Vladimir [sic]

2 Glavas, who was head of the county of Osijek and Baranja. So I know Mr.

3 Vekic too that you asked about, who was Minister of Internal Affairs in

4 the ministry in which I was employed, so do I know them. So I can't say I

5 really am familiar with them; I know of them. I may have had very

6 superficial contacts with then.

7 Q. And are you familiar with the activities they engaged in in that

8 -- in the period of 1990 to 1992 while you were working in the Osijek

9 police?

10 A. I don't understand the question. What activities?

11 Q. The activities to expel in an organised manner, liquidate, dismiss

12 Serbs from that entire area.

13 A. I can't talk about those things because I don't know anything

14 specific about those things.

15 Q. Very well. If you don't know, we'll move on. Tell me, once the

16 HDZ came into power, who was the head of the state security in Osijek?

17 A. Mr. Branko Budic, even before that, and he remained in that

18 position.

19 Q. And what do you know, please, about the killing of the head of the

20 Osijek SUP, Josip Reichl-Kir?

21 A. I knew Mr. Josip Reichl-Kir very well and I collaborated with him

22 for many years, and I was present in the police building when we heard the

23 news that he had been killed at a checkpoint between Tenja and Osijek. And

24 an investigation was conducted, and it is still -- it still hasn't been

25 completed.

Page 17312

1 Q. And you know nothing more about that?

2 A. I know that a certain Gudelj was suspected as having committed

3 that act who allegedly opened fire at that checkpoint. But the

4 proceedings haven't been completed so I can't speak about it. I wasn't a

5 direct participant.

6 Q. But you do know that the perpetrator was Gudelj, born in Tenja,

7 near Osijek, and he is a fugitive in Australia?

8 JUDGE MAY: What is the relevance of this to the case?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is relevant for this witness

10 since this Reichl-Kir, head of the SUP in Osijek was killed because he

11 opposed breaches of the law and the commission of crimes that were

12 widespread at the time and also because, according to information I have,

13 the witness, with Branimir Glavas and the mentioned Budic is linked to the

14 organisation of the killing of this Josip Reichl.

15 JUDGE MAY: Well, that is a very serious allegation indeed which

16 you can put to the witness so that he may answer it. But how does it help

17 us? Look, Mr. Milosevic, we are dealing with killings in the thousands,

18 we're dealing with detained people in the thousands; how does it help us,

19 even if it's right that this man was killed, what's the relevance of it?

20 Even if you're right.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If, Mr. May, you consider that not

22 to be a relevant question for the witness, then let it be.

23 JUDGE MAY: No. I want you to say --

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We will have occasion --

25 JUDGE MAY: I want you to explain - it's your case - as to what

Page 17313

1 the relevance is. Just explain it.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe it to be relevant because

3 I have information that the perpetrator of this killing was this Gudelj,

4 born in Tenja, and that the witness, together with Glavas and Budic,

5 participated in organising the killing of the chief of police of Osijek

6 who opposed violence and large-scale killings and liquidations of Serbs in

7 that area at that time. So I assume --

8 JUDGE MAY: Am I to understand -- do you say that that justified

9 the detention and killings which occurred here?

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, a crime can never justify

11 another crime, and you know that full well. This is just a question of

12 the credibility of this witness, and I think that I am entitled to ask

13 questions relating to the credibility of the witness --

14 JUDGE MAY: You can --

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- regardless of what's testifying

16 about.

17 JUDGE MAY: You can ask questions about the credibility, but what

18 you need to think about is the connection between these allegations of

19 wrongs done to the Serbs and the -- as alleged by you, and the facts that

20 we have here, as put out by the Prosecution, as alleged by them, of

21 killings and mass detention. And the question that you need to think

22 about, because you're going to have to address us about it in due course,

23 is what the relevance is, what the connection is.

24 But we won't continue with this. You can certainly put that to

25 the witness. You can ask him questions. In fact, I will.

Page 17314

1 It's suggested, Mr. Grujic, that you were connected with this

2 particular killing. Is there any truth in that at all?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is not true. Not a single

4 allegation made by Mr. Milosevic linked to the killing of Mr. Kir. It is

5 not true that I had anything to do with it, nor did I know anything about

6 it until I heard that he was killed. And I must say that I -- this was a

7 very painful event for me because he was a good friend of mine.

8 JUDGE MAY: What was your position in the police station? What

9 was your rank and position?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time in those days, I was an

11 operative officer covering the municipality of Osijek. And through that

12 position, I collaborated very closely with Mr. Kir.

13 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We can move on, I hope.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Very well, Mr. Grujic. You have described here a very large

17 number of victims of the civil war in Croatia, giving us numbers,

18 sometimes even names, sometimes even individual locations and so on. So

19 will you please answer this question for me: Who -- you're a policeman,

20 and therefore you know very well what that entails. Who, when, where,

21 under which circumstances killed those individuals for in such a testimony

22 in this courtroom to -- for you to be able to present such data in

23 testimony against me?

24 A. Who, where, and when, there are detailed information about that

25 and there are witnesses, whereas my testimony was that of an expert

Page 17315












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 17316

1 witness to find where the victims were found, what is the number of the

2 victims, and not to say who, when, and where.

3 Q. And those witnesses that you say that exist, and I will hold you

4 to your word, do they have anything to do with Serbia and me?

5 JUDGE MAY: That's not for him to answer. All he can give

6 evidence about is what he investigated, the facts and figures which he

7 came up with, the numbers and the like. Now, you can ask him about that

8 and he can answer, but he can't answer about generalised questions about

9 the evidence.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But that is the crux of the matter,

11 Mr. May. If you present here all the individual victims of the war and

12 link them to this false indictment, then that is nonsensical. What has

13 that got to do with Serbia and me?

14 JUDGE MAY: Well, that is your case. Of course, that's the matter

15 which we are having to decide. But at the moment we're dealing with this

16 discrete part of the evidence. You can ask the witness about it, but you

17 can't ask him about anything else.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May. We'll move on.

19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. At the beginning, Mr. Grujic, at the beginning of your testimony

21 yesterday, you spoke about bilateral meetings with representatives of an

22 identical commission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; is that right?

23 A. Yes, that's right, Mr. Milosevic.

24 Q. Were there many such meetings?

25 A. There were very many, more than a hundred such meetings held in

Page 17317

1 connection with these problems.

2 Q. Mrs. Uertz-Retzlaff yesterday insisted on the point that some of

3 those meetings were attended not only by representatives of Yugoslavia and

4 Croatia but also representatives of the Republic of Serbian Krajina or

5 Republika Srpska. I haven't noted that down quite accurately. Maybe of

6 both.

7 A. Quite so.

8 Q. And how many such meetings were held at which these persons were

9 included?

10 A. About ten or so. I can find you a list and the dates, if

11 necessary.

12 Q. No, that won't be necessary. Tell me, please, did you understand

13 the invitation and inclusion of those representatives in those meetings as

14 a matter of goodwill prompted by the wish to solve the problem for which

15 purpose the commissions were formed on both sides, or was this an

16 indication, as being suggested by the other side, of the coordinating role

17 of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

18 A. There is no doubt about the coordinating role. I can give you the

19 details.

20 Q. Very well. That is what you're claiming. You feel that that role

21 was a coordinating one.

22 A. Mr. Milosevic, if I had arranged the release of prisoners from the

23 territory of the Republic of Serbian Krajina who were imprisoned there

24 with representatives of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, then it is

25 quite clear that this is coordination. Or if I arranged the discovery of

Page 17318

1 a missing person in that area with that commission, then that is quite

2 clear. Definitely that was so.

3 Q. Very well, Mr. Grujic. If you yourself say that a representative

4 of the same commission from the Serbian Krajina or Republika Srpska is

5 attending, then surely you arranged that with that representative and not

6 with the representative of a country in which those prisoners were not

7 being held. Isn't that so?

8 A. No. I am claiming again I arranged the release or discovery of a

9 missing person specifically with Mr. Pavle Todorovic, for instance, to

10 discover a person in Bosnia, specifically the pilot Peresin.

11 Q. Wasn't that the goodwill and assistance given by Todorovic who, as

12 far as I can remember, was the Minister of Health, to assist you with the

13 authorities of Republika Srpska to find the pilot? How else could he do

14 that?

15 A. Yes. I appreciate his goodwill, but we are talking here about

16 competencies and about the real state of affairs.

17 Q. Very well. We'll come to that competence later, but clear up one

18 matter for me, please. Did I understand you correctly that all the

19 detainees found in the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

20 were there from the time of the conflict with the JNA? That is the year

21 1991 and the beginning of 1992, when there was a large scale conflict

22 between Croatian forces and the JNA on a broad front all over Croatia.

23 A. There were detentions later on and detainees who were in the

24 territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

25 Q. So you're saying that there were captures carried out while the

Page 17319

1 JNA did not exist, and they happened to be found in the Federal Republic

2 of Yugoslavia?

3 A. Quite so.

4 Q. And do you have a list for that?

5 A. Yes. I'll give you the names straight away. For instance, Vanin

6 Zlatko was captured in connection with armed conflict in the border area

7 between Hungary and Yugoslavia. He was in a military investigating prison

8 in Belgrade. After that, he was transferred to the territory of Krajina,

9 that is Knin, and he was released there.

10 Q. Wait a minute. We didn't understand one another. My question

11 was: Was anyone who was not captured in the conflict with the army, with

12 the JNA, was he to be found as a detainee in the territory of the Federal

13 Republic of Yugoslavia? Was there any such person?

14 A. That person was not captured by the JNA but by the police.

15 Q. I see. The police, probably on the border.

16 A. No, not in the border.

17 Q. The border area with Yugoslavia.

18 A. Yes. And there are other such examples, many such examples. And

19 those persons were captured by the police, and they were in prisons in the

20 territory of Yugoslavia from which they were exchanged.

21 Q. If they were imprisoned by the army or the police of Yugoslavia, I

22 assume that they must have been imprisoned on the territory of Yugoslavia,

23 or while the JNA were still present throughout the territory of the former

24 Yugoslavia, they were captured by the JNA as prisoners of war. Isn't that

25 so?

Page 17320

1 A. I don't know whose competence it was in those days nor is that the

2 subject of my testimony.

3 Q. Oh, I see.

4 A. I can say only that those persons were in a facility that was in

5 the territory of Yugoslavia, that is Serbia, that is Montenegro, that so

6 many of them were detained there. As for competencies, I can't talk about

7 that.

8 Q. My question is: Were they captured by the JNA during the

9 conflict?

10 A. Not only by the JNA but by paramilitary formations as well in the

11 territory of the Republic of Croatia. So by paramilitary formations. And

12 they found themselves in prisons in the territory of Yugoslavia.

13 Q. Very well. We'll clear that up fully eventually.

14 So you're saying that Yugoslavia or, rather, its commission had a

15 coordinating role in the exchanges. Tell me, this coordinating role or

16 any role of the FRY commission, was this an expression of their

17 willingness to cooperate or was something else behind it? Was it part of

18 their wish to help deal with these humanitarian problems or was there

19 something else behind it?

20 A. In any event, I said that I appreciated their cooperation designed

21 to assist in the release and discovery of missing persons. But I also

22 said that a dominant or, rather, coordinating role, to say the least, was

23 played by the commission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as compared

24 to the commission from Republika Srpska and the commission that existed in

25 the occupied parts of Croatia, that is the commission of the so-called

Page 17321

1 Republic of Serbian Krajina.

2 Q. Very well, Mr. Grujic. Tell me, now, your commission, the

3 commission that you headed for detainees and missing persons, did it

4 engage in identical activities and often advocated the interests of the

5 commission of Croats in the -- from the territory of Bosnia and

6 Herzegovina?

7 A. We did have cooperation with commissions from Bosnia, both with

8 the commission, the Bosniak commission, and also the commission of the

9 then Herceg-Bosna. And that particular cooperation was actually at a

10 level of cooperation, that's true, but we never acted in the sense of the

11 fact that the Republic of Croatia could do something linked to detainees

12 in the territory of Bosnia while I was on the job.

13 Q. All right. Fine, Mr. Grujic. Now, do you know about a letter

14 that you yourself signed as president of the Commission for Detainees and

15 Missing Persons in which you addressed the commission for exchange in

16 Sarajevo presided over by Bulajic, a man whose name was Bulajic, on the

17 28th of June, 1993?

18 A. Well, I don't know what all this is about. I entered into a great

19 deal of correspondence with representatives of various commissions; the

20 commission of the RSK, with Yugoslavia, the federations commission, and so

21 on.

22 Q. You say in point 1 of that letter, "On the list there are a large

23 number of persons for which the Republic of Croatia did not make any

24 requests, 108. With respect to these people, we sought the opinion of the

25 HVO commission from Herceg-Bosna."

Page 17322

1 So what this means is you're seeking confirmation and opinions in

2 order to continue to act. So you're coordinating that affair, and you

3 say: "After that, we'll be able to determine our position with respect to

4 the status of those persons," and so on and so forth, "and inform you

5 thereof." So that is your own letter, dated the 28th of June in which

6 undoubtedly you are asking for confirmation and the opinions of the

7 commission of Herceg-Bosna in order for you to be able to pursue matters

8 related to their exchange. Are you challenging that, Mr. Grujic?

9 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Just a moment, Mr. Grujic.

10 The witness should see the letter. He can't possibly remember it.

11 He should have the opportunity of looking at it and commenting on it. So

12 would you give it to the usher, please, if you want him to comment.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. First of all, are you challenging the contents of the letter?

15 A. Well, I have to have a look at it first to be able to answer.

16 Q. Fine.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With the Court's indulgence, may I

18 -- well, if we have to discuss this particular portion, it would be a

19 good idea for the whole letter to be read out, because the portion that

20 Mr. Milosevic quoted has been pulled out of context.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. That is the whole of point 1.

23 A. Well, it's clear that I did send this letter, but --

24 JUDGE MAY: Will you just tell us what it is, please, what the

25 letter is about, and then you can deal with the particular area that

Page 17323












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 17324

1 Mr. Milosevic is asking you about.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what it's about: The

3 president of the commission, at negotiations in Novska of the Republika

4 Srpska handed over a list of persons in prisons on the territory of

5 Bosnia, and that particular list, when we analysed it, we ascertained that

6 on the list were persons who were not the subject of interest of the

7 Republic of Croatia, and that persons we were interested in were not on

8 the list of detainees. And it was precisely for that reason that I wrote

9 that particular letter to Mr. Bulajic, bringing his attention to those

10 facts. And in the letter, I stipulate what Mr. Milosevic just read out,

11 that I would send the list to the commission of Herceg-Bosna or, rather,

12 the HVO, for them to take a look at it and to see if anybody on their list

13 was on this other list so that we can then take further steps to agree

14 upon what we were going to do.

15 That meant that if the persons were on the list that the Republic

16 of Croatia had no interest in, which I state here quite specifically, that

17 meant that they could not discuss those persons but would be sent on to

18 the Herceg-Bosna commission. The fact that I coordinated, or rather, not

19 coordinated but managed these affairs for Herceg-Bosna, I would never have

20 written this letter to Mr. Bulajic, nor would I have referred to him to

21 the commission.

22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Mr. Grujic, as far as I recall, and you have the text in front of

24 you, you say in the letter that you're going to take steps in that regard

25 only once you have had consultations and received confirmation and the

Page 17325

1 opinions of the HVO from Herceg-Bosna. So you can read out the whole of

2 point 1 out loud. Please go ahead, read it out loud.

3 A. Well, I would read the whole letter, if necessary.

4 Q. It's not necessary. I don't have time to read through all the

5 letters in full.

6 A. But you cannot pull something out of context.

7 Q. This is not out of context. It is the whole of point 1, that

8 first paragraph. And you say when you received confirmation and their

9 opinions - so they are to give their confirmation and opinions - for you

10 to be able to take a decision in the matter. So that is point 1. And I'd

11 like to have that tendered into evidence, please, and the Court can

12 ascertain for itself what the letter says.

13 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Perhaps you could hand it in and it could be

14 given an exhibit number.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. So what's bad in --

17 JUDGE MAY: No, no. Let's get an exhibit number for it.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Defence Exhibit 107.

19 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Tell me, Mr. Grujic, please, is there anything bad in the fact

22 that the commission of the RSY for exchanges, which sometimes advocated

23 the commissions -- which sometimes represented the RS and RSK commission

24 positions when your commission did the same, it represented the interests

25 of Herceg-Bosna. Is there anything bad in that?

Page 17326

1 A. It's not a question of representing anybody's interests. What all

2 this is about is how far it was able to influence the other commissions.

3 Q. Well, I assume, Mr. Grujic, that in those commissions everybody

4 wanted to wield as much influence as possible to have as many people

5 exchanged as possible and to alleviate the consequences of that war. To

6 help people. I assume that that's what the commissions wanted and that

7 they all worked in similar fashion to achieve that end. Is that so or

8 not?

9 A. Well, ask me your question. I don't know what you mean, what

10 you're getting at.

11 Q. Didn't all the commissions, each on its own side, endeavour to

12 help people, ultimately, and to cooperate with the opposite side and

13 perform its job, do its duty?

14 A. All I can say is that my own commission did wish to assist people,

15 but I can't speak on behalf of the other commissions.

16 Q. All right. Is it true that you replaced as president of the

17 commission Josip Kardum? Is that right?

18 A. Yes, that's right.

19 Q. What I'm asking you now is this: Confirmation of this practice of

20 your commission, is it contained in points 2 and 3 that were sent out by

21 your commission to the Commission for Exchange of Prisoners in Banja Luka?

22 And you state that if any individual requested by your commission should

23 be released within the scope of another exchange process, you would

24 consider their duties done vis-a-vis you. So that is the letter to the

25 Commission for Prisoner Exchange, and it says: "Persons detained by the

Page 17327

1 Republic of Croatia that we would like to see exchanged," what the

2 Republic of Croatia is requesting, and then it says at the end here: "We

3 consider that exchanges of this kind should be an addition to the Geneva

4 agreements and Budapest agreements. And we stress that if the person we

5 request be released should be released in another operation, we will

6 consider that you have done your duty towards us, and the same principle

7 must be applied on both sides."

8 Does this also indicate that there was coordination along those

9 lines?

10 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness see the letter.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Here it is. Have a look.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, if we proceed at this pace,

15 then our time will be up very fast.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I have to read through the

17 document you've just given me, and what I've read through here indicates

18 that the Croatia commission sent a letter to the Commission for Prisoner

19 Exchange in Banja Luka and expresses their satisfaction at what they have

20 offered by way of exchange and states that the information that the

21 commission has indicates that prisoners will not be released from other

22 camps in Bosnia, which was something agreed upon in Geneva. But they

23 propose that the following detainees be exchanged, and then we have a list

24 of the detainees in question, and I don't see anything to take issue with

25 there.

Page 17328

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Is that your letter?

3 A. It was signed by Josip Kardum.

4 Q. The president of your commission?

5 A. Yes, that's right. And I see nothing to take issue with there.

6 Q. Well, whether there is or not, let's leave that alone. But all

7 I'm asking you is, is that your letter?

8 A. Yes, that is my letter.

9 Q. Explain this to me then, please, and you can hand over the letter

10 to Mr. May if you are inclined to do so, and let's move on.

11 JUDGE MAY: And give it a number.

12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. A moment ago you stated --

14 JUDGE MAY: Number.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit 108.

16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. As you mentioned a moment ago that some people -- you mentioned

18 one particular man who was in Belgrade and then came -- found himself in

19 Knin. We'll get to that later. But could you explain, please, how it was

20 that the Serbs from the area of Bosnia-Herzegovina happened to be -- to

21 find themselves in camps on the territory of the Republic of Croatia, for

22 example?

23 A. Would you be more specific and tell me what you mean.

24 Q. Well, did you have occasion to see that Serbs from

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example, were in camps of the Republic of Croatia?

Page 17329

1 How did that come about? How did they happen to turn up in camps in

2 Croatia, a Serb from Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example?

3 A. Well, there were different possibilities. So tell me what you

4 mean specifically for me to be able to answer.

5 Q. Well, do you know that on the list of detained Serbs put up for an

6 exchange which you attached to your letter, the Commission for Prisoner

7 Exchange on the 2nd of July, 1993, that there was a number of Serb

8 detainees from the BH territory? Do you know about that? Are you aware

9 of that?

10 A. Well, I don't know where those people were taken prisoner. They

11 could have had nationality or residence in Bosnia-Herzegovina or

12 Yugoslavia, but where they were actually taken into custody, taken

13 prisoner, I can't say because I don't know. So if they were to be found

14 in camps, they might have been captured somewhere in connection with the

15 armed conflict. So it was my job to have these people exchanged or

16 released. Now, under which circumstances they had come to be in prison

17 and in the camps in the first place, I don't know nor could I have known,

18 nor could I speak about that.

19 Q. All right, I'm not going to hand you the list then because you do

20 not dispute the fact that there were Bosnia-Herzegovina citizens who were

21 in Croatian camps.

22 A. Well, I would have to see what you're talking about, what you're

23 referring to.

24 Q. Well, here you have, then, a list of prisoners that were

25 incorporated into the exchange, prisoners in Croatia, and it was the 2nd

Page 17330

1 of July, 1993, an attachment, a letter written by you and a list by you.

2 You can see where the people were captured. Take a look at it, please, if

3 you would.

4 A. Yes. From this list I don't see where they were captured nor what

5 -- the national of which country. It just lists the names and surnames.

6 Q. All right. Let's move on, Mr. Grujic, and hurry up. Is it true

7 that in the negotiations that you held during the exchange with

8 representatives of Bosnia-Herzegovina or, rather, the Republika Srpska,

9 representatives of the FRY did not take part, nor did they authorise

10 anybody to negotiate on their behalf? Isn't that so?

11 A. Just a moment, please. What did you say? You asked whether they

12 took part?

13 Q. Yes. Did the representatives of the Federal Republic of

14 Yugoslavia take part or authorise anybody to take part in the negotiations

15 on their behalf?

16 A. Well, as far as I recall, for example, in Bocac, there were

17 representatives -- Bocac is in Bosnia, by the way, representatives of the

18 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were there when negotiations, talks, took

19 place.

20 Q. Very well, then. I'll quote another letter of the 2nd of July,

21 1993, point 3, and I'll leave out parts that are irrelevant for what I am

22 claiming. I'm saying they did not; you say they did. It says, I quote:

23 "In view of that as well as the fact that in contact so far

24 representatives of the commission from Belgrade did not take part nor did

25 they authorise anyone to negotiate on their behalf. We take the liberty

Page 17331












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 17332

1 to emphasise the following," and then you list various things. All this

2 because representatives of Belgrade did not take part, nor did they

3 authorise anyone to negotiate on their behalf, and you're claiming the

4 opposite.

5 And at the end, in point 5, it says: "Also in view of the fact

6 that we don't know who exactly needs to be received in Novska or Livno, we

7 propose that the exchange with respect to persons held in the Republic of

8 Croatia, or rather, which the Republic of Croatia has been searching for,

9 we say that we do not mind if an exchange be carried out in Livno of the

10 prisoners agreed on between your commission and the commission of the

11 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna."

12 So here we see this other matter testifying to your coordinating

13 role on behalf of Herceg-Bosna. The first point is on page 1 of this

14 letter, and the second point is on page 2.

15 So I'll give you the letter as a whole so that you can see for

16 yourself that at the beginning it says, I quote: "That in view of the

17 fact that representatives of the commission from Belgrade did not

18 participate nor did they authorise anyone to negotiate on their behalf,"

19 end of quote. That is one point. And the second point has to do with the

20 fact that you were organising an exchange in Livno in Herceg-Bosna, and

21 again this was signed by your predecessor, Josip Kardum. Just look at it,

22 please, and then we can move on. And as there is a transcript, there is

23 no doubt as to my having quoted correctly.

24 Mr. Grujic, is it quite clear that your commission, the commission

25 of the Republic of Croatia, was involved in the exchange of prisoners in

Page 17333

1 the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

2 A. That is clear, because we had a large number of detainees that

3 were detained in camps in the territory of Bosnia, and there is no dispute

4 over that. So we were looking for possibilities for them to be released.

5 Q. Yes. But my specific point is is there any dispute that your

6 commission negotiated on behalf of the commission of Herceg-Bosna, that is

7 a commission of the Croatian Community in the territory of

8 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

9 A. It's not a question of negotiating on their behalf but rather

10 their assistance to receive detainees in that area.

11 Q. Mr. Grujic, I would not insist on this at all if

12 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff had not insisted on this practice in your

13 communications with a commission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

14 which she probably considers to be something negative. So I'm trying to

15 strike at least some balance and to avoid the impression that whatever is

16 happening in Yugoslavia is negative. So from this letter you see that

17 your commission organising an exchange in Livno, which is in Herceg-Bosna;

18 right? And these are prisoners from Herceg-Bosna, and on other hand,

19 prisoners of the Muslim federation.

20 A. You see, it has to be known that it was not possible to carry out

21 an exchange in areas between Republika Srpska and the Republic of Croatia

22 because of war operations. You know that there was the corridor along the

23 Sava River, and it was impossible. An exchange of prisoners could only be

24 done in the southern part where detainees from Republika Srpska were

25 transferred to that area and citizens of the Republic of Croatia were then

Page 17334

1 transported to Croatia.

2 Q. Mr. Grujic, please don't say these things, because after you there

3 will be a witness who will be talking about the time of the war conflict

4 between the Muslims and Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina. So she will be

5 coming immediately after you. So if we're talking about the since July,

6 1993, that was the period of conflict between the Muslims and Croats in

7 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

8 JUDGE MAY: What's the question?

9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Is there any dispute that representatives of the Croatian army

11 were in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Grujic?

12 A. I think that there's no dispute over that.

13 Q. Very well.

14 JUDGE KWON: Before you try to move on, what are you going to do

15 with this letter? Would you like to exhibit it, or shall we return it to

16 you?

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. I would like it to be

18 exhibited, because it fully denies what Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff was trying to

19 allege about the Yugoslav side.

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Is it true that your commission frequently --

22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Wait a moment. Before we go on, the number.

23 THE REGISTRAR: It's Defence Exhibit 109.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Just give me a brief yes or no answer, please. That will suffice.

Page 17335

1 I'm just asking you, is it true that your commission, in spite of

2 agreements reached, concealed prisoners, especially members of the JNA

3 that should have been exchanged? Yes or no.

4 A. I think you have to be more specific. What do you mean did the

5 commission hide them? How can the commission conceal them?

6 Q. They were silent about their existence, did not reveal information

7 about them, concealed their existence.

8 A. I will give you a very brief answer, Mr. Milosevic. All detainees

9 in the Republic of Croatia during my term of office were certainly

10 registered by the International Committee for the Red Cross. And this

11 means that they could exchange family messages with members of their

12 family regardless of where the family was, which means that their family

13 members knew that they were in prison. Therefore, that is the mechanism

14 whereby we obtained information about some prisoners.

15 Q. Very well. Is it true that your commission, on the 22nd and 23rd

16 of July, 1992 negotiated with the Commission for Exchange of the Federal

17 Republic of Yugoslavia in Subotica?

18 A. I can't confirm that.

19 Q. But there is a report about that.

20 A. I don't have it. You have seen how long I have held this

21 position.

22 Q. Very well. And do you know, Mr. Grujic, that on your list a large

23 number of JNA members were missing even though representatives of the

24 International Committee of the Red Cross and some released members of the

25 JNA claimed that in camps in Croatia there were a large number of

Page 17336

1 prisoners, members of the JNA?

2 I'm saying this to provide evidence or to corroborate my claim

3 that the number of prisoners was minimised and facts were concealed about

4 existence of these prisoners, those the International Red Cross was aware

5 of that.

6 A. I don't think that is possible. All prisoners registered by the

7 International Committee of the Red Cross were registered. And today we

8 have reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross saying that

9 in the territory of the Republic of Croatia those prisoners that were

10 registered are still not being held, whereas in other parts of the former

11 Yugoslavia there were still such cases.

12 Q. I have a letter here, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Ministry

13 of Defence, the Commission for the Exchange of Prisoners, a letter

14 addressed to the 1st Krajina Corps, in which it says: "We enclose a list

15 of captured members of the army of Yugoslavia and civilians handed to us

16 by the Croatian government delegation during talks in Subotica on the 22nd

17 and 23rd of July, 1992. The Croatian side claims that the list is final

18 and complete. However, after analysing that list, we have come to the

19 conclusion that there are large numbers of prisoners, members of the army

20 and civilians, that we are searching that they are not, rather, they are

21 not on this list. Among them, there are many who have been seen by the

22 International Committee of the Red Cross, by released persons, and family

23 members."

24 Does this tell you anything, Mr. Grujic, or not?

25 A. Can I see that letter, please?

Page 17337

1 Q. Yes. I'll give it to you a little later. Let me just address

2 another point.

3 You claimed yesterday that Tole Zarko, a soldier, was first -- of

4 the Croatian army was first held in Serbia and then moved to Knin.

5 A. I never mentioned Tole Zarko in my testimony.

6 Q. You spoke about a person captured over there and then transferred

7 to Knin.

8 A. Yes, but it's not Mr. Tole Zarko.

9 Q. Well, who is it, then?

10 A. I would have to look at the lists and then I'll give you the

11 names. But it is certainly not Mr. Tole Zarko.

12 Q. On this letter by General Radinovic, it says that this citizen of

13 yours was arrested in the territory of FRY. He was not engaged in any

14 combat operations. He had on him a forged passport with which he had come

15 to the Federal Republic from the Czech Republic, that he spent some time

16 in prison as an ordinary criminal and not as a prisoner of war, and that

17 he was handed over to the Republic of Serbian Krajina because the

18 authorities there were looking for him because of war crimes committed in

19 Slunj where Tole was born.

20 And this is what it says in this letter by General Radinovic: "In

21 connection with the captured member of the Croatian army, soldier Tole

22 Zarko, and his escort, we wish to inform you that they are in the prison

23 at Knin and under the authority of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.

24 Please contact the responsible authorities in Knin regarding the possible

25 exchange of Tole Zarko and his escort."

Page 17338

1 If you're interested, you can look at this letter.

2 A. Yes, I would like to see the letter.

3 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Will you please read the last passage, which refers to the missing

6 names on your list, and then this particular passage regarding this

7 particular individual.

8 A. Yes, I can comment on this letter. So the letter is being sent by

9 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Ministry of Defence, to the 1st

10 Krajina Corps, which means to Bosnia, to the Commission for the Exchange

11 of Prisoners.

12 So the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is writing to the Krajina

13 Corps.

14 In the letter, they say that they have information that a certain

15 Tole Zarko was arrested, that we did not mention at all here during my

16 testimony, and that this same person is under the authority of the

17 Republic of Serbian Krajina, and they are advising us to have further

18 contacts regarding exchange. That is, the Commission for the Exchange of

19 Prisoners is asking the 1st Krajina Corps to take steps for the exchange.

20 And also, they say that they are providing a list of prisoners handed over

21 by the commission for Croatia.

22 Therefore, at all negotiations the current list of prisoners or

23 detainees were exchanged -- were exchanged for those detainees to be

24 exchanged, which doesn't mean that all the detainees needed to be on those

25 lists. All registered detainees would normally appear on those lists.

Page 17339












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 17340

1 But here they say that the Ministry of Defence analysed the list provided,

2 and on the basis of their information, without any grounds, they claim

3 there should be more names.

4 We also analysed lists and claimed that a detainee may have been

5 here or there. So that was one of the ways of finding detainees. But

6 from this letter, we see absolutely no grounds to claim that except that

7 they had analysed the list. And the other grounds is -- and another point

8 is that this is a relationship between Yugoslavia and Bosnia. This letter

9 confirms the existence of that relationship that we mentioned earlier on.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we move on?

11 JUDGE MAY: Do you want that to be exhibited, this letter?

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

13 JUDGE MAY: Number.

14 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit 110, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE MAY: In fact, it may be convenient to adjourn now.

16 Mr. Grujic, could you be back, please, in twenty minutes to

17 conclude your evidence.

18 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, it occurs to me it may be sensible to discuss

19 the Vukovar witnesses, Rule 92 bis, after this witness. We ought to do

20 something of that this week , before we call the next witness.

21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kay.

23 MR. KAY: Yes. There's also an issue that should be dealt with

24 today in view of the fact that we have a three-day break. That concerns

25 the recent filings about Ambassador Galbraith.

Page 17341

1 JUDGE MAY: We haven't had those yet.

2 MR. KAY: They're in the system, and Your Honour may recollect

3 that Mr. Nice mentioned it yesterday in open session with a date which the

4 Prosecution had an interest in securing.

5 JUDGE MAY: We can deal with that.

6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, just one additional matter.


8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We have actually scheduled two witnesses

9 where decisions are outstanding for next week. That is the witness Baca,

10 which we want as a replacement for Franic, and also the witness Rousseau.

11 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We can deal with Rousseau. Baca I'm not so sure

12 about. But anyway, let's adjourn now.

13 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

14 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

15 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Grujic, as we have just observed that it is not contentious

18 that Croatian armed forces were on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, do

19 you happen to know how many Serb prisoners, detainees who were held in

20 Odzak, that is to say on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, were

21 transferred after July 1992 to Croatia and put up in camps throughout

22 Croatia?

23 A. I don't really know. I can't answer that question. I don't have

24 that information. I did say earlier on that I do not have facts and

25 figures of that kind, where people were captured and taken prisoner. All

Page 17342

1 I can testify about is where people were released and when they were

2 released from prison.

3 Q. All right. Fine. But now let's look at some figures, the figures

4 you yourself gave us. But before we come to that, let me just remind you

5 of the following: At a meeting of the Croatian parliament on the 15th of

6 January, 1996, the late president, Franjo Tudjman, presented some

7 information to the fact that there were 10.668 persons killed and 2.215

8 missing persons. Later on, those figures were adjusted so that the total

9 of missing and killed persons was somewhat lower, or rather, the total of

10 persons killed was increased and the persons missing, the number was

11 reduced somewhat. So the figure that was arrived at was a percentage,

12 actually. The percentage of persons killed and missing with respect to

13 the number of inhabitants of Croatian ethnicity was 0.35 per cent. I

14 assume you will recall that, and you have that figure.

15 A. I don't think it is justified to express this in percentages and

16 to add up apples and pears. You can't put persons who were missing and

17 persons who were killed into one category. I don't think that's the right

18 way to go about it. But as to figures, the figures of those missing and

19 those killed changed depending on the period, and the number of missing

20 persons that were actually found, the number of graves located, so that

21 the time distance and time factor is very important linked up to these

22 figures.

23 As to the figures that I presented here during my testimony, I

24 stand by them. I stand by each and every number I uttered, because there

25 is always a name and a surname, an individual behind a number, and

Page 17343

1 personal ID and data, whether we are referring to missing persons or

2 persons killed. So this is the information that my office has at its

3 disposal, and I stand by it.

4 Q. All right. But at all events, Mr. Grujic, if we leave aside the

5 number of persons missing and not link it up and add it to the number of

6 persons killed, then the percentage is lower than that 0.35 per cent that

7 I quoted a moment ago.

8 But tell me this, please. Let's clear up one matter first of

9 all: Of the number of persons killed, the figure that you testify about,

10 which is 11.800-odd -- and just help me what the exact figure was. 11.800

11 and how many? 11.834. I have it here, yes, of persons killed. So that

12 is the total number of Croats; right?

13 A. No. That is the total number of persons killed regardless of

14 their ethnic affiliation, excluding people who lost their lives after

15 1995.

16 Q. All right. Now, within the number of persons killed, how many of

17 them were members of the Croatian armed forces, the Croatian National

18 Guards Corps, and the HVO who were killed in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

19 A. We're not talking about individuals here and members of the HVO,

20 in fact.

21 Q. All right.

22 A. What we're talking about, and I'm sure that is why your

23 information is different, the facts and figures here referred to the

24 territory of the Republic of Croatia exclusively.

25 Q. Are you claiming that among this figure of 11.800-odd persons we

Page 17344

1 do not have any members of the Croatian armed forces who were killed on

2 the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Is that what you're saying?

3 A. Yes, that's what I'm saying. That's what I'm claiming. Any

4 possible -- there could be a slight mistake, but I doubt that you will be

5 able to actually find a mistake.

6 Q. How do you list members who were killed of the regular Croatian

7 army on the territory of Herzegovina or members of the Croatian National

8 Guard Corps killed on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Where are they

9 listed? How are they registered? So members of the Croatian armed forces

10 who were killed on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, if they are

11 not included in that figure, where are they included?

12 A. Well, when I explained how these lists and these registers came

13 into being, I said that it was the ministries, that they did it, and there

14 was the Ministry of Defenders and that the Ministry of Defenders will have

15 information and lists of all those killed who were members of the armed

16 forces.

17 And following on from that logic, in undertaking this analysis, we

18 presented data which referred exclusively to the territory of the Republic

19 of Croatia. So anything about those killed on the territory of

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina, I would not have that kind of information.

21 Q. All right. Now, if you say that this percentage, which is below

22 0.35 per cent --

23 A. Well, I don't want to delve into percentages. I didn't give

24 percentages, nor did I calculate this in percentages, and I think that to

25 be the wrong approach.

Page 17345

1 Q. Whether it's the wrong approach or not, what I'm asking you is do

2 you know that the percentage of Serbs killed is far greater, several times

3 greater, in fact?

4 JUDGE MAY: What do you mean? What do you mean, and what is the

5 relevance? All this witness is dealing with is the number of killed who

6 he has recorded. The fact that you've got some other figure for some

7 other group is irrelevant. What's the relevance of it as far as this

8 witness's evidence is concerned, even if you're right?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, my question is as follows,

10 Mr. May. As -- well, let me explain, give a brief explanation before I go

11 on to ask my question.

12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Mr. Grujic, according to the census of Croatia in 1991, the lists

14 made in Croatia then, Croatia had 4.774.265 inhabitants, according to the

15 1991 population census.

16 JUDGE MAY: This is all irrelevant, but I will ask Mr. Grujic

17 this: In the figures which you gave, do you record Serbs who were killed?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They are in the records, Serbs,

19 ethnic Serbs in the Republic of Croatia. What I can tell you is that on

20 that list we have recorded the following, as we're dealing with figures:

21 6.790 persons were ethnic Croats, and 298 persons were of Serb ethnicity.

22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Are you talking about the number of persons killed, Mr. Grujic?

24 Well, you say several hundred ethnic Serbs; right?

25 A. Those are the ones that we have recorded as having been killed.

Page 17346

1 These are the official records of the Republic of Croatia, and in those

2 records, for understandable reasons because we don't have the figures, we

3 have not recorded members of the paramilitary units that were killed and

4 buried previously. So they were not recorded because we don't have

5 information of that kind within the Republic of Croatia.

6 Q. All right. And did you -- have you ever heard of Veritas? It's

7 an institution dealing with crimes against humanity and Serb victims in

8 Croatia.

9 A. If I'm not mistaken, that is a non-governmental agency; right?

10 Q. So instead of this figure that you have, some 200-odd or 300 Serbs

11 killed, do you know that their records, which have been verified, that the

12 figure there is 6.744, in fact, persons killed.

13 JUDGE MAY: What is that for? For paramilitaries and the like

14 killed in Serbia -- killed in Croatia? Is that what that figure includes?

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm talking about this: Mr. May, it

16 seems to be that there's some confusion here, as you understand it.

17 Mr. Grujic is the director of an institution dealing with persons killed,

18 missing, expelled, or rather, the victims of war in Croatia. I am talking

19 about the -- about Serbs who were Croatian nationals, and I'm asking Mr.

20 Grujic why you don't deal with Serbs who were Croatian nationals and

21 expelled, missing, or killed.

22 A. Well, we do deal with that too. We do deal with ethnic Serbs, and

23 that can be seen from the list of missing persons that I submitted. So

24 all those who were registered with the office, all the ethnic Serbs, the

25 exhumed bodies that were identified have been recorded and are on the list

Page 17347












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 17348

1 of persons killed. But when you speak about the Veritas figures and you

2 said that was 6.700-odd, I don't wish to comment on that specifically. I

3 have reports by them which speak of lower figures. But regardless of

4 that, what I can tell you is this: There are certain questionable things

5 and uncertitudes on that list, for example. People who died a natural

6 death are also on those lists. For example Luka Andzelic, Basta Andja,

7 two cases in point. And then we have persons who are still living. For

8 example, Ljubica Batula, Drago Borojevic, Djuro Borojevic and persons who

9 were reported missing in Kosovo, such as Djuro Barac in Pristina, Nikola

10 Begovic in Orahovac, persons who went missing in the BiH territory.

11 JUDGE MAY: Let him finish.

12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. All right. You needn't enumerate.

14 A. Very well. So persons missing in the BiH territory, such as Igor

15 Alisic [phoen], Dusko Babic, Srdjan Mitrovic at Pale. Therefore it is

16 because of these shortcomings that list is not relevant and pertinent.

17 But I can answer your question and say yes, I do deal with ethnic Serbs,

18 and we have just completed a list on the territory of Serbia and

19 Montenegro, persons who went missing there. And we initiated and launched

20 this drive in Croatia using Croatian criteria, and this kind of list was

21 compiled and completed in Bosnia too. So yes, we do deal, and very

22 seriously, with Serb -- ethnic Serbs.

23 Q. All right. According to the method and way in which you do this,

24 as far as I can gather, Mr. Grujic, you list the Serbs killed, and there

25 are several hundred of those on your list, whereas Veritas, the figure

Page 17349

1 Veritas gives us is several thousands. Do you note a drastic difference

2 between those two figures or are you claiming that your figures are the

3 correct ones?

4 A. I claim that my figures are the correct ones and there is a

5 difference. The list of Veritas is called persons killed, missing, and so

6 on. It entails all the categories. So apart from the shortcomings I've

7 already mentioned, there is another very serious shortcoming: The

8 difference in figures and numbers exists because the information that I

9 presented refers to facts and figures dating from 1991 up to 1995. And I

10 also stated that persons who had lost their lives in combat were listed on

11 a separate list during the Storm and Flash operations because the taking

12 of this data is still an ongoing process which is nearing completion. And

13 apart from that, we summarised 500 individuals of that kind in Knin,

14 Gracac, and Korenica, and they are with the international court, and the

15 -- we have started the identification of those Serbs. And from Knin

16 itself, we were able to identify over 100 persons, which means yes, we are

17 dealing with that problem. And --

18 JUDGE MAY: Can I just clarify, please, Mr. Grujic, see if I can

19 understand what you're saying. You say there is another shortcoming in

20 the Veritas list. You referred -- your list refers to people killed

21 between 1991 and 1995 and not in Storm and Flash. That's your evidence.

22 Now, what is the shortcoming compared with that of the Veritas

23 list?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I spoke of the period from 1991 to

25 1995 and presented that information. I also said that I cannot stand

Page 17350

1 behind the figures and names of all those killed in the Flash and Storm

2 operations, those guards, because we haven't completed our examination of

3 those figures.

4 JUDGE MAY: Are you saying -- I don't want to put words in your

5 mouth, it's most important, but I can't understand what the point is

6 you're trying to make.

7 Are you saying that the Veritas list includes those killed in

8 Storm and Flash or not? I need to be sure.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the Veritas list includes

10 those killed in Operations Flash and Storm, taking into account the other

11 categories I mentioned too.

12 JUDGE MAY: You also said then that you were working on

13 individuals in Knin and elsewhere who were killed in Storm and Flash, and

14 that included some 500; is that right?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.

16 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. All right. That means, then, that you're claiming that in

19 Croatia, only several hundred Serbs were killed, in fact, including

20 Operations Flash and Storm.

21 A. No, that is not correct. What I'm claiming is that without

22 including -- excluding Operations Flash and Storm, I'm talking about the

23 persons of Serb ethnicity who were recorded as having been killed in this

24 list of the 11.000 that I submitted, from 1991 to 1995. Similarly, I

25 stated that on that list most probably persons who were members of

Page 17351

1 paramilitary formations were not on the list because we do not have

2 information of that kind. And following on from those logics, we don't

3 have that information today either.

4 Q. So you are disclaiming the figure of Veritas, that is 6.744

5 persons of Serb ethnicity were killed?

6 A. I expressed doubt as to that figure because on the list are not

7 only those killed but also missing persons, which cannot be grouped

8 together. And also because I found certain shortcomings that I have

9 referred to, to the effect that on the list there are some persons who

10 were killed in the territory of Bosnia or in Kosovo or were alive.

11 Q. Yes. You read out a couple of names. But surely those few names

12 don't mean much compared to the several thousand that I'm speaking about.

13 I'm talking about several thousand, and you are saying several hundred,

14 and that is why I'm asking you.

15 So you're claiming that a couple of hundred of people were killed

16 and not several thousand.

17 A. No, that's not right. I'm saying that the number I gave applies

18 to the period 1991 to 1995. But I'm also claiming that a certain number

19 of persons were killed, mostly Serbs, in Flash and Storm Operations, and

20 the UN council was informed about this, and the figure is about 1.000

21 killed, about 1.000. Their burial places have been marked. It is known

22 where they have been buried. And out of those 1.000, 500 have been

23 exhumed and a certain number identified. So I can say that the number of

24 people killed in Storm and Flash is 1.000.

25 In addition, there is a number of missing persons during the

Page 17352

1 period of the Flash and Storm operations, and through verification by the

2 International Committee of the Red Cross and our own data, that figure was

3 originally 1.200. Now it's been reduced to 800. And to confirm those

4 figures, we have conducted an inquiry in the territory of Serbia and

5 Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and information seems to point to a

6 figure of around 800.

7 Q. I see. So that is what you are claiming. You are claiming that

8 this figure of several thousand killed Serbs is incorrect.

9 A. I've said very clearly what I think about that.

10 Q. Very well.

11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, would you clarify something, please.

12 What are the dates for the Veritas list? What are the dates of the deaths

13 involved? Can you tell us that?

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't have the last date, but this

15 is an updated report that I received in connection with the testimony of

16 this witness, and I can provide you with their official report, and the

17 figure is 6.744, according to their verified records.

18 JUDGE MAY: But we'll need to know the dates of the deaths.

19 Just help, Mr. Grujic, before we leave this topic, about the

20 paramilitaries. You said you didn't include the paramilitaries who had

21 been killed and buried previously, I think is what you said, as it was

22 translated. Could you clarify that and tell us what you did with any

23 paramilitaries that you found.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is only logical that we couldn't

25 have such data, so most of those persons, members of paramilitary

Page 17353

1 formations, were buried by other members of paramilitary formations.

2 JUDGE MAY: I see. You didn't have any information about them.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't.

4 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. And did you consider the Serbian army of Krajina a paramilitary

7 formation?

8 A. Of course. Clearly we did.

9 Q. Oh, I see. So that was an army with which you negotiated and

10 exchanged prisoners, but you considered it a paramilitary formation.

11 A. As far as I know, this was an occupied part of the territory of

12 the Republic of Croatia, but I would not enter into a discussion about

13 that as it is not the subject of my testimony.

14 Q. You claim that the Serbs occupied a part of the territory on which

15 they lived.

16 JUDGE MAY: No. That is not part of his evidence.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He just said that. That is what

18 he's claiming.

19 JUDGE MAY: We don't want to get into an argument about that.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- not like to enter into that

21 discussion.

22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Very well. Are you aware that the Serbian side had proposed for

24 years that a unified list of killed and missing persons be compiled for

25 the territory of the Republic of Croatia regardless of ethnic, religious,

Page 17354

1 or military affiliation but that the Croatian side would not agree to that

2 and obstructed the formation of a unified list?

3 A. I think that that is again incorrectly stated slightly. Missing

4 persons, regardless of their ethnic, religious, or any other affiliation

5 in the Republic of Croatia did have the opportunity to report that fact to

6 those service.

7 Q. You mean the missing persons could report that they were missing?

8 A. No, their family members could report that people were missing in

9 official institutions. And all those who reported that such a person was

10 missing, and I've given the ethnic composition of missing persons, and all

11 of them are on the list of missing persons.

12 Furthermore, I said that we have renewed those lists, and through

13 the mass media, and I have the proclamation here if you're interested in

14 seeing it, we called on all the citizens of the Republic of Croatia to

15 report their missing family members.

16 Q. Very well, Mr. Grujic. Yesterday in the examination-in-chief you

17 said -- you referred to the expulsion of a certain number of citizens from

18 areas on which they lived. Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of

19 Serbs were expelled by armed operations of the Croatian armed forces from

20 the areas in which they lived? And they were also citizens of the

21 Republic of Croatia. Why aren't you dealing with them?

22 A. I think that the Republic of Croatia is very seriously engaged in

23 that problem. And as far as I know, more than 130.000 persons within that

24 category have already returned to the Republic of Croatia. There are just

25 now more than 30.000 persons are in the process of returning to the

Page 17355












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 17356

1 Republic of Croatia. And for the matter to be quite correctly dealt with,

2 the Republic of Croatia has a specially formed office for refugees dealing

3 with that problem.

4 Q. And do you know that out of those 130.000 that you say returned,

5 40.000 had to flee back again to Serbia or Montenegro or Republika Srpska,

6 and that the net figure is much lower than the one you are mentioning.

7 Are you aware of that? Is that part of the activity of your office?

8 A. No, it is not part of our sphere of activity. I said that in the

9 Republic of Croatia, there are separate institutions dealing with that,

10 but we do not have this figure that anyone had to leave again. I don't

11 know why anyone would have to leave a democratic state.

12 Q. Because they were killed, because their houses were set on fire,

13 because they were mistreated, and that is why they returned back. Those

14 are the reasons.

15 A. I don't know who was killed.

16 Q. We'll come to that, but obviously not with you. Do you know how

17 many out of the 600.000 Serbs who, according to the Croatian 1991 census

18 were living in Croatia, how many were expelled from the territory of the

19 Republic of Croatia? Do you have that information, that figure?

20 A. I do not have any official figure. There are various sources,

21 ranging between 200.000 and 250.000, but I do not have that information.

22 I'm talking about information that I learnt about from unofficial sources.

23 Q. I'm trying to establish what you have just said, Mr. Grujic.

24 You're not addressing the problem of Serbs at all. Is that right or not?

25 A. That is not right. I've said that there is a list, a census of

Page 17357

1 those who have returned, of those who are in the process of returning. We

2 cannot have that information. But it is equally clear that the ICRC has

3 those figures.

4 Q. But there are no lists of those killed and those expelled, and

5 many thousands were killed and hundreds of thousands expelled. So you

6 have no census of those figures?

7 A. I think it is absurd to discuss these matters in this way.

8 Q. Let me ask you very specifically, then: Did you say yesterday

9 that your office was responsible for all exhumations in the territory of

10 Croatia?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Then how is it that if your office is responsible for all

13 exhumations in the territory of Croatia, that the first exhumations of

14 Serb victims in the territory of Croatia be carried out by the opposing

15 side and not your office? And this was in the spring of 2000 in Gospic.

16 How come up that until then you had not exhumed any Serb victims in the

17 territory of Croatia until they came to Gospic and carried out the first

18 exhumation in Gospic?

19 A. I think that also is incorrect. We exhumed 135 mass graves in the

20 territory of the Republic of Croatia from which we found more than 3.300

21 victims among whom there were members of Serbs -- Serb ethnicity who have

22 been identified. I can also say that there were graves with persons of

23 Serb ethnicity, such as, for instance, at Plitvice, in the cave the whole

24 Rakic family was buried there. They were people of Serb ethnicity. Also

25 in the grave in Snjegovici, there were 13 persons of Serb ethnicity. So

Page 17358

1 what you're saying does not stand, that we did not deal with that problem

2 and that we did not exhume persons of Serb ethnicity. That is not

3 correct.

4 Q. I'm claiming that the first exhumation was done by them in the

5 year 2000. What you did exhume happened by chance as part of the

6 exhumations that you were doing.

7 A. So there just happened by chance to be some Serbs in the 135

8 graves. But I said that the Rakic family was Serbs. Their grave was not

9 accidentally exhumed. It was found intentionally and exhumed. Also in

10 Snjegovici. It was found and exhumed. And international monitors were

11 informed about all those exhumations, and they attend them. And later on,

12 the persons were identified.

13 Q. Apart from those exhumed from a septic pit in the Serbian part of

14 Gospic, what else was exhumed? These were the crimes committed in the

15 Medak pocket, Divoselo, Citluk, Pocitelj, in September 1993, at a time

16 when the area was under United Nations protection. What else was exhumed

17 then? From the Knin cemetery, it was again through the intermediary of

18 this opposing side that more than 300 bodies were exhumed.

19 A. Two hundred and ninety-nine. And this was not under the

20 intermediary. The exhumation was done pursuant to positive laws of the

21 Republic of Croatia on the basis of instructions from the investigating

22 judge of the Republic of Croatia and in the presence of the state attorney

23 of the Republic of Croatia.

24 Q. Was that at the request of the opposing side or on your own

25 initiative?

Page 17359

1 A. At their request.

2 Q. Oh, I see. Well, why then did you not remember before their

3 request was made to make that exhumation when this was done in the year

4 2001, six years after 1995?

5 A. You see, we're still exhuming graves from 1991, so ten years

6 later, if we're talking about dates. But I think it is also important to

7 say that exhumations can be undertaken, and it is normal to undertake that

8 when certain conditions have been met, which means when you have

9 information about possible victims before their death, because if you

10 cannot identify victims quickly, capacities are soon exhausted and we have

11 a lot of problems in housing those bodily remains. So we first collected

12 information prior to death on the basis of a questionnaire that was

13 provided within the territory of Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia. These

14 are the pre-conditions. And once they are met, we can undertake

15 exhumations. Everything else is hasty and can cause very grave problems.

16 Q. I understand your efforts to explain how the procedure goes. You

17 mention questionnaires and so on. But, for instance, Osijek, where you

18 work, let me ask a you a specific question. Paulin Dvor is close to

19 Osijek, isn't it?

20 A. Yes, relatively close.

21 Q. Tell me, please, how is it possible that from the Rizvanusa

22 location on Mount Velebit, close to Gospic, a number of bodies of Serb

23 civilians were exhumed having been killed in December 1991 in Paulin Dvor

24 near Osijek where you worked. Do you know where Osijek is and where Mount

25 Velebit is and how come that these Serbs civilians killed in Paulin Dvor

Page 17360

1 near Osijek should be exhumed on Mount Velebit. And you say somebody

2 didn't fill in a questionnaire and this was in a zone in which you were

3 responsible.

4 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer the question.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, one should make

6 certain distinctions. My job is the organisation and implementation of

7 exhumation and the keeping of appropriate records. It is a fact that the

8 remains of 18 persons were exhumed in June 2000 in the area of Rizvanusa,

9 as Mr. Milosevic says. It is also a fact that the identification has

10 still not be completed but the preliminary identification, using DNA

11 analysis, shows that those persons were most probably persons who were on

12 the tracing list for Paulin Dvor. After identification has been

13 confirmed, then their identity will be confirmed. And the competent

14 institutions or investigating court is conducting investigating

15 proceedings into this case, and I can also say that I know from the mass

16 media - as this is not my job - that some persons have already been

17 charged for this and that they are in custody so that -- the answer will

18 be provided by the court.

19 Q. Very well, Mr. Grujic. Paulin Dvor is in Eastern Slavonia; isn't

20 it?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And Velebit is a mountain in the north of Dalmatia, isn't it?

23 A. Yes, correct.

24 Q. So these were Serbian civilians killed in Paulin Dvor in 1991

25 precisely at the time when you were the operative officer for state

Page 17361

1 security of that region; right?

2 A. I can't testify about that event because I don't know about it. I

3 might have some wrong information, so I can't testify about what you're

4 talking about now.

5 Q. I just presented the facts and asked you questions based on them.

6 Paulin Dvor in Eastern Slavonia, these 18 bodies that you mentioned were

7 from Paulin Dvor found in Northern Dalmatia --

8 JUDGE MAY: He cannot give you any answers. Let's move on.

9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. So who was arrested? You say that some people were arrested. Who

11 was arrested?

12 A. From the information media, I know that at least two persons were

13 arrested, taken into custody and placed in detention because of these

14 criminal acts. And the competent court will engage in the proceedings and

15 determine accountability and all the relevant facts linked to the event.

16 Q. Well, when I hear the figures that you're quoting and comparing

17 them to the actual figures, then I have to say, Mr. Grujic, that I very

18 much doubt them.

19 Now, do you know something about the exhumations that took place

20 in the locations of Masicka Sargovina, Sarvas, Golubnjaca in the Lika

21 region? Because that came under the competence of your office. How many

22 Serbs did you unearth there?

23 A. You mentioned Golubnjaca. In Golubnjaca, we have the Rakic

24 family. So they were people of Serb ethnicity.

25 Q. And how many Serbs did you dig up in those three locations?

Page 17362

1 A. Well, I can't give you a figure off the bat for the three

2 locations, but I can give you a rough idea, a rough estimate, and that is,

3 in those three locations, between 20 and 30 persons.

4 Q. All right. And is it true and correct that 400 dead bodies are

5 located at the Institute for Forensics in Zagreb at the present time?

6 A. Yes. Over 500, in fact, dead bodies.

7 Q. I'm talking about the exhumed bodies of the Serb victims now.

8 A. Exhumed victims we do not divide up according to their national

9 ethnic structure.

10 Q. It is my impression that you do do that, that you do distinguish

11 and divide them up.

12 A. No, we don't. Exhumed bodies, victims who have not been

13 identified, you can't say which ethnic group they belong to because the

14 bodies have not been identified yet. They have no personal IDs. We can

15 only assume who they belong to. And if we do that, then we can say that

16 of the 500 victims, for example, that were exhumed from the 135 mass

17 graves, that most of them were Croats. The majority were Croats. And if

18 we look at the remaining number, 350 unidentified persons - I'm giving

19 rough estimates - were most probably persons who were of Serb ethnicity,

20 but they're waiting to be identified, for the process of identification to

21 take place.

22 So the victims we can say were probably Serbs and victims of

23 non-Serb ethnicity. So non-Serb ethnicity over 500; ethnic Serbs about

24 350.

25 Q. 350, you say, whereas Veritas says that at the Forensics Institute

Page 17363












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 17364

1 there are at least 400. But I suppose you say those figures are incorrect

2 too.

3 A. I don't know how Veritas could have more exact figures than us. I

4 said that I was speaking about approximations. If you're interested in

5 exact figures, I'll give you an exact figure.

6 Q. Please. And is it true that 1.000 registered places in graves are

7 waiting to be exhumed, and the Serbs are insisting on that?

8 A. I don't think that is a correct figure.

9 Q. You say not a correct figure. Fine.

10 All I want is a yes or no answer from you now, please: Do you

11 happen to know, do you happen to remember that there were exhumations of

12 Serb victims during the war and that one of those was a victim from the

13 Miljevacki plateau operation, dating back to June 1992 where 40 persons

14 were killed, and after they had been arrested, Serb civilians were killed

15 and thrown into a pit, a cast pit, and two months later they were exhumed

16 and turned over to the Serb side. So this was done by the Croatian

17 authorities at a time when you yourself headed that particular department.

18 Is that right or not? They were killed, thrown into a pit, exhumed

19 later on and turned over to the Serb authorities during the war in the

20 exchange that was conducted?

21 A. I think -- what are you talking about? Are we talking about the

22 Miljevacki Dzep pocket or the Miljevacki Plateau?

23 Q. We're talking about the plateau. Forty persons arrested, executed

24 by firing squad, thrown into a pit.

25 JUDGE MAY: You have told us that, so it appears for the

Page 17365

1 transcript. No point going over the same ground again.

2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. So you say you know nothing about that?

4 A. I know nothing about that incident.

5 Q. All right. Now, as this is something you delved in and you don't

6 know nothing about it, do you happen to remember that the United Nations

7 required the Croatian government to give explanations for the massacre of

8 Serb civilians in the area of the Medak pocket when 70 civilians were

9 killed and 48 went missing?

10 JUDGE MAY: Do you know anything about this, Mr. Grujic?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, linked to the Medak

12 pocket. I can tell you what I know about that.

13 JUDGE MAY: It's something you know professionally rather than

14 what you've read in the papers; is that right?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.

16 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 88 person people lost their lives in

18 the area of the Medacki Dzep or Medacki pocket, and the according to the

19 information that the office has at its disposal, which were compiled based

20 on the analyses conducted, the figures and facts we received through

21 negotiation, 46 were soldiers and 42 were civilians of that number. And

22 straight after that event, the bodily remains of 52 persons were taken, 18

23 remains were uncovered by the UN, and in 1995, three other bodily remains

24 of persons of Serb ethnicity were uncovered. In April 2000, exhumation

25 was undertaken in Obradovic Varos, near Gospic, when the bodily remains of

Page 17366

1 11 persons were exhumed.

2 According to the present situation from that same area and that

3 same operation and drive, 15 persons are still listed as missing.

4 However, we are still -- ten persons have not been identified yet, which

5 means that five persons are still being traced.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. And these were all Serbs; right? Everything you've said relates

8 to Serbs?

9 A. Yes. But I don't have -- most probably they were Serbs, because I

10 don't have an exact -- exact information about their ethnicity.

11 Q. All right. Judging by the information that you do have, is it

12 true that the victims in Divoselo, Citluk and Pocitelj were civilians, in

13 fact?

14 A. Well, this is how it was: I can't actually say anything about

15 that because it was probably a period after the conflicts. And as far as

16 I know, linked to those events, criminal reports were filed,

17 investigations are under way to bring the perpetrators -- to discover the

18 perpetrators and bring them to justice. So this is an ongoing procedure

19 with the competent authorities in Croatia.

20 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Would you just clarify: The Medak

21 pocket you dealt with, where 88 were killed. What was the date of that

22 operation which led to their deaths?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was sometime in 1993. I can't

24 give you an exact date, but 1993.

25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Page 17367

1 Q. Do you remember the cautions of Stoltenberg, a public one to

2 Franjo Tudjman, to cease attacks on territories inhabited by Serbs and to

3 withdraw from the villages in Lika where they had killed the civilians?

4 Do you remember that warning that was issued? And that was your duty. It

5 was your job to attend to matters of that kind, or was that not your job

6 at the time?

7 A. That has absolutely nothing to do with my job nor with the subject

8 of my testimony.

9 Q. I understand that you're not interested in the other side of the

10 coin, but tell me this: Do you happen to remember that on the 12th of

11 October, 1993, a special report of the UN Commission for Human Rights and

12 former Polish minister, foreign minister who was not inclined to the Serbs

13 at all, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, confirmed that the Croatian forces - and I

14 quote him - "systematically and deliberately are destroying houses,

15 destroying cattle, livestock and other property, and that they killed --"

16 JUDGE MAY: I am going to interrupt you for the very point I was

17 making at the outset of this cross-examination. This is October 1993.

18 The indictment period that we're dealing with is in 1990 and 1991, going

19 into early 1992.

20 Now, what is the relevance of events in Croatia in 1993? No.

21 It's your case. You tell us what the relevance of it is. But it's about

22 two years after the time we're dealing with.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, you sometimes deal with

24 1991 and 1992, and yesterday you dealt with 1994 and 1995. So I don't

25 know what you're actually dealing with, because yesterday we spent an hour

Page 17368

1 and a half listening to explanations which related to the period of 1994,

2 1995, and 1996, and so on. And at the time --

3 JUDGE MAY: I don't know what you're talking about. Let us go

4 back to this witness's evidence. It's right, of course, that he has been

5 dealing with deaths up to 1995, and you've been allowed to cross-examine

6 about it. But the question is this: The report, the Mazowiecki report

7 that you referred to about the Croatian forces destroying houses, et

8 cetera, in 1993. Now, what is the relevance of that? It's two years

9 after the time we're dealing with. Likewise, Operation Flash and Storm

10 are even later.

11 The point that I'm trying to bring home to you is this: It's not

12 going to assist the Tribunal in deciding this case about events in 1991

13 and 1992 to deal with events in 1993 and 1994 in Croatia, unless you can

14 show us what the relevance is. What I'm saying is it's for you to show

15 us. If you say there is some relevance in this, we'll --

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this is where the relevance

17 lies --

18 JUDGE MAY: -- we'll listen to it, of course. But at the moment,

19 I can't see any relevance.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is the relevance of it,

21 Mr. May: The relevance is in that part of my sentence which you did not

22 quote, you mentioned property, you mentioned livestock and cattle. You

23 didn't mention the last part of my sentence where I say in Mazowiecki's

24 report of 67 Serb civilians killed. So the relevance lies in this: The

25 witness, at that time, headed a governmental department for establishing

Page 17369

1 precisely those facts, and he had information given to him by the High

2 Representative of the United Nations, and this was not clarified or

3 explained or included in his reports because, in his activities from 1991

4 up until 2003, he has dealt in matters of this kind. So he's not

5 testifying only about the things he did in 1991 and 1992, but what

6 happened, what the consequences of the war was and what steps were taken

7 and steps are being taken today even in the year 2003.

8 So I am bringing into question the true intentions of the

9 government and its office to ascertain the truth about the victims of war

10 and the proportions of those victims on the side of Serbs, Serbs who were

11 nationals of the Republic of Croatia. And I therefore consider that

12 things are being turned upside down here because the Serb victims in

13 Croatia are several times greater than the Croatian victims, especially if

14 we look at the number of inhabitants in Croatia.

15 And this particular office --

16 JUDGE MAY: That will be a matter which we will have to decide, it

17 may be, in due course. The witness has given his evidence. He's given a

18 figure for 300 that he's discovered, 300 Serbs. You have produced another

19 figure for a report, the dates of which we don't know about.

20 If you want to ask the witness whether he's biased, of course you

21 can do that, if that's what you allege, that it doesn't show a true

22 picture.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I'm not claiming at all

24 only linked to this witness what I'm claiming. I consider that in an

25 organised and systematic way, you wish to turn the truth around, upside

Page 17370

1 down, about the events in Croatia.

2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Now, Mr. Grujic, did you take part, or your department, your

4 office, in the exhumation of 70 Serb civilians who were buried in Zadar

5 because the Croatian side exhumed them, turned them over to the Serb side,

6 to the Republika Srpska Krajina in the course of 1994? They were buried

7 in Zadar. That means on territory under the control of the Croatian

8 authorities. It -- you are in charge of the exhumation.

9 Now, did you take part in this particular exhumation or was that

10 done by the army? Did your office, bureau, or whatever you wish to call

11 it take part in that?

12 A. The fact is that at that time, bodily remains of persons were

13 exchanged. I don't know what the exact number was, but I don't think it's

14 the figure that you mentioned. It was a smaller figure, less persons who

15 were buried at the cemetery in Zadar, and at the request of the then

16 commission led, if I might, by Mr. Savo Strbac, who is at the head of the

17 Veritas agency today, he was the Vice-Premier member of the commission at

18 that time, and it was at his request that the bodily remains were turned

19 over. And I think that that process was done in a completely proper

20 fashion.

21 At the same time, let me add, at that same time, or rather, not at

22 the same time but in 1991 in actual fact, in that same way, the bodily

23 remains of the victims killed in Skabrnja, 60 of them, were handed over.

24 So this is a procedure which was done.

25 Q. I asked whether you took part in that.

Page 17371












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 17372

1 A. I did not personally take part in that, no.

2 Q. But you claim that you were the only - how shall I put this? - the

3 only institution in Croatia that was in charge of exhumations throughout

4 that time.

5 A. I think that this is quite clearly stated in the attachment to my

6 report, attachment 2C of my statement, in fact, where the competencies and

7 authorities linked to the exhumations are listed and the periods involved.

8 All that is recorded in that document.

9 Q. I have here that 52 bodies were returned to the Serb side out of

10 70 that were killed. This is also on the basis of records kept by the

11 institution headed in those days by Savo Strbac.

12 And do you know that during the war there were dozens of minor or

13 individual exhumations of Serb victims that were handed over to the Serb

14 side?

15 A. I think that in my previous answer I said so. Yes, there were,

16 but this was mutual. This was done on both sides. This was a procedure

17 whereby killed members of armed formations were handed over to the other

18 side and which is, of course, in conformity with the Geneva Conventions.

19 So I see nothing in dispute there.

20 Q. That is precisely what I wanted to establish, that this was done

21 by both sides. That is what you just said, both sides.

22 Now, tell me, please, how many Serb victims were exhumed in the

23 area in which you were, that is at the Vukovar cemetery, and how many Serb

24 victims were thrown into the Danube, according to your assumptions?

25 A. I do not wish to make any assumptions. I can tell you

Page 17373

1 specifically.

2 At the Vukovar cemetery, there were 938 victims buried. All 938

3 victims have been exhumed by us. Among them there were a certain

4 percentage of persons of Serb ethnicity.

5 Q. What percentage, according to your assessment?

6 A. I can't give you the exact percentage but an approximation. It

7 was around 15 per cent. Actually, 20 per cent were all members of

8 national minorities, the rest being Croats. And I think about 10 per cent

9 were Serbs.

10 Q. And did you collect any information regarding the burning of

11 corpses and their being thrown into the Danube?

12 A. I can speak about facts, and facts indicate that we did come

13 across burnings all over. Also, wherever possible, those victims were

14 identified.

15 Q. My time is running out. Let's just say a few words about the

16 camps now, please.

17 Do you know, since you spoke about camps, that there is a list and

18 a book has been issued, documents about war crimes in the territory of the

19 former Yugoslavia. The report was published in 2001. The camps for Serbs

20 in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, there were 536, but that

21 doesn't interest you. In the territory of Croatia, 221 camps. Do you

22 have that figure?

23 A. That figure is absolutely untrue.

24 Q. Please. You say it's untrue and we'll move on.

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness answer. The allegation has been

Page 17374

1 made. Yes, Mr. Grujic.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Twenty-two places in the Republic of

3 Croatia were registered as places where prisoners of war were held, and

4 four of those places had the status of dormitories for prisoners of war to

5 correctional institutions, and 16 prisons and detention facilities were

6 used for that purpose. All detainees under the authority of the Republic

7 of Croatia were held in those prisons in that period of time.

8 Clearly those places which were transit places could not appear on

9 that list. That is, from the moment a person was captured until he was

10 put in detention. I have a list of those places, and I can give you the

11 figures.

12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. So you have the list of the places from which they were brought

14 into prison.

15 A. No, I don't have those figures. That is not part of our activity.

16 There are different places along the separation line. You know that the

17 separation line between occupied areas and the free territory of Croatia

18 was several thousand kilometres long.

19 Q. Yes. But there are several thousand days during which that office

20 of yours has been working.

21 Tell me, on your list, as we've cleared up here, you say that

22 there weren't 221 camps for Serbs in Croatia, and your negative answer is

23 final. You said that there were about 20-odd. Is the Lora camp one of

24 those places, the Lora camp in Split?

25 A. The Lora camp was a dormitory for prisoners of war, according to

Page 17375

1 official records, where detainees were held.

2 Q. How come that in such a place, which was one of the worst camps,

3 there were 1.005 detainees that passed through this camp and at least 35

4 were executed in the camp itself, and according to statements of

5 prisoners, there might have been 70 of them killed in the camp itself. Do

6 you have any information about that as you call that camp a sleeping or

7 dormitory?

8 A. It's not my name for it. It is the official name for this

9 location. As to events linked to that location or boarding place, certain

10 investigations are being conducted within the competence of the county

11 court in Split where some persons have been charged, and the number that

12 you are mentioning I could not comment on it because it is not within my

13 sphere of activity nor do I have any knowledge that it could be such a

14 high number.

15 Q. Very well, then. According to your knowledge, how many prisoners

16 were killed in that camp?

17 A. You see, I do not have that figure because, as I was saying, that

18 is within the competence of the county court that is conducting the

19 investigation which will confirm whether those events took place or did

20 not at all, but I can tell you that within my term of office, with the

21 exception of two cases, there was no bad treatment or illegal treatment of

22 prisoners of war.

23 Q. We will come to that on some other occasion because today we won't

24 have time. But tell me, please, as you call Lora, which was a camp as a

25 boarding house, did you know the pavilion 26 at the Zagreb fairgrounds,

Page 17376

1 and recently Nenad Puhovski made a documentary film about this camp. And

2 Nenad Puhovski is a Croat. Hundreds of citizens of Zagreb, mostly of Serb

3 ethnicity, passed through this camp. Are you aware of that?

4 A. Such a place has not been registered as a place from which

5 prisoners were released or exchanged. You must know that the position was

6 such that all places where prisoners were held officially, that those

7 places were registered.

8 Q. So this was not registered, so it doesn't exist for you. Let us

9 move on.

10 Do you know that in the Pakrac Poljana, or field, and Marino Selo

11 - these are camps - in the period from 11th October 1991 -- Mr. May, here

12 you have the year 1991 -- until the 29th of March, 1992, several hundred

13 Serbs were liquidated? Pakracka Poljana and Marino Selo. And most of

14 those executions were carried out in the settlements of Western Slavonia,

15 and all these settlements were outside the area in which the Serb

16 population resisted by force of arms the violence of the Croatian armed

17 forces. So all these places were outside that area.

18 JUDGE MAY: Now, if you can follow that question, Mr. Grujic, you

19 can answer it. If not, it could be repeated and broken up into the

20 various questions which are involved.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can say in general terms that this

22 figure of several hundred is one I am not familiar with. I only know -

23 and this is something I can testify about - that in the area of Pakracka

24 Poljana, in 1995 the remains were exhumed of 19 persons that were found

25 and buried in 1992 by members of the Argentinian battalion of the UN. So

Page 17377

1 those are the only victims that have been found so far in the area of

2 Pakracka Poljana.

3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Very well. So you're claiming that the figure I have that in

5 Pakracka Poljana and Marino Selo, from October 1991 until the end of March

6 1992, more than 300 Serbs were liquidated, you're saying that is not

7 correct.

8 A. I am saying that I do not have such a figure but that I can only

9 testify about what I have just said.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, you will not allow any

11 questions about Flash and Storm; is that right?

12 JUDGE MAY: Just one moment.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE MAY: No. Just deal with the matters which this witness can

15 deal with.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. In that case, tell me, as I'm not allowed to ask you anything

19 about Flash and Storm as Flash and Storm attacks on UN protected areas and

20 the greatest killings in that war occurred in 1995 --

21 JUDGE MAY: No. No. I said not.

22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Yes. But my question is: How is it possible that eight years

24 subsequent to the event your office still has no figures about it? Eight

25 years after the event. And the massive suffering and killing of Serb

Page 17378

1 civilians in the first place. And you're claiming that you're treating

2 all citizens equally. How come you're not addressing that problem?

3 JUDGE MAY: I've stopped the microphone. It's not a relevant

4 question.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. And since we haven't said anything about -- or, rather, I'm not

8 allowed to ask about Flash and Storm, do you know how -- because of the

9 pressure brought on Serbs, particularly in towns, many were living in

10 Zagreb, Rijeka, Sisak, Osijek, how many of those Serbs sought shelter

11 behind the barricades in the Republic of Serbian Krajina precisely in 1991

12 and 1992 in addition to those who fled to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia?

13 A. I think that I have given the figures linked to registered

14 refugees, the figures in the possession of the administration in the

15 Republic of Croatia.

16 Q. If that is your answer, let me ask you: Do you know -- and

17 Mr. May, I'm talking about 1991 from June until August, June, 1991 'til

18 August 1992, do you have those figures in your office? That is that from

19 the area of Daruvar, Grubisno Polje, Podravska Slatina, Pakrac, Novska,

20 Orahovac, and Virovitica, 52.320 Serbs had fled that area and 193

21 settlements in Western Slavonia were ethnically cleansed? Are you

22 familiar with that? This was in 1991 and 1992.

23 A. I can only repeat that in 1991, there were 4.784.000 citizens of

24 the Republic of Croatia, out of which 3.736.000 were Croats and 581.000

25 Serbs; that 205.000 Croats were expelled, 3.104 Serbs --

Page 17379












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 17380

1 Q. How many Serbs were expelled from Croatia?

2 A. 3.104.

3 Q. 3.000 Serbs fled from Croatia?

4 A. That is the official figure, or 1.41 per cent, whereas Hungarians

5 accounted for 4.987 or 2.26 per cent.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, after this, I see no reason

7 or meaning in asking any questions of this witness.

8 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Mr. Tapuskovic.

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I would

10 have a few questions, but I think it is time for the break, is it not?

11 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll take the break. Twenty minutes.

12 --- Recess taken at 12.13 p.m.

13 --- On resuming at 12.39 p.m.

14 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

16 Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Grujic, I'm going to deal with the contents

18 of your statement, limit my questions to that, and of course taking it up

19 to mid-July 1992. I should like to ask you -- perhaps I didn't make a

20 note of this correctly yesterday. Could you tell me, when did you write

21 this report in actual fact?

22 A. This report was written last year.

23 Q. Thank you. If I understand the methodology you used, you state

24 the methodology you used here, in fact, and the criteria used when

25 compiling questionnaires and your conclusions. And then in point 4 of

Page 17381

1 your report, you say that you organised and held talks on detainees and

2 missing persons with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and

3 Herzegovina and transporting the remains of detainees and missing persons

4 from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that

5 right?

6 Similarly, a little further down, you state that in those talks,

7 you dealt with the question of exchanges; is that right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. However, from what I can see in the report, in those talks and

10 negotiations with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, you did not - and of

11 course Bosnia-Herzegovina too - you did not ask them for any kind of

12 information with respect to the killed and expelled at that time, 1992 and

13 later on, because you wrote the report, as you yourself state, last year.

14 So you didn't ask them for information of that type. All you used was

15 information by the Ministry for Public Works of Croatia relating to

16 detainees and missing persons. And when you refer to detainees, the

17 number is 220.380 persons. Does that mean that each of these individuals

18 have been recorded in the files and records of this office of yours? Do

19 you have the cards, have the registers in these files?

20 A. All -- no, not all the files exist, the cards exist. I give an

21 attachment to my statement with a card register that speaks of how these

22 individuals were listed and registered. So that is the official number of

23 registered individuals according to our methodology.

24 Q. So you have just one card stating that there were 220.000-odd, but

25 you don't have the individual cards for each person?

Page 17382

1 A. No, we did not attach the individual cards for each person.

2 Q. Thank you. Now, you give us those figures. In your work on these

3 reports, we heard that you did not ask for information from the Federal

4 Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, but did you ask the

5 international institutions at that time and request their facts and

6 figures and information with respect to expulsions, that is to say people

7 leaving their homes, of any ethnic group?

8 A. Of course the office for detainees and refugees dealing with this

9 type of matter did exchange information and did collect information and

10 the information that I presented here, the figures, the number of expelled

11 persons and their national structure, so where I said that the number was

12 205.215 for refugees, there is a name and surname for each of those

13 persons and a card filled out. And that figure is compatible to the

14 figure that the international organisations have as well, the UNHCR.

15 Q. Do you know who Mr. Ramljak is, the mayor of Sisak at that time?

16 A. I don't know Mr. Ramljak personally.

17 Q. But you've heard of him?

18 A. Yes, I've heard of Mr. Ramljak. Mr. Ramljak in the courts of law.

19 But I don't know what you're referring to.

20 Q. Well, we heard a high-ranking UN official, Mr. Kirudja here, who

21 testified and was examined here a few days ago and said that on the 15th

22 of July, 1992, in Sisak, he had a meeting with Ramljak and that Ramljak

23 told him that at that time, from the Sisak region alone 10.000 Serbs had

24 actually left. Do you know about that figure? So just from the Sisak

25 area, 10.000 Serbs leaving.

Page 17383

1 A. No, I don't know about that particular piece of information. And

2 let me go back to what I was saying earlier on. I spoke about all the

3 registered persons.

4 Q. Now, the figure that you mention of 3.000 in your report, from the

5 15th of July, this figure - 1992 - for the Sisak area alone talks about

6 10.000 people alone.

7 A. May I give an explanation at this point? A certain number of

8 persons who left the areas, those areas, stayed on in Eastern Slavonia,

9 and they were not recorded as refugees because they were on the territory

10 of the Republic of Croatia.

11 Q. What about the other people that left the -- their homes, the

12 220.000-odd thousand. Did they stay in other areas of Croatia, the

13 220.000, did they leave Croatia or did they just move from one area of

14 Croatia to another?

15 A. When I gave these explanations earlier on, I said that we couldn't

16 have had any figures about the people on occupied Croatian territory

17 because our administration did not have the possibility of having official

18 records of that kind. That is why the information that I presented is

19 relevant, because we have a name and a surname behind every number, the

20 signature of that individual, saying that they were expelled.

21 Q. I understand you. But you said that some just went to live in

22 another place within the same territory. Does that refer to the 220.338?

23 Does that apply to Croats moving from one area of Croatia to another?

24 A. They did not -- were not displaced, they were expelled from their

25 homes and were located in hotels, in collection centres and in various

Page 17384

1 other accommodation that was organised for that purpose, and there were

2 those who were outside the territory of Croatia itself as well.

3 Q. Thank you. Now, the other topic, to move on. Can we assist the

4 Trial Chamber in understanding your findings in the following way: Could

5 you tell me, please, the number of exhumed persons that you mention in

6 point 31 of your report, does it incorporate the 11.834 persons killed,

7 the overall number or not?

8 A. No. They -- this is not included because exhumed persons do not

9 have a name and a surname so they cannot be on that list. The people on

10 the list are only the people that have been identified amongst the persons

11 exhumed. So the number of exhumed persons is larger than the number of

12 bodily remains identified. So all those from the 135 mass graves that

13 were exhumed, they entered the identification process and over 2.700

14 people were identified, and those 2.700 were included in that figure of

15 11-odd thousand.

16 Q. Well, I don't know. Perhaps this will be clear to the Trial

17 Chamber, but I have to insist. You said that the overall figure, or

18 rather, the overall figure of persons who were killed is 11.834 persons.

19 How is it possible then that those exhumed persons were not within that

20 figure?

21 A. I said that was the lowest number. But when we came out with a

22 list, then for each person on our list there is a name and surname. Those

23 who were not identified, once they have been identified, they will be

24 included in the list of persons killed. So we have their bodies, we have

25 their bodily remains, their corpses, but we haven't identified them. So

Page 17385

1 we stick to the facts. The facts are first name, last name, personal IDs,

2 and so on.

3 Q. So the persons that have been exhumed could increase the number of

4 persons killed; right?

5 A. Yes. They will certainly make the number greater after

6 identification has taken place, and the number of persons missing will

7 also be increased, because most of the persons listed as missing we are

8 finding them in the form of their dead bodies.

9 Q. In 34(b), paragraph 34(b), you say you list these persons killed

10 according to the competent authorities. Now, these records, do they

11 contain all the facts and figures, all the information as to how these

12 people lost their lives, how they were killed, what the cause of death

13 was, and are there relevant evidence linked to that in the documents or

14 not?

15 A. Here we just have the lists, the lists of persons who were killed,

16 who lost their lives. Now, the causes of death are not listed here.

17 Q. So we don't know how they lost their lives; right?

18 A. That's right. Somebody else will be able to speak about that in

19 due course.

20 Q. All right. Fine. Now, when you spoke about the status of either

21 the persons killed or persons listed as missing or persons that are still

22 being traced, in addition to civilians and members of the civilian

23 defence, you used the term "defender," "defenders"; is that right?

24 A. Yes, that's right.

25 Q. Now, am I right in concluding, or could you explain to the Court

Page 17386

1 whether the defenders were members of the armed forces of the Republic of

2 Croatia, in fact.

3 A. Well, I mentioned this in my report, in the written part of my

4 statement that the term "defenders" and "defender" is an official term

5 used for members of the armed forces. So they are, yes, all the members

6 of the armed forces, they're referred to as defenders.

7 Q. So they were people bearing arms; right?

8 A. Yes, that's right.

9 Q. And can you tell us about the defenders, what their national

10 ethnic composition was, these defenders. What was the ethnic make-up?

11 A. It would be difficult for me to do that now.

12 Q. Well, could you tell us roughly what the ethnic composition of

13 them was?

14 A. I can tell you roughly, as a general guideline, that 80 per cent

15 or approximately 80 per cent were Croats and the other 20 per cent were

16 miscellaneous, other national minorities. Now, why I say this is the

17 following: This percentage of persons killed, 88 per cent were Croats.

18 With exhumed, identified bodies, 87 were Croats. With missing persons, 87

19 per cent were Croats. With refugees, 93 per cent were Croats, persons

20 expelled, that is. So on the basis of that, we can clearly deduce that.

21 Q. Well, let's look at this 80 per cent that you talked about, the

22 persons who lost their lives. Let's dwell on that for a moment, the

23 defenders. You state here in 34(b), paragraph 34(b), you stated the

24 following: That 6.790 Croats was the total number killed. Does that mean

25 that of the 6.790 Croats killed, 80 per cent were defenders? Is that what

Page 17387












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 17388

1 that means? Does it mean that 80 per cent were defenders?

2 A. At least.

3 Q. At least, you say?

4 A. Yes, at least 80 per cent.

5 Q. And among these 11.834 people, you have persons unknown 4.000-odd,

6 4.174 or something to that effect for unknown.

7 A. In all the information I provided, I proceeded with figures that

8 were absolute, where we could evidence the status of the person involved,

9 the age of the person, et cetera. But where this was non-existence, we

10 would list these under "unknown."

11 Q. But theoretically, can we say --

12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tapuskovic, we must ask you to come to a

13 conclusion in five minutes, please, given the constraints of time.

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. That's what I was going to

15 do, Your Honour. I just need five more minutes.

16 Q. That means that these 4.173 persons could all be Croats or could

17 all be Serbs; right? Theoretically speaking.

18 A. Well, it would be difficult if that were theoretical.

19 Q. All right. Thank you. Now I have one more thing to ask you, and

20 it refers to table 5 -- tab 5, where -- which -- tab 5. That is the

21 exhibit you have. Have you got tab 5 in front of you? And they are the

22 lists of the camps and prisons.

23 A. Well, yes. We can talk about that. Go ahead.

24 Q. It says that 7.766 persons were exchanged. Was that all for all,

25 according to the principle of all for all?

Page 17389

1 A. No. Those exchanges took place in a continuous process and period

2 of time ranging from 1991 to 1996 at different localities and under

3 different circumstances and conditions.

4 Q. All right. And we have 7.660 is the figure, nationals of Croatia.

5 Can we say that just as many went on to the opposite side?

6 A. No. The exact figure is 2.479 persons.

7 Q. All right. Fine. Now, in these lists when it comes to Croatia, I

8 see here the camps that are listed, and we have five camps with just one

9 detainee each, and then we have several camps with just two detainees,

10 then eight detainees. So how do you class these as camps if there is just

11 one person in one of them, or two people, or eight people? So half of

12 them are camps with just one detainee in them.

13 A. Well, I did draw attention to that and said that the criteria for

14 this was exclusively that the person was exchanged from that camp or they

15 were registered in that camp. What does that mean? It means that through

16 those camps we had detainees passing through from some other camp and

17 released from some other camp. So that is for purposes of exactitude.

18 Where we have the Red Cross registration, those were camps. The camps

19 that were not registered, and there are several -- many witnesses

20 testifying to different camps.

21 Q. Yes. But the figures are that there are so many camps in Croatia,

22 the number you list here. Half of them only had eight detainees; in

23 Serbia, 11 detainees; in Montenegro, 15. So your criteria -- what was

24 your criteria, in fact?

25 A. The criterion was that a detainee had been registered in that camp

Page 17390

1 or released from that camp. It does not include the detainees that had

2 passed through the camp, ended up somewhere else and were released from

3 that other place.

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further

5 questions, Your Honours.

6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, I only need to clarify two

7 facts given by the witness and how they relate to the figures in the

8 report.

9 Re-examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:

10 Q. You have addressed, during the cross-examination, the expulsion of

11 Serbs, and it was put to you that Serbs from Western Slavonia fleeing in

12 1991, and my question is: In relation to your list of displaced persons

13 within Croatia, would those fleeing to Republika Srpska or Yugoslavia,

14 would they show in this list?

15 A. No, they are not on that list.

16 Q. And do you have any concrete estimate of how many people actually

17 fled from Western Slavonia? Only if you have reliable figures.

18 A. No.

19 Q. And the other question in relation to the exchange of bodies, you

20 mentioned the exchange of bodies in October 1993 in Zadar, and you also

21 spoke about mutual exchange of bodies from both sides in the earlier year.

22 Would these exchanges, would these bodies come up within your list of

23 exhumations or your list of killed people?

24 A. All those who were identified through the exchanges are on the

25 list of killed people.

Page 17391

1 Q. But those exchanged -- for instance, in Zadar there was this

2 example given during cross-examination when the bodies were just exchanged

3 without further identification, they would not?

4 A. The remains that were exhumed, so these were remains of members of

5 enemy formations who remained in the territory under the control of the

6 Republic of Croatia, and those remains were buried as unidentified in

7 Zadar. But it was known that they belonged to members of enemy forces.

8 And through the exchange, those remains were handed over to the opposite

9 side, and they went into the identification, and we have no knowledge

10 about that. But we do have knowledge about those that we took over and

11 identified, and they are on the list of killed persons.

12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Grujic, that concludes your evidence. Thank you

14 for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are free to go.

15 [The witness withdrew]

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

17 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Regarding the witness -- it's

20 switched on.

21 I was saying that in the break, I received a new witness that was

22 mentioned this morning by Mr. Kay, that is Mr. Galbraith, the former US

23 ambassador in Croatia. Today is the 4th of March --

24 JUDGE MAY: There are various matters we're going to discuss,

25 various matters we're going to discuss.

Page 17392

1 Do we need, in discussing -- we'll go into the witnesses who it's

2 proposed to call in due course. Is there a need for a private session for

3 any of this?

4 MR. NICE: Not as far as Galbraith is concerned and not, I think,

5 for the 92 bis that Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff will be dealing with.

6 JUDGE MAY: Well, we ought to deal with -- let us list them.

7 There's Mr. Galbraith, we have another witness, Zana Baca who wasn't on

8 the list. It may be convenient, since he's on the list, to deal with

9 Joseph Rousseau, and then go on to the 92 bis witnesses afterwards.

10 We'll start with Ambassador Galbraith.

11 MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. The history of our dealings with him

12 are set out in the application, and of course fundamental to my approach

13 to this case has been that witnesses will give evidence in open session,

14 and I will not even be applying for witnesses to give evidence other than

15 in open session unless I can support any requirement for closed session.

16 So far as this particular witness is concerned, as the Court will

17 see from our filing, we've only very recently been informed that there

18 will be no impediment in the way of his giving evidence in open session,

19 and as soon as we got that permission, we took all steps to serve his

20 material and to file our application. The English language version

21 material was filed last night and I think the B/C/S was provided this

22 morning. The material is not particularly voluminous. The points he

23 covers are very important but limited in number. He is a man with his own

24 professional commitments at present at university or universities, I'm not

25 sure which. He happens to be available next weekend. I think it's

Page 17393

1 probably some break in teaching, the 10th and 11th, and that happens to

2 coincide with the general ending of the Croatian part of the evidence, it

3 being much more convenient for the Chamber to have evidence in a connected

4 way rather than taken out of order.

5 In those circumstances, we applied that his evidence may be

6 adduced. It's clearly, in our respectful submission, extremely important

7 and valuable evidence which will save the time of other witnesses. We ask

8 that it may be adduced next week. We have in mind that there are in fact

9 three days when the Court will not be sitting and when the accused will be

10 in a position to make preparations for this witness. If it can't be next

11 week, it will be at some future date in the middle of another sector of

12 the evidence.

13 JUDGE MAY: It will be, of course, a reduced disclosure time.

14 MR. NICE: We accept that entirely, yes. But the scope of the

15 evidence is comparatively narrow. There are dates at the very end of

16 March, apparently, when he's also available. He's got to come from

17 America, and I believe originally, in order to assist us, planned to come

18 this weekend when he is available.

19 JUDGE MAY: We've got the summary and that covers the -- covers it

20 adequately, does it?

21 MR. NICE: Yes, the actual notes. There is one thing in the

22 application that's wrong. It said that there is a statement which will be

23 produced. The document is an unsigned document and therefore ranks as

24 investigator's notes and it is from those notes that the summary will be

25 produced and in respect of which the witness will give evidence. It's

Page 17394

1 about eight pages, including the first sheet. So it's a short document.

2 JUDGE MAY: I suppose there's one general issue of importance

3 besides the question of disclosure and time for preparation, and that is

4 the introduction of witnesses at a late stage, and I know you've covered

5 it and you've explained the reasons, but it is something which obviously

6 the Trial Chamber will have to keep an eye on because of the effect it has

7 on the case as produced to date.

8 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm so sorry. I made some general

9 observations about this yesterday and about the effect the trial has on

10 the availability of witnesses. That relates to the other witness in

11 respect of whom an application was filed yesterday and whom I hope to be

12 able to take further at the beginning of next week. This next week after

13 the witness will have been seen.

14 I don't know that any objection is being taken to this witness on

15 this basis by any of the parties, and in our submission no such objection

16 should be taken for it's witnesses like this who, as well as providing

17 material that's essential to the case, also flesh it out, provide external

18 views that are of such value if ultimately accepted by the Chamber, and it

19 has only been - and this is something that the accused I'm sure will be

20 delighted to hear - it's only been because of my refusal to apply for

21 closed session testimony on almost any witness, that means I've had to

22 wait until now to be able to make this application, because processing my

23 informal application to the relevant authorities takes months, if not

24 rather longer.

25 JUDGE KWON: Did I understand it correctly that this particular

Page 17395












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 17396

1 witness could not find another available time?

2 MR. NICE: Yes, he could. He could come -- it's a question of

3 fitting it in with his -- with his commitments elsewhere around the world

4 and in America, but the reason for trying to have him heard now is this

5 fits conveniently for your consideration in the Croatian part of the case

6 rather than coming at a time when we'll probably be well launched into

7 Bosnia and then you will have to cast your mind back more particularly to

8 this period of time.

9 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour. The amici curiae filed a paper on the

10 14th of February, 2003 where we made observations about the Prosecution

11 motion at that stage, dated the 5th of February, 2003 for leave to amend

12 the then witness list. And we made a number of observations but also made

13 the concomitant point that preparation for the defendant, the accused was

14 an essential feature of the fairness of the trial. And looking at the

15 statement in note form and the summary of Ambassador Galbraith, it occurs

16 to me there are big issues within that statement which the accused may

17 want to deal with.

18 I notice the time set aside for direct examination of two hours,

19 which might be a little optimistic considering his role within events

20 between 1991 and 1992 and the personalities that he met. But for the

21 accused's part, because of the conclusions and observations by this

22 witness, I would foresee that there are major matters that he would like

23 to cross-examine the witness upon, notably the relationships with Martic,

24 Babic and Markovic which, for him, of course, is a central aspect of his

25 defence. And just as much, again, as this is an important witness for the

Page 17397

1 Prosecutor, the polarity of that is that the accused would probably need a

2 good deal of time to question and deal with this witness.

3 In our submission, he should be given an adequate period for

4 preparation. That preparation would obviously not just be for steps that

5 could be undertaken by him but any that his associates or other advisors

6 may want to make on his behalf in the production of documents to aid

7 cross-examination or research that may need to be undertaken concerning

8 this witness. It's a matter for him, and no doubt the accused will make

9 his own point of view very clear, but certainly for my part in addressing

10 the Court, I would plead on his behalf the need for adequate time by which

11 he could prepare himself to deal with this witness who could be made

12 available later on in the proceedings.

13 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Kay, you don't have any comment about anything

15 relating to other reliefs requested by the OTP?

16 MR. KAY: I deliberately avoided that at this stage, the Rule 70

17 aspect, because I've only just received this this morning and I have to

18 digest it as well and see what the entire picture will be. So with Your

19 Honour's leave, I would like not to commit myself to any position on that

20 at this stage.

21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My position is exclusively of a

23 principled nature, Mr. May, namely, you are aware that the time for

24 disclosure of witnesses was shortened for me to a minimum of ten days.

25 Therefore, today I received for the first time - and I hope that is not in

Page 17398

1 dispute - I received this witness with the announcement that he would

2 testify next week, which is even shorter than this minimal time period of

3 ten days that you have allowed for me. So I request that at least this

4 minimum time frame of ten days that you have ruled upon be applied.

5 Secondly, as a matter of principle, I wish to mention, as it

6 follows on to what was said a moment ago, you have withheld me the right

7 to ask the witness about events which are outside the period of 1991 to

8 July 1992. This witness testifies exclusively about events after that

9 time period. So if something applies to me, it must apply to the other

10 party too. Or if you allow the other side to produce testimony or

11 allegations which are outside the time frame that you yourself have

12 determined or, rather, which they themselves have determined, then you

13 must allow the same to apply to me rather than withholding that right.

14 Because during the break I looked through this and there is not a single

15 point that comes within the time period that you have ruled to be

16 relevant, so this is an absolutely discriminatory attitude towards me,

17 both with respect to time and also with respect to contents that are being

18 examined.

19 JUDGE MAY: The reason which you were prevented cross-examining

20 was because the witness had dealt -- the last witness had dealt with the

21 period before the two operations in collecting his material. Therefore,

22 your questions were outside the scope of what he was able to give evidence

23 about.

24 We will restrict evidence, certainly as far as the Croatian

25 indictment is concerned, unless it appears important and significant.

Page 17399

1 However, as opposed to the last witness, there may be witnesses

2 who are able to deal with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and therefore, in those

3 cases, evidence of a later date may well be relevant.

4 Mr. Nice, very briefly, please.

5 MR. NICE: The Rule 70 aspect is covered in the written

6 application, further argument available if wanted.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE MAY: What about 3? The Trial Chamber is concerned about

9 the restriction of the scope of cross-examination.

10 MR. NICE: It is, of course, a -- two things about that: First of

11 all, it matches the relief granted in the other witness to whom reference

12 is obliquely made and of whom the Chamber will have a recollection.

13 JUDGE MAY: And upheld by the Appeals Chamber.

14 MR. NICE: I think so, yes, but I'm not sure about that. The --

15 it's a condition, part of the conditioned consent of the relevant

16 authority.

17 The third point is that there will, of course, be, if you so

18 decide, lawyers present on behalf of that party who will be able to

19 respond on the spot, or effectively on the spot, to any applications to go

20 outside the prima facie restrictions of that condition. It's not

21 something about which we can do any more at the moment.

22 JUDGE MAY: So if we make the order at the moment in the terms

23 asked --

24 MR. NICE: Yes.

25 JUDGE MAY: -- but with leave to apply to go outside it, that

Page 17400

1 would leave it open to the accused to ask questions outside it, with

2 leave.

3 MR. NICE: With leave, and of course, with -- well, if the

4 condition's been granted in those terms, the witness is prima facie

5 authorised to say nothing. The unlocking -- I don't know what his

6 immediate and personal response might be. His enthusiasm might be

7 contrary to the attitude of those imposing the restriction, I suspect, but

8 that's a problem we regularly have to deal with with this type of

9 evidence. But the advantage, of course, of having representatives of the

10 other body here is that those representatives can be spoken to and it may

11 be that they'll then be in a position to modify the condition upon which

12 the giving of evidence has been predicated.

13 JUDGE MAY: But it is a condition.

14 MR. NICE: It is a condition as it stands at the moment, yes.

15 JUDGE MAY: And when we attempted to interpret Rule 70 in a more

16 liberal manner, we were told by the Appeals Chamber we had to apply it

17 strictly, as I recollect it.

18 MR. NICE: That's the position, yes. I express no views one way

19 or another personally, it's not for me to do so. But I have to operate

20 within it and my guiding principle has always been to make sure that

21 whatever other conditions may be attached that I can respectably and

22 properly present, as I do these, there should be no infringement to the

23 right to a public trial, and we've made great progress there.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 JUDGE MAY: We will -- we will make the order as asked. We think

Page 17401

1 it right. This is an important witness. There are reasons why -- good

2 reasons as to why the witness hasn't appeared on the witness list before,

3 namely that he has not been available. Therefore, we think it right to

4 add his name to it.

5 We, having regard to the interpretation which was given to Rule 70

6 by the -- strict interpretation by the Appeals Chamber, we will grant the

7 relief asked in terms of the restriction on questioning, and the

8 representative of the government being present, we will grant the relief

9 asked.

10 However, we do not think it right, in the circumstances of his

11 being an important witness, to spring him upon the trial and upon the

12 accused within a week. The accused should have more time to prepare,

13 because preparation may include research with his associates. He should

14 have more than a week. So we'll say that he's not to be called next week

15 but later in the trial.

16 MR. NICE: I'm grateful. We'll list him probably towards the end

17 of March.

18 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Can we move from dealing with his evidence

19 to the other two who appear on the list about whom there are applications,

20 and we can perhaps deal with them together.

21 There's Ms. Zana Baca, if I've pronounced her name right. She is

22 a specialist on war-related damage, and the notion is that she deals with

23 protected -- the damage to protected monuments of the old town. Dubrovnik

24 I should say, yes, and she replaces another witness.

25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. It is exactly -- actually,

Page 17402

1 exactly the same subject as the other witness who is not available, and

2 she will also deal with the issues of protection raised by Judge Robinson.

3 You know, this --

4 JUDGE MAY: Oh, yes, the issue of protection. And is there any

5 reason why she shouldn't be, if you put her statement in, dealt with under

6 Rule 92 bis? Well, that's for you to consider.

7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes we'll consider that.

8 JUDGE MAY: If you care to deal with her in that way. And while

9 you're on your feet, Mr. Rousseau is the ECMM monitor. You ask for his

10 statement to be admitted. It doesn't relate to the accused directly. You

11 want certain paragraphs to be dealt with live, paragraphs 5 to 7, as far

12 as I can see. It's 6, but I think 5 for the sense. 1, 2, 4, and 8 to 11

13 Rule 92 bis, and the rest would not be admitted.

14 Yes. Any point about either of those two, Mr. Kay?

15 MR. KAY: No. No we had no observations.

16 JUDGE MAY: No. Mr. Milosevic, anything about those two?

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. This doesn't matter. But could

18 you please tell me, instead of which witness? I understood Mrs. Retzlaff

19 to say that this witness would be testifying instead of another witness

20 that's already on the list. So I can strike that particular witness off

21 my list.

22 JUDGE MAY: You should know that. According to the papers we have

23 in front it, it is to replace Mr. Zvonimir Franic.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So he won't be testifying; is that

25 right?

Page 17403












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 17404

1 JUDGE MAY: Yes, that's right. Very well. We'll admit those

2 statements as asked. We will consider Ms. Baca's under Rule 92 bis when

3 it's ready. We will admit her evidence, taking off Mr. Franic from the

4 list.

5 It may be more convenient to spend the rest of the session dealing

6 with Rule 92 bis rather than embarking on the next witness.

7 The witnesses who I signalled that we would deal with were those

8 dealing with Vukovar, and I had seven, beginning with C-006, C-171, 1126,

9 1149, 1164, and 1165.

10 Beginning with C-006, I have a note that this looks to have been a

11 Dokmanovic witness and therefore I am inquiring as to why it wasn't

12 appropriate to serve that particular transcript.

13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, to -- I don't think that he was

14 a Dokmanovic witness. I think he was not called. According to my

15 information, he was not called in the Dokmanovic case, and I can't

16 actually see the reason why he was not called, but he was not called.

17 JUDGE MAY: Could you check that again.


19 JUDGE MAY: It's quite possible that I have my notes wrong on it.

20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Actually, Mr. McKeon, whom you know already

21 from this trial, has checked the data, and he informed me that this person

22 was not called in the Dokmanovic case.

23 JUDGE MAY: Well, very well. He deals with events at Ovcara when

24 the detainees were in the hangar, as far as I could see, and he let some

25 of them out. He's one witness.

Page 17405

1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The witness was actually present in

2 Velepromet. He was present in the barracks where the people were taken

3 first, and he made a lot of observation in relation to Sljivancanin,

4 Vujovic, and Vujanic, the person in charge. Also at Ovcara he saw them.

5 JUDGE MAY: Since one of the issues that has been raised by the

6 accused is the role of the JNA in the Vukovar incident, it may be that

7 this is a witness who should be called for cross-examination.

8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we would agree to this, because

9 he seems to be quite important.

10 MR. KAY: Yes. We referred to this witness in our schedule as

11 part of our filing to the Trial Chamber, because the description of his

12 evidence in the Prosecution summary we didn't think was entirely accurate,

13 and so we make an observation at paragraph 19 that this could not

14 necessarily be considered as cumulative evidence.

15 JUDGE MAY: There are other considerations.

16 MR. KAY: Yes. I make that so the Trial Chamber is alert to the

17 perhaps extra matters that this witness dealt with.

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes. But we have in mind to admit with

19 cross-examination.

20 Mr. Milosevic, anything you want to say about that particular

21 witness?

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know what witness we're

23 talking about anyway. I haven't got this in my documents.

24 JUDGE MAY: You haven't got it. C-006. He's a Vukovar witness,

25 as these all are.

Page 17406

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That doesn't mean -- tell me

2 anything. I haven't got a review of the witnesses, their names, the

3 contents of their testimony, and I didn't know that this would be

4 discussed at all.

5 JUDGE MAY: I did say last week that we would be discussing this

6 issue, and I read out more than once the list of witnesses.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE MAY: We will admit this witness with cross-examination.

9 In terms of the numbers, I think the next one which would come is

10 1071. This is the widow, if I have it right, of a man who was arrested by

11 the JNA, taken from the football field, and it's alleged subsequently

12 shot. And really, the evidence, a great deal of it, is taken up with her

13 search, fairly harrowing search, for her husband, and unsuccessful.

14 You would ask that this be admitted without cross-examination?

15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE KWON: Is she a protected witness? What circumstances --

17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE KWON: So her name is Zorica Brajdic?

19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. And is a crime-base

20 witness for Lovas farm.

21 JUDGE MAY: Well --

22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Murdered in the field. You know, the

23 minefield.

24 JUDGE MAY: Well, that's not my note. My note is it's, unless

25 we're at cross-purposes about the field, a man who was taken from -- she's

Page 17407

1 the widow of a man taken from the football field and subsequently shot.

2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. He was murdered in a field. He was

3 taken away from Vukovar, that's correct, but the crime as such occurred in

4 Lovas. So the crime base is Lovas.

5 JUDGE MAY: Lovas field, not the minefield.

6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, it was the field, yes.

7 JUDGE MAY: But he was shot.

8 Yes, Mr. Kay, this one.

9 MR. KAY: The observations we have about this is that it's

10 cumulative in relation to Vukovar, but there's the additional features

11 within her evidence where she deals with an area called Rupe near Olajnica

12 and the transport of herself and her daughters to Brsadin. It's

13 additional matters within the statement which then fall into evidence,

14 although not strictly speaking being part of a specific allegation within

15 the indictment.

16 It's at tab 5 in the statements, this particular --

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE MAY: We will reserve on this one.

19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, just let me explain in relation

20 to this one, and also that applies equally for number C-1126. What we

21 want to say is that what these witnesses say is corroborative in relation

22 to pattern of ethnic cleansing that occurred in regions and of -- about

23 which other witnesses have talked about, and so far it is cumulative.

24 In addition to that, admittance of written statements according to

25 92 bis does not necessarily afford a cumulative nature of the evidence.

Page 17408

1 That's just what I would like to add.

2 JUDGE MAY: The next one will be 1126. Dealing with a particular

3 form of evidence, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. I just mentioned this case

5 where we also have the witness speaking about a different village, but

6 what she actually is testifying to will be the pattern of ethnic

7 cleansing, and so far the same that applies to 1071 would apply here.

8 That is all I would have to add to this witness. She speaks about a

9 different village not yet addressed. That's clear.

10 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay.

11 MR. KAY: The difficulty with this witness is, of course, that a

12 witness expected to testify viva voce is the express source of the

13 cumulative evidence. The Prosecution identify [redacted], and so

14 it's difficult to deal with the cumulative nature of it because of that

15 difficulty, although within the Rules that is permitted, witnesses who

16 will testify or have testified being the source of the cumulative nature

17 of the evidence.

18 The Prosecution have already made a submission about the fresh

19 evidence being cumulative of ethnic cleansing generally, because the point

20 is made by us in our schedule that the witness dealing with Opatovac and

21 the JNA entry into Opatovac is fresh evidence.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will admit, but with cross-examination.

24 Yes. Let's try and do another one. 11 -- 1164 and 1165. 1164

25 deals with the shelling of Vukovar. The witness was arrested in September

Page 17409

1 and taken to Begejci camp. 1165 is the forensic pathologist who simply

2 testifies about the bodies found at Ovcara, a matter about which there has

3 been no dispute, as I recollect, no mention of the JNA.

4 Perhaps you could help us with those two, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff. Is

5 there anything further we should consider?

6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. In relation to the pathologist, he

7 actually made observation in relation to the parts of the bodies and

8 actually, the witness, Dr. Strinovic, who is supposed to testify next

9 week, will deal with this aspect. So that is clearly corroborative. So I

10 think that shouldn't be a problem, because Mr. -- Dr. Strinovic is

11 actually the head -- the medical -- the Croatian medical examiner.

12 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And in relation to --

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE MAY: And the other one, I think I summed it up rightly.

16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. And actually, the

17 additional underlying other evidence is the evidence of Mr. Grujic, who

18 referred to the camp where the witness had actually been detained in. So

19 for both, we would request without cross-examination.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Kay.

22 MR. KAY: If I deal with tab 38, which is 1164 first, [redacted].

23 Cumulative in respect of Vukovar but with reference to the JNA and the

24 White Eagles, an eyewitness account of shelling in July 1991 in Vukovar.

25 JUDGE MAY: We will reserve that one. But the next one is the

Page 17410

1 pathologist. What reason is there?

2 MR. KAY: We just mentioned it was a distinct category of being a

3 pathologist but with nothing extra to add.

4 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

5 Mr. Milosevic, we're going to reserve on the first witness, so we

6 won't ask you to consider that.

7 The pathologist, is there anything you want to say about that, why

8 we shouldn't admit the pathologist's evidence?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know what kind of admission

10 of evidence. I just insist on my right to cross-examine each and every

11 witness.

12 JUDGE MAY: Well, in that case, we can see no good reason to

13 cross-examine. There's been no dispute that these people were shot.

14 There will be other evidence about it. We shall admit it under Rule 92

15 bis. It falls within all the categories for admission and none for

16 cross-examination.

17 So 1165. Perhaps Prosecution would produce that at our next

18 sitting with the necessary attachments and we can exhibit it.

19 Well, while we're waiting for something, apparently the registrar

20 has a matter to deal with it, have you got the statement? Let's exhibit

21 it now. C-1164.

22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we don't have the 92 bis form.

23 JUDGE MAY: Of course. We are ahead of ourselves.


25 JUDGE MAY: We cannot admit it, we simply indicate that we will

Page 17411












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 17412

1 admit it.

2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. We didn't facilitate the process

3 without having you confirm it.

4 MR. NICE: The witness who was to start today, not having even

5 started and there being a four, five-day break and that witness no doubt

6 returning home in the meanwhile, I can't guarantee that we'll stick to her

7 as the next witness. It may be inconvenient for her and more convenient

8 to slightly re-order the witnesses for next week. We will send a letter

9 as soon as we know the position.

10 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Provided the accused has reasonable notice of

11 any change --

12 MR. NICE: Oh, yes.

13 JUDGE MAY: -- so he can prepare properly.

14 MR. NICE: Of course.

15 JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now until next week.

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,

17 to be reconvened on Monday, the 10th day of March,

18 2003, at 9.00 a.m.