1 Monday, 9 February 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. If the witness could be brought in.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. If you would please sit down.
8 WITNESS: MATO VALJALO [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 JUDGE PARKER: If I could remind you that you took an affirmation
11 when you commenced your evidence to tell the truth and that remains in
13 Yes, Mr. Rodic.
14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Cross-examined by Mr. Rodic: [Continued]
16 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Valjalo. I will continue my
17 cross-examination now.
18 A. Good morning.
19 Q. First of all, I would like to ask you the following: I have been
20 cautioned by the interpreters, since we both speak the same language and
21 understand each other, to pause between question and answer. So if you
22 could please wait for my question to be interpreted first before providing
23 your answer so that both could be correctly interpreted into English.
24 Thank you.
25 In view of the fact that you have lived in Dubrovnik for a very
1 long time, you are probably familiar with your town. Isn't that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You probably know a great many people in Dubrovnik, don't you?
4 A. I know a great many people, yes. Perhaps not by name, but
5 certainly many people.
6 Q. Do you know anyone who was a member of the army or the National
7 Guard Corps or the Territorial Defence or perhaps a police officer, any
8 aspect of the Croatian armed forces, the HSP at the time defending the
10 A. HSP, no, not really.
11 Q. So no one at all from the National Guard Corps, from Territorial
12 Defence, from the local police, from the HOS, none of those members?
13 A. Not that I can remember now. Not by name anyway.
14 Q. Was anyone given any medals, decorations in Dubrovnik on account
15 of their participation in the defence of the town?
16 A. This was probably the case, but I can't remember any of the
17 specific names.
18 Q. Not a single name?
19 A. Truth to tell, I really can't remember any particular individuals.
20 Q. If, for example, you had participated in the homeland war, the
21 defence of Dubrovnik, would you be ashamed to say so publicly?
22 A. No, I wouldn't.
23 Q. Did you contribute in any way to the town's defence?
24 A. Well, I think by the very fact that I didn't leave the town while
25 others were attacking it, I did give a contribution, yes.
1 Q. Your family, however, fled Dubrovnik, and you saw your family
2 while you were away for treatment, didn't you?
3 A. That's correct. We only reunited once I arrived in Rijeka for
4 treatment. The day before I entered the hospital to be treated, I went to
5 see them at Rabac, which is where they were staying. I think it was a
6 Sunday. I spent a night there, and the next day I was off to the KBC
7 Rijeka hospital to receive treatment.
8 Q. Can you please tell me why immediately upon leaving the hospital
9 you hurried back to Dubrovnik?
10 A. Because Dubrovnik is my home. Dubrovnik is my town. I had no
11 reason to stay away.
12 Q. Couldn't you have remained with your family?
13 A. Well, my family, too, was due back. They could have stayed on
14 where they were, but their desire was to go back.
15 Q. If I'm not mistaken, you returned to Dubrovnik on your own without
16 your family, at least not right away.
17 A. No. We went back together.
18 Q. On examination-in-chief, you said that you returned to Dubrovnik
19 but that your family stayed back and that they only came back later.
20 A. The family did not come to Dubrovnik.
21 Q. Please proceed.
22 A. They didn't go straight back to Dubrovnik or, rather, right now I
23 can't remember precisely, Mr. Rodic.
24 Q. Was there a reason why you had to return immediately?
25 A. No. There was no particular reason or obligation. I just wanted
1 to go back to work, that was all.
2 Q. Are you officially an invalid of war?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you ever observe the Croatian army firing from Dubrovnik
6 A. No, I never observed anything like that.
7 Q. Did you ever hear or see any shells being fired from Dubrovnik?
8 A. I never heard or saw anything like that. I was in the Old Town,
9 and there was no way for me to see anything like that happening from
10 within the Old Town.
11 Q. Can you please tell me how long you've known Mr. Sikic?
12 A. I hadn't known him before he became the president of the Executive
14 Q. How long was that for? When he was appointed president?
15 A. I can't remember what year it was. I can't remember. I can't say
16 with any degree of precision, because I simply don't recall.
17 Q. How long had you known him for prior to the 1st of October, 1991?
18 A. I had not known him before then. I never met him prior to that.
19 Q. When was your first meeting?
20 A. When he came to the municipal assembly in Dubrovnik. Was that
21 October, November, December, or earlier on in 1991?
22 A. I really can't say. I can't remember.
23 Q. Can't you even tell us roughly when this was, because you said
24 that you had gone to see that man, that you had worked as his driver.
25 A. Yes. Ever since he arrived and took up his duty, I worked as his
1 driver, and that's how long I've known him for. That was perhaps
2 September 1991, or August possibly. As soon as he took up his duties in
3 Dubrovnik, but when that was precisely, I really can't say.
4 Q. Do you know a driver by the name of Stjepan?
5 A. Maybe I do know him, but the name doesn't really ring a bell.
6 Q. He was Nojko Marinovic's driver. Does that ring a bell?
7 A. Yes. I used to know Nojko Marinovic's driver, but I don't know
8 his name.
9 Q. Do you know Kreso Madic who was Djuro Korda's driver?
10 A. No. Maybe I actually know the man, it's just that I don't know
11 the name.
12 Q. Do you know Zeljko Pavlovic?
13 A. Zeljko Pavlovic who was with the TO? Is that the man you have in
15 Q. Yes?
16 A. Yes, I do know him.
17 Q. What were Zeljko Pavlovic's whereabouts during the war in 1991?
18 A. I'm not sure. I think at first he was with the Territorial
19 Defence, but where he was later, I really can't say. I didn't exactly
20 keep track. It wasn't my job.
21 Q. Do you know where he was stationed, where his HQ were?
22 A. I think it was where the military recruitment office used to be,
23 but I'm not sure.
24 Q. Do you know where Villa Rasica is?
25 A. Yes. That's at Lapad.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Is that where the National Guard Corps was stationed at the time?
2 A. I didn't go there at the time, but yes, I think so. There was
3 something there. I didn't see anything myself because I didn't go, but I
4 think it was there.
5 Q. Do you know the exact whereabouts of the aquarium?
6 A. Yes. It's in the Old Town.
7 Q. Can you specify its location? Can you relate it to another
8 building inside the Old Town?
9 A. St. John's Fort, I believe, is the nearest thing, the nearest
10 point of reference.
11 Q. Was that where the TO headquarters were?
12 A. I never went to the TO headquarters, and I don't know its
13 whereabouts. I know that refugees had been put up at the aquarium and
14 there was a shelter there. That's all I know.
15 Q. Do you know if there was any such thing as a TO headquarters
16 stationed there?
17 A. No, I don't.
18 Q. Do you know where Villa Palma is?
19 A. Yes, it is the police building.
20 Q. Who was there?
21 A. The police, as far as I know.
22 Q. Prior to the outbreak of the conflict, was the police also there
23 or were they in a different location?
24 A. As far as I know, the police were always there.
25 Q. Does that mean that even prior to the outbreak of war in the
1 Dubrovnik area the police station was at Villa Palma? Is that what you're
2 telling us?
3 A. Well, To the best of my knowledge, I think Villa Palma was always
4 the police building. I was not aware of anything else.
5 Q. Were there any artillery units stationed there, positioned there?
6 A. I didn't see any artillery. I saw police officers. Actually,
7 there was a lorry there that tried to break through and drive on to
8 Mokosica. There was a lorry. I'm not sure if that was the one, but there
9 was one like that. I really don't know what the name was. The lorry was
10 used to transport food, people. You couldn't pass through Rijeka
11 Dubrovacka because there were sniper positions up on Golubov Kamen and
12 they were targeting people down in Rijeka Dubrovacka.
13 Q. My question was about artillery and you're telling me about a
14 lorry that was bringing bread to Mokosica.
15 A. I'd never seen any artillery.
16 Q. Can you describe this lorry for me, the one that you saw
17 transporting bread to Mokosica?
18 A. That was a special lorry. They put some sort of an armour on it
19 that was apparently bulletproof so they would not be hit. They used that
20 lorry to drive through. I think even the armour -- the body of the car
21 was reinforced and apparently bulletproof. I'm not sure what the type the
22 vehicle was.
23 Q. Did you see that vehicle personally?
24 A. In passing, yes. I'd see it sometimes outside Villa Palma.
25 Q. Were there any weapons mounted on that lorry?
1 A. No, no weapons so ever, not that I saw.
2 Q. How do you know this lorry was used to transport bread to
4 A. Well, I heard people talk about that, that the lorry was used for
5 transporting bread or medicine. Somehow the lorry would be able to get
6 through, but that's only what I heard.
7 Q. So the lorry would usually be parked outside the police building.
8 Who drove it to get the food through?
9 A. I don't know that. I should expect one of the police officers.
10 Q. So why would a lorry be stationed outside the police headquarters
11 if it was only used to transport food to a different place?
12 A. I really don't know.
13 Q. Well, the police, I presume, were not in charge of the bakeries in
15 A. Well, probably the bakeries were not part of their remit, I
17 Q. Did you ever see any Croatian army artillery pieces in Dubrovnik
18 at all?
19 A. No, not a single item, never in Dubrovnik.
20 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Could I please have the usher's
21 assistance for a moment. Can you please put this on the ELMO.
22 Q. In the town of Dubrovnik itself, did you ever see a lorry like
24 A. I never saw it in Dubrovnik itself, nothing like this.
25 Q. A lorry or a vehicle with a three-barrel gun mounted. You'd never
1 even heard of its existence or seen it anywhere?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did you ever hear about something like this moving about town?
4 A. No.
5 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Can I have that back, please.
6 Q. Was there any such thing as civilian protection in Dubrovnik that
7 was actually up and running?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can you tell me what their task was?
10 A. I really can't say. I never sought to ask anybody. I had my own
11 job to worry about, so I really didn't keep track of anything else.
12 Q. Do you know at all what the civilian protection would have been in
13 charge of, what their job would have been?
14 A. No. I don't know really. I could only speculate.
15 Q. Who was in charge of attending the wounded in Dubrovnik?
16 A. The hospital, I guess. I suppose some of the civilian protection
17 people were putting out fires, picking up the wounded. I suppose this was
18 also done by the civilian protection. They were clearing the streets, but
19 this was also done by other people on a voluntary basis.
20 Q. In early October 1991, did you see any ships, any navy ships? If
21 so, where exactly did you see those and what exactly did you observe?
22 A. In early October?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. What exactly did you see? Can you specify, please?
1 A. On the 1st of October, which is when I heard sounds of shelling, I
2 was on duty at the municipality then and you could hear shells exploding
3 from the east. I came out on the building's roof, and I saw that the
4 area, the road leading out of the town, the main road, was being target
5 just above Zlatni Potok. I saw a warship that was targeting the area
7 Later on, I went home. The house was full of my relatives who had
8 fled the Konavle area. I told them what was happening and hoped that this
9 wouldn't come to anything. There were small children there too.
10 Q. So you saw this on the 1st of October when you were on duty in the
11 municipality? That's when you could see this?
12 A. Yes, that's correct. Later when I went back to work, I'm not sure
13 where it was that I went. Maybe I just happened to be at Boninovo. I saw
14 two planes targeting Srdj. Probably the -- they were trying to hit the
15 repeater at the top of the hill so there was no telecommunication.
16 Telephone lines were cut and the rest of it.
17 Q. And for how long did your shift last on the 1st of October when
18 you watched this? How long was your shift?
19 A. From 10.00, I think, in the evening until, I think -- I can't be
20 very precise about the time in the morning, but I think it was around half
21 past seven or 8.00 in the morning on the following day, that is the 1st.
22 Q. Can you explain, then, as you were in the night-shift and on duty
23 in the municipality from, let's say, 10.00 p.m. until 8.00 a.m., did you
24 change shifts on the following day? Were you off? How did this go?
25 A. Yes. We changed shifts, but we were afraid. The war had already
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 started, and no one was able to sleep.
2 Q. Was anyone else on duty besides you? Did you have a chance to get
3 some rest?
4 A. I did get some rest. All I had to do was answer the phone if it
6 Q. Who else was on duty at the municipality in the same way as you?
7 A. I don't know who it was before me, but we would switch. Somebody
8 was always there by the phone.
9 Q. What was your task while you were on duty?
10 A. To answer the phone and take notes and report on the following
11 morning when the president or somebody arrived.
12 Q. Did you see gunships of the navy near Lokrum?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. Were they shooting at anything?
15 A. Yes, they were. They fired shots I think at Lokrum, Bosanka,
16 although I did my military service, I don't know much about projectiles,
17 but I knew what gunships sounded like.
18 Q. So you recognised the shots fired by gunships. You could tell
19 them by sound.
20 A. Yes, because they sound different.
21 Q. How do they sound different?
22 A. Well, when a gun fires, it goes Duum, but when a gun ship fires,
23 the sound is a bit different: Duum, duum, duum.
24 Q. You're sure you never heard sounds from Dubrovnik that would sound
25 like weapons being fired?
1 A. I spent almost all my time in the Old Town at the municipal
2 assembly or at home in Prijeko. On several occasions we went to the
3 shelter in the Centar school or in the defence building in Dubrovnik where
4 there was some concrete slabs. I didn't move much outside the Old Town.
5 And while I was in the Old Town, I did not hear shots being fired from
7 Q. Well, when I say from the town of Dubrovnik, I'm not referring
8 only to the Old Town but to the broader Dubrovnik area.
9 A. I didn't hear anything in the Dubrovnik area.
10 Q. Well, did you drive around at all in that period?
11 A. Unfortunately, I stayed in one place more often than I drove
12 around because of the shelling. We couldn't drive around. It was dark.
13 When we tried to drive at night they would shoot, probably from Zarkovica.
14 There was a gun there that rotated. And below Srdj there were snipers
15 probably. They had fragmentation bullets. They had rockets illuminating
16 the town.
17 Q. Can you tell me in your estimation how many alarms were sounded in
18 Dubrovnik in that three-month period? How many alerts were there?
19 A. I don't know, but there were lots. There were warnings very
20 often. And once it went on for five days.
21 Q. And during the alert, where were you? What did you do?
22 A. During alerts, we were all supposed to be somewhere safe. So I
23 was either at the municipal building while my family was there. I would
24 join them because of the children, to reassure them and my wife. The
25 children are still traumatised.
1 Q. And where would you go?
2 A. Well, to the Centar school most often and sometimes in the
3 Institute for Restoration.
4 Q. And when your family left, where would you go then when there was
5 an alert?
6 A. With my late father-in-law who worked in the restoration
7 institute, I would be with him, or I would go to the Centar school, or I
8 would remain at work. I wasn't there on my own, and I felt safer there.
9 Sometimes I would spend the night there -- or, rather, I would spend the
10 night in my flat in Prijeko.
11 Q. In November, was there any shelling of Srdj? In November.
12 A. I think there was.
13 Q. You aren't sure?
14 A. In November? Yes. Yes. Yes, yes. In November. Now I recall. I
15 think for four or five consecutive days.
16 Q. Very well. Can you tell me who held positions at Srdj?
17 A. It was the Croatian army in the Imperijal fortress and the
18 Yugoslav army held positions below that.
19 Q. Can you tell me whether the Croatian army fired back from Srdj?
20 A. I can't tell you. So many shells and bullets were fired up there
21 I can't tell you who fired them. I think that soldiers could not leave
22 their shelters because of the thousands of shells that were falling, but I
23 didn't see the people up there who were shooting. I only saw the shells
25 Q. Where were the shells falling from?
1 A. Well, they were coming from all sides, from the sea, from the
3 Q. All falling on Srdj?
4 A. Yes. And I think that was when the cross on Srdj was hit.
5 Q. Are you trying to say that the Croatian army did not fire at all
6 from Srdj?
7 A. That's not what I'm saying. I didn't see that happen. I know
8 that on the 6th of December, they responded.
9 Q. Do you know how they got their supplies? Did they have
11 A. They did get supplies. They went on foot dodging the shells from
12 the main road on the other side, and shells were fired on them, on the
13 food supplies being brought in.
14 Q. On Sustjepan were there any ZNG position?
15 A. Yes, there were.
16 Q. How do you know this?
17 A. I didn't go to Sustjepan, but I know it was the first line of
18 defence, and a friend of mine is today a complete invalid because his
19 spine was injured at Sustjepan.
20 Q. What kind of weapons did they have at Sustjepan?
21 A. I don't know that because I didn't see them. I wasn't there.
22 Q. You said that the Croatian army also held positions below the main
24 A. I think, according to what people said, they were billeted in
25 houses there, in family houses. They were protecting the town from there,
1 otherwise everything would have been surrounded.
2 Q. How far is the main road from the Old Town?
3 A. The main road is right there overlooking the Old Town, maybe some
4 600 or 700 metres away, or a kilometre. I don't know.
5 Q. Is that how far it is to the main road from the city walls?
6 A. As the crow flies, I think so.
7 Q. Can you tell me how far below the main road were the Croatian army
8 positions? Were they stationed in peoples' houses?
9 A. I didn't see them, I just heard about it. The houses were right
10 by the road.
11 Q. As far as I can see on the map, there are houses between the Old
12 City walls and the main road. Were they at the main road or closer to the
13 walls or in the middle? What did you hear about that?
14 A. I can't tell you, because I didn't see them. I heard that they
15 were in houses right next to the main road.
16 Q. You said that you saw JNA positions; is that right?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. You said you saw these positions at Zarkovica, at Bosanka.
19 A. Above Bosanka, up there. About 2 or 300 metres below Srdj. There
20 was a dugout there. And when I looked through my binoculars, I could see
21 soldiers and the dugout there. And you could see the same at Zarkovica.
22 Q. And when you looked at them through binoculars, from where were
23 you able to see and observe all this?
24 A. From the Old Town.
25 Q. But where exactly in the Old Town? From which position?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. From Porporela, from the municipal assembly, and also from the
2 Stradun, from the Excelsior Hotel, the Argentina Hotel. I saw them from
3 there as well.
4 Q. Were you issued with those binoculars?
5 A. No. They were my personal property.
6 Q. Were they military style binoculars?
7 A. No, civilian ones.
8 Q. Did you always carry binoculars with you to work?
9 A. No. I kept them in my car.
10 Q. Besides being by the phone, did you have to observe as well? Was
11 observation part of your duty?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Well, on what occasions did you observe this all through your
14 field glasses then?
15 A. Well, when I had nothing else to do. Then I would take out my
16 field glasses and have a look.
17 Q. Did you report to anyone about what you saw?
18 A. No, I didn't, because anyone could see that. You could even see
19 that without field glasses.
20 Q. Can you tell me which cafe is located near the municipal building?
21 A. The Gradska Kavana, the city cafe.
22 Q. Well, that's not a cafe.
23 A. Well, I was referring to that.
24 Q. Do you draw a distinction between a building such as the Gradska
25 Kavana and a cafe?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. Were there cafes in the Old Town?
3 A. Yes, there were.
4 Q. Well, which cafe or how many cafes are there near the municipal
6 A. Near the municipal building, well, on the Stradun there are cafes
7 all over the place, two, three of them. Some of them are patisseries.
8 There is one called Trubadur.
9 Q. When you leave the municipality you had a cafe close by. Which
10 was the closest one? Where did you have coffee when you left the
12 A. On the Stradun. That's where most people went to have coffee, the
13 snack bar on the Stradun.
14 Q. Is that the closest cafe to the municipal building? I'd like to
15 know which one is the closest.
16 A. The terrace in front of the municipality, the Gradska Kavana was
17 the nearest place to have coffee.
18 Q. How far is that from the municipality?
19 A. Well, it's in the same building.
20 Q. The Gradska Kavana?
21 A. Yes, it's at the entrance to the municipality. The Gradska Kavana
22 terrace is there.
23 Q. On examination-in-chief on Friday, you stated that on the 6th of
24 December, you were at the municipal assembly, and you said that an attack
25 from the east had begun early that morning. Isn't that correct?
1 A. Yes, yes, from the east. That's where the sounds of shelling came
3 Q. You also said that the night between the 5th and the 6th of
4 December you spent at the municipal assembly manning the duty phone.
5 Isn't that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honour.
8 Q. Why, then, when my learned friend and colleague asked you for the
9 second time the same thing you answered that you were back at home with
10 your brother-in-law?
11 A. When exactly are you saying?
12 Q. On examination-in-chief, you said, in answer to the same question,
13 you said that on the 6th of December you were at the municipal assembly
14 building. You said that an attack had begun from the east early in the
15 morning and that the night between the 5th and the 6th of December you
16 stayed at the municipal assembly building as the official who was on duty
17 by the phone. That's what you said on examination-in-chief when you were
18 asked this for the first time. And my learned friend and colleague
19 interrupted your testimony, and you added later that you were at home with
20 your brother-in-law.
21 A minute ago I asked you whether it was true that you were at the
22 municipality -- municipal building and you said this was correct. Can you
23 tell me how such a discrepancy can arise in your testimony?
24 A. We're talking about the 6th of December; right?
25 Q. That was the question. I assume, since you are an invalid of war,
1 that you were wounded in the line of duty, weren't you?
2 A. In the line of duty, yes, because there was the Crisis Staff. So
3 I was the president's driver, and that's why I was granted the status of
4 an invalid of war.
5 Q. Could any civilian who was injured in Dubrovnik be granted the
6 same status as you or does it have to be something special?
7 A. No, not everyone could be granted that, but I think the Crisis
8 Staff had a statute, and whoever was a member of the Crisis Staff was
9 granted - and was wounded - was granted the status of an invalid of war
10 and all the remaining people were granted the status of civilian
12 Q. This means that you were mobilised at the time, weren't you?
13 A. No, I wasn't mobilised, but I was supposed to be there at work.
14 Q. We agreed that back in 1991 you were at an age where you were
15 still a potential military conscript, weren't you?
16 A. Yes, that's correct.
17 Q. You told me that before 1991, you were a part of the reserve
18 forces and you had taken part in military drills as such.
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. So if you are wounded and you are awarded the status of an invalid
21 of war, which cannot be granted to any other civilians who were wounded in
22 Dubrovnik, well, then, this must be in some sort of connection with a
23 military duty that you had, because the name itself says it, an invalid of
24 war; isn't that correct?
25 A. I did not wear any uniform, any military uniform. I did not
1 receive anything in writing. I was simply told that it was my work
2 assignment to -- to go and work there. There was no one to replace me
3 because there was just one other driver at the municipal assembly.
4 Q. So, you did have, after all, an official capacity that places you
5 in connection that made it possible for you to be given the status of an
6 invalid of war and receive compensation.
7 A. Well, I told you, after all, that I was the driver of the
8 president of the Crisis Staff, so that's why I was granted the status of
9 an invalid of war.
10 Q. There is no such regulation in place, in fact. Now that you're a
11 driver for the county prefect, that's no -- that is not linked with any
12 military status, is it?
13 A. No, it isn't.
14 Q. Had you been a driver for the bishop and had he been wounded in
15 the line of duty, would you also have been granted the status of an
16 invalid of war?
17 A. No, I probably wouldn't have.
18 Q. So you did hold an official post with the municipality which
19 entitled you to be granted the status of an invalid of war.
20 A. My only duty was as a driver for the municipal assembly. I was
21 the driver of the president of the Executive Board, and now I'm an
22 official driver for the Dubrovnik Neretva county for the county prefect.
23 So these are the only official posts that I hold.
24 Q. Sir, is it not true that you did part of your military service as
25 a driver?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Were you a soldier or civilian at that time?
3 A. A soldier.
4 Q. Therefore, a driver, too, can be a military officers?
5 A. Yes, by all means.
6 Q. Yet you have the status of an invalid of war.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The night between the 5th and 6th of December, you were on duty by
9 the phone at the municipal assembly building; isn't that correct?
10 A. No, not December. It's not December I'm talking about.
11 Q. Between the 5th and the 6th of December.
12 A. I was only on duty for a single night, and that was on the 1st of
13 October. That's what I'm telling you. That's when the attack on
14 Dubrovnik began. I don't think I stated anything like that. I was only
15 on duty for one night at the municipal assembly building.
16 Q. Well, unfortunately that's exactly what you told me five minutes
17 ago, and it's the same thing you said on examination-in-chief. However,
18 as soon as you stated that on Friday during the examination-in-chief, the
19 counsel for Prosecution interrupted you; isn't that correct? Is that what
21 A. No. Frankly, I don't remember. 6th of December, I had already
22 been wounded.
23 Q. Or at least that's what you say.
24 A. We're talking about the 6th of December; right?
25 Q. The 6th of December. And you say that you were wounded.
1 A. That's not something I'm saying. That is the truth. Well, I
2 think you can still tell.
3 Q. Mr. Valjalo, I'm not challenging the fact that you were wounded.
4 Now, as to whether it was on the 6th of December and where exactly you
5 were wounded, I think that's something I'm trying to challenge.
6 A. There's nothing to challenge there. I have all the documents.
7 Everything I stated was true.
8 Q. After your family had left, did you spend more time with your
9 father-in-law at home or at work?
10 A. At work. My father-in-law spent more time in the shelters with
11 his own friends, and his sister also lives nearby, so he would often go
12 and see her.
13 Q. As far as you can remember, how many times did you stay with your
14 father-in-law in that period of time?
15 A. I can't remember specifically how many times. We did see a lot of
16 each other, but usually we only saw each other very briefly.
17 Q. How many times did you spend the night in the same flat as your
18 father-in-law throughout that period of time?
19 A. I really can't remember, but more often than not it was in the
21 Q. When the firing began, which specific shelter would your
22 father-in-law go to?
23 A. Usually he would go to the Centar school building.
24 Q. Is there any other shelter that he went to?
25 A. Well, there was another one that I said.
1 Q. My question is very specific. Was there any other shelter that he
2 went to throughout the period?
3 A. At the institute, the restoration institute.
4 Q. The restoration institute. Is that near the municipal building?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Which shelters did you go to together with your father-in-law, if
7 you did?
8 A. I can't remember. The Centar school building, I assume.
9 Q. When the general alert started, where were you when you first went
10 to the school shelter?
11 A. We were on the ground floor, sometimes on the first floor, in a
12 classroom, some classroom.
13 Q. No, no. What I mean is something else. Where was it from that
14 you would head for the shelter that was in the school building in the
15 centre of town?
16 A. Most of the time this was when my family was still around, and I
17 would go with them. And my late father was also still around.
18 Q. When in November your family left Dubrovnik, where would you go,
19 to which shelter?
20 A. After my family left, I would spend all of my days at the
21 municipal assembly which I also used as the shelter at the time.
22 Q. Thank you very much. That was the best shelter you could find, at
23 work. Near the municipal assembly building, there was another shelter,
24 the restoration institute. Isn't that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. When you worked as a driver for Zeljko Sikic, did you ever go to
2 Prevlaka with him?
3 A. Yes, once specifically. I think it was before the attack began,
4 the attack on Konavle.
5 Q. Was that in September 1991?
6 A. Yes, I think so.
7 Q. What was there at Prevlaka at the time?
8 A. We didn't actually enter Prevlaka. We drove as far as Prevlaka.
9 There was a cabin there, and then Mr. Sikic left. He was supposed to meet
10 someone, I'm not sure who, but I stayed there and waited for him.
11 Q. Were there any JNA barracks on Prevlaka?
12 A. Yes. It's just that I didn't see them. You couldn't go any
14 Q. While you were there, did the army complain about the Croatian
15 police deploying themselves along the border?
16 A. Yes. Those other people were at a meeting. I'm not sure who
17 Mr. Sikic was seeing, but there was a military officer there. I'm not
18 sure about the rank. So he asked me why the Croatian police had deployed
19 themselves and the ZNG along the borders. They were not exactly polite.
20 Q. The rank of that military officer doesn't matter, but it was a JNA
21 officer, wasn't it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What was this JNA office doing there? How exactly did you meet
25 A. Mr. Sikic was off to the meeting, and I parked my car there, and
1 there were two other gentlemen there and one of them was just sitting
2 there and talking.
3 Q. Was Sikic meeting members of the JNA at the time?
4 A. Yes, I assume so. It was some civilians that he was meeting or
5 some JNA people. I don't know, because I didn't see who he was meeting.
6 Q. Zeljko Sikic was the TO commander for the Dubrovnik area, wasn't
8 A. No. He was the president of the Executive Board. That is all he
9 was. And later he became the president of the Crisis Staff.
10 Q. Last time I asked you and you said you had given a statement in
11 Dubrovnik on the 20th of May, 2000, to the investigator Dirk Hooijkaas,
12 isn't that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I will read sentence -- the second sentence in passage two of your
15 statement now: "During this time I was a chauffeur for Zeljko Sikic the
16 head of the Territorial Defence for the Dubrovnik area. " The balance of
17 the passage is identical to the rest of your testimony a while ago when
18 you answered my questions about you being at Prevlaka about the JNA making
19 complaints about the Croatian police being deployed, whereas here you seem
20 quite decided that you worked as a driver for Zeljko Sikic who was the
21 commander of the Territorial Defence for the Dubrovnik area. Isn't that
22 what it seems?
23 A. Yes. I didn't notice that, but I suppose this was a
24 mistranslation. I said that this was not the Territorial Defence but,
25 rather, the Crisis Staff later on.
1 Q. Do you have any idea when the work commander of the Territorial
2 Defence for the Dubrovnik area is being translated and president of the
3 Executive Board of the Dubrovnik municipality, these two bear no
4 resemblance to each other, do they, in any of the languages?
5 A. I really have no idea.
6 Q. Commander of the Territorial Defence on the one hand and president
7 of the Executive Board of the municipality on the other, in the Croatian
8 language, do these two sound alike at all? Could you perhaps confuse the
9 two? Do they strike you as similar?
10 A. I really don't know if they sound alike or not. I don't think
11 they do but it's not for me to say.
12 Q. What about the word "gun" and the word "pen"? Do these two words
13 sound alike?
14 A. No, they don't.
15 Q. What about these two -- let's try these two, the commander of the
16 TO and President of the Executive Board of the municipality.
17 A. No, it's not the same thing, as far as I can tell.
18 Q. I agree with you there.
19 A. All I can say is that this was mistranslated.
20 Q. Well, you say it was mistranslated but these are two completely
21 different things. They couldn't be farther apart. Did anyone perhaps
22 advise you to say that this was a mistranslation?
23 A. No, no one advised me. I noticed this myself.
24 Q. When was that?
25 A. When I came here and read the statement again.
1 Q. On this statement it says that you read it before signing it in
2 the year 2000. You read the statement then, and you did not correct it.
3 A. Well, perhaps I didn't notice the mistake at the time. I
4 certainly didn't, otherwise I would have corrected it then.
5 Q. Since this can hardly be a mistranslation, a misinterpretation
6 because we agreed just awhile ago that the two terms do not resemble each
7 other, is this right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And especially not according to their meaning. The duties of the
10 commander of the Territorial Defence is something quite different from the
11 duties of the President of the Executive Board of the municipal assembly.
12 Isn't that right? Do you agree with me?
13 A. The president of the Executive Board is one thing, and the head of
14 the national defence is something else, in my view.
15 Q. And with respect to the kind of work they do, isn't there a big
16 difference between the two?
17 A. Yes, there is. I think there is.
18 Q. When you said that you were wounded on the Stradun, you said that
19 you got to the city cafe, the Gradska Kavana, wounded as you were. Is
20 this correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Who gave you first aid?
23 A. My friends and the waiters working there. And in the municipal
24 assembly, they called an ambulance. But unfortunately, there was such
25 heavy shelling that the ambulance couldn't come.
1 Q. So they sent two members of the Territorial Defence to help you
2 from the municipal assembly?
3 A. Nobody from the municipal assembly sent them. They volunteered to
4 brave the shells in order to collect the dead and wounded.
5 Q. Were they told that someone had been wounded?
6 A. No. They just happened to be on the Stradun when the late
7 Pavle Urban, the photographer, was killed.
8 Q. Did you see the things you are talking about now? You were
9 wounded. You were in the cafe lying down. Did you see him being killed?
10 A. No.
11 Q. In that case, we will not talk about it.
12 A. All right. But I'm just trying to say that when the van arrived
13 on the Stradun, the waiters heard it coming. They thought it might be an
14 ambulance. They saw that it wasn't, and then they said to those
15 gentlemen, "There's someone here who's seriously wounded. Would you
16 please take him? This one is dead anyway." That's what I heard them say.
17 So they picked me up and took me to the hospital in the Dubrovnik.
18 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Would the usher assist me, please.
19 Q. Can you orient yourself on this map and indicate the house and the
20 Old Town where you lived.
21 A. My house?
22 Q. Yes. On this map if possible.
23 A. [Indicates]
24 Q. I apologise, but can you mark this place and write the number one
25 next to it?
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. Can you now also mark with the number 2 the school, the Centar
3 school in the Old Town.
4 A. [Marks]. I think Miha Pracata Street is here.
5 Q. Can you mark with the number 3 the municipal assembly.
6 A. I don't know if this will be a hundred per cent precise, but I'll
7 do my best. [Marks]
8 Q. Would the usher please put the numbers 1, 2, and 3 next to the
9 marks made by the witness.
10 THE USHER: [Marks]
11 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Thank you. Can you mark on this map the Institute for the
13 Protection of Monuments?
14 A. [Marks]
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] This will be number 4.
17 Q. Just mark the place and the usher will put the number 4 there.
18 That's the Institute for the Protection of Monuments.
19 A. I think it's this building here. One or the other of these. I'm
20 not a hundred per cent sure, but it is in this location. Oh, you said for
21 the protection of monuments. I marked the Institute for the
22 Reconstruction of Dubrovnik.
23 Q. Is that where the shelter was?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Well, that's the institute I mean.
1 A. Yes, this is it, but I'm not sure which of these two buildings it
2 is, but it's around here.
3 Q. That will be number 4, then. Can you --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Can you make the Adriatic Highway, the main road on this map? Can
7 you mark it with number 5.
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. Can you tell on this map where the Croatian army positions were
10 below the main road, as you described it? Can you draw a line there and
11 mark it with number 6.
12 A. Well, I didn't go up there. I didn't see them myself. I just
13 heard that they were up there.
14 Q. Well, can you mark where it was that you heard that they were?
15 MR. RE: I object to this.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re.
17 MR. RE: In the Prosecution's submission it has absolutely no
18 probative value if the witness is being asked to mark on a map things
19 which he knew and saw about with the numbers 1 to 5 or 6 and then on the
20 map to mark things which he only heard about which is purely speculative.
21 The two should not be mixed. In my submission he should not be allowed to
22 mark on the map something which he was only told about.
23 JUDGE PARKER: What is the evidentiary value for the Chamber,
24 Mr. Rodic?
25 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with respect to my
1 learned friend's objection, I can do without number 6.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We'll leave it that way. Thank you.
3 MR. RE: Before my learned friend goes on, it appears,
4 Your Honours, that then he's -- the witness is marking it in red. This is
5 just an administrative point. It may not copy. It might be better if
6 they marked it in blue or black.
7 JUDGE PARKER: We won't change the matter at the moment. If it
8 becomes a problem, the -- we will learn for future marking, Mr. Rodic.
9 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. And can you put a number 7 next to the place where you were
11 allegedly wounded.
12 A. It's not allegedly, it's true.
13 JUDGE PARKER: I would suggest it be number 6, Mr. Rodic. We
14 haven't a 6.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Marks]
16 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Number 6, then, marks the place on the Stradun where you were
19 A. Yes, approximately. I can't be completely precise.
20 Q. Number 3 is the location of the municipal assembly?
21 A. Yes. I can't orient myself on a map all that well but, yes,
22 that's where it is.
23 Q. During the examination-in-chief, you said that from the place you
24 were wounded, you entered the City Cafe.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Have we marked the City Cafe on this map?
2 A. I think we haven't, no.
3 Q. Could you show us where it is?
4 A. Yes, yes. I just can't be precise. But it's right -- the
5 entrance is right next to the entrance to the municipal assembly.
6 Q. So that would be number 3. The City Cafe is in fact in the same
8 A. Yes. There's a terrace in front and on the left-hand side is the
9 entrance to the City Cafe. There are two entrances, in fact; one by the
10 fountain and the other one. There's an entrance here at the side, and
11 then this is where the fountain is, and then the other entrance.
12 So one of the entrances to the City Cafe would be here, and the
13 other one is where the terrace is, and there are two entrances there, one
14 for the City Cafe, one to the municipal assembly, and then there's a third
15 one leading to the theatre.
16 Q. So number 3 marks both municipal assembly building and the
17 position of the City Cafe, because they're right next to each other.
18 A. Yes, that's correct. The City Cafe is on the ground floor and has
19 a terrace overlooking the sea.
20 Q. Very well. Thank you.
21 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I tender this map with
22 the markings, and I ask that it be given an exhibit number.
23 JUDGE PARKER: That will be received, Mr. Rodic.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit D23.
25 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Tell me, when you were wounded, why didn't you go to the municipal
2 assembly but to the City Cafe?
3 A. Because I could barely summon the strength to get that far, and
4 that was the nearest place to go. I saw someone going to the City Cafe in
5 front of me, and it was the nearest door. I staggered in and said, "I've
6 been wounded," and my friends the waiters sprang to my assistance. And
7 that was the only reason, it was closer.
8 Q. In your statement to the investigator, you said, "It took me a
9 great effort to reach the cafe where I was given first aid. The waiters
10 at the cafe called the ambulance, but the ambulance could not come because
11 of the shelling. A little later, some people from the National Guard
12 Corps or the Territorial Defence took me to the hospital."
13 Is it true what is stated here in your 2000 statement?
14 A. Yes, except it should say the Gradska Kavana, the town cafe. And
15 those two people who came to take me away were wearing camouflage uniform.
16 Q. We also ascertained a while ago that you draw a distinction
17 between Gradska Kavana, town cafe, and just any cafe. Isn't that correct?
18 A. Yes, there is a distinction but I said Gradska Kavana, the town
20 Q. Is this again a mistranslation perhaps?
21 A. It is a typo perhaps. I'm not sure what sort of an error it was.
22 In my statement I said Gradska Kavana, the town cafe.
23 Q. We might have a mistranslation there because there is a very small
24 difference between town cafe and just cafe.
25 A. That may well be the case.
1 Q. But command of the TO and President of the Executive Board of the
2 municipal assembly, well, that's quite a distinction, isn't it? We did
3 agree on that didn't we?
4 A. Yes, except I never said that Mr. Zeljko Sikic was the commander
5 of the TO.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Yes Mr. Re.
7 MR. RE: Prosecution objects to the repetition of this particular
8 line of questioning, and there is one other -- the witness has already
9 answered it in some detail before. There was an objection I should have
10 made earlier but I didn't because the question had been answered and a new
11 one was being put and that was on the very same issue when my learned
12 friend Mr. Rodic put to the witness, or said to the witness, this is on
13 page 27, about halfway down the page, on this statement it says that you
14 quote read it, meaning the statement. That is quite a misleading
15 proposition and it is a misleading and incorrect statement, and that part
16 of Mr. Rodic's cross-examination was put towards the -- put to the witness
17 on a misleading basis.
18 As Mr. Rodic well knows and has in his hand, the certificate of
19 the interpreter which is on every -- every statement that the Prosecution
20 takes, it's a standard form, and the one is the same, and the one on this
21 particular statement says 2, this is by Andrea Bralic, the interpreter.
22 Paragraph 2: "I have been informed by Mato Valjalo that he speaks and
23 understands the Croatian language"; and 3, this is the important part, "I
24 have orally translated the above statement from the English language to
25 the Croatian language in the presence of Mato Valjalo who appeared to have
1 heard and understood my translation of this statement."
2 So when Mr. Rodic puts to the witness that he actually read the
3 statement which, of course, was taken in English as all the statements
4 are, it was misleading. So I object to that question and answer earlier
5 and object to further line of questioning which is put on that basis. And
6 I would ask Mr. Rodic to correct for the record the question he put to the
7 witness before.
8 And I further point out that in the statement what it actually
9 says is in English: "During this time I was chauffeur for Zeljko Sikic,
10 the head of the Territorial Defence for the Dubrovnik area." And the
11 witness corrected it. It doesn't say "commander" in English. I haven't
12 gone back to the Croatian to see whether it has been -- to see whether it
13 said "commander" in Croatian, but the English, which was the one that was
14 translated back to Mr. Valjalo at the time says "head", not "commander",
15 and there's a difference. That's something I can go to in great length in
16 re-direct -- or re-examination, but it's something which shouldn't be put
17 to the witness in cross-examination. And in addition, the witness was
18 never given a copy of the B/C/S until he actually got here, which has --
19 which unfortunately has been standard OTP practice, which was I think on
20 last Thursday.
21 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may. As for the
22 first objection that the witness was -- read the statement from Croatian
23 into English, this statement that he gave. I do fully accept my mistake,
24 if indeed I've made one. I accept this objection from my colleague.
25 However, I must point out that the difference in the Croatian language
1 between the two expressions, "head" as it says allegedly in the English
2 statement and "commander" as it would have read in the Croatian language,
3 because originally it should read: "the commander of the TO", Territorial
4 Defence. The Territorial Defence can only have a commander in the Croatia
5 language. There are two different words being used for "commander" in
6 Croatian and Serbian, but they both mean the same thing and refer to the
7 same position. There's no such thing as head of the Territorial Defence.
8 You can only have a commander of the Territorial Defence, but certainly no
10 Therefore, Your Honour, I believe my time is up for my
11 cross-examination, and I only have one further question to ask if I may.
12 Thank you.
13 Q. Mr. Valjalo, we have agreed that you are 43 [as interpreted] years
14 of age and that in 1991 you were an able-bodied man and that you had been
15 given a war assignment. We have also agreed that you were on duty at the
16 municipality between the 5th and the 6th of December, in the night between
17 the 5th or 6th of December.
18 A. No, it wasn't December.
19 Q. It was December. You did state this on various occasions.
20 A. I may have misspoken because you kept interrupting me, but it
21 certainly wasn't the 5th and the 6th.
22 Q. The night between the 5th and the 6th of December.
23 A. No, that's simply not correct. I was not on duty then.
24 Q. That's what you say now. But you did say several times, both in
25 answer to my questions and questions of the OTP?
1 A. I meant the first of October, because that was the only time I was
2 on duty.
3 Q. Mr. Valjalo, is it not correct that you do not have the first
4 original document concerning your wounding?
5 A. That's not correct. I don't have it on me right now, but I could
6 easily obtain it.
7 Q. We have agreed that you have the status of a -- of an invalid of
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. We have agreed too, haven't we, that as a wound civilian, you
11 ideally should not have been granted this status.
12 A. No. As a civilian -- as civilian, I would have been granted the
13 status of a civilian invalid.
14 Q. Mr. Valjalo, I'm not challenging the fact that you were wounded.
15 I'm challenging the location of your wounding, and I am putting it to you
16 that you are a civilian casualty. Do you agree with me?
17 A. No, I don't.
18 Q. Do you actually -- you're not a civilian casualty?
19 A. No, that's not the case.
20 Q. But you do have papers showing that you are a military invalid of
22 A. Yes. We are agreed on that, but anything else concerning my
23 wounding is beyond doubt, and all of it is true.
24 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you. I have
25 completed my cross-examination, and I apologise for spending a bit more
1 time on it than originally planned. Thank you.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic, you will, I'm sure, have noticed the
3 validity of the objection by Mr. Re about the repetition of your
4 questioning. There were a number of issues that you came back to, in some
5 cases more than once. We have no need for that, and we can't afford the
6 time for that in the course of this trial. Deal with an issue as you've
7 done and then move on to another. Don't go back because you think it's a
8 good point. We've heard it the first time.
9 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I accept the criticism, Your Honour,
10 and I apologise for that. I will try not to repeat the same mistake in
11 the future. Thank you.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Rodic.
13 We will break now for 20 minutes.
14 --- Recess taken at 10.40 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re.
17 Re-examined by Mr. Re:
18 Q. Mr. Valjalo, Mr. Rodic asked you some questions about whether you
19 saw any Croatian artillery pieces in Dubrovnik, and your response was you
20 didn't see -- you said, "Not a single item, never in Dubrovnik." My
21 question to you is when you were referring to Dubrovnik, were you
22 referring to the Old Town?
23 A. The Old Town, yes, by all means, but I never saw any pieces of
24 artillery in the general, broader town area either.
25 Q. You were also cross-examined about seeing warships in the harbour
1 on the 1st of October, 1991, which you said were directly targeting the
2 area. To which navy did those warships belong?
3 A. The warships belonged to the Yugoslav navy.
4 Q. Similarly you told Mr. Rodic that you saw planes targeting Srdj.
5 To which air force did those planes belong?
6 A. Also the Yugoslav air force. I saw them targeting Srdj. There
7 were two aircraft.
8 Q. And the naval warships you saw at Lokrum, were they also of the
9 Yugoslav navy or of another navy?
10 A. The Yugoslav navy.
11 Q. Mr. Valjalo, you were questioned about seeing positions through
12 your binoculars. You said that you could see things from various
13 positions in the Old Town, and you also mentioned the Argentina Hotel and
14 the Excelsior Hotel. Why did you go to the Argentina Hotel?
15 A. Well, I went to the Argentina Hotel quite often. I drove some
16 gentlemen there sometimes, the monitors, sometimes other personnel.
17 Whenever I drove our people back home, I had to go around the Argentina
18 Hotel because that area is full of one-way streets. The Argentina Hotel
19 is where the monitors were staying.
20 Q. When was it that you went to the Argentine -- Argentina Hotel?
21 A. I can't remember the day or the dates. I didn't keep a diary.
22 But I did drive by the Argentina Hotel quite a number of times in a car.
23 Whenever I was on my way to Lapad I had to go around the Argentina Hotel
24 and pass by -- through Viktorija. It's a one-way street and every time
25 you drive by, you pass by the Argentina Hotel on the way. You could see
1 the positions from most parts of town. They were the nearest to the
2 Argentina Hotel. I'm talking about the positions on Srdj or, rather, just
3 below where the Croatian army positions were.
4 Q. Your answer to me was you can't remember the day or the date. Was
5 it between September 1991 and the 6th of December, 1991 when you were
6 injured or was it some other time that you went to the Argentina Hotel?
7 A. I went quite often, ever since the attack began in October. I
8 would often drive by. That was the only road I could use to travel.
9 Q. My learned friend Mr. Rodic cross-examined you at some length on
10 Friday about the fact that you did not produce, in May 2000, when
11 interviewed by an OTP investigator, and didn't bring with you any records
12 from the Dubrovnik hospital such as a letter of discharge. I want to show
13 you three documents.
14 Can you please put the first document, which is open, onto the
15 overhead projector. Can you please have a look at it.
16 Mr. Valjalo, can you please look at the document which is on the
17 screen -- I'm sorry, the overhead projector there. Is that a letter from
18 the medical centre in Dubrovnik dated the 12th of December, 1991,
19 referring to your being wounded in Dubrovnik on the 6th of December, 1991,
20 and being treated in the hospital at Dubrovnik from the 6th to the 12th of
21 December, 1991?
22 A. Yes, that is the letter.
23 Q. Can you please look at the next document, which is a letter from
24 the medical centre in Dubrovnik, which is undated. Is that one --
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I can be of
1 assistance to my learned friend and colleague in connection with this
2 document that we're looking at. In the lower corner -- my apologies,
3 Your Honour. We just received these documents awhile ago, so we did not
4 have sufficient time to familiarise ourselves with these documents. So my
5 apologies. My remark does not relate to this document. I was mistaken
6 about this.
7 As for this document, what we can see clearly is that it's
8 unsigned, and the last few lines are missing, so that's a problem that we
9 seem to have with the document being displayed on the ELMO right now.
10 JUDGE PARKER: We'll see what the witness can say of the document.
11 Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
12 MR. RE: The Prosecution apologies to the Trial Chamber. We did
13 not have these as yet translated into English. They were faxed to us on
14 the weekend from Dubrovnik. And it appears that we only have one of a
15 two-page document, but we'll do the best we can today.
16 Q. Mr. Valjalo, can you please read the first -- read aloud the first
17 sentence of the document which you had on the screen and is there now.
18 A. "Wounded by an explosive device on the 6th of December, 1991, in
19 the area of head and neck."
20 Q. Thank you. And is that --
21 A. "The right," something, "thigh and lower leg." This document, I
22 think, is from the Zagreb medical centre, because that's where another
23 piece of shrapnel was found in my lung.
24 Q. Can you just please look at the heading just above that on the
25 left-hand corner at the top. Does that say Medicinski Centre Dubrovnik?
1 A. Yes. Yes, it's from Dubrovnik.
2 Q. All right.
3 A. You can't really see very clearly because it's not a good copy.
4 Q. Mr. Valjalo, can you please turn to the third document which is in
5 that bundle there. Is that a certificate from the Dubrovnik Neretva
6 district -- medical centre Dubrovnik of the 13th of December, 1994,
7 referring to your injuries and your duties?
8 A. Yes. This is from the Dubrovnik medical centre.
9 MR. RE: Would Your Honours like that read onto the record for the
10 moment perhaps by the translators who have a copy of it in the
11 interpretation booth?
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Mr. Rodic, you're on your feet.
13 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my learned friend and
14 colleague marked this document with the wrong date, I believe, because at
15 the bottom of the document you can see the 13th of March, 1995, not the
16 13th of December, 1992, as has been mistakenly recorded.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much for that. Are you content with
18 that correction, Mr. Re?
19 MR. RE: Yes.
20 JUDGE PARKER: And I'd be grateful, indeed, if the interpreters
21 would be able to read that document from the copy they have.
22 THE INTERPRETER: "Medical history, the 6th of December, 1991.
23 Wounded by a shell, sustained number of different injuries to the head,
24 chest, and legs. Shrapnel lodged in the right leg, lung, neck. Since
25 then tauper [as interpreted] in the head, headache, pressure, pain in the
1 chest. Has become oversensitive, often nervous, numb in one-half of the
2 head, extending to stomach, has a feeling of weight and contraction. Once
3 Ladiomil medicine is administered, he feels relieved. Lack of sleep,
4 wakes up often, is visited by thoughts, in a foul mood, worried.
5 Psycho-motorically unobtrusive, tense, anxious, dysphoric, mostly
6 depressed, exogenous cause. Neurologically, signs D and V, th:Praxiten
7 15, 3x1," illegible, "o, 00," illegible, "Cerson one pill, as necessary,
8 DBK 13 March, presumably 1995." Signature missing at the bottom of the
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much to the interpreter for that.
11 MR. RE: Could the interpreter also read onto the record the
12 discharge papers of the 12th of December, 1991. That's the one-page
13 document headed "Medical centre Dubrovnik."
14 THE INTERPRETER: "Letter of discharge. Mato Valjalo, born in
15 Dubrovnik in 1943, was treated at this ward from the 6th of December to
16 the 12th of December, 1991. He was wounded on the 6th of December, 1991.
17 He sustained several explosive wounds of which the largest is in the neck
18 area and is 4 centimetres in size and also has an entry-exit wound in the
19 area of the medial side of the right thigh. The wounds were dealt with.
20 The patient was hospitalised and was administered," illegible and
21 illegible, "protection. The wounds are dressed daily. They are healing
22 normally without infection." And then there's a diagnosis in Latin.
23 "On the 12th of December, 1991, the patient was released with a
24 recommendation for further treatment and rehabilitation outside Dubrovnik.
25 "Chief of service, Dr. Stjepan Bogdanovic, medical doctor."
1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you once again for that.
2 MR. RE:
3 Q. Mr. Valjalo, I just want to ask you about the second document
4 there, the one which is from the medical centre of Dubrovnik and is only
5 of one page and appears to have been cut off.
6 Mr. Valjalo, can you please pick up the documents. It's the one
7 immediately in front of you. Can you tell the Trial Chamber where the
8 second page of that document is?
9 A. I don't know why, but this document is correct, because I didn't
10 feel well and I went to see these doctors. So it's correct.
11 Q. Mr. Valjalo, what I'm asking you is: Are you in a position, if
12 the document is at your home, to provide it to the Prosecution, and we can
13 give it to the Trial Chamber at a later point, any missing pages?
14 A. I will try to find all this when I get home to Dubrovnik, and I'll
15 send it to you. I think I will be able to find it.
16 MR. RE: May these three documents be tendered into evidence? And
17 in offering them into evidence, the Prosecution puts on the record that we
18 provided these three documents to Defence counsel this morning before
19 court, and they were in a position to know the true position of the
20 discharge letters and so on while the cross-examination continued this
22 JUDGE PARKER: The three documents will be received.
23 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic -- sorry, Mr. Rodic.
25 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise. Your Honour, it's
1 correct that our learned friend Mr. Re disclosed these documents to us,
2 but this was just before the Trial Chamber entered the courtroom, and we
3 have not had an opportunity to study these documents in detail because we
4 started our cross-examination right away. That's one point.
5 My second point concerns the Defence objection to this document
6 with the second page missing and without any date or doctor's signature or
7 stamp. That is why we object to this document.
8 If at a later date this document is delivered, the Defence will
9 not object. After these documents are given exhibit numbers, I ask your
10 leave to address you with reference to some of the other documents in the
11 set disclosed to us today which the Prosecutor has not tendered into
12 evidence and which are very important. Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic, it is disappointing that you were not
14 able to absorb more quickly the essential nature of the documents, because
15 your cross-examination this morning in respect of the date of wounding and
16 discharge was on a quite misleading basis given that you had those
17 documents before you, and even the first of them, the one-page document,
18 ought to have made it evident that the foundation for your
19 cross-examination was wrong.
20 With respect to the document of which there is only one page and
21 which is not complete, we notice that the witness says that the document
22 is correct. I propose that we will receive it, noting it to be
23 incomplete. If the balance of the document is not received, the weight we
24 will be able to attach to the document will be very slight, if anything.
25 But in the anticipation that the balance may be found, we will receive the
1 document in an incomplete form today.
2 If the court officer would give the documents the exhibit number,
3 thank you.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P57. May I inform Your Honour
5 that we have not received copies for the Trial Chamber and their legal
7 JUDGE PARKER: If the usher could collect those being proffered.
8 The first document, I take it, is the discharge letter dated 12 December
9 1991. That's Exhibit P57, which appears to be the last document in the
10 bundle that is being put forward.
11 The second document is an incomplete, undated letter of the
12 Dubrovnik medical centre.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P58.
14 JUDGE PARKER: The third letter is a letter of the Medicinski
15 Centre of Dubrovnik, dated 13th of March, 1995.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P59.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Is there anything further, Mr. Re?
18 MR. RE: There is, Your Honour.
19 Q. During cross-examination, Mr. Rodic cross-examined you about the
20 fact that you had a status of an invalid of war. Now, I want to show you
21 a two-page document. Can you just spend a moment familiarising yourself
22 with that two-page document.
23 Mr. Valjalo, you've read it and familiarised yourself with the
24 document. Is it a decision of the Croatian authorities recognising your
25 status as an invalid of the war, dated on the 22nd -- 24th of February,
2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I object.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Rodic.
4 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] With respect to the witness being told
5 exactly what the document says, the document my learned friend is reading
6 does not contain the words "war invalid status," but "military war invalid
7 status," which is very important for my cross-examination and the contents
8 of the document.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that. Mr. Re.
10 MR. RE: Your Honour, I'm only -- I -- I'm not in a better
11 position than Mr. Rodic, obviously, to translate the document. Again,
12 it's a document which we had faxed from the witness's home on the weekend
13 to the Prosecution. It hasn't been translated yet. We've had a -- we've
14 only had it read to us. So I can't take that point. Our understanding is
15 that it is something different. I can have the interpreters read the
16 relevant extracts to Your Honours. It's -- the document is pursuant to a
17 declaration published in the Croatian government Gazette, and we have the
18 government Gazette here, again not translated.
19 So it may be the best course is for the witness to identify the
20 document as his or not, have the interpreters read the relevant extracts
21 to Your Honours and take it from there.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. And of course with all of these
23 exhibits, there will be provided an authenticated translation in due
24 course, I take it.
25 MR. RE: As quickly as we possibly can.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
2 MR. RE:
3 Q. Mr. Valjalo, what can you tell the Trial Chamber about that
5 A. This is the document granted me the status of a military war
6 invalid because I was performing my work obligation in the Crisis Staff,
7 and that is the basis on which I was granted this status. Otherwise, I
8 was not a military person. I was not in uniform. And this document was
9 produced after a review of my case.
10 Q. Are you -- go on.
11 A. The only thing is, the president of the Executive Board was also
12 the president of the Crisis Staff, and it was members of the Crisis Staff,
13 if they were wounded, who got this status. I don't know anything else
14 about it.
15 Q. Do you know any other civilians or people in your own position who
16 received a similar declaration?
17 A. There were others who were wounded, but who were given the status
18 of civilian invalids of the homeland war. Those who were in the Crisis
19 Staff, if any of them were wounded, were granted the status of military
20 war invalids.
21 Q. Were the -- were those in the Crisis Staff wounded, were they
22 combatants or non-combatants?
23 A. They didn't fight, the ones I know. I don't know who all the
24 members of the Crisis Staff were, but they were all in civilian clothes. I
25 don't know exactly where this Crisis Staff was located, but the president
1 of the Executive Board was at the same time the president of the Crisis
2 Staff. I never saw him put on a uniform.
3 Q. And what does this declaration entitle you to?
4 A. For now --
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there is a
6 misinterpretation. I apologise. The witness said just awhile ago,
7 speaking about the president of the Crisis Staff, the president of the
8 military Crisis Staff. Line 18, page 41. He said the "military Crisis
9 Staff." Here it just says "Crisis Staff." So please bear this in mind.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, indeed, Mr. Petrovic.
11 MR. RE: Your Honours, could perhaps the interpreters tell us what
12 was actually said. My learned colleague Ms. Somers says she heard wartime
13 Crisis Staff, not military Crisis Staff. There is a difference.
14 JUDGE PARKER: If it would be possible for the interpreter to
15 indicate what was said.
16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter does not recall, but the
17 recording can be checked, sound recording can be checked at a later date.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. If that could be done. We
19 noticed your concerns, gentlemen, and we will find out what was said.
20 MR. RE: Yes, Your Honour. Might I ask that the interpreters also
21 to read onto the record portions of this two-page document which has been
22 provided to them.
23 JUDGE PARKER: If they would be so kind as to do that we ware
24 grateful. You said portions, Mr. Re. Could you indicate what portions?
25 MR. RE: The portions -- the third paragraph.
1 THE INTERPRETER: "While receiving this pension, he may not
2 receive for the same invalidity remuneration for physical harm under the
3 regulations of the pension and invalidity insurance."
4 MR. RE: Can you please read from the bottom -- sorry, from the
5 second last paragraph on the first page where it says Obrazlozenje and the
6 first paragraph over the page.
7 THE INTERPRETER: "Grounds. The application for the granting of
8 the status of a military war invalid of the Croatian war of defence was
9 submitted by the above-named to this administration on the 18th of
10 December, 1992. In the proceedings prior to the issuing of this decision,
11 the following was established:
12 "That according to the -- according to the extract from the birth
13 register, Mato Valjalo was born on the 18th of May, 1948.
14 "That according to the certificate on the circumstances of his
15 wounding issued by the office for defence of the Dubrovnik municipality,
16 class 810-03/92-16/102, number 2117-04-05-92-2 of the 18th of December,
17 1992, Mato Valjalo was mobilised as having a work obligation while
18 performing the duty of driver for the Crisis Staff of -- of the SO
19 Dubrovnik and,
20 "That he happened to be -- that he happened to be on the road, on
21 Stradun, and was seriously wounded in several places all over his body on
22 the 6th of December, 1991.
23 "That he is not a beneficiary of remuneration for physical damage
24 under the relations of the pension insurance a certificate (issued by the
25 pension fund of Dubrovnik, number 041/19 of the 18th of December, 1992.)
1 "That according to his citizenship certificate, he is a citizen of
3 "That according to the certificate of the Ministry of the
4 Interior, the Dubrovnik police administration number 511-03-01, number
5 1/833/1992, he has never been convicted.
6 "That according to the adduced medical documentation, the
7 above-named was treated at the Dubrovnik medical centre, the KBC medical
8 centre in Rijeka and in Thalasotherapija Opatija.
9 "That the medical commission in the first instance to -- for
10 persons covered by the law of the protection of military and civilian war
11 invalids in Split in their finding and opinion number 462/93 of the 11th
12 of February, 1993, estimated the invalidity of the above-named as being 30
13 per cent permanently for the following reasons: State after explosive
14 wounding in the area of the back of the neck, in the area of the right
15 shoulder blade, in the area of the right thigh and shin with foreign
16 bodies remaining, movement in the right knee reduced, T. 104.a., 20 per
17 cent, and Article 4.
18 "In view of all of the above and the facts found and on the
19 basis -- and pursuant to the provisions of the above-named law, the
20 above-named fulfils the conditions for the granting of the status of a
21 military war invalid in the ninth group with 30 per cent invalidity
22 permanently and the right to a personal invalid's pension and special
24 MR. RE: That's as far as I want you to go for these purposes.
25 Thank you.
1 JUDGE PARKER: May I thank the interpreter on behalf of the
3 MR. RE: May that also be received into evidence.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, that will be received.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P60.
6 MR. RE: I indicate to the Trial Chamber this, for the record,
7 this document was likewise provided to my learned colleagues from the
8 Defence before the cross-examination continued this morning. The
9 Prosecution will tender -- will seek to tender an extract from the
10 relevant government Gazette declaration, an explanation of the civilian
11 military invalidity and so on. We will have that translated before we do
12 tender it. And in any case, it's a public record. That completes my
14 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic.
15 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sorry that you stated
16 awhile ago that my cross-examination was not well founded but I can hardly
17 not point out that the introduction of these documents at this time, and
18 in the way in which my learned friend and colleague has presented these
19 documents and tendered them into evidence was a stalling tactic in
20 connection with the opinion you gave in relation -- in relation to my
21 cross-examination. But I must say that by tendering these documents into
22 evidence and by emphasising portions of these documents as read by the
23 interpreters, has been a waste of valuable time. The most essential
24 portions of the documents were not read out, nor were they properly
1 Also, I must tell you that the last document that was read out was
2 only tendered after I had told you that the Defence will be submitting two
3 further documents. There is another essential document, the most
4 important document, I dare say, on which the decision is founded, the
5 decision to grant Mato Valjalo the status of a military war invalid.
6 What I would like to ask the Trial Chamber, and this is something
7 that the Prosecution has not offered or disclosed so far, the Defence will
8 attempt to tender this document too, but I would like to be given a chance
9 to point out the most important portions of this document in cooperation
10 with the witness if I just may be granted a little more time. It is the
11 document I'm talking about. This was given to us just immediately before
12 our cross-examination began.
13 These are essential documents, crucial documents related to
14 precisely what I was trying to do during my cross-examination and to this
15 witness's fundamental status, which of course is very important as one of
16 the counts in the indictment against General Strugar is also the wounding
17 of this witness.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Are you saying that you wish to have leave to
19 further cross-examine in respect of the document that has been provided to
20 you only this morning and which you had not had the time to study when you
21 were completing your cross-examination a little earlier?
22 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we were given a set of
23 documents containing about ten documents. I certainly didn't have time to
24 go through them in detail during my cross-examination, but in relation to
25 this last document, what I would like to point out is the following: I
1 would like to work through three very important passages with the
2 witness's help, of course.
3 JUDGE PARKER: You're saying you'd like now to put some further
4 questions to the witness about this further document which has not been
5 tendered to us.
6 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour. I was
7 only given this during the break, and that was the first opportunity I had
8 to read it.
9 JUDGE PARKER: In the circumstances, you should have that leave to
10 further cross-examine, Mr. Rodic.
11 Mr. Re.
12 MR. RE: Mr. Rodic just said he was only given a document during
13 the break. We don't know what document he's referring to. We provided
14 these documents to Mr. Rodic this morning before the cross-examination
15 began, and it would appear from the record that Mr. Rodic was in fact
16 cross-examining on the contents of the documents based upon the numerous
17 questions he asked of Mr. Valjalo, questioning his status as a civilian
18 during December 1991. It was fairly apparent to the Prosecution sitting
19 here. Your Honours, of course, didn't have those documents, but Mr. Rodic
20 must have been going through the documents based upon the wording of some
21 of the questions.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re, we're wasting far too much time on this. A
23 document which you have not put before us but which you provided just
24 before the hearing commenced this morning we are told has not been the
25 subject of detailed exploration with the witness and which is material in
1 the view of the Defence to its case. So I propose to allow Mr. Rodic to
2 cross-examine briefly on this further document, whatever it is. Thank
4 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour. I
5 will try to make it as short as possible.
6 Can I have the usher's assistance, please. P62, Exhibit P62, can
7 that be shown to the witness, please.
8 Further cross-examination by Mr. Rodic:
9 JUDGE PARKER: We have no P62 yet, Mr. Rodic.
10 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] P60. I said 60.
11 Q. Mr. Valjalo, at the top of the page on the right-hand side there
12 is a stamp. Isn't that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Above the stamp there is a handwritten remark "Review completed,"
15 and the date is the 15th of December, 1993; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you please take that document and check if my reading is
18 correct. Inside the circle of the stamp, the first circle, it says
19 "Dubrovnik defence office"; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The second line inside the circle of the stamp, "Dubrovnik defence
22 administration." Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. The third layer -- line of the first stamp in capital letters,
25 "Defence Ministry." Is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And just above that "The Republic of Croatia." Correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you. In the left upper corner, at the beginning it says
5 "The Republic of Croatia, Dubrovnik municipality," is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Next passage, "Secretariat for health, social care, work,
8 veterans, and invalids. Veterans and invalids administration. Is that
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can we please skip these numbers now and move to the next passage.
12 The first paragraph starts like this: "The veterans and invalids
13 administration of Dubrovnik municipality, in processing a request by Mato
14 Valjalo from Dubrovnik, to have the status of military war invalid granted
15 to him,"
16 A. Yes, but there's more in between.
17 Q. Yes, but what I'm asking you is what's important. Is that what
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Let's go to the disposition and decision under the Roman numeral
21 I. Can you please read out what it says under the Roman numeral I.
22 A. How far along are we?
23 Q. "Decision," and then the Roman I. Can you please read out what it
24 says? "Mato (Ivo) Valjalo iz Dubrovnika...."
25 A. "Mato, son of Ivo Valjalo from Dubrovnik, Prijeko 19, born on the
1 18th of May, 1948, is granted the status of military war invalid of the
2 9th group with 30 per cent invalidity as of the 1st of January, 1992,
4 Q. Thank you. At the bottom of this same page where it says grounds
5 or statement of reasons, can you see that? The last passage on the page
6 speaks about the documents that were reviewed when making the decision.
7 You have two items towards the bottom of the page.
8 A. I'm not sure which one you mean.
9 Q. On page 1. The last item on the page.
10 A. Yes, I can see that.
11 Q. I'm just trying to avoid going through the whole document. So the
12 last item. "According to evidence," can you please read that out to us?
13 A. You mean the -- the process that the following has been
15 Q. Yes, please just read out the last item if you can.
16 A. "That according to the".
17 Q. Just go slowly, please.
18 A. "That according to the extract from the birth register, Mato
19 Valjalo was born only the 18th of May, 1948."
20 Q. I'm asking you about the next one. That according to --
21 A. "That according to evidence on the circumstances surrounding the
22 wounding, with the Dubrovnik defence office, class --" should I read the
23 number out too?
24 Q. Yes, everything, please.
25 A. "810-03/92-16/102, filing number 21," I think it says 1,
1 "2117-04-05-92-2, dated the 18th of December, 1992. Mato Valjalo, a
2 mobilised conscript assigned a war assignment while working as the driver
3 of the SO Dubrovnik Crisis Staff was caught while travelling," --
4 Q. Can you speed up a little bit, please?
5 A. "- on the Stradun, seriously wounded, receiving several wounds
6 over his whole body. Date: The 6th of December, 1991."
7 Q. Thank you very much, sir. Can you please have a look at the
8 bottom of page 2. Does it say: "Please forward to Mato Valjalo,
9 Dubrovnik, Prijeko 19." Is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Under number 2, "Defence ministry, department for the protection
12 of the victims of the homeland war in Zagreb; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you. We will no longer be requiring this document.
15 Prior to being issued this decision, were you also given any sort
16 of certificate such as the one we've just read? Did you also enclose this
17 with your application to the commission when you requested to be granted
18 the status of a war invalid, this certificate that was issued by the
19 Dubrovnik municipality defence office, did you attach that to your
20 application too?
21 A. I can't remember right now.
22 Q. I will now read to you the following to jog your memory.
23 "Republic of Croatia, Dubrovnik Neretva county, plus and number are
24 identical to the number of the decision which you will see from the
25 balance of the document, it says, "Pursuant to Article 171 of the law on
1 general legal procedure, and pursuant to a request from the defence
2 administration of Dubrovnik municipality, the following certificate is
3 hereby issued: This is to officially certificate that Mato Valjalo, the
4 driver of the former municipal assembly of Dubrovnik, from the first day,
5 that is from the 15th of September, 1991, pursuant to his work assignment,
6 was assigned to work for the Crisis Staff of Dubrovnik municipal
8 Next passage: "From the very first day of the attack of the enemy
9 army against Dubrovnik, Mato Valjalo worked as the driver, and he was at
10 the disposal of the Crisis Staff around the clock."
11 The first sentence of the third passage on the same page: "During
12 the worst attacks on Dubrovnik, Mato Valjalo drove members of the Crisis
13 Staff, municipal officials, and top politicians of the Republic of Croatia
14 to military missions. On the 6th of December, 1991, he was wounded on the
15 Stradun when on a mission given to him by the Crisis Staff".
16 The balance of the passage explains how you got to the hospital,
17 but that's not important now. And please allow me to read the fourth
18 passage of the certificate to you: "The certificate is issued to the
19 above named so that he can be granted the rights that he's entitled to as
20 a result of the armed attack on the Republic of Croatia and the law on the
21 protection of military and civilian war invalids."
22 Do you remember this certificate being issued to you?
23 A. Yes, I do. I do remember when it was issued to me.
24 Q. Did you enclose this certificate when the decision was issued to
25 you by the administration for veterans and invalids?
1 A. I must have, but I don't remember now.
2 Q. This certificate, did you at a later stage forward it to the OTP
3 together with these medical documents that have been tendered into
4 evidence now?
5 A. I can't quite remember.
6 Q. You can't remember?
7 A. No, I can't.
8 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Can I have the usher's assistance,
9 please. I would like to show the witness this document so that he can
10 again confirm what I've just read out is correct or not.
11 MR. RE: Your Honours, we don't mind if the Defence wishes to
12 tender it. It may shorten the process. It was a document faxed to us on
13 the weekend. I didn't tender it because it hasn't been translated and I'm
14 a little bit unsure about the contents. That's the only reason. We
15 certainly don't object to the shortcut if they just tender it and it can
16 be translated later.
17 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence will
18 certainly be tendering this document into evidence because it happens to
19 be the most reliable and important document as far as the
20 cross-examination was concerned. Certainly it is true that this document
21 or the other documents that have been tendered have not yet been
22 translated into English.
23 I thank the Trial Chamber for your understanding.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I please say something about
25 this document?
1 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Yes, please do so. Can you tell us whether what I read out from
3 the document was correct?
4 A. Yes, your reading was correct. This is a later document.
5 Q. Did you go to the administration for invalids and veterans with
6 this document?
7 A. I sent this document to the review commission because my status as
8 an invalid was abolished, so I filed a complaint.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Can the speakers please try not to overlap.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I remember that this was sent
11 back to me later on because I had filed a complaint about my status as an
12 invalid being abolished.
13 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Pursuant to this same decision, do you still enjoy the status
15 after war invalid?
16 A. Yes I do.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have an exhibit number
19 for this document, please.
20 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received, Mr. Rodic.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit D24.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Is there any further re-examination, Mr. Re?
23 MR. RE: Excuse me for just one second, Your Honour.
24 [Prosecution counsel confer]
25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Valjalo, may we thank you for your attendance,
1 and you are now free to go back home. You may now leave the courtroom.
2 Thank you.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE PARKER: The next witness.
6 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, the next witness for the Prosecution is
7 Mr. Per Hvalkof who will be taken by Mr. Weiner. If we can just take a
8 moment to do some shifting. Thank you, appreciate it.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon. Would you be kind enough to take
11 the affirmation which will be placed in front of you.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. If you would read from the card.
14 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
15 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. Would you please be seated.
17 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
18 WITNESS: PER HVALKOF
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
20 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, at this point I'd like to tender
21 notebooks with approximately 42 documents which we'll be using during this
22 examination. I'll announce the numbers. We won't always be going in
23 order, but we will try to go in order as much as possible.
24 JUDGE PARKER: What are these documents exactly?
25 MR. WEINER: These are ECMM documents. This gentleman here will
1 testify that he was the Danish representative to the ECMM. He was a
2 supervisor of the monitors, the supervisor of the monitors in Dubrovnik
3 and will be talking about a lot of these documents as to the happenings in
4 Dubrovnik, letters to and from the accused, all sorts of information that
5 they were receiving, logs, diaries, and so on.
6 JUDGE PARKER: So this is a bundle of monitoring mission
7 documents, is that it?
8 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour. We will be using all with the
9 exception of document 2, which is the exact same as document 4. They just
10 have two different ERN numbers.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. As a bundle they will be received and
12 can be separately identified by the tab numbers allocated within each
13 bundle as they're dealt with.
14 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P61.
16 MR. WEINER: May I begin? Thank you.
17 Examined by Mr. Weiner:
18 Q. Good afternoon, sir. Would you please state your name to the
19 Court. My name is Per Hvalkof. Could you tell us your date of birth and
20 how old you are?
21 A. My date of birth is the 8th of September, 1936 so I am 67 years
22 old now.
23 Q. Where do you live?
24 A. I live on a farm in a rural area in the northern part of a small
25 dot called Denmark.
1 Q. Sir, do you have a university degree?
2 A. No, I haven't. In my country the educational system is slightly
3 different. I have a -- I have passed through teachers college. I have an
4 education as an army officer, and I have partly a -- gone through the
5 agriculture university in forestry.
6 Q. And you said you passed through teachers college. Do you have a
7 degree from teachers college?
8 A. Yes, I have a degree from teachers college.
9 Q. What is your employment status at the time?
10 A. I am an old page pensioner retired from both my military and
11 civilian life seven years ago, I'm a widower, and I look after my farm.
12 Q. Sir, did you ever serve in the Danish military?
13 A. I have belonged to the Danish military from the 10th of August,
14 1955 until I retired on the 30th of September, 1996.
15 Q. What was your rank upon retirement.
16 A. Major.
17 Q. Now, during your 40 plus years in military, did you serve on a
18 full-time basis or as a reserve office he was?
19 A. Both. Long periods about 18 years full time and all the time
20 served -- the Danish army is a mobilising army so I was doing all the rest
21 of years serving at least one month a year, now and then two or more.
22 Q. Now, when you weren't serving as a -- when you weren't serving in
23 the military, what are you doing?
24 A. In the early years I was studying. I've always got a farm pretty
25 early, looking after that, and later on when I got my teacher's education
1 I worked as a teacher and for the last many years as the vice-principal of
2 a secondary school.
3 Q. Sir, while you served in the military did you serve in any
4 peacekeeping missions?
5 A. I served in several peacekeeping missions for a period nearly
6 covering 12 years.
7 Q. What countries or places did you serve?
8 A. India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon
9 and ex-Yugoslavia.
10 Q. While you were severing as a peacekeeper did you have the
11 opportunity to work with any Yugoslavian people's army units?
12 A. Yes, I did in 1961 I served in the Danish-Norwegian battalion in
13 the Gaza Strip and among all the battalions there there was a Yugoslav
14 battalion and, by the way, one officer there later on became the head of
15 and my boss in Iraq. He was a general.
16 Q. Now, were the Yugoslavian soldiers subject to the same standards
17 and regulations as the other units in on peacekeeping missions?
18 A. Yes. Of course they were. They -- we were under UN command and
19 we were also serving under the same conditions.
20 Q. Being under UN command, did they take orders from officers from
21 other units?
22 A. Well, we all took our orders in a normal military way from the
23 various battalions from the unit headquarters. It was called the United
24 Nations Emergency Force Number 1, actually. So we were all having -- we
25 were all under UN command -- command --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please slow down for the
2 benefit of the interpreters.
3 THE WITNESS: I do apologise. My fault.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters please pause between
5 question and answer.
6 MR. WEINER: Sorry about that.
7 Q. Could you tell us about the discipline of those JNA troops that
8 you worked with?
9 A. Well, I didn't work close with them. I met them. I have been a
10 guest at their unit, and they seem extremely qualified like all the other
11 units from India, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, or whatever.
12 They were like everybody else.
13 Q. Now, sir, were you sent to Croatia at some time?
14 A. Yes. I've -- I've been there twice, actually, but I was sent
15 in -- appointed to go down there in September 1991, and due to the
16 various problems in Croatia at the time, we were not asked to come, or I
17 was not asked to come before 15th of October. I arrived in Zagreb as an
18 ECMM monitor.
19 Q. What is the ECMM that you refer to? What does it stand for?
20 A. European Commission Monitor -- sorry. I say again, the European
21 Commission Monitor Mission.
22 Q. And when you went to Zagreb in 1991, October 1991, were there any
23 other Danish soldiers with you?
24 A. We were not sent down as soldiers. We were sent down as
25 civilians, and the majority of us were reserve officers or the other part
1 were diplomats.
2 Q. And did you hold any special position in relation to this
3 delegation of Danish reserve officers and other civilians?
4 A. It was called the Danish delegation, and I was appointed by the
5 Minister of Foreign Affairs in Denmark as the head of this delegation.
6 Other countries had ambassadors. In my case I happened to be a fancy
7 major, and farmer, and teacher.
8 Q. Now, how long did you remain in Zagreb?
9 A. I was in Zagreb until the 23rd of October, and then I was
10 appointed the deputy head of the new arranged so-called Regional Centre,
12 Q. Now, prior to leaving Zagreb, did you receive any briefings?
13 A. Yes, I did. I had the opportunity first to read whatever files
14 were available about the Dalmatian coast, covering the area there Karlobag
15 down to Dubrovnik. That means south-east of Dubrovnik as far as the
16 Croats were controlling the area, and I had a verbal briefing by one of
17 the staff officers at the head ECMM headquarters. Sorry, I may correct a
18 mistake I made before. I said the EC -- it was the EC community. I said
19 something else before. I do apologise.
20 Q. Thank you. So when you say EC, so European Community Monitoring
21 Mission, not the European Commission.
22 A. That is correct, yes.
23 Q. Thank you. Now, when you went to Split, were you involved in
24 establishing a Regional Centre there?
25 A. Yes. When the head of mission was an Italian Ambassador or the
1 head of Regional Centre Split was an Italian ambassador, and I was his
2 deputy head of the Regional Centre. In my language, his second in
3 command. And the job for a person like that is to arrange all the
4 practical work, the staff work, make all the coordination and be the daily
5 leader of how the organisation operates, and of course to replace the head
6 of the centre when he was not there.
7 Q. Now, when did the operational centre or the Regional Centre in
8 Split become operational?
9 A. It became -- well, to be exact, we started operating from the very
10 first day, we had only very few people, and some -- so we had to have the
11 whole thing organised. That takes a bit of time. We had to find place to
12 stay and to get organised. So it was in full operation with about
13 altogether 60 people on the 28th of October, 1991.
14 Q. Now, what is a Regional Centre?
15 A. Well, when I came. The whole operation by the ECMM was organised
16 and controlled from the headquarters in Zagreb, but they found out, which
17 is anyway a good -- was very good idea in my experience and way of
18 thinking, that it would be more good to have, for example, a centre down
19 in Split operating on Dalmatian coast in order to be close to the people
20 you were dealing with, in order to have people in the area getting in
21 contact with the two opposing parties so you could get to know each other
22 and they could -- you could have a feeling of confidence and trust which
23 is always very important in peacekeeping missions. And the head of
24 mission and the staff apparently found out that that was a good idea, and
25 that's why they put us down there, and that was why we immediately after
1 that - completely according to my way of thinking - placed people
2 permanently in -- in -- for example, in Dubrovnik, we had a team there or
3 two. Zadar, Sibenik, and they were the places we had people permanent.
4 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt the examination. Is this the break time,
5 Your Honour, or should I continue for a while?
6 JUDGE PARKER: I think we can go for a little longer, Mr. Weiner,
7 unless it's convenient for you now.
8 MR. WEINER: It makes no difference to me, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: I think a little longer. We were running a little
10 late, and I would be happier getting a little further into the evidence of
11 the witness.
12 MR. WEINER: Sure. I would be happy to.
13 Q. Now, sir, what area was your Regional Centre responsible for?
14 A. As I said before, the Dalmatian coast from the Karlobag and down
15 to Dubrovnik, that means all area on the Dalmatian coast from Karlobag
16 controlled by the Croats.
17 Q. Now, were there other Regional Centres in the former Yugoslavia?
18 A. To be honest, I don't know if they established other afterwards. I
19 was pretty much busy and concentrated. I'm not sure.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, sir, I'd like to talk about records. Were
21 records prepared and kept by the ECMM personnel? Were they prepared and
23 A. Yes. It was working, let's say, as a -- as a normal peacekeeping
24 operation for where you have UN military observers. That means, actually,
25 in a very army type of way. So people reported. It might be during
1 normal communication or it might be in writing, but anyway, it always
2 ended up in writing when it was brought by radio, for example, or phone.
3 And like in any staff, then you handle these matters and you file it and
4 you forward whatever has to be forwarded to your higher headquarters. So
5 we kept files, and in a normal filing system like any organisation like
6 that would do it.
7 Q. Now, in the normal course of your daily work, did you review,
8 examine and consider these records and documents?
9 A. Every day we had of course our daily staff meetings. We had every
10 day our daily debriefings. When the people we were sending up from our
11 headquarters in Split came back, they reported, and we had -- we were all
12 orientated at the daily debriefing. And when people came back from, let's
13 say, Dubrovnik, Zadar, or Sibenik, they were sending regular reports, but
14 when they came back they gave a debriefing of the whole period they had
15 been away and that was normally about ten to 14 days. Differed a bit
16 according to the situation and the requirement for people maybe having to
17 go out to other places.
18 Q. Now, did you ever use any of these documents in your
20 A. Of course. That's why we had them.
21 Q. Now, the documents that you kept or maintained, were these
22 prepared close in time to the events in which they discussed?
23 A. Yes, they were. As soon as possible. In cases when you are
24 standing out investigating or something in the field, you might take
25 notes, but as soon as people could, you would go back, take notes, and
1 write their debriefing report.
2 Q. And were documents also kept in Zagreb at the headquarters?
3 A. Yes. As I told you, the -- whatever was important for Zagreb. Of
4 course, some matters were of no value, but majority of whatever was
5 reported to us was forwarded to the headquarters in just -- in the
6 standard way.
7 Q. Now, did you ever examine the records in Zagreb?
8 A. Would you say that again, please?
9 Q. Did you ever examine any records in Zagreb in relation to
10 Dubrovnik and Dalmatia?
11 A. No, I did not. The only dock use I saw in Zagreb were the
12 documents I mentioned before which I read before I went to Dubrovnik --
13 or, sorry, before I went to Split.
14 Q. And having reviewed these documents, were you able to learn who
15 was the commander of the JNA forces in the Dubrovnik area?
16 A. Yes. I was informed and to the best of my knowledge I also read
17 that General Strugar was the commander of the JNA in the Dubrovnik area.
18 And that applied also later. Whatever information I got, it was the same
20 JUDGE PARKER: I'm told we have only a few minutes left on the
21 tape, so if that's a convenient time, Mr. Weiner.
22 MR. WEINER: That's fine.
23 JUDGE PARKER: We will have our 20-minute break now.
24 --- Recess taken at 12.38 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 1.06 p.m.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
2 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Mr. Hvalkof, I'd like to invite your attention to a document at
4 tab 1, the first tab of the notebook. It's a letter dated October 19th,
5 1990. Is that a correct date?
6 A. Yes. It should be.
7 Q. 1990?
8 A. Sorry, no. It's 1991. It couldn't be 1990. Somebody has
9 scribbled in the wrong year.
10 Q. And who is that letter to?
11 A. Well, it is to General Strugar, and it is -- there's no signature,
12 but it's apparently from the ECMM team in Dubrovnik.
13 Q. Now, were you aware that the -- or did you know that the ECMM team
14 in Dubrovnik had written or was involved in certain letters of protest --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- To General Strugar and the JNA?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And had you ever seen any of these types of letters in Zagreb or
19 Split, sir?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And were you also aware of any conflict occurring at that time
22 around October 19th, October 20th between General Strugar and the ECMM
24 A. Yes, I heard about it.
25 Q. Now, what seemed to be the problem? Sorry. What was the problem
1 at that time, sir?
2 A. Well, there were apparently conflicts concerning -- I think it was
3 something with the road and repair of the road, and there was a feeling
4 apparent that -- that people found it was difficult to negotiate with the
5 JNA side.
6 Q. And what was the JNA side's view of the ECMM team in Dubrovnik at
7 that time or on the -- October 19th and 20th?
8 A. Well, according to what they told me, they found that it was not
9 so pleasant to negotiate with the JNA, and they found it difficult.
10 Q. Now, we'll come back to -- now, we'll come back to that first
11 letter at tab 1. Could you please look at tabs 4, 5, 6, and 7, which are
12 letters dated October 19th and 20th.
13 Starting with tab 4. It's a letter dated October 19th. Who is
14 that letter to?
15 A. It's for General Strugar.
16 Q. And who was it from?
17 A. Well, again down at the bottom it's the ECMM team in Dubrovnik.
18 Q. And what is that, the request of that letter, if you could tell
20 A. Well, the request of the letter from the ECMM team is that what
21 you want?
22 Q. Yes?
23 A. Sorry, I can't remember these by heart, but I have to look for it.
24 Q. If you look at the last line of the letter.
25 A. Well, the last line of the letter says: "We therefore again
1 stress strongly that you have to withdraw behind your own lines."
2 Q. Now -- now, again also in the middle of the letter, if you look,
3 it also says that "especially all armed forces should by all means not
4 interfere with this process and withdraw behind their own lines." Was
5 there a problem at the time involving parties not staying within their
6 lines, sir?
7 A. Well, as you know, this was made on the 19th of October, and I was
8 still in Zagreb, but there was no doubt that their was a problem according
9 to the information I had. And in general, it was -- seemed to be a
10 problem all over that there -- whatever was promised was not kept.
11 Q. Now, it also says in the third full paragraph that "after 19 days
12 of fighting the repairment -- after 19 days of fighting, the repairment of
13 the road in the defensive position of the commune of Dubrovnik can only be
14 regarded as an aggressive act contrary to the confidence you're appealing
15 to in your message of 1740 hours."
16 This aggressive act of repairing the roads, isn't that the same
17 complaint in letter one that we saw in tab 1.
18 A. As far as I know, yes.
19 Q. Now, could we go to tab 5. That's dated October 20th at 1945
21 Now, is this General Strugar's response?
22 A. As far as I can see, yes, it is. And it is from General Strugar
23 to the ECMM team, we've got the same abbreviation again, in Dubrovnik.
24 Q. Now, could you tell us about the tone of this letter?
25 A. Well, I could say I don't like it.
1 Q. The sentence: "The arrogance of your mission being informed that
2 the people of Dubrovnik have not invited the JNA does not contribute to
3 the goodwill and objective," something, "of the problems -- objective
4 scrutiny of the problems to be solved."
5 Now, sir, is this a continuing part of the problem or tensions
6 that the team was having at that time in Dubrovnik?
7 A. As I said, I was not there at the time. I have not talked to
8 these people who wrote this, none of them, but as I mentioned before, the
9 monitors who had dealt with the JNA down in that area felt uncomfortable
10 about the meetings they had.
11 Q. The last sentence of this letter says: "The decision of the
12 withdrawal of the JNA to a certain line will be brought by the relative
13 authorities of Yugoslavia, and the JNA will obey those decisions
15 What was your view of that statement, sir?
16 A. Well, you could say if it means that they would do something about
17 withdrawing to the lines where they were supposed to be it would be all
18 right, but I could add that they -- it might be a good idea to -- to have
19 the neutral people sort of being present and confirming this.
20 Q. Was it -- was it unusual for the local commander to go to Belgrade
21 or the national government for decisions?
22 A. I don't know how the Yugoslavian army was working, but in my
23 opinion, a decision like that in an area like that should be taken by the
24 local commander. It shouldn't be that difficult.
25 Q. Let us look at the next letter, tab 6. Which was sent five
1 minutes after General Strugar's letter. It's also October 20th, 1991.
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] What worries me is the foundation
6 for these documents that my learned friend and colleague has laid. These
7 are not letters by this witness to anyone, nor are these letters that this
8 witness ever received. I am not quite sure I understand the foundation
9 for these documents to be introduced, why these letters are presented in
10 this way and why this witness is being examined as to the contents of
11 these letters based on quotes from the letters given that the witness is
12 only reading the documents here and perhaps speculating about them. But
13 this, I don't believe, is really an integral part of his testimony here.
14 Thank you very much, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
16 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, it's early. I'm taking these four
17 letters together and then we're going to discuss them a bit, and then if
18 they want to object that's fine, but I think it's premature at this time.
19 JUDGE PARKER: The question raised is the evidentiary foundation
20 of documents of which this witness was not immediately an author and was
21 not involved in their preparation and preceded his time in office, if I
22 understand his evidence.
23 MR. WEINER: Yes.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Can you assist the Chamber with that?
25 MR. WEINER: Sure. Your Honour, documents here are admissible
1 pursuant to 89(C) which says a Chamber may admit any evidence which it
2 deems to have probative value. In Prosecutor versus Delalic which was
3 consideration on the motion of the Prosecution for the admissibility of
4 evidence which is dated 12 -- I'm sorry, 19 January 1998, states in
5 paragraph 16: "The approach adopted by the Rules is clearly one in favour
6 of admissibility as long as the evidence is relevant and is deemed to have
7 probative value, and its probative value is not substantially outweighed
8 by the need to ensure a fair trial."
9 Similarly in Prosecutor versus Blaskic, which in the judgement on
10 3 March 2000 it says: "The principle embodied by the case law of the
11 Trial Chamber on the issue is one of extensive admissibility of evidence.
12 Questions of credibility and authenticity being determined according to
13 weight given to each of the materials by the Judges at an appropriate
15 Now, with regard to the issue of authenticity, we have several
16 decisions in this Tribunal. The most recent is Prosecutor versus Brdjanin
17 and Talic on its orders on the standards governing the admission of
18 evidence which is 15 February 2002. At paragraph 19 the Chamber notes
19 that when objections are raised on the grounds of authenticity, the Trial
20 Chamber will, and this is in quotes: "This Trial Chamber will follow the
21 practice this Tribunal has previously adopted, namely to admit documents
22 and video recordings and then decide what weight to give them in the
23 context of the Trial Record."
24 Further, there has never been a requirement at this Tribunal that
25 a document's author must testify in order for it to be admitted, and that
1 comes from Prosecutor versus Delalic, the same decision that I just
2 mentioned, but in paragraph 22.
3 As you can note, the Tribunal has tried to review as much evidence
4 as it can. This Tribunal, the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Rwanda Tribunal.
5 It takes as much evidence as it can but doesn't get into major evidentiary
6 conflicts as to admissibility and authentication.
7 Now, with regard to ECMM documents, I can state offhand that there
8 have been three different courts that have had rulings or admitted these
9 documents. Let us begin with the case of Prosecutor versus Tuta and Stela
10 Tuta and Stela, which is commonly then as the Tuta and Stela case.
11 Prosecutor versus Naletelic and Martinovic. And in that case they didn't
12 have an ECMM official come in and present documents. They didn't have an
13 ECMM official come in and discuss the documents. In that case, they had
14 an investigator who went to ECMM and just seized records or took records
15 and came in and said, "These are the records that I have." They had no
16 evidence as to authenticity in that case.
17 And there was a decision in that case on 31 January 2002, decision
18 on the admission of ECMM documents, and in that case, if the Court goes to
19 look, they admitted the documents.
20 They had the same situation occur in that same case relating to
21 international -- I'm -- international organisation documents and battalion
22 documents from another peacekeeping monitor -- set of peacekeeping
23 monitors. And in that situation, in another decision on 13 December 2001,
24 they admitted those documents.
25 In the Milosevic case, in the Croatian part of the Milosevic case
1 through witness Colm Mangan, they introduced the documents while he was a
2 member of the monitoring team. However, they also introduced documents --
3 one document of the monitoring team's log concerning weeks after he had
4 left the area.
5 In the Milosevic case in Bosnia, they had an ECMM employee come
6 in, according to the chief Bosnian Prosecutor, who was not familiar with
7 any of the documents, did not recall who wrote them. However, as an ECMM
8 employee, he was allowed to introduce all of the ECMM documents, and they
9 have been admitted in the Milosevic case.
10 In the Kordic case, in the Kordic case not only did the
11 Prosecution introduce ECMM documents, but the Defence complained that they
12 didn't have access to the ECMM documents. And on 3 May 2000 in Prosecutor
13 versus Kordic and Cerkez there was an ex parte application for an issuance
14 of an order to the European Community Monitoring Mission asking them, or
15 ordering them to give access to the Defence so they could see the
16 documents, so they could tender the documents.
17 In other cases, either ECMM documents, international documents,
18 have been admitted. In the Samac case which is the Prosecutor versus
19 Simic, Tadic, and Zaric, without a witness a Prosecutor stood up and
20 introduced documents of the International Red Cross concerning exchanges
21 which occurred in the area.
22 The evidence relating to this area is overwhelming. When the
23 issue is authenticity, the issue -- the matter goes to the weight and not
24 the -- and not the issue of admissibility. Further, if I continue with
25 this witness, I can continue to lay a foundation and you'll get more of an
1 idea of his knowledge of these documents and his familiarity with these
2 documents as well as the situation which occurred.
3 Therefore, the Prosecution would state that it is overwhelming
4 that these documents are relevant, they provide a context and background
5 to the situation, and that they should be admitted. Thank you.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Are you saying, Mr. Weiner, that the witness will
7 be able to confirm that the documents that are here which appear to be
8 dated before his time with the monitoring mission are documents of the
10 MR. WEINER: Yes. These are all documents of the ECMM. We've --
11 JUDGE PARKER: Will the witness be able to say that?
12 MR. WEINER: Yes. So far he's testified that these are ECMM
13 documents, and I'll testify that he can seen --
14 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, please.
15 MR. WEINER: Sorry, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE PARKER: He has said that about the first document but none
17 that followed.
18 MR. WEINER: I haven't got to that. I have one more document.
19 I've taken those four in a row and I haven't got to the rest of my
20 questioning on that. If you allow me to proceed I can get to that part of
22 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Petrovic.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, just
24 very briefly. I will not even try to be as extensive as my learned friend
25 and colleague, but I will try to say two things.
1 Firstly, our objection concerns the following: Mr. Weiner asked
2 the witness to comment on a document that he did not write or send, nor
3 did he receive it. He's asking for comments on documents. Your Honour,
4 our objection was not about these documents being tendered into evidence.
5 They may as well be tendered into evidence and accepted as such, as far as
6 we are concerned, but how can the witness be in a position to interpret
7 anything that is in any of these documents since he was not part of the
8 mission at the time? How should he know what people thought or did at the
9 time before he arrived. The essence is he doesn't know anything about the
10 content of these documents. That's the essence of what I was trying to
12 We have faced such situations before where documentary is accepted
13 on the basis of submissions with no witnesses whatsoever. And then the
14 Trial Chamber decides whether the exhibits will be accepted or not with no
15 further testimony. Our point is this witness is not able to testify to
16 what people did or thought just on the basis of pure speculation since he
17 was not yet in the area at the time and had no direct knowledge of these
19 We accept that these documents will be accepted as exhibits, but
20 we don't believe that the witness should be asked to talk about something
21 that he has no direct knowledge of.
22 By the way, may it also be said that all these documents cited by
23 my colleague have already been tendered into evidence when the first
24 witness Adrien Stringer testified. So all these have been tendered, the
25 documents cited by my learned friend and colleague today. He may as well
1 have a look, because when Mr. Stringer testified, he analysed these
2 documents. I can't give you the exact numbers now, but it should be easy
3 enough to compare the two lists and we are certain to do this during our
5 Thank you very much, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Is that last observation correct in your
7 understanding, Mr. Weiner?
8 MR. WEINER: No, Your Honour. These four documents which are tabs
9 4, 5, 6, and 7 were all documents for identification, marked for
10 identification and were not accepted as exhibits.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE PARKER: There appears to be no question being as to the
14 authenticity of the document and as to its origin, and you, Mr. Weiner,
15 assure us that the witness will confirm these documents are ECMM
16 documents. Their admissibility can, therefore, be accepted.
17 You have not put any submission, Mr. Weiner, about the concern
18 which Mr. Petrovic has now clarified about you seeking to have the witness
19 comment on documents of which he has no personal knowledge, comment on the
20 content of the document. Do you have anything to say on that?
21 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour. The witness, if he is allowed to
22 testify further after we finish the documents, will tell us that he is
23 aware of this situation. This was the situation that he walked into, that
24 in the final document it says that the matter is being -- the matter of
25 the complaints of General Strugar have been sent up the line to Zagreb
1 because they felt it was that significant, that he learnt of these
2 problems, that he knew the history of it, and coming into the situation he
3 was aware of this and had seen some of these letters -- of these four
4 letters here and was fully aware of the situation and had to deal with
5 that when he came in and oversaw the next monitoring team.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. I think you may on balance continue
7 with your present line of questioning, Mr. Weiner, and we will hope that
8 your hopes for the witness's evidence will be fulfilled. If not, we may
9 have to revisit Mr. Petrovic's objection.
10 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
11 Q. Now, sir, just very quickly look at tabs number 6 and then 7. The
12 first one is tab 6. It's a document dated October 20, 1991. And can you
13 tell us who it's from and who it was sent to?
14 A. Well, it's from Captain Jeremic. I have had different titles for
15 him but Captain Jeremic to the ECMM in Dubrovnik. I can add that I have
16 seen these documents before, but as it was mentioned, I was not there. I
17 cannot, of course, remember exactly what was written, but I had read them
18 before -- read them before I was serving in Split, yes.
19 Q. And were you familiar with a Captain or a commander, Komandir
21 A. I had met him, yes.
22 Q. And did you have any dealings with him?
23 A. Yes, I had. I had dealings with him in Zelenika on the 12th of
24 November, and I had dealings with him again before -- when we returned to
25 Zelenika shortly, two days later, and I had dealings -- I met him at the
1 meetings with Admiral Jokic on the 6th of December and on the 7th --
2 sorry, correction, on the 5th of December and on the 7th of December,
4 Q. And when you had dealings with him, who was he representing?
5 A. He was representing the JNA, and he was also now and then called
6 the liaison officer of the JNA and General Strugar's liaison officer. When
7 my met him he was along with Admiral Jokic.
8 Q. Now, if you could look at the next letter.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And could you tell us who that's from?
11 A. That's from the ECMM monitors in Dubrovnik, and it's addressed to
12 Captain Jeremic, and it's an answer of the previous one as far as --
13 Q. Now, at the end of that letter, if you go to the second page, sir,
14 it says: "We ask you to inform General Strugar that we are consulting our
15 headquarters in Zagreb in view of his message of today of 1945 hours.
16 Since we are operating on behalf of the EEC Presidency in The Hague and
17 the general expressed his doubts as to our neutrality, we feel it
18 necessary to bring this matter up to our headquarters in Zagreb."
19 Are questions of neutrality serious matters for monitors?
20 A. Yes, it certainly is. You cannot operate as a neutral observer,
21 monitor, call it whatever without being -- your neutrality is complete and
22 there is no doubt about it. And it's for a -- for example, a United
23 Nations military observer and in this case an EC monitor, it's a very
24 serious allegation. I would never accept personally an allegation like
25 that, and I have -- I -- fortunately, nobody has ever in my work done so
1 to me. I consider it serious because you cannot fulfil and carry out your
2 jobs if you're not neutral and you -- there must be absolute -- you must
3 be able to prove for sure that the man is not neutral before you put in
4 this allegation.
5 Q. Now, sir, you indicated that you were aware of the situation that
6 was going on, this conflict, this tension that was occurring.
7 A. Well, I was aware of it because as I mentioned, I had read those
8 papers at the time. I was aware of it because when I met monitors who had
9 served down in the Dubrovnik area, they were not feeling too happy about
10 their relationship with the JNA.
11 Q. Now, did you have any ideas of what to do based on that situation
12 when you arrive at Split, based on the tension or to ease the tension?
13 A. Well, the only way to ease the tension is then to try to
14 communicate with the party the best way you can. You will have to -- the
15 way you act to prove to people that you are a neutral person and you can
16 be trusted. And, well, we briefed people about that. They were fully
17 aware of the monitors, that they had to do their very best to gain the
18 confidence of the people they dealt with.
19 Q. Could you continue in October and turn to tab 3, please.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Are you familiar with this type of document?
22 A. Yes. I have read it before, but I cannot give you all the details
23 of what is in it now but, yes, I've seen it before.
24 Q. And is this considered an analysis-type document or --
25 A. To me it is an analysis.
1 Q. And did you know whether or not the Old City had been bombed in
2 October or shelled in October of 1991, the Old Town of Dubrovnik?
3 A. The Old Town, no, I'm not sure, but it -- Dubrovnik was, to the
4 best of my knowledge, whatever it was, the old part or new part, it was --
5 had received shells, yeah.
6 Q. If you look at the third sentence in paragraph 1.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Does that refresh your recollection?
9 A. Oh, yes. The Old City is being bombarded. Yes. I have to admit
10 I couldn't remember, but yes, it is there.
11 Q. Now, if we go --
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I really, really must
13 object to this. I would really like to know what's going on here. The
14 witness clearly states he does not know what this document is. He can't
15 remember, and yet my learned friend and colleague reads out a portion to
16 him and he doesn't know whether it's the Old Town or the new town. Then
17 he sees in the document that it's the Old Town and then his testimony
18 suddenly is that the Old Town was shelled. I'm not sure this is an
19 appropriate way to ask questions. If you look at the transcript you will
20 see that he said he was not familiar with the document. He can't
21 remember. And the paragraph is pointed out to him, then it's read out to
22 him, and then suddenly he remembers.
23 Your Honour, please if you could just bear this in mind. We don't
24 think this is a proper way to ask questions.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
1 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, if you look at lines 20:
2 "Are you familiar with this type of document?"
3 "Yes, I have read it before, but I cannot give you all the
4 details of what it -- of what is in it now, but yes, I've seen it before."
5 Then I've asked him about the Old Town being shelled. He wasn't
6 sure. Then I asked him to look at that line to refresh his recollection,
7 and you see that on line 7, page 85.
8 "Does that refresh your recollection?
9 Answer: "Oh, yes."
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave. My
11 colleague has read everything out nicely, but he started at line 20 and
12 omitted line 19 and so on and so forth. I wonder why he left that out,
13 line 19, that's where the reading should have begun.
14 MR. WEINER: I'll go back and read it if you'd like. We can get
15 the transcript right here, Judge. The -- I asked the witness to refresh
16 his recollection, just like Mr. Rodic refreshed the witness's recollection
17 earlier today. He read it out. I asked the witness to look at a document
18 to see if that refreshes his recollection. It's an allowable technique in
19 this Tribunal.
20 JUDGE PARKER: The witness has refreshed his recollection of what
21 is in the document. It is his evidence, as I understand it, that he has
22 no personal knowledge of the truth or otherwise of what he is recalling,
23 but he is recalling what is written in the document. That, Mr. Petrovic
24 is, as far as I understand the evidence on this point is presently going.
25 Is there any concern you have about that?
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my understanding is
2 the same as yours. However, Your Honour, the road that my learned friend
3 and colleague has taken to achieve this result ultimately had we not
4 objected, the transcript would have been left to reflect the witness as
5 having direct knowledge of all of this, as if this was something that
6 issued directly from his testimony. There was an objection on our part
7 which you have accepted, Your Honour. Now the situation is clear, but had
8 it not been for our objection, we would have had the witness saying how
9 the Old Town had been shelled and would have continued explaining that
10 situation. We don't believe that's the proper road to take when examining
11 a witness.
12 Secondly, I am sure that my colleague is well able to distinguish
13 between questions that should be asked on examination-in-chief and
14 questions asked on cross-examination. I did not believe that an equation
15 mark should have been drawn between these two different stages of
16 proceedings. That's all I wished to say.
17 JUDGE PARKER: I think Mr. Weiner is being careful to get it
18 clearly from the witness that he has no personal knowledge of the actual
19 facts behind the document, and I at least am hearing his evidence about
20 this aspect on that basis.
21 So, Mr. Weiner, if you'd like to carry on for a few brief moments
22 it's going to be.
23 MR. WEINER:
24 Q. Sir, would you please turn to paragraph 5, which is on page 2 of
25 the document. I'd like to read the second and third sentences to you to
1 try and move this along.
2 "Dubrovnik itself has no military or strategic value, although it
3 is of considerable economic importance to the region, being perhaps the
4 greatest tourist attraction in Yugoslavia. The fact that the JNA have
5 shelled the Old City indicates their lack of concern for the economic
6 consequences of their actions."
7 Sir, do you agree with that statement?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And please explain why.
10 A. Well, to me as a person, whatever is said is correct. I cannot
11 see that Dubrovnik had any military value. I considered Dubrovnik to be
12 of great importance for the area, economically and as a tourist
13 attraction. I saw no reason personally for using Dubrovnik as a target
14 for any military action and certainly not for shelling.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. WEINER: Is it time to break now, Your Honour?
17 JUDGE PARKER: It seems to be, Mr. Weiner.
18 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Hvalkof, I must ask you to return again
20 tomorrow to continue your evidence. If you'd be so good as to do that.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. We will adjourn now for the
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 10th day of
1 February, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.