Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 3259

1 Wednesday, 21 May 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in this courtroom.

7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning

9 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, The

10 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12 Mr. Tchernetsky, before you'll be further cross-examined, I would

13 like to remind you that you are still bound by the solemn declaration

14 that you have given at the beginning you have your testimony; that is,

15 that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

16 truth.

17 Mr. Kehoe, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Tchernetsky.

18 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tchernetsky, Mr. Kehoe is counsel for

20 Mr. Gotovina.

21 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.


23 [Witness answered through interpreter]

24 Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:

25 Q. Good morning, Mr. Tchernetsky.

Page 3260

1 A. Good morning.

2 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, I would like to cover a couple of topics,

3 several topics that were covered not only during your direct examination,

4 but also that were covered in your witness statements.

5 MR. KEHOE: And if we could begin the discussion with the Cetina

6 period -- area, and I'd like to bring up on the map 1D23-0035, if I

7 could.

8 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, this is an original map, a working map from the

9 latter part of July of 1995.

10 MR. KEHOE: Your Honours, obviously, it has Croatian on it. I

11 have taken the liberty of designating some of the Croatian translations

12 in English; and, for ease of reading, Your Honours, I can likewise show

13 you that as well, which is 1D23-0036.

14 What I've taken the liberty of doing here, Your Honours, is if

15 you could see the individual boxes that are in the -- starting with the

16 upper left-hand corner, where it says: "Work map, start 25 July 1995,

17 end 30 July." This is not -- this is a map which is a working map. The

18 blue line is a line which was, in fact, the confrontation line. The red

19 line is where the HV forces wanted to be in -- on the July 30th, 1995.

20 So, if you see over in the right-hand corner, we have some other

21 designations which notes "defence military secrets, summer 1995." And if

22 we can just down a bit, it says: "Commander Major-General Gotovina Ante

23 Gotovina." If we move over to the left, it shows, just a bit, the

24 Croatian command post. And, Your Honour, I have also circled - if we

25 with could move up just a bit, Mr. Monkhouse -- the town of Knin, the of

Page 3261

1 Strmica, and the town Bosansko Grahovo.

2 Those are the overlays -- the additions to the original map that

3 you were made; but, suffice it to say, we will discussing this map over

4 the course of both the Cetina issues, Your Honours, as well as the

5 Strmica issues that were addressed by the witness yesterday.

6 Q. Now, if we could just -- taking a look at this particular map,

7 Mr. Tchernetsky, if we can look at the bottom left-hand portion near the

8 confrontation lines. Mr. Tchernetsky, that area is basically the Cetina

9 valley, is it not?

10 A. I can see the Cetina valley here.

11 Q. And the particular designation there is an designation for the --

12 excuse me, the 1st Brigade of the North Dalmatia Corps of the army of the

13 Republika Srpska which was in Vrlika. Is that right?

14 A. Yes. In Vrlika, there were military units of the RSK.

15 Q. And how far was the -- Vrlika from the confrontation line that

16 was designated here in blue?

17 A. I cannot recall exactly, but it was five to seven metres [as

18 interpreted], as I far as I remember.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, if the witness says that he sees the

20 Cetina valley, perhaps we could use the cursor, not to mark it, but at

21 least that we have an idea what is on the mind of the witness.

22 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I will gladly have him mark it as a

23 separate exhibit --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I am not seek to have additional. But if the

25 witness could at least tell us where he sees the Cetina valley, then I'm

Page 3262

1 better able to follow his testimony.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not very visible on the map.

3 I cannot show you exactly because it doesn't show population centres, at

4 least not that I can read it.

5 JUDGE ORIE: You said you see Cetina valley. Could you, with the

6 cursor mark, indicate approximately --

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose that this is Cetina

8 valley, this valley, as far as I understand.

9 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, if I can help the witness. Maybe, it

10 might be easier, for the working purposes, if we move to D153. Now that

11 we have this specific on this map, we can move to D153.

12 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine.

13 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I am going to be moving and talking

14 about these. But, at this time, if I can move into evidence the working

15 map which is 1D23-0035, and then the map with our additions on it which

16 is 1D23-0036.

17 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.

18 Mr. Registrar.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the map, 1D23-0035, becomes Exhibit

20 D219, and the map, 1D23-0036 becomes Exhibit D220.

21 MR. KEHOE: Mr. Registrar, if we can blow up --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think the first one, D119, that is the first

23 one. No, let me just ...

24 MR. KEHOE: That's the first one, Judge.

25 JUDGE ORIE: That's the working.

Page 3263

1 MR. KEHOE: 219.

2 JUDGE ORIE: D219 is admitted into evidence, and then the second

3 one, Mr. Registrar.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the second map was the map with the

5 red circles. It was 1D --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It was the one that was marked D220.

7 I take it no objections, then, Mr. Russo; therefore, it is also

8 admitted into evidence.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: In an answer above, the

10 witness's answer was five to seven "kilometres," not "metres."

11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for the correction.

12 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

13 MR. KEHOE: Mr. Registrar, if we can just blow up the bottom

14 portion of that.

15 Q. Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, if we look at the Cetina valley, is that an

16 indication to you of the approximate area the Cetina valley that you

17 discussed yesterday?

18 A. If that is the territory that is marked by red here, then it's

19 not. The Cetina valley, I'm showing now on the map, is what we called

20 Cetina valley. It's this area.

21 Q. And it's in and around what you are pointing to as the village of

22 Cetina. Is that right?

23 A. It's around the village and further to the south.

24 Q. Okay.

25 A. The valley, itself, is to the south of the population centre of

Page 3264

1 Cetina.

2 Q. And you also mentioned yesterday the town of Kijevo. And how far

3 is Kijevo from -- along that road, how far is Kijevo to Cetina?

4 A. From Vrlika towards Knin, approximately halfway.

5 Q. I'm sorry. Could you give us an approximate kilometre distance

6 from Kijevo to Cetina?

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, we have a map with a scale.

8 MR. KEHOE: That's fine, Judge. Okay.

9 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, we're going to move on.

10 MR. KEHOE: I apologise for that, Your Honour.

11 Q. Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, how many times -- before the Operation

12 Harvest, how many times had you been to the Cetina valley area during --

13 from the time you got there in June of 1995 until Operation Storm on the

14 4th of August?

15 A. In the Cetina valley, before the beginning of Operation Harvest,

16 I was there at least three times; and in the course of that operation, at

17 least two or three times again. So, in total, about six times within

18 that month.

19 Q. And during that period of time, sir, when you were there, the

20 three times prior to Operation Harvest, were you driving through with

21 other UNMOs?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And, likewise, when you were there the two to three times during

24 Operation Harvest, that was a week period of time. Correct?

25 A. Yes, yes. Operation Harvest lasted for seven or eight days in

Page 3265

1 the end of August, just before Operation Storm.

2 MR. KEHOE: Now, sir, you --

3 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that there is a mistake with "end of

4 July."

5 MR. KEHOE: I'm sorry, Judge. That's right, end of July.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]yes.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.


9 Q. Now, sir, there were long stretches of time where you were not in

10 the area. Is that right? You and the other UNMOs were not in the Cetina

11 valley?

12 A. As far as I'm personally am concerned, that's true. But this

13 route was part of the constantly covered routes by our UNMOs, and that

14 area was controlled on a permanent basis.

15 Q. Now, if we can put this in a military context in July of 1995,

16 during this period of time, General Gotovina and his troops were moving

17 up the Dinara mountains and threatening the area of the Cetina valley and

18 also Grahovo through a series of attacks, weren't they?

19 A. No. I know that there are many ways of using artillery and

20 mortars, one of such ways is to use had a harassing fire against the

21 enemy in order to keep him under constant tension, to disorganise his

22 work, and to force retaliation which would discover his deployment of

23 forces. I believe that there, just as in Strmica, the Croatian side used

24 precisely this way.

25 However, in fierce violation, in blatant violation of prior

Page 3266

1 agreements, this fire was used also against population centres, not

2 only --

3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... my question was very -- my

4 question was this: If we could put this in a military context of 1995,

5 during this period of time, General Gotovina and his troops were moving

6 up the Dinara mountains and threatening the area of the Cetina valley and

7 also Grahovo through a series of attacks, weren't they?

8 A. No. It was not General Gotovina who threatened the area. It's

9 the Croatian army that used such ways as harassing fire that could cause

10 retaliation from the certain side. That is one of the normal --

11 MR. KEHOE: [Previous translation continues] ...

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tchernetsky, the question was whether at that

13 point in time, troops, as Mr. Kehoe said, under the command of

14 Mr. Gotovina, whether they at that time were moving up the Dinara

15 mountains.

16 Could you first answer that question.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot know that because it was

18 happening in a territory that was not controlled by our group, by our

19 team.

20 JUDGE ORIE: That's --

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- if it was happening.

22 JUDGE ORIE: That is a clear answer. You say, I do not know, I

23 could not know.

24 The second part of the question was whether, by this movements of

25 troops, the area of Cetina valley and Grahovo were under attack. Do you

Page 3267

1 know that? Can you confirm that? Do you have knowledge of that?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether the Croatian

3 army was under fire.

4 JUDGE ORIE: No. The question is not whether -- whether they --

5 by moving, whether they attacked the forces --

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as Grahovo is concerned, it

7 was the territory of Bosnia. It was not within our mandate. We have

8 never been there.


10 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.


12 Q. Well, sir, you did a -- let's make this simplistic. You did a

13 crater analysis in Cetina. Is that right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you made a determination that the firing had come from the

16 area of Bosnia, right?

17 A. Yes. From the territory of Bosnia, from the direction of

18 Bosnia --

19 Q. And --

20 A. -- from the Dinara mountains area.

21 Q. And if we look at the map on the screen, that is on the other

22 side of the blue confrontation line, right?

23 A. Yes. Fire was directed at this territory that I'm showing on the

24 map, the area of Cetina, and it came from the mountain range.

25 Q. Now, sir, the crater analysis that was done, were you called in

Page 3268

1 to do that crater analysis by the army of the Republika Srpska Krajina?

2 A. No. Our assignments came from the sector headquarters, along

3 with the protests from the Serbian side.

4 Q. Well, the protests came from the army of the Republika Srpska,

5 didn't it?

6 A. I don't know what kind of an authority, civilian or military,

7 initiated these protests. I received my assignments from the commander

8 of the UNMOs.

9 MR. KEHOE: I made -- there was a -- I misspoke there, Your

10 Honours. I meant to say that the protests came from the army of the

11 Republika Srpska Krajina. Very different from the army of Republika

12 Srpska.

13 I do believe, based on the answer, Judge, that the answer would

14 be the same because he just doesn't know.


16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying, once again, I don't

17 know who made these protests, civilian or military authorities of the

18 republic of Serbian Krajina. Our team received its assignments from the

19 headquarters of the sector.


21 Q. I understand, sir. Now, with regard to the actual crater

22 analysis, you were obviously not there when that firing took place.

23 Correct?

24 A. Correct. We were not there during the firing. We were sent

25 there to investigate the outcome.

Page 3269

1 Q. And, sir, as a person that has been -- had a career in the

2 military, you're familiar with the concept of mobile targets, aren't you?

3 A. I don't quite understand.

4 Q. Well, you are familiar with the concept of equipment moving, be

5 it tanks or APCs. Those are pieces of military equipment that can move.

6 Isn't that right?

7 A. Naturally.

8 Q. Now, since you were not there, you don't know if there was any

9 type of APC or tank or other piece of military equipment belonging to the

10 army of the Srpska Krajina in Cetina when the HV fired, causing the

11 crater analysis that you analysed. Isn't that right?

12 A. In those locations where we found -- where we found craters,

13 there were no traces of movement of any machinery, and there were no

14 traces of vehicles of such mobile units, as you are suggesting.

15 Q. Well, you mentioned to us that you saw a MRL, a multi-barrel

16 rocket launcher, in Kijevo yesterday. Do you recall that?

17 A. Yes. And I can confirm that there was an anti-aircraft gun in

18 position in Kijevo. I cannot remember the exact calibre, but it was 57

19 or 76 millimetres.

20 MR. KEHOE: Let us go to P -- excuse me, D86.

21 Q. Now, sir, here's a photograph of an M-77 multi-barrel rocket

22 launcher. Now, you mentioned to us yesterday, at page 3176 on line 17:

23 "In the area of Kijevo, as far as I remember, we saw a piece of

24 artillery, a rocket launcher in position.

25 Now, was it a rocket launcher like this, sir?

Page 3270

1 A. I'm sorry, but maybe it was misinterpreted. I'm going to look

2 through the transcripts. I said yesterday, and I'm saying it again

3 today, it was an anti-aircraft artillery piece, an anti-aircraft gun. It

4 was either 57 or 76 millimetres in calibre. I cannot remember exactly.

5 You are showing me, on this photographs, launchers of the kind

6 that I have not seen.

7 Q. I show them to you, sir, because you mentioned yesterday that you

8 saw a rocket launcher in Kijevo.

9 Now, did they have --

10 A. I was saying the same thing yesterday, that I saw an

11 anti-aircraft gun. I was not talking about rocket launchers. I was

12 talking about an anti-aircraft gun.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, there may have been a translation issue.

14 There are ways of checking that, but the testimony of the witness, at

15 this moment, appears that it was not a rocket launcher but an

16 anti-aircraft weapon.

17 MR. KEHOE: I understand.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

19 MR. KEHOE: I'm operating from yesterday's transcript.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not blaming you, I'm trying to --

21 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Your Honour.

22 Q. Now, sir, did they have multi-barrel launchers, mobile rocket

23 launchers, in the Cetina valley or in Vrlika or in Kijevo? Do you know?

24 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, if I can please ask him to maybe just

25 take it one at a time.

Page 3271


2 MR. KEHOE: That's fine.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I do not mind here, as a matter of fact, because

4 either the answer is, yes, there were, and then we can specify; or they

5 were not, and then we have covered all three in one stroke.

6 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the course of my entire stay in

8 the territory of Serbian Krajina, I did not see any rocket launchers

9 during any of my missions in that territory.


11 Q. Well, could one of the reasons that you didn't see them there was

12 because you were not permitted to go into the military storages for the

13 army of the Republic of Serb Krajina?

14 A. I cannot comment on that.

15 Q. Well, if I may --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe --

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what the Serbian side

18 was guided by when it refused to allow us into the places where heavy

19 weaponry was stored.

20 JUDGE ORIE: We have two questions, as a matter of fact, whether

21 he was allowed; that's the first one. And the second is whether that

22 could be a reason. I could answer that question. If it was not allowed,

23 that could be a reason.

24 MR. KEHOE: Yes.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

Page 3272


2 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, you were not allowed to go into the Serbian

3 military storages to check for heavy weapons, were you?

4 A. Yes. Our team, at least during my tenure in that team, we were

5 not allowed to go into military storage points that were in the territory

6 covered by our team.

7 Q. So, logically, you don't know -- were there military storage

8 facilities in and around the Cetina valley area?

9 A. No. I'm speaking about collection points that were organised in

10 accordance with the agreement on cease-fire. Officially, these sites

11 came under the jurisdiction of UNMOs. They were supposed to be under

12 their control.

13 Q. And where were those collection sites?

14 A. They were two such collection sites in the Knin area, and one

15 was - I can't remember the exact name of the settlement - but it was

16 halfway on the road between Knin and Drnis, somewhere halfway through.

17 In accordance with the mandate, they were under the control of

18 observers; however, we were not given access to such sites. And in all

19 such cases, protests were drawn up, and they were forwarded to the

20 Serbian side by the sector headquarters.

21 Q. Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, let me ask you, going back to the Kijevo

22 situation with the anti-aircraft gun, I mean, do you know what that

23 anti-aircraft gun was firing at and what it was protecting?

24 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour. There has been no testimony

25 that that anti-aircraft gun was fired at anything.

Page 3273

1 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I think, logically, one can draw that if

2 they have an anti-aircraft gun several kilometres away, that the question

3 is where is it pointing and what is it firing at, I mean, if the line is

4 five kilometres away at most?

5 JUDGE ORIE: You're giving the answer, more or less, Mr. Kehoe.

6 MR. KEHOE: Well, no, I am just explaining -- I'm answering the

7 objection.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as a matter of fact, you're not answering the

9 objection. You could ask the witness whether he has seen it firing or

10 whether he has any knowledge in what direction it was targeting.

11 At the same time, I get the feeling that it takes us quite a

12 while to make a point. If there were in the movable targets, that the

13 witness might not have observed before he entered the area, where he did

14 the crater analysis, that he might not have known about such a target at

15 this moment. That appears -- if that is your point.

16 MR. KEHOE: Well, I don't understand your question, Judge. I

17 mean, there is a --

18 JUDGE ORIE: We started with the crater.

19 MR. KEHOE: Yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: And, apparently, from the earlier answers of the

21 witness, it appears that he has never seen any military target where he

22 found a crater. And I think we are now spending quite a lot of time on

23 the possibility that there may have been a moving target in that area. I

24 mean, that point was clear to me already seven minutes ago. If that's

25 the issue, ask the witness directly whether he knows anything about

Page 3274

1 moving targets in the area. Because he said he didn't see any trace of

2 that, that doesn't mean that it wasn't there.

3 MR. KEHOE: That's right.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's all clear.

5 MR. KEHOE: That's fine.

6 JUDGE ORIE: So please come to your point, make your point, if it

7 is the point. Of course, I never know what your point will be, but this

8 came into my mind approximately seven minutes ago.

9 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge, in response to that. That is true

10 that he doesn't know if it was there, but the Prosecution put them on for

11 this particular purpose to try to prove that there is an indiscriminate

12 fire going into the Cetina valley, when this witness doesn't know --

13 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. But that was clear already seven

14 minutes, as I said before.

15 Yes. It's not the first time that we are in a courtroom,

16 Mr. Kehoe, the, Judges, yes.

17 MR. KEHOE: I understand that, Judge.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.


20 Q. Now, taking this, sir, did you see where this anti-aircraft gun

21 was pointed? I'm talking about the one in Kijevo.

22 A. Anti-aircraft guns are intended for air targets, in the case of

23 an air-raid, air attack, so they're not pointed anywhere. It's just that

24 if there's -- if enemy appears in the air, these anti-aircraft guns are

25 pointed at this enemy.

Page 3275

1 MR. KEHOE: One moment, Your Honour.

2 [Defence counsel confer]


4 Q. Now, with regard to the air attack, you noted that the

5 anti-aircraft guns are intended for air attacks, in case of an air

6 attack. Was there a weapons depot in Kijevo that the anti-aircraft gun

7 was protecting?

8 A. I don't know about any such depot.

9 Q. I'm sorry. Well, do you know what it was protecting?

10 A. I don't know that such a depot existed in Kijevo.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tchernetsky, the question now was whether you

12 knew what it was protecting. You told us already that you were not aware

13 of a weapons depot, but it could be other things that were protected,

14 other facilities. Do you know what it was that this anti-aircraft gun

15 protected?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't know that.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.


19 Q. Now, sir, let me read to you -- you know Mr. Ermolaev, do you

20 not? He was your --

21 A. Yes, I know him.

22 Q. And reading from his transcript from 28 April 2008, page 2436,

23 from line 15 through line 17:

24 "Now just going back to the Cetina valley, there was a

25 restriction of movement by the UNMOs in the Cetina valley in July of

Page 3276

1 1995. Correct?

2 "Answer: 'Yeah, correct.'"

3 So, in fact, sir, in July 1995, there was a restriction of

4 movement on the UNMO, wasn't there?

5 A. I can neither confirm nor deny, because as far as I'm concerned,

6 I was never subjected to any restriction of movement myself.

7 Q. Well, sir, let me turn your attention to D154, page 7 of 21.

8 MR. KEHOE: Now, if we go to blow up the top of that page and it

9 notes that the subject of the meeting is: "The lifting of the

10 restriction of movement. The security situation UNMO team, ARSK,

11 official stated. UNMO teams should have freedom of movement in the area

12 of the 1st Battalion of the North Dalmatia corps." That's in Vrlika, I

13 think we established before. "But to secure their safety, there must be

14 permission from the liaison officer in Knin."

15 So, Mr. Tchernetsky, before you went into the area of the

16 1st Battalion of the North Dalmatia Corps which included the Cetina

17 valley, you had to ask permission of the ARSK in Knin, didn't you?

18 A. No. As far as I remember, we went to Cetina without any

19 hindrance.

20 As for the check-points of the positions of the 1st Battalion of

21 the Dalmatia Corps, we went to Vrlika on our way there and we would

22 receive -- we would contact the liaison officer there. This was at the

23 demarcation line or the line of confrontation. It was precisely there.

24 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, before an UNMO team went to the Cetina valley,

25 this UNMO report indicates that they had to go to the liaison officer in

Page 3277

1 Knin first to get permission. Is that right?

2 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour. First of all, that is not

3 what the report indicates; and, second of all, the witness has already

4 testified several times that he never experienced any restriction of

5 movement, and he did not have to ask for permission.

6 JUDGE ORIE: These are not the same questions, whether he

7 experienced any hindrance when going to the area.

8 Are you aware that before you went to the Cetina area, that

9 permission was sought from the liaison officer in Knin? Are you aware of

10 any such thing?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. The procedure

12 was as follows: When the inspection was made of Serbian positions at the

13 confrontation line, we would normally receive permission from Serbian

14 military authorities. When patrolling our regular routes, including the

15 ones in the Cetina area, we did not seek any such permissions.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It depended on the purpose of your tour --

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18 JUDGE ORIE: -- whether permission was obtained.

19 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.


21 Q. Well, sir, Mr. Ermolaev was your supervisor -- I'm sorry.

22 MR. KEHOE: I didn't mean to cut off an answer, if there was an

23 answer, Judge.

24 JUDGE ORIE: If you were about to say something, please do so.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I don't want to add anything.

Page 3278

1 Everything is fine as it is.


3 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, when Mr. Ermolaev told this Court that there was

4 a restriction of movement in the Cetina valley in July of 1995, would it

5 be he or another supervisor among the UNMOs that would have been the

6 person to go down and get permission from the liaison officer in Knin?

7 A. I repeat, once again, that our team did not come across any

8 obstacles when moving in the Cetina area. While conducting inspection of

9 Serbian positions at the confrontation line, in accordance with the

10 instructions from the headquarters, we had to inform the Serbian side

11 about that, and we had to receive permission from the liaison officer.

12 The Serbian positions were to the south, much more to the south,

13 from the Cetina valley.

14 Q. And when you got permission to go into the area of the

15 1st Brigade of the North Dalmatia Corps, before you got there, the army

16 of the Republika Srpska Krajina knew that the UNMO team was coming,

17 didn't they?

18 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, the witness testified about permission

19 to go to the confrontation line. Now we're broadening the area to the

20 area of the -- of the 1st Brigade of the North Dalmatia Corps.

21 MR. KEHOE: I'm simply reading the situation report of what the

22 ARSK officer said.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's fine. But I think that we should, first

24 of all, orient ourselves to what the witness said; and if you are quoting

25 from some other source, then make it clear that you are quoting from a

Page 3279

1 report, rather than repeating what the witness said.

2 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.


5 Q. So, Mr. Tchernetsky, when you were moving - and I'm reading from

6 the report - in the area of the 1st Brigade of the North Dalmatia Corps,

7 and you had secured the -- their permission from the LO in Knin, before

8 you got there, the Krajina Serb army knew that you were coming, didn't

9 they?

10 JUDGE ORIE: Again, this does not reflect what we have in

11 evidence. We have in evidence this line of this report, and we have the

12 statement of the witness.

13 Mr. Tchernetsky, if you just went for inspection, not visiting

14 Serbian positions, would the - let me check exactly what - would the

15 Krajina Serb army be aware of you going into that area? So I'm now

16 talking about the normal inspection tours.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already spoke about that, Your

18 Honour, and I will repeat.

19 When conducting planned patrols, we did not inform about the

20 direction of movement of our patrol teams. These plans changed

21 periodically, and sometimes we visited the same site twice in a row. The

22 Serbian side was not informed about that, not on a single occasion,

23 except, as you have understood me correctly, except for the inspection of

24 immediate combat positions of the Serbian troops at the confrontation

25 line.

Page 3280

1 JUDGE ORIE: Even if on inspection tours you did not inform them,

2 do you have any clue as to whether they knew even without being informed

3 by you?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so, because, let me

5 say, once again. Our plans were periodically changed, and the order of

6 touring certain regions changed periodically.

7 JUDGE ORIE: But they could be informed by check-points or in any

8 other way, is that right, so apart from whether they knew of your plans?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot know, Your Honours, how

10 they controlled the movement of our patrols and our observers, so I

11 cannot comment on that.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.


14 Q. Yes. I mean, throughout July, Mr. Tchernetsky, there was, in

15 fact, a deterioration of the -- with the freedom of movement in the areas

16 controlled by the North Dalmatia Corps. Isn't that right?

17 A. No. No additional obstacles existed. I do not remember them.

18 We patrolled our area in accordance with the plan, and I don't remember

19 coming across any difficulties or hindrances in our movement. There was

20 certain areas we were not allowed to enter. That's how it was in earlier

21 July and in late July, and this situation was reported on.

22 Q. Well, again, Mr. Tchernetsky, Mr. Ermolaev, on page 2434, line 4:

23 "Question: So, you would agree with me, Mr. Ermolaev, that in

24 July, in order to move into the area of the 1st Brigade of the North

25 Dalmatia Corps, you had to have the permission of the army of republic of

Page 3281

1 Serb Krajina, didn't you?

2 "Answer: Yes. But regarding July and answering yes, I mean we

3 had general deterioration with the freedom of movement, I mean, in this

4 side as well. Right, absolutely correct. Not only there, not only in

5 this area."

6 Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, do you disagree with the comments and

7 testimony of Mr. Ermolaev?

8 A. No. This confirms, once again, the first part that you read,

9 that Mr. Ermolaev said that in order to visit the positions of the

10 1st Battalion, we had to obtain the permission from the Serbian military

11 authorities. I said the same thing. When inspecting their positions, we

12 needed to first go to the headquarters of the brigade and receive

13 permission and escort by liaison officers of the Serbian army. But that

14 was only if we inspected their positions.

15 As for deterioration of the situation, when it comes to movement,

16 I don't know. Mr. Ermolaev was in the headquarters of the sector. I can

17 only testify about the area of responsibility where our group worked; and

18 in that area, I do not remember that there was any deterioration in terms

19 of the freedom of movement.

20 Q. So, Mr. Ermolaev [sic], if the army of the republic of Serb

21 Krajina had a tank in Cetina, you would have had to have the permission

22 of the liaison officer in Knin to examine that, wouldn't you?

23 A. I think so, because we had access to other areas, to other

24 positions.

25 MR. KEHOE: I will note that Mr. Ermolaev - and I won't belabour

Page 3282

1 this, Judge - says the area of the 1st Brigade of the republic of Serb

2 Krajina.

3 Q. Now, in fact, sir, the --

4 MR. KEHOE: Let us turn to page -- excuse me. I apologise to the

5 translators for coughing into the microphone. I'm sorry. D155 --

6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

7 MR. KEHOE: D155, please.

8 Q. Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, in fact -- excuse me. In fact, General

9 Gotovina did order a cease-fire to allow the harvest to go forward,

10 didn't he?

11 A. Forgive me. This is the first time I see this document. Can I

12 please go through it?

13 Q. I apologise, sir. Absolutely.

14 A. Yes, I have read the document now.

15 The only mistake that I see in it is that the work is conducted

16 under the escort of the UNCRO patrols -- UNHCR, rather, UNHCR, and not

17 under the civilian police of UN. Actually, the people worked under the

18 protection of the UNMOs and under the protection of the civilian police

19 of the UN.

20 Q. General Gotovina did allow the harvest to go forward and stopped

21 firing, didn't they?

22 A. Yes. In the presence of our monitors and in the presence of the

23 monitors from civilian police, there was no firing.

24 MR. KEHOE: Let's turn to --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tchernetsky, the question was whether

Page 3283

1 Mr. Gotovina gave his permission for unhindered - now let me read it

2 literally - did allow the harvest to go forward.

3 Do you know anything about whether Mr. Gotovina took such a

4 decision, apart from what you read on a document that you said you have

5 never seen before?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't know anything about that

7 earlier. I didn't.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that. May I take it that the answer

9 that you just gave, is that based on what you saw in this document?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, the Chamber is not assisted by a witness

12 reading a document, and then without any further factual basis to

13 interpret whether it is true or not true what's in that document. I

14 mean, we've seen that document, we have read that document. Now the

15 witness has read the document as well. The only thing he could tell us,

16 unless you establish a proper basis for anything else, is to read and

17 interpret what the document says. That's as far as matters stand now.

18 Of course, the witness has testified, and that's what he knows,

19 is whether they were fired at or not. I mean, that is his personal

20 knowledge, but this type of seeking confirmation of what is in a letter

21 the witness has never seen before and that he has no knowledge whatsoever

22 about who ordered and whatever, does not assist the Chamber.

23 MR. KEHOE: If I may.


25 MR. KEHOE: The inference coming from the Prosecution case is,

Page 3284

1 during the direct testimony, was that the firing stopped simply because

2 UNCRO went there and -- or CIVPOL went out there and they were protecting

3 the harvesters from doing that; when, in fact, from this document where

4 General Gotovina meant with General Forand, which we have in Exhibit 157,

5 he agreed to allow the harvesting to take place.

6 JUDGE ORIE: The document is in evidence, isn't it? It's just a

7 question of what this witness could add to that.

8 MR. KEHOE: That is exactly right, Judge. What I am here to

9 counter, Judge, is the inference from this witness that the only reason

10 why they were there was to counter HV fire, and --

11 JUDGE ORIE: I fully understand. At the same time, Mr. Kehoe,

12 the Chamber does not expect a witness to have full knowledge of

13 everything we know about. And if the witness, even if that would be an

14 inference, I don't think that he is specifically said that this was not

15 under instructions et cetera, he just observed what he saw.

16 Now the witness has limited knowledge. That's clear. The

17 Chamber has, in fact, far more knowledge. And I take that in the

18 examination of Mr. Forand, we will find out more. We know this document.

19 We are not in this courtroom to give such information to the witnesses

20 that they are better able to make better inferences of what they have

21 seen.

22 We are here to listen to what the witness observed, and we'll put

23 together with the assistance of the parties all the bits and pieces of

24 the evidence, and whether this witness has finally a knowledge which

25 allows him to make proper inferences, yes or no, is not something we

Page 3285

1 should worry about too much.

2 Please proceed.


4 Q. Now, with regard to your work in the Cetina valley,

5 Mr. Tchernetsky, you noted that you were with CIVPOL and you were taking

6 turns in the fields, is that right? Did I understand you correctly?

7 A. Yes, correct.

8 Q. Now, you were there to ensure not only that the HV didn't fire

9 but also that the ARSK didn't fire. Isn't that right?

10 A. No. We were there only to demonstrate the UN flag, that would

11 prevent the Croatian side from firing, because earlier that area was

12 under fire only from the Croatian side.

13 Q. Well, were you -- were you aware of the request by General

14 Gotovina, prior to agreeing or prior to allowing the harvest to go

15 forward, were you aware in any of your discussions at UNCRO or UN

16 headquarters that, excuse me --

17 A. Excuse me. What request are you talking about?

18 Q. I'm not finished, sir.

19 Were you aware of the request by General Gotovina or anybody from

20 the HV staff that in order to agree to stop firing on to the Cetina

21 valley, UNCRO had to control the ARSK firing positions from the Cetina

22 valley? Were you aware of that?

23 A. I knew nothing about the existence of such an order. I saw it

24 for the first time here in this courtroom; and that confirms, once again,

25 that before that order, the area of Cetina valley was under fire.

Page 3286

1 MR. KEHOE: That doesn't exactly answer my question, Judge. I

2 don't whether I want to --

3 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it to you whether you want to insist on

4 receiving an answer on the question.

5 Of course, the witness said, but I don't know whether he was

6 confusing, that he was not -- he knew nothing about such an order. Where

7 he were talking about a request, I don't know whether that is any

8 confusion about that. Then he started drawing conclusions, which are his

9 conclusions.


11 Q. Well, quite simply, and without going into the particular exhibit

12 were you aware that the HV was requesting UNCRO to control firing

13 positions of the ARSK in the Cetina valley in order to allow the

14 harvesting to go forward? Were you aware of that?

15 A. No, I was not aware of that. But as I was within my team, I

16 worked in the field, not in the headquarters, and any information about

17 requests from the Croatian side is something I wouldn't know. I didn't

18 know about.

19 MR. KEHOE: I will just refer Your Honours to D157, page 2, and

20 move on.

21 Q. Now, sir, if we look for one more moment at D154 and go back to

22 the page we were at, this is again the UN CIVPOL report of the 4th of

23 July.

24 MR. KEHOE: If we go to page 7 of 21, and just blow up that top

25 portion.

Page 3287

1 Q. And, again, we go to that next paragraph in there, and this is

2 the ARSK official: "He also stated that the security situation was

3 deteriorating do to HV reinforcements at the Dinara," and he gives grid

4 references of it.

5 If we go down two indentations: "Peace is only possible if UN

6 establishes zone of separation, Krajina and Bosnia deployment of heavy

7 weapons, 40 kilometres from the zone of separation."

8 Were you aware, sir, that -- the first thing, were you aware that

9 the HV had moved up the Dinara and was reinforcing their troops in the

10 Dinara?

11 A. As far as I was able to observe that, whether there were troops

12 of the HV or HVO, I didn't know. But in the area of the Dinara

13 mountains, we saw movements of heavy weaponry. I personally saw a tank,

14 or maybe two, and I saw army personnel moving.

15 Q. Now, sir, during your discussions at UNMO headquarters, were you

16 aware that the army of the republic of Serb Krajina wanted to have both

17 sides move weaponry 40 kilometres from the zone of separation?

18 A. No, I was not aware of that. I was not in the headquarters, and

19 I didn't know about that.

20 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, when you were at the headquarters and talking to

21 the members of your team, did you discuss the possibility that the ARSK

22 was complaining about HV activities and shelling because they were trying

23 to buy time and they wanted the protection of the UN? Did you discuss

24 that?

25 A. No, we did not.

Page 3288

1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

2 A. At least, I did not participate in any such discussions.

3 Q. Now, let us move back, if we can, and we'll move ahead to a

4 separate issue and that would be the Strmica issue, again in July.

5 MR. KEHOE: And if we can move back to D220. It's probably the

6 easiest one to work with.

7 Q. Now, again, Mr. Tchernetsky, this map has the confrontation line

8 of the 25th of July in blue and the area where the HV wanted to move

9 lined in red, not all of which was successful, but just for the sake of

10 looking at this particular map.

11 Now, Strmica was on the road from Knin to Bosansko Grahovo and

12 then on to Drvar, wasn't it?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And from the early part of July into -- well, let me -- did you

15 know about HV advances up the Dinara towards Grahovo through the early

16 part and up to mid-July of 1995?

17 A. Officially, we were not informed about that, but there were

18 rumours; although, the headquarters did not officially give us notice.

19 Q. Well, you knew, sir, that the -- HV was threatening Grahovo,

20 didn't you?

21 A. At what time?

22 Q. Well, throughout July of 1995, sir, going into the latter part of

23 July.

24 A. I cannot tell you. I have never given it any thought. Was I

25 aware of Grahovo or not? It was not in our area of responsibility.

Page 3289

1 Q. Well, Mr. Tchernetsky, you do know that Grahovo fell to the HV on

2 the 27th/28th of July, 1995, don't you?

3 A. I don't recall precisely, but it's likely that this information

4 did reach us. But I cannot remember clearly.

5 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, let's put this in context a little bit. Let me

6 show you a video of 1D23-0001, a video from mid-June 1995 with Milan

7 Martic speaking - excuse me - and in Grahovo, I'm reminded.

8 [Videotape played]

9 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "We are not facing defeat, nor will

10 we suffer defeat. I am convinced that we have the strength, quite enough

11 strength to oppose our enemy who is not as strong as he would have us

12 believe. They are united, the Muslims and the Croats, because the US and

13 Germany demand this of them. But they are not stronger than us. I

14 affirm that. I know this. I know that Serb fighters were always better

15 and will be better.

16 "Now, as well, we are aware of the situation and we have

17 mobilised all forces in the Knin corps. And in all the corps of the

18 Republika Srpska Krajina, there is a state of full readiness. This

19 morning, we had a meeting to this effect, where we put everything into a

20 state of full mobilisation and readiness.

21 "We know that the loss of Grahovo is major, and this territory --

22 we know what this territory means. If we lose Grahovo in this territory,

23 all of Krajina will be lost, and we are aware of that. And it is for

24 this reason that I have come here to tell. I've come to tell you that

25 Grahovo mustn't fall under any circumstances, and that not a single piece

Page 3290

1 of Serb territory can fall

2 "From this moment on, it is imperative to halt the Croatian

3 Muslim aggression. We are sending reinforcements from all areas, from

4 Knin, Bankovac, and all the parts of Republika Srpska. And the forces

5 are already here, and be assured their aggression is being stopped. And

6 at this time, even though it is risky to be telling you this, but I stand

7 firmly behind this claim, the situation will change.

8 "In order to accomplish all of this, we need to be fully

9 disciplined. The need is so great that we have not tasked the command of

10 corps with this task. It is instead under the command of both

11 Main Staffs; that is, that the command of General Mladic and General

12 Mrksic who are jointly launching this operation.

13 "We no longer have any reason to hide from anyone the fact that

14 we are joint defending ourselves. If the Muslims and the Croats can

15 create a joint army, so can we. We shall demonstrate this through our

16 actions. I tell you, we have our joint army and our joint strength.

17 This is not a parade. But we shall demonstrate this through actions.

18 "We have the right to this, too; and for this reason, we have the

19 right as one nation to create a unified army and to create a unified

20 state, and we are creating it and we have no shame. We are not ashamed

21 of it.

22 "I was told today by the highest international institutions that

23 we mustn't create a joint state. I said we will, and there is no other

24 option for us because the only way for us to survive is to create a joint

25 state. And one of the basic preconditions for the creation of this joint

Page 3291

1 state is our unified army, and we shall demonstrate this for the first

2 time. You know that we have already demonstrated this in Bihac in

3 penetrating the corridor.

4 "And in all other areas, we fought together; but in this case, we

5 no longer have any reason to hide from anyone. Whom should we be hiding

6 from? Because we are fighting for our land and not for someone else's

7 territory."


9 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Tchernetsky. I was just waiting for the

10 translation to come through.

11 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, this video-clip from HVTV, 1D23-001, we

12 will move into evidence at this time.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.

14 MR. RUSSO: No objection.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D221, Your Honours.

17 JUDGE ORIE: D221 is admitted into evidence.


19 Q. Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, in order to supply the Bosansko Grahovo

20 area through Knin, you have to travel up through Strmica, don't you?

21 A. The main road, the most convenient road from Knin to Grahovo,

22 goes through Strmica. That's correct.

23 MR. KEHOE: Let us put 1D23-0033 on the screen.

24 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, if I could, just before the questioning

25 starts about this exhibit, if this is something which is again pieced

Page 3292

1 together from original documentation, we would ask for the provenance of

2 the document.

3 MR. KEHOE: Clearly, Judge, based on the witness's testimony

4 right now to supply Grahovo, he would move up the road that was going, as

5 the witness just said, through Strmica into Grahovo. The item that we

6 have noted there is Grahovo. It notes the date of 27/28 July 1995, which

7 is the date that Grahovo fell.

8 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, that's not -- well, I was referring to

9 the clear outlined arrows which indicate a thrust from the middle and two

10 from the sides, and that seems to indicate to me troop movements. I'm

11 wondering if that is something which is pulled from a contemporaneous

12 map.

13 MR. KEHOE: Yes. I mean, Your Honour, we will gladly provide the

14 information supporting what the troop movements were of the various

15 brigades under the command of General Gotovina when Bosansko Grahovo was

16 attacked. There was, in fact, a flanking manoeuvre.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Does this give you sufficient information at this

18 moment for us to proceed?

19 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.


22 Q. Now, you noted for us during the course of your testimony, and I

23 do believe you put it on a map of an area through Bosansko Grahovo, the

24 road through this village that had been shelled prior to your getting

25 there on the 30th of July. Is that right?

Page 3293

1 A. Either the 29th or the 30th, one of the last days of July.

2 Q. Well, even prior to that time, you talked to us about shelling in

3 the area of the town of Strmica. Is that right?

4 A. Yes, correct.

5 Q. Now, if we look at this particular map, that area that you

6 designated, if I may --

7 [Defence counsel confer]


9 Q. That area that you designated is, in fact, the supply route that

10 the ARSK used to take personnel and supplies from Knin through Strmica up

11 into Grahovo. Isn't that right?

12 A. I cannot be the judge of that, because as to any massive

13 movements of army troops or military equipment towards or out of Grahovo,

14 I didn't see that.

15 Q. Well, sir, part of the job of the UNMOs was to look to see what

16 kind of movement was taking place among the RSK, wasn't it? Not just

17 you, I'm talking about all the UNMOs.

18 A. Yes, that's correct. Such movements were easiest to keep an eye

19 on from Strmica, where they were positions of the Kenyan Battalion

20 overlooking the road itself, and the command of the Kenyan Battalion

21 regularly reported to the sector staff headquarters about any movements

22 on that road.

23 Q. Well, let turn your attention to P209.

24 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me. At this time, Your Honour, I will tender

25 the item that's on the screen right now, which is 1D23-0033.

Page 3294

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.

2 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Mr. President.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

4 THE REGISTRAR: This becomes Exhibit D222, Your Honours.

5 JUDGE ORIE: D222 is admitted into evidence.


7 Q. Now this is the map that you drew yesterday; and in the area

8 of R2, that is the road that goes right up through Strmica up to

9 Bosansko Grahovo, isn't it?

10 A. Yes, that's the road.

11 Q. And consistent with Mr. Martic's statements, if they were

12 supplying Bosansko Grahovo through or from Knin or even Bankovac, they

13 would drive up through this road into Bosansko Grahovo, wouldn't they?

14 A. I was not informed of intentions of the Serbian side as to what

15 route to use to supply, but it is quite likely that this is the shortest

16 way to Grahovo and that it would be used.

17 Q. Now, prior to the actual shelling taking place, you were getting

18 complaints, or I think you noted for us -- and let me just back up for a

19 second so I can just put this in context, in fairness to you. I'm

20 looking at your testimony yesterday, on page 3180 at lines 10 and 11.

21 Sir, it is your testimony yesterday. It is not in the

22 statements, Mr. Tchernetsky.

23 MR. KEHOE: Judge, I am just trying -- he is looking at the

24 statements, and it is actually his testimony.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tchernetsky, Mr. Kehoe will read from what you

Page 3295

1 said yesterday, rather than the statement that was put on paper earlier.

2 Please proceed.

3 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Now I don't have yet the Tuesday transcript with the

5 full numbering of pages. I still have the daily numbering of pages.

6 MR. KEHOE: Frankly, Judge, I'm not sure what that one is. I

7 think it is 3180. Is that the final?

8 JUDGE ORIE: For me, it goes from 1 to 86, and then usually there

9 will be finalised and then get the sequential numbering.

10 If you give me two or three words, then I will find it.

11 MR. KEHOE: How about - let me see - let's say: "With

12 cooperation ..."

13 JUDGE ORIE: Cooperation. I will find it. Thank you.

14 MR. KEHOE: I don't know cooperation, per se, with.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's yesterday's transcript page 9, line 23,

16 apparently. That is where it says: "It was in the end of July we

17 received an assignment from ..."

18 That's the beginning of the answer, is that it?

19 MR. KEHOE: Yes, it is, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

21 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, just by way of clarification, is the

22 3180 not the official page?

23 JUDGE ORIE: It will be the official page. Usually, the pages

24 are numbered on the day itself from starting at 1, and then they become

25 part of the consolidated transcript, and then they get sequential

Page 3296

1 numbering, where we start somewhere in 3.000. It might be that number.

2 It usually comes during the day.

3 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: If you give me the specific words, then it is easy

5 to find.

6 Please proceed.

7 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.

8 Q. Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, you noted on line 10 to line 12, "This

9 investigation ..."

10 Talking about your trip to Strmica on the 30th: "This

11 investigation was performed at the request of the ARSK command and with

12 cooperation of the military units of the army of the RSK."

13 A. It was on orders of the headquarters. We had the liaison officer

14 of the 7th Corps of the ARSK with us.

15 Q. Now, by the way, when you went into the Cetina -- you had a

16 liaison officer from the ARSK that went up there to Strmica with you, you

17 just said. Is that right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Was that also true when you went into Cetina?

20 A. I was talking about Strmica, about the Strmica incident to

21 Cetina. We went alone without any military from the RSK.

22 Q. Now, going back to Strmica, you went to Strmica with a liaison

23 officer because there were restriction of movement there, weren't there?

24 A. No. The thing is that the command of the ARSK addressed the

25 sector headquarters with a protest against the fire targeting Strmica;

Page 3297

1 and in order to show us exactly where the targets were so that we

2 wouldn't wonder about, they gave us this liaison officer.

3 Q. Were there restrictions of movement on the UNMOs in the Strmica

4 area?

5 A. In Strmica, there was no restriction of movement.

6 Q. Let me turn no your attention, again, to Mr. Ermolaev's testimony

7 on the 29th of April, 2008, page 2449, line 3 to line 5:

8 "Question: So when it came to going to the Strmica area, there

9 were restrictions of movement on the UNMOs?

10 "Answer: Yes."

11 Do you disagree with that, sir?

12 A. I disagree with that. At least our team of UNMOs did not come

13 across any such restriction in the area of Strmica.

14 Let me say this, again. Strmica was an area where the Kenyan

15 Battalion was located. We patrolled, they patrolled, and we visited them

16 almost every day.

17 Q. But you did pick a liaison officer up before you went there from

18 the northern barracks, didn't you?

19 A. We picked up the liaison officer from the corps headquarters, so

20 that he could show us specifically the places where shells hit so that we

21 wouldn't search the entire territory.

22 Q. Well, sir, isn't it a fact that when you got up into the Strmica

23 area, you picked up another ARSK colonel who was there to show you where

24 the impacts were? Isn't that a fact? So, in fact, two ARSK officers are

25 with you.

Page 3298

1 A. No.

2 MR. RUSSO: [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honour,

3 I --

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Just one, just one. One whom

5 we picked up from the corps headquarters, and he escorted us to Strmica

6 and took upon himself to show us the places that he were shelled.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, is there still --

8 MR. RUSSO: I will withdraw that, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.


11 Q. So your testimony, Mr. Tchernetsky, is when you got up to the

12 Strmica area, you did not pick up another ARSK officer to ride with you?

13 A. No. We already had one officer with us. We didn't pick up

14 anybody else. The liaison officer from the corps was already with us.

15 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I notice it's 10.30. I don't know if

16 you want to us to break.

17 JUDGE ORIE: If this would be a suitable moment to take a break,

18 we will. Yesterday, I think you indicated that you would need two hours.

19 MR. KEHOE: Actually, I said at least two hours, Judge. I have a

20 little bit going through this stuff, so that's probably --

21 JUDGE ORIE: You're urged to finish your cross-examination within

22 the two-hours that you mentioned.

23 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I will do my utmost to do that. There

24 are many issues that were set forth in the 92 ter statements that need to

25 be addressed, in addition to these two larger issues, and I will do it as

Page 3299

1 quickly as possible.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe I do understand there are a lot of issues.

3 As I said before, we look at what is presented as evidence in chief, we

4 look at how cross-examination is conducted. I refer to my earlier

5 observations about what we try to achieve and what does assist the

6 Chamber and what does not assist the Chamber, and that it should not be

7 our main concern whether the witness leaves this courtroom with full

8 knowledge of what he has not observed and to draw the right inferences.

9 Please keep that in mind.

10 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at 11.00.

12 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

13 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, as far as the issue about multi-rocket

15 launchers or anti-aircraft guns is concerned, I was informed by the

16 interpreters that the terms used by this witness yesterday and today is

17 the same. Apart from that, one of the Judges on this Bench understands

18 Russian, and it is his recollection, although he admits not being a

19 military expert, that the witness talked consistently about an

20 anti-aircraft gun.

21 Of course, it's still usually, if we want to correct the

22 transcript or the translation, there's a formal procedure for that. I,

23 however, suggest that, where you're still free to seek such a

24 verification, that at least it's now put on the record that two sources

25 have confirmed that the witness spoke about an anti-aircraft gun.

Page 3300

1 MR. KEHOE: Well, I accept Judge Gwaunza's explanation because I

2 know of her expertise in Russian.


4 MR. KEHOE: Just kidding, Judge. Point of levity.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I feel a bit hurt by the fact that you consider not

6 to be fluent in Russian. But if that is your position, Mr. Kehoe, I will

7 accept it.

8 MR. KEHOE: Well, Judge, just know that --

9 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, it is, I think, the moment to also

10 express our gratitude to those who are translating into Russian. I

11 follow channel 7 frequently in order to have the pleasure of listening to

12 the Russian translation as well.

13 Please proceed.

14 MR. KEHOE: I was just reading from the transcript.

15 Q. If I may, Mr. Tchernetsky --

16 MR. KEHOE: If we can go to 65 ter 2518.

17 Q. And, now, just highlighting the top portion the 27th of July,

18 this is a letter from Lieutenant-General Mile Mrksic of the ARSK.

19 In the first paragraph, Mr. Tchernetsky, it says: "For several

20 days now, the Croatian army HV and the Croatian defence counsel have been

21 constantly firing their artillery and tanks on the Drvar-Grahovo-Knin

22 road without interruption. Operations was the most intense the 24th,

23 25th, 26th, and 27th of July."

24 MR. KEHOE: Before I move to the map, I would offer this item

25 into evidence and I will begin to ask some questions about it as well.

Page 3301

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.

2 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D223, Your Honours.

5 JUDGE ORIE: D223 is admitted into evidence.

6 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Your Honour. If we could move our

7 attention to D172.

8 Q. Now, this is map previously received in evidence,

9 Mr. Tchernetsky, that has circled Knin, Strmica, Grahovo, and Drvar.

10 Now, if we go to the top, Drvar, at that time in July, was the

11 headquarters of the 2nd Krajina Corps of the army of the Republika

12 Srpska, wasn't it?

13 A. I didn't know about that.

14 Q. So you had no knowledge of where the -- the Bosnian Serb army's

15 headquarters was. Is that right?

16 A. I didn't know that.

17 Q. Are you familiar with the road in that the ARSK was supplying

18 Bosansko Grahovo from Drvar down into Grahovo in July of 1995?

19 A. This territory was outside of our area of responsibility, outside

20 of the area of responsibility of UN monitors. We were supposed to work

21 only in the territory of Serbian Krajina. We had no jurisdiction in

22 Bosnia, and we didn't make -- we didn't go there to patrol there at all.

23 Q. I understand that, sir, but did you have any intelligence about

24 the location of the 2nd Krajina Corps in Drvar?

25 A. I was in the team of observers. Let me put it this way: We

Page 3302

1 collected information that was needed in accordance with our mandate.

2 The information was provided to us by the headquarters. Now, what kind

3 of information the headquarters received, I don't know about that.

4 Q. So, without moving on, I will take that as a "No," sir.

5 MR. KEHOE: Let us move to D161. If we could just go into

6 private session just briefly, Judge.

7 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.

8 [Private session]

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 3303

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Let's then also move on.

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.


9 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, I show you a document that was put together by

10 the assistant commander for logistics for the army of Serb Krajina, a

11 Mr. Bjelanovic, and I show you this page, and I want to take you to the

12 fourth bullet point on this document and it begins with "Assistance."

13 Now, you noted that, during your direct testimony, there were no

14 military installation in Strmica, and this document notes that:

15 "Assistance in the removal of RSK/MUP material from Strmica installation,

16 everything that the army could used was allocated." Were you aware that

17 there was a joint MUP/ARSK installation for supplies in Strmica?

18 A. No. As far as I know, and as far as we could observe, in

19 Strmica, there were no military positions or firing positions at all.

20 The closest military base of the Serbian army was much more to the south

21 of Strmica. It was in the Golubici area. Golubici area is one of those

22 areas that was closed off for our patrols. We were not given access to

23 that area.

24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... so you were unaware of this

25 joint installation.

Page 3304

1 MR. KEHOE: Let me move on to page 3 of this document.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was nothing in Strmica.

3 MR. KEHOE: Let us move on to the next document -- page 3. I

4 take you to about the middle of the page: "Due to not being able ..."

5 Q. Okay. Now, it notes in on the second bullet point, as you see:

6 "Due to not being able to conduct work in the Strmica maintenance support

7 company, the troops were ordered to redeploy units, assistance."

8 Did you know there was a maintenance support company in Strmica?

9 A. In Strmica itself, we did not see any presence of the Serbian

10 troops.

11 Q. Staying on that page, and moving down to the next entry on the

12 30th of July, of 1995, it notes that Mr. Bjelanovic, Colonel Bjelanovic:

13 "I took part in making plans for attacking operations for Dinara 95."

14 Did you know, sir, that the ARSK planned to attack the HV and

15 began that plan in the late July of 1995?

16 A. No, we did not know about such plans.

17 MR. KEHOE: Let us turn to the next page, and this is for the

18 31st of July.

19 Q. Towards the top of the page before the entry of 8.02, on that

20 last sentence: "On the Grahovo-Strmica road, the Ustasha laid mines on

21 two bridges in order to prevent deployment of our troops and their

22 replenishment with materiel."

23 Now, were you aware that that, in fact, took place, that while

24 the ARSK was trying to replenish troops on that road, that the HV had

25 planted mines?

Page 3305

1 A. No. We were not informed about that.

2 MR. KEHOE: Let us turn to D62.

3 Q. D62, sir, is, again, another note from Colonel Bjelanovic dated

4 30th July 1995, Planning of Operation Dinara.

5 Were you aware, sir, that they were moving troops beginning on

6 the 31st of July to Strmica to begin this operation? Did you see that or

7 did you observe any troop movements in that regard?

8 A. I can't remember now, with precision, whether it was 30th or 31st

9 of July. It's been 13 years. But at any rate, all movement that was

10 recorded by our patrols was included in the daily reports to the

11 headquarters sector. So you should refer to our reports.

12 Q. Based on your recollection, if it is in the sitrep or not, sir,

13 is it your testimony that you don't recall any troop movements up into

14 the Strmica area in late July of 1995 by the ARSK?

15 A. There was no major movement. I don't remember that we observed

16 any major movement in that area. But, occasionally, we would come across

17 some military vehicles or small columns that were, as a rule, moving in

18 the direction of Golubic.

19 Q. And then from Golubic, if you move in the direction of Golubic,

20 the next major town up is Strmica, isn't it?

21 A. Yes. Some seven or eight kilometres to the north of Golubic is

22 where Strmica begins.

23 Q. Now, likewise, just to cover one other issue in this page, in the

24 indentation, it says, "7th Corps." It notes that there is an organi

25 department. Do you see that, sir?

Page 3306

1 Now, an organi is an M-77 rocket launcher, a 128-millimetre,

2 isn't it?

3 A. As far as I remember, our team of monitors never reported on any

4 movement of rocket launchers. We did not observe that.

5 Q. Okay, sir. Let me turn to the exact date that you there were.

6 And if I may, one of the individuals that you went up there was an

7 individual by the name of Peter Marti, wasn't he?

8 A. If you're referring to the visit to Strmica, then, yes. Peter

9 Marti, Pavel Komper, Felix Anglada. They were with us they were members

10 of our patrol team.

11 MR. KEHOE: Let me bring up a portion of Mr. Marti's diary,

12 1D23-0021.

13 Q. Now, this has two notations to it: Saturday, the 29th of July,

14 has the list of people on the team. You being one of them.

15 30th July, 1995 on Sunday: "Sundays are always a bother. After

16 a rather chaotic start, double patrol to Strmica for the crater analysis

17 after the false alarm at 0030 hours. Samuel, Alfons, Felix, and I were

18 up in the middle of the night, despite the curfew to report on the

19 shelling, but then only to HQ. On Sunday morning, we drove to Strmica

20 for the crater analysis. We picked up the LO at the Northern Dalmatia

21 Corps, but then there was artillery shelling from Strmica on the western

22 side of the hill about one kilometre away."

23 Now, yesterday, in your testimony at --

24 MR. KEHOE: Again, Your Honour, there is the page 3183. And if

25 you want to pull up the words "provided support," I think could you find

Page 3307

1 it, Judge.

2 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, if I can just correct a portion of the

3 reading, I believe the document actually says: "There is was shelling on

4 the western hillside, about one kilometre away." I think Mr. Kehoe read

5 it as "on the west side of the hill," which I think it is two different

6 things.

7 JUDGE ORIE: I noticed that, and I did not find it a reason to

8 intervene, but you have drawn our attention to it.

9 Please proceed.

10 MR. KEHOE: I apologise.

11 Q. Now, in your testimony yesterday, you noted on line 22 --

12 actually in two locations. You noted on line 22 and 21: "And after the

13 shelling, we did not investigate the areas that were to the west that

14 provided support during the shelling."

15 Now, in looking at your testimony yesterday, and then Mr. Marti's

16 diary, was there outgoing shelling by the ARSK while you were up there on

17 the 30th of July?

18 A. No. The RSK did not fire. There was no fire coming from their

19 side.

20 Q. So, when you told us yesterday that the area to the west provided

21 support during the shelling, is it your testimony this there was no

22 firing from that area?

23 A. I apologise. I did not utter anything of the sort yesterday.

24 Perhaps, it was wrongly interpreted.

25 Q. Well, sir --

Page 3308

1 A. I could not have said anything yesterday about the response fire

2 coming from the RSK because there was none.

3 Q. Now, you also noted that, previously, you hadn't picked up any

4 other ARSK officer. Let's continue down on this.

5 You said: "After waiting at the roadside, we continued at the

6 edge of Strmica. We picked up Colonel Dokovic."

7 Do you recall that now, sir?

8 A. This is not my statement. This is the statement of Peter Marti.

9 My statement is that we picked up the liaison officer in Knin. Why there

10 are discrepancies? Well, after the first shells, the -- or, rather, the

11 liaison officer was with us with the car. After the first shells fell

12 down, he jumped out of the car, went to the first shelter which was right

13 next to the road, and hid over there. We started turning our vehicle

14 around, and we drove away.

15 After some time passed, one of our cars went back to pick up the

16 colonel, the liaison officer. For the rest of the journey, he was with

17 us.

18 This is simply a nuance that Peter didn't explain sufficiently.

19 Q. So you did, in fact, have a Colonel Dokovic with you as well?

20 A. Yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... what do you

22 mean --

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

24 MR. KEHOE: As well as the liaison officer that they picked up

25 from the Northern Dalmatia Corps --

Page 3309

1 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Yes, but that --

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm referring to --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Was the liaison officer that accompanied you, was

4 that a Colonel Dokovic or that was any other person?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember the last name, but

6 his rank was that of a colonel.

7 JUDGE ORIE: There was one person with you, not two persons, the

8 one who you picked up.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.


12 Q. Staying with this. Now, there was -- Mr. Marti then says: "Then

13 there was more artillery shelling that caused to us take shelter at the

14 farmhouse along the road."

15 So was there a second episode of shelling?

16 A. Yesterday, I testified about that. As soon as we arrived to the

17 northern positions of the Kenyan Battalion, the first shells landed, the

18 first explosions took place. It was precisely then that the colonel

19 jumped out of the car and hid. We started turning our cars and driving

20 back, and then one of our cars went back to pick up the colonel. Then

21 these shells started falling again, and we were forced to abandon our

22 cars and to seek shelter in one of the neighbouring houses. It was a

23 case where this shelling lasted for quite sometime.

24 Q. Well, just on that point, and with Mr. Marti's comment on that

25 and this is --

Page 3310

1 MR. KEHOE: Just for the sake much clarity, I will just give the

2 statement of Mr. Marti of December 14th, 2007 at paragraph 28.

3 Q. He notes: "I have recorded in my diary on 30 July ..." this is

4 at paragraph 28, "... 30 July, that on the way to conduct a crater

5 analysis in Strmica, we came under fire from five or six shells. The

6 shells were coming from the east, from the direction of Grahovo. There

7 was a Serbian check-point nearby, but I cannot say what the target was

8 meant to be."

9 Is it your testimony that it was more than five or six shells as

10 was told by Mr. Marti to the Office of the Prosecutor?

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, you're apparently quoting from a portion

12 which is not available to us at this moment.

13 MR. KEHOE: If I can, I will bring up it just for demonstrative

14 purposes, Judge. It is 1D23-0002, and that would be paragraph 28 of that

15 document. It is one, two, three, four --

16 JUDGE ORIE: That is not his diary but apparently a --

17 MR. KEHOE: A statement given to the Prosecutor.


19 MR. KEHOE: Paragraph 28. If we could just highlight

20 paragraph 28. That 's what I read, Judge.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.


23 Q. Now, is it your testimony, Mr. Tchernetsky, this was more than

24 five or six shells?

25 A. Yes. The first instance of shelling was precisely as you

Page 3311

1 described. It is my understanding that Peter Marti described in this

2 instance first salvo, and then the shelling continued for quite sometime.

3 MR. KEHOE: Let us turn our attention to D163, quickly.

4 Your Honour, I will tender the actual excerpt from the diary,

5 which is 1D23-0021 into evidence.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.

7 MR. RUSSO: No objection.

8 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.

9 Mr. Registrar.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit D224.

11 JUDGE ORIE: D224 is admitted into evidence.

12 Please proceed.

13 MR. KEHOE: If I can now just bring D163, page 2, bottom

14 paragraph: "D, Sector South."

15 Q. It notes that: "The situation in the sector remains tense,

16 especially in Sector East corner of the sector, where 115 artillery

17 shells were fired or impacted: 30 HV, 88 RSK."

18 Another sentence down: "The ARSK are reacting to the events in

19 Bosansko Grahovo by deploying forces. However, the HV so far does not

20 appear to close with or cross the border. The sector assessed the

21 Croatian efforts. In the face of ARSK, opposition as unlikely in the

22 Dinara. The situation at Strmica is being monitoring closely to foresee

23 the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which might spill over into the

24 sector and ensure the security of UN troops."

25 As an UNMO --

Page 3312

1 MR. KEHOE: I'll let the translation go through.

2 Q. As an UNMO, Mr. Tchernetsky, did you learn the firing point of

3 the RSK for those 88 rounds that they fired?

4 A. I didn't know that.

5 Q. On the next -- that next couple of lines down. Did you learn

6 during the course of your time that, in late July, the RSK was reacting

7 to owe vents in Bosansko Grahovo by redeploying forces. Did you learn

8 that?

9 A. I did not.

10 MR. KEHOE: If I might have one moment here, Judge.

11 Sorry to people in the interpretation booth.

12 Q. Let me change the subject matter here, given that I don't have

13 much time, sir. Now, you noted, during the course of your witness

14 statement --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, just for your information, you have got

16 until 12.55.

17 MR. KEHOE: 12.55?

18 JUDGE ORIE: 11.55.

19 MR. KEHOE: I thought it was Christmas, Judge.

20 Q. Staying on this particular topic, moving to the topic of

21 information, you noted that you were in the area of Bosansko Grahovo

22 where you maintain that you found some documentation concerning the

23 shelling by the HV. Is that right?

24 A. It was much later, after Operation Storm. In joint patrolling

25 together with the representative of the sector staff, as far as I

Page 3313

1 remember, Danish Captain Thomas, we got assignments from the senior UNMO

2 to try to penetrate Grahovo from the side of Strmica. However, at the

3 entrance to Grahovo we were stopped, then we attempted to drive through

4 mountain paths, mountain tracks.

5 And not far away from one of the roads in the woods, we found an

6 abandoned headquarters of what we presumed was an artillery unit, where

7 we found documents and a number of other items, including supplies,

8 abandoned sights, aiming devices, et cetera.

9 It was before the border. We did not cross the border with

10 Bosnia, and we were not able to.

11 Q. Well, sir, when was that?

12 A. I cannot give you the exact date.

13 Q. Well, what was your job up there, sir?

14 A. Our assignment that we were given was to assess the consequences

15 of the operation and the level of damage to the town of Bosansko Grahovo.

16 Q. Well, sir, if you were not in Bosnia -- let me back that up.

17 You say -- you told the Office of the Prosecutor that your Senior

18 Military Observer did not want to include the information that you had in

19 a sitrep because he thought that you would -- or they would be accused of

20 spying, right?

21 A. Yes, that is so. Because those were Croatian documents, they

22 were marked secret, and that's why he refused to include them in the

23 daily report. Instead, he suggested to me that I drive them to the

24 headquarters of our mission in Zagreb, which I did the next day.

25 Q. And you maintain that you were not in Bosnia when you did this.

Page 3314

1 Is that right?

2 A. To the best of my recollection, no. It was before the border

3 with Bosnia. We didn't cross the border. The border goes along the

4 mountain range, and we were this side of the mountain range.

5 MR. KEHOE: If I might have one moment, Judge.

6 [Defence counsel confer]


8 Q. Is it your testimony now, sir, that you were not in Bosnia at the

9 time, but Steinar Hjertnes didn't want that stuff -- those items

10 published anyway? Is that your testimony?

11 A. I cannot now be precise about the location where the Danish

12 captain and I found this abandoned headquarters. But, Steinar, yes, the

13 documents were Croatian, they were marked "secret," and that is why

14 Steinar didn't want to take the responsibility of including them in his

15 report. Instead, he instructed me to turn them over personally, which I

16 did.

17 Q. And you don't have them now, do you?

18 A. I turned them over to the headquarters of our mission. I

19 reported to the deputy of the chief military observer, an English

20 Colonel. I cannot remember his name now, and he turned it over to the

21 information department.

22 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, if I can have the map that Mr. Russo

23 turned over, about the area where Mr. Tchernetsky found these items.

24 MR. RUSSO: Your Honours, I think I can assist. I actually have

25 a portion of this that I had intended to go into, so I did another one of

Page 3315

1 those blow-ups for this. It is 65 ter 4940.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Let's look at it and then, Mr. Kehoe, tell us

3 whether it's a useful excerpt from this map.

4 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge, I will tender to the Court, during

5 the proofing session, we received a document that was marked by the

6 witness that clearly showed that it was in Bosnia, and I will tender that

7 back to the Trial Chamber. But this is not the document that was

8 tendered to us by the Office of the Prosecutor from the proofing session.

9 But we will offer that across the bar.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.

11 MR. RUSSO: That's fine, Judge.

12 JUDGE ORIE: And --

13 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I did not load that map into e-court. I

14 was going to have him actually mark it here in court on this particular

15 exhibit, in order to save some time.

16 JUDGE ORIE: There's been, Mr. Tchernetsky, quite a lot of

17 discussion on whether you found the items in Bosnia and Herzegovina or

18 not. Did I understand your testimony well when you said -- when I heard

19 you saying that you thought you would still be in Croatia or at least in

20 the -- but that you're not certain about that.

21 Is that well understood?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely correct, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

24 MR. KEHOE: If I might have one moment, Your Honour.

25 [Defence counsel confer]

Page 3316

1 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge, I do, in fact, have a copy of what

2 the -- was tendered to us in the supplemental information sheet of

3 18 May 2008.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any way or is there any dispute about

5 whether it was on the Croatian side of the border or on the Bosnian side

6 of the border, and how vital is the matter?

7 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I, quite frankly, don't know what the

8 confrontation line was on that particular day was, but I certainly

9 disagree --

10 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... we're talking about

11 state borders, rather than about confrontation lines, isn't it?

12 MR. KEHOE: That's correct, Judge.

13 MR. RUSSO: I have no idea. I have no dispute about whether or

14 not it was in Bosnia.

15 JUDGE ORIE: So, if the Defence takes the position that it would

16 have been in Bosnia, you would not challenge that.

17 MR. RUSSO: That's correct Your Honour.

18 MR. KEHOE: We'll move on, Judge.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.


21 Q. Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, with this document, you didn't keep a copy,

22 did you?

23 A. No, I didn't make copies.

24 Q. And you have not been shown any copies of that during the course

25 of your meetings with the Office of the Prosecutor, have you?

Page 3317

1 A. The copies of those documents that I found, or, rather, we found,

2 were turned over to the headquarters, and I never saw them again. In the

3 course of proofing, I was not shown copies of these documents.

4 Q. Now, when you say that "we" turned them over to the headquarters,

5 who is the "we" -- excuse me. That "we" found and turned over, who is

6 the "we"?

7 A. I'm telling you, again, that I was accompanied by a

8 representative of the Sector South headquarters, Captain Thomas from

9 Denmark, to the best of my recollection. I can't remember his name.

10 Q. Now, in P205, your supplemental statement of 6 December 2007, you

11 note in paragraph 8: "The Croatian maps and artillery plans showed enemy

12 positions that did not, in fact, exist. Specifically, they showed enemy

13 positions in areas which I knew personally -- excuse me, I personally

14 knew to be entirely civilian without any military targets.

15 "Although I cannot recall the specific villages or areas

16 indicated, I do recall that these documents showed the presence of tanks

17 where I knew there were no tanks or other military hardware present."

18 Do you see that before you in your statement, sir?

19 A. Yes, I saw that. Not only that, I pointed that out to the senior

20 UNMO when I showed him that plan, to Steinar.

21 Q. Putting aside the fact that you can't identify the villages or

22 areas, were you in those villages or areas on either the 4th or the 5th

23 of August, 1995, during Operation Storm?

24 A. No.

25 Q. So, if you weren't in those villages or those areas, you don't

Page 3318

1 know whether or not -- well, you don't know whether or not a mobile

2 vehicle, such as a tank, was in that village on the 4th or the 5th, do

3 you?

4 A. In addition to tanks, there were other positions indicated on

5 that map that did not exist in reality, at least not until the end of

6 August.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tchernetsky, the question was whether, not being

8 present in those villages, whether you knew or did not know whether or

9 not there was a mobile vehicle, such as a tank, in that village or those

10 villages on the 4th or the 5th August.

11 Do you know? Don't you know?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About the presence or absence of

13 mobile military hardware in those population centre, I certainly couldn't

14 know anything.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.


17 Q. Did you go back to these villages and areas after you got this

18 report and do a shelling analysis; and if so, do you have it?

19 A. No. I did not go back there with that specific objective. I did

20 not receive such an assignment.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one additional question in this respect.

22 Did you return to those villages at all?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I mean to say those villages

24 remained in your areas of responsibility mand we continued to control

25 them after Operation Storm, to inspect them.

Page 3319

1 JUDGE ORIE: Did you ever find any mobile vehicle, such as a

2 tank, which was apparently not able to function anymore?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Neither before nor after the

4 operation, there was no mobile military equipment in those population

5 centres that were mentioned. We did not find any, and we didn't find any

6 damaged equipment either.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.


9 Q. Well, Mr. Tchernetsky, the areas that you were talking about

10 after Operation Storm came under the control of the Republic of Croatia,

11 didn't they?

12 A. Precisely.

13 Q. And the documents that you allegedly found, you found at the end

14 of September 1995, didn't you?

15 A. I don't remember dates. I've said so before.

16 Q. Well, it was well after Operation Storm, wasn't it?

17 A. Yes, it was well after.

18 MR. KEHOE: Just by point of clarification, Judge, that this was

19 what he was talking about --

20 Q. What you're talking about in these alleged documents was targets

21 that you supposedly saw on a piece of paper that were from prior to

22 Operation Storm, right?

23 A. The document was called plan of artillery preparation for that

24 area, so that document concerned the preparatory stage of the operation.

25 Q. I'll move to another subject.

Page 3320

1 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I know I have a limited time and maybe I

2 can handle this across the bar, because it was an issue that came up

3 during the course of the testimony of the witness. A document was

4 received in evidence which is - actually, it was received by the Defence,

5 D65, and Mr. Russo touched upon it - which is a CIVPOL report of August

6 12, 1995, concerning the homicides of Mile Milivojevic and Ilija

7 Milivojevic. We discussed that previously.

8 I'm a little asking for Your Honours' guidance in this sense on

9 these particular issues, given the fact that the autopsy reports from

10 Ilija Milivojevic is D7, and that was entered into evidence with a cause

11 of death being unascertained at autopsy. Mile Milivojevic, which is D8,

12 his, likewise, has an uncertain death.

13 The UN CIVPOL report notes, in D635, that it is impossible to see

14 how the two men died. That is the centre of the item. Then in the

15 clarification schedule, filed by the Office of the Prosecutor pursuant to

16 Your Honour's instructions, the notation in the clarification schedule of

17 the murders notes that the cause of death is uncertain. That is a

18 document filed by the Office of the Prosecutor on 29 March 2007.

19 I raise this issue in from the standpoint of the Defence being

20 prepared to meet the evidence, yet it is unclear notwithstanding some

21 questions in this regard exactly what we are meeting. The OTP is

22 uncertain as to the cause of death, the autopsy report has no cause of

23 death, and --

24 JUDGE ORIE: But it's created six years after the event, isn't

25 it?

Page 3321

1 MR. KEHOE: Well, it is. The autopsy report -- well, I submit to

2 the Your Honour that a shot to the cranium would be evident until the

3 cranium --

4 JUDGE ORIE: That will leave traces.

5 MR. KEHOE: It is in conjunction --

6 JUDGE ORIE: You ask our specific attention for the several

7 sources of information we have on the potential causes of death or the

8 causes of death unknown in relation to these persons.

9 MR. KEHOE: If I can be a bit more precise, to answer the first

10 question, Judge, and it goes to the CIVPOL report received in evidence,

11 D65, from the 12th of December, which notes that the police officers at

12 the time were impossible to see how the two men died. It just makes it

13 -- excuse me.

14 I apologise, it is 12th of August, 2005.

15 In an effort to meet the evidence presented by the Office of the

16 Prosecutor, i.e., through the 65 ter statements of this witness or the

17 exhibits, it renders it virtually impossible to answer, when there is no

18 cause of death not only from the autopsy, but also from the particular --

19 JUDGE ORIE: This is rather argumentative, what we could conclude

20 from what pieces of evidence. Of course, we have heard only part of the

21 case, but these appears to be important sources of information.

22 Now, what would you ask the witness about?

23 MR. KEHOE: Certainly, certainly, with regard to --

24 JUDGE ORIE: We're not going to show all the reports. That's --

25 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Your Honour --

Page 3322

1 JUDGE ORIE -- exactly the type of exercise which I discourage you

2 to make, to give the full information then ask the witness to draw

3 inferences which finally the Chamber will have to draw on the basis of

4 the complete evidence.

5 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I'm asking the question because I'm

6 accepting your discouragement, and I simply raise this issue because at

7 this particular juncture, on this particular scheduled killing, it is

8 impossible to know what the Defence is called upon to meet because it is

9 impossible to know what the Prosecution's position is when there is no

10 cause of death and there is this type of convicting information. In the

11 normal course of events, and certainly we wouldn't do that, we would go

12 through the litany of questions.

13 But I understand Your Honour's --

14 JUDGE ORIE: I do not what this witness could add to that. I see

15 the point.

16 MR. KEHOE: Well, I --

17 JUDGE ORIE: You could ask him whether he is certain about what

18 he observed or not, and say that there were other reports which says that

19 cause of death was unknown, and whether he sticks to what he knows about

20 it. Then that's approximately where it ends, unless you have specific

21 reasons to believe that there are certain aspects in the testimony of

22 this witness which could be attacked thoroughly on the basis of these

23 documents.

24 For example, if the documents say he was shot to the left of the

25 head, and if the witness would have said to the right, that could ask

Page 3323

1 very specific points, but I leave it finally up to you. What I want to

2 avoid is that if the witness is clear in what he says he has seen, that

3 we put all the pieces of information and then say, You must be right,

4 isn't it? That, of course, finally is not a way of --

5 MR. KEHOE: I raise the issue, Judge, simply, I'm sure you

6 appreciate the difficulties from the Defence side of answering a homicide

7 when the cause of death is uncertain. That's the difficulty. To the

8 extent that if we eliminate this --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I correct you. It's difficult. Cause of

10 death can be established by all means of evidence, and you have drawn

11 your attention specifically now to the fact that experts in autopsies and

12 other documents say that the authors of those documents could not

13 establish a cause of death. That is not the same as no cause of death.

14 That's for the Chamber finally to decide on what basis of what evidence

15 we will or we will not accept that a person died due to a specific cause

16 of events.

17 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Your Honour.


19 MR. KEHOE: With regard to this, this is my last question, Judge.

20 Q. With regard to the particular incident that took place on the

21 12th of August, where you supposedly saw these two bodies, you note in

22 P204 on page 4, the first full paragraph, and you said that: "Because of

23 the fact that our office was close to that house, I went to the site and

24 was present when the bodies were removed."

25 Now, in fact, sir, you were not present when those bodies were

Page 3324

1 removed, were you?

2 A. When the bodies were being removed, I was at the office; and

3 since the office is next to that house, I observed the whole thing, the

4 whole process. I had just come back from a patrol. At the beginning at

5 the request of our landlady, me and the Polish colleague entered the

6 house. We saw the dead bodies. After that, we reported to the sector

7 staff about it, the sector south told me to turn it over to the

8 UN CIVPOL, and further investigation was conducted by UN CIVPOL. But the

9 bodies were removed eventually by the Croatian police and by an

10 ambulance.

11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tchernetsky.

12 MR. KEHOE: I have no further questions, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, any need to re-examine the witness?

14 MR. RUSSO: No, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: No need.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE ORIE: I have a question.

18 Could, please, D152 be put on the screen.

19 Questioned by the Court:

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we turn to the last five pages of this

21 document.

22 Mr. Tchernetsky, do you recognise what this is?

23 A. Yes. This is the list of the RSK soldiers that I found in

24 Podinarje and subsequently turned over to Croatian authorities with

25 participation of other international organisations.

Page 3325

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you -- do you recognise the signature?

2 A. Yes, this is my signature.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Can we move to the next page, please.

4 Could you tell us what it is, and whether this is also your

5 signature?

6 A. Yes. This page was also signed by me. This is the list of

7 civilians of persons that we found in Podinarje and recorded, registered.

8 Subsequently, most of these people were sent to Serbia.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we move to the next page.

10 Could you confirm that this is -- could you tell us what this is?

11 A. Again, this is one of the lists. I wouldn't be able to say

12 exactly from which area; perhaps Podinarje again. This could be just

13 another copy, just in handwriting -- handwritten.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Is it a similar list? It is apparently not the same

15 list, is it?

16 A. This is a list from a different region, Your Honours. As I told

17 you, we also looked for people in that area, registered them, and then

18 provided humanitarian and medical assistance to them.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Could we then move to the last page of this

20 document.

21 The signature on this page, which is still in front of you, is

22 yours as well?

23 A. Yes. My signature, again, and the date is 18th of May, 2002.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

25 And now the last page.

Page 3326

1 Your signature as well?

2 A. Again, my signature.

3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... similar list?

4 A. Yes, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

6 I said to the last page, but I have forgotten one, I'm afraid.

7 The previous one would be the same questions in relation to this

8 list.

9 A. Yes, Your Honour. My signature. This is a list that I provided

10 to investigators as a sample of the kind of work that we did.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.

12 I asked the witness these questions because D152 was admitted

13 into evidence; and to that statement, which is the same statement as

14 P204, that statement, the T1 to T5 were attached where they are not

15 attached to P204, which apart from these attachments is the same

16 statement.

17 In the statements, T1 to T5, where we find those markings on

18 these documents, are mentioned. So, therefore, we have at this moment

19 D152 that is the statement of Mr. Tchernetsky. Date of the interview is

20 18th of May 2002, with five pages attached to it, admitted into evidence.

21 We, at that time, said that we would review whether admission was

22 appropriate on the basis of the attestation of the witness if it would

23 appear. The witness has not only attested to the statement itself, but

24 also now to the five attached pages to it.

25 Of course, we could now do a rather complex exercise to get rid

Page 3327

1 of P204, but let's leave it for the time being as it is. D152 is the

2 May 2002 statement of Mr. Tchernetsky with the attachments, and P204 is

3 the same statement but now without the attachments.

4 That was the purpose of this short exercise.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that the parties would agree that on

7 the basis of the evidence just given by the witness, that there is no

8 reason to review the decision to admit D152?

9 Yes. I see all the parties agree with that.

10 Mr. Tchernetsky, this concludes your evidence in this court. I

11 would like to thank you very much for coming and for answering the

12 questions that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench, and I

13 hope you have a safe trip home again.

14 Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Tchernetsky out of the

15 courtroom.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

17 [The witness withdrew]

18 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the --

19 Mr. Russo.

20 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I just wanted to inform the Court

21 that -- you mentioned there is a formal procedure for revisiting the

22 transcript, translation issues. I have been informed by one of the

23 Russian colleagues on our team that the witness's references to the word

24 "control" in indicating movements of the UNMOs, that he was actually

25 saying "monitor."

Page 3328

1 In any event, I would like the Court's guidance on exactly how to

2 pursue that.

3 JUDGE ORIE: It depends. If you have any reason to believe that

4 what we see on our English transcript is not reflecting accurately what

5 the witness said, and if it is an issue which is of sufficient importance

6 to be corrected, then please tell us exactly, page, line, et cetera, and

7 then we could apply for a review of, first of all, what was said and then

8 how it was translated.

9 MR. RUSSO: We'll do that in a written submission, Your Honour,

10 if that is --

11 JUDGE ORIE: If you make a brief written submission, then it can

12 be passed on to CLSS, and if need be to the audio visual unit, and then

13 you'll find out.

14 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: By the way, Mr. Russo, usually, it is better to do

16 these kind of things when the witness is still there, because if the

17 parties would agree on that there might be a flaw or a shortcoming - and

18 I emphasise that I'm always surprised how little, how small the number of

19 requests is and, therefore, how excellent the quality of work of our

20 interpreters is - but if there is any reason to raise such an issue,

21 preferably to be done when the witness is still there, or seek

22 clarification in re-examination, asking, When you use that word, what do

23 you mean by it exactly, et cetera. Then that saves us the risk of having

24 to recall the witness.

25 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I will be reviewing that to, first of

Page 3329

1 all, determine whether or not it is a matter of sufficient weight, and I

2 will certainly address the Defence on that before approaching the Court

3 with a written submission, if necessary.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's clear.

5 Now, before we start with the next witness, I was informed that

6 there was a procedural issue to be raised before the witness enters the

7 courtroom. I must admit that I haven't brought yet my material for the

8 next witness, so it could well be that I'm unable to fully understand

9 what the issue is.

10 But let's hear from you, Mr. Kehoe. Can we deal with the matter

11 in -- the next witness will give his testimony in open session without

12 protective measures from what I understand. It will be Witness 110.

13 Mr. Kehoe, what is the issue you'd like to raise?

14 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. The issue is concerning the series

15 of UN CIVPOL reports that are -- that the Office of the Prosecutor is

16 attempting to tender. I took the -- well, laboured through the actual

17 reports in congestion with Mr. Elleby's 92 ter statements. Any number of

18 these documents, and there are approximately over 60, as I go through

19 them, there are numerous documents that Mr. Elleby says, "I don't know

20 anything about them because I wasn't even there." He left on October 1st

21 of 1995. He says, "It looks whatever it is, but I wasn't there."

22 That encompasses --

23 JUDGE ORIE: It's quite a number.

24 MR. KEHOE: Quite a number --

25 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... there has been

Page 3330

1 communication bout two series of documents, the ones when he wasn't there

2 and the other ones which he did not personally observe.

3 MR. KEHOE: Or that he doesn't anything about, better still.


5 MR. KEHOE: It would be different if, in fact, they got back and

6 they sat around and there was some consultation about a particular item,

7 but his 92 ter statement says that he doesn't know anything about them.

8 Obviously, on those particular exhibits, those particular CIVPOL

9 reports, we are objecting to their admission through this witness for

10 those reasons. There are documents that -- I mean, then there are a

11 series of documents that they intend to propose that are frankly in line

12 with what one of the other protected witnesses that testified here then

13 backed off of during or prior to the testimony when the Office of the

14 Prosecutor came in and said when this witness said he saw all these

15 bodies, he really didn't.

16 Those are some of the documents that the Prosecution attempts to

17 bring into evidence. Suffice it to say, Judge, I mean, with regard to

18 cross-examination, it is difficult, of course, to cross-examine a witness

19 where on these documents --

20 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... quite easy, isn't it? He

21 can't tell us anything about it.

22 MR. KEHOE: I guess the difficulty then comes in, and I guess

23 what happened last week is a good example of that, is when we deal with

24 an individual scheduled killing like we have, where this person gives

25 this story about having seen all these bodies, and then when you talk to

Page 3331

1 the person or the Office of the Prosecutor talks to them on the eve of

2 coming in here, and they said: Well, I didn't see those bodies at all";

3 when, in fact, they used it as count in indictment, as well as part of

4 the clarification schedule. It just makes it very difficult and

5 virtually impossible to cross on.

6 JUDGE ORIE: As I said before, if the witness doesn't know

7 anything about it, it is rather easy; although, the Chamber has a

8 difficulty then, isn't it?

9 MR. KEHOE: This is true.

10 JUDGE ORIE: I fully agree with you that if it would admitted

11 into evidence, that what wight to be given to that material is not an

12 easy matter. I think that is it even more difficult than the

13 difficulties you face during cross-examination.

14 MR. KEHOE: Judge, I didn't mean to be selfish and just discuss

15 my position. I understand the position of the Trial Chamber. But from

16 the standpoint of the Defence, I just wanted the Court to appreciate my

17 concern.

18 JUDGE ORIE: To be honest, of course, we'll consider the matter

19 over the break, and I couldn't say that we were not aware of this type of

20 objection to be expected. But we'll use the break now to see whether

21 your objection should result in non-admission of these documents. We

22 have a list of which specific documents you oppose against and the two

23 categories, the one is he wasn't there anymore and the other one was he

24 didn't observe personally on what was reported.

25 Could I ask: From the submissions made by the parties, I have no

Page 3332

1 information yet that the other Defence teams would join in this

2 objections.

3 Mr. Kay.

4 MR. KAY: We do, Your Honour. We have no particular interest in

5 information within those documents, so it wasn't a matter which concerned

6 us, but the submission by Mr. Kehoe we would support entirely.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Kuzmanovic.

8 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Likewise, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.

10 MR. KEHOE: I have one other aspect. It's not that particular

11 problem, but just an agreement with the Prosecutor.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But, first, to conclude this aspect.

13 Do you think you've made your position sufficiently clear.

14 That's just for us because we'll consider the matter and we'll decide the

15 matter. So, therefore, I just want to be sure that where you took only a

16 couple of minutes --

17 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Judge, I just --

18 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not inviting to you keep talking, but I want to

19 make sure. I mean, this is an important issue. You are seeking to the

20 non-admission of quite a number of documents; and, therefore, I want to

21 verify whether you think that you have explained your position

22 sufficiently and whether you got the impression that the Chamber

23 understood your submissions sufficiently.

24 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, that's the -- Your Honour, has the crux

25 -- the Bench has the crux of our position on those documents. I don't

Page 3333

1 want to belabour that point. I mean, these documents are documents that

2 could come in through other witnesses, where we would be able to talk

3 about some of the other matters contained therein, as opposed to somebody

4 that doesn't know anything about them. But Your Honours that the kernel

5 of the argument presented by the Defence.

6 I do have one other item --


8 MR. KEHOE: -- with regard to the summary of the dossier --

9 JUDGE ORIE: That is the summaries on the on the Excel sheet,

10 were the summaries are.

11 MR. KEHOE: Yes, it looks like one of these.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What is the purpose of tendering that into

13 evidence where there is a dispute whether the summary is right or wrong?

14 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I had not intended to send that in as an

15 item of substantive evidence. I was simply responding to the Court's

16 concern expressed earlier about voluminous documentation, and pointed to

17 the Court the portions of the documents that we thought were at issue.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Is there agreement between the parties that your

19 summary is not what we should look at, but, if we admit into evidence

20 these documents, that we should look at the documents and that a summary

21 is the just an effort to assist with us a risk to confuse us.

22 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge. I talked to Mr. Tieger about this

23 last night, and we agree at this time that the summary aspect of this

24 document would be removed and that we would work with the Prosecutor to

25 come up with a summary that's in there. We have done that with regard to

Page 3334

1 the other documents, and we are just going to duplicate that. So, in the

2 not too distant future, we will have that.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I noted now what Excell can do for you, that is,

4 sorting, taking out portions, adding portions, is now fully explored.

5 We'll consider the objections. We will wait until we see the new

6 Excel sheet with other information as agreed between the parties.

7 Any other matter before the break?

8 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour.

9 MS. FROLICH: Your Honour.


11 MS. FROLICH: Your Honour, if I may, would it proper if I just

12 now respond briefly to the Defence objections, or would it be better --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You may do that, and I apologise for not

14 having invited you to do so.

15 MS. FROLICH: First of all, good afternoon, Your Honours.

16 I think the position of the Prosecution, with respect to the

17 admission of several documents and with respect to similar documents in

18 the past, has been clear. We are not seeking to admit these documents

19 based on the witness's knowledge about the incidents or any presence that

20 he may have been in Knin or not at the time, but based on his position as

21 a Sector South chief of CIVPOL and his position to authenticate these

22 documents by the way they were formatted, they were reported, they were

23 formulated, et cetera. So there are other factors that go to

24 admissibility of these documents. We never purported to say that the

25 witness knew actually anything about these documents which would, indeed,

Page 3335

1 go to the weight of these documents.

2 JUDGE ORIE: You, more or less, say it is more than tendering

3 them from the bar table, although the witness may not have detailed

4 knowledge about the documents but he may have been informed about.

5 MS. FROLICH: Documents, on their face, are sufficient, I

6 believe, to be admitted on their face across the bar table. But in

7 addition, the witness authenticates them and explains the reporting

8 procedure, which adds somewhat to their admissibility, I believe.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Kehoe, just for our information, is there

10 any specific reason to be very cautious about the authenticity of the

11 documents as such, or is there any reason to believe that there's any

12 forgery involved? I'm just asking.

13 MR. KEHOE: No, Judge, none whatsoever. I did not -- and if I

14 made that kind of inference, I didn't mean that in any fashion. I'm just

15 talking about simply, as an advocate, representing our client just being

16 able to meet this evidence. You know, that is the crux of the argument,

17 as I said, yeah.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information. We will have a

19 break, and we'll resume at quarter to 1.00 and then we have one hour with

20 the witness.

21 Will it be you, Ms. Frolich, who examines this witness?

22 MS. FROLICH: Yes, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: We stand adjourned until quarter to 1.00.

24 --- Recess taken at 12.23 p.m.

25 --- On resuming at 12.46 p.m.

Page 3336

1 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered how to proceed with the

2 objections you raised and that were joined by the other Defence counsel.

3 We'll proceed in the following way --

4 Ms. Frolich has disappeared behind the lectern, but ...

5 MS. FROLICH: I apologise, Your Honour. I was not receiving any

6 interpretation.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, now ...

8 Ms. Frolich.

9 MS. FROLICH: Yes, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The drilling has not stopped yet. Security is

11 trying to find the culprit.

12 Ms. Frolich, The next witness to appear, which is Witness known

13 until now as Witness 110, Mr. Elleby, I take it that in the beginning of

14 his testimony, you will seek the attestation in order to have his

15 statement admitted under Rule 92 ter.

16 MS. FROLICH: That is correct.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are invited to put in this context a few

18 questions to the witness in relation to what you seek him to establish,

19 in relation to the documents, the attached documents. I do understand

20 that you say that he may recognise the format, or he may have reviewed

21 them and not seen any persons which he is not aware of, or whatever. But

22 what you explained to us earlier, what your purpose was to establish

23 through this witness, not, as far as I understand, the truth of the

24 content, at least not in relation it those documents Mr. Kehoe is

25 objecting to, that is, the documents that were created when the witness

Page 3337

1 wasn't there anymore, or the documents where the witness has no personal

2 knowledge of the events described in the documents.

3 Now, you are invited to do that in relation to a selection you

4 can make yourself: One example out of the first series, that is, where

5 the witness wasn't there anymore. Another example out of the second

6 series Mr. Kehoe objected to.

7 That is not to take hours, but just try it find, I take it, that

8 you want him to confirm that this is the format used, and that, well,

9 whatever you consider relevant in this respect. The Chamber would not

10 expect this to take anything more than perhaps two or three minutes.

11 The Defence, before we finally decide on admission, will have an

12 opportunity to put similar questions but also limited to that aspect, not

13 other aspects, and then the Chamber will decide on admission of the

14 statement and the annexes.

15 This is the procedural solution the Chamber has established now,

16 and then we'll give a decision. It might well be that if we would decide

17 whether it will be admission or non-admission of these two series, that

18 we would write down the reasons later, so reasons to follow. The Chamber

19 reserves its position in that respect, whether we would immediately give

20 the full reasons for such a decision.

21 Is it clear to you? Clear to you, Mr. Kehoe.

22 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Judge. I don't want to belabour the point. I

23 mean, obviously, I don't want it ask unnecessary questions.

24 JUDGE ORIE: You're always invited not to ask unnecessary

25 questions.

Page 3338

1 MR. KEHOE: My questions candidly, Judge, would be limited to

2 what I laid out in our motion, which is: Mr. Elleby, you weren't here at

3 the time, or you don't know anything about this event.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Two shorts questions, perhaps two short answers.

5 You even could agree on this with Ms. Frolich.

6 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I got my information from the

7 supplemental 92 ter statement -- not the supplemental, the second 92 ter

8 statement where I --

9 JUDGE ORIE: What I wanted to say is that, of course, I fully

10 understand your tradition, that you put the question: Isn't it true that

11 you left that day and isn't it true that this document comes from a later

12 day and isn't it true that this day is after the first day? But you also

13 could say, I've got no further questions, where it is apparent that the

14 witness had left already on the basis of his 92 ter statement.

15 Let's try to deal with it as efficiently as possible, but we want

16 to give a fair opportunity to understand exactly how Ms. Frolich wants to

17 introduce these documents, and to give a fair opportunity to Defence.

18 For example, if she chooses an example which gives a totally different

19 format what we usually see, then, of course, you could challenge that

20 issue as well. Yes.

21 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, in review of these documents, I don't

22 think the format is too different. I may be mistaken.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's not start guessing about it. It might

24 that be Ms. Frolich has a perfect format or a non-perfect format. We'll

25 see.

Page 3339

1 Ms. Frolich, are you ready to call the next witness, which the

2 Chamber understands will be Jan Elleby?

3 MS. FROLICH: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher.

5 [The witness entered court]

6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Elleby, I take it.

7 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Elleby, first of all, can you hear me in a

9 language that you understand?

10 THE WITNESS: I hear you, and I do understand you.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules require you to

12 make a solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, whole truth, and

13 nothing but the truth. The text is now handed out to you by the usher.

14 May I invite you to you make that solemn declaration.

15 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

16 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated Mr. Elleby.


19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Frolich.

20 MS. FROLICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Examination by Ms. Frolich:

22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Elleby.

23 A. Good afternoon.

24 MS. FROLICH: First of all, with the assistance of the usher, of

25 hard copies of the witness statements could be provided to the witness.

Page 3340

1 Thank you.

2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.


4 Q. Mr. Elleby, could you please state your full name for the record.

5 A. My full name is Jan Elleby.

6 Q. Did you give four statements to the investigators of the Office

7 of the Prosecutor on 17th September, 1995, and that is 65 ter 4867;

8 14 September 1997, and that is 65 ter 4868; 10th October 2005, 65 ter

9 4869; and 19th and 20th February, 2008, which is supplemental witness

10 statement, 65 ter number 4870.

11 A. Yes, I did.

12 Q. Do you have these four statements in front of you?

13 A. Yes, I have.

14 Q. After your statements were recorded, did you have a chance to

15 read them in a language that you understand?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Did you sign the English copies of these statements?

18 A. Yes, I did.

19 Q. Did you have a chance to review these statements, in the language

20 that you understand, the day before yesterday?

21 A. Yes, I did.

22 Q. And did you have a chance to make corrections to a couple of

23 these statements?

24 A. Yes, I did.

25 MS. FROLICH: Mr. President, can I have permission to lead the

Page 3341

1 witness through these corrections that he has made.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If there is no objection from the defence,

3 please do so.

4 MS. FROLICH: Thank you.

5 Q. Mr. Elleby, in your 1997 statement, on page 2 - that's also

6 page 2 in B/C/S, 65 ter 4868 - you mentioned you had meetings with

7 Mr. Romanic two to three times a week.

8 Did you, in fact, have only two to three meetings in total with

9 him?

10 A. Yes, that is correct.

11 Q. In the same statement, on page 3 - that's page 2 in B/C/S - you

12 mentioned receiving 15 to 20 reports of burnt houses everyday from

13 5th August to the 1st of October.

14 Can you, from this distance in time, confirm that number?

15 A. No. I cannot confirm the number of written reports.

16 Q. Thank you. In your 2008 supplemental statement, in paragraph 6 -

17 that is 65 ter 4870 - you mentioned there were 30 to 50 CIVPOL monitors

18 in Sector South after Operation Storm.

19 Did you, in fact, mean to say that there were 25 to 30 monitors?

20 A. Yes, I did.

21 Q. And when you authenticated -- in the same supplemental statement,

22 when you authenticated the document under 65 ter number 662, which is the

23 18th of August, 1995 damage assessment document, you said you could

24 observe more damage in Knin than noted in that report.

25 Is that, in fact, correct?

Page 3342

1 A. No, that is not correct.

2 Q. What would be your observation based -- what would be your --

3 what you say about the amount much damage that you could observe in Knin?

4 A. The amount of damage mentioned in the text in the document is

5 correct.

6 Q. Thank you. If I could just remind that you since you and I are

7 both speaking the same language here, if you make a short break between

8 each question and answer, so that the court reporters can keep up with

9 us.

10 A. I'm sorry. Yes.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 Now, taking into account these corrections, do these statements

13 taken together accurately and truthfully, to the best of your knowledge,

14 reflect what you said at the time that the statements were being taken?

15 A. Yes, they do.

16 Q. Would you give the same answers today if you were examined on the

17 same matters?

18 A. Yes, I would.

19 Q. I would ask that these four statements be tendered into evidence.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Ms. Frolich, of course, we have not seen

21 them. The witness has apparently statements in front of him. Could we

22 just have them on the screen, if only the first pages, so that we can

23 identify those documents.

24 MS. FROLICH: Yes, I apologise. I wanted to save some time.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. But this should be kind of a

Page 3343

1 practice.


3 Q. Mr. Elleby, do you see on the screen in front of you -- what do

4 you see on the screen in front of you?

5 JUDGE ORIE: I think there is no problem leading the witness

6 there, but just to have them on the screen.

7 Also, Mr. Registrar, that we're not talking -- that we're talking

8 about same statements and about nothing else.


10 Q. Yeah. Mr. Elleby, is this your 1995 statement?

11 A. Yes, it is.

12 MS. FROLICH: And I believe that is 65 ter number 4867.

13 And if we could go to -- Mr. President, should I show the page

14 where witness signed?

15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you show him at one spot or perhaps at the

16 end his signature, that would suffice.


18 Q. Mr. Elleby, is this -- is this the statement -- is this the last

19 page of your statement, and do you recognise the signature?

20 A. It's not my signature, but it is the last page of the statement.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 MS. FROLICH: Could we move on to 65 ter --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any place where he has put a signature on

24 it.

25 MS. FROLICH: No. I believe, on this statement, that there is no

Page 3344

1 signature of Mr. Elleby, but he has confirmed --

2 JUDGE ORIE: But this is the statement that you reviewed.

3 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

5 MS. FROLICH: If we could move on to 65 ter 4868.

6 Q. Mr. Elleby, is this your 14 September 1997 statement?

7 A. Yes, it is.

8 Q. And is this your signature at the bottom of the page, in English

9 version?

10 A. Yes, that's my signature.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Frolich, you earlier referred to the

12 September 1995 statement, where, I take it, you wanted to refer to the

13 17th of September, 1995 statement --

14 MS. FROLICH: Yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: -- and where this is the statement given the 14th of

16 September?

17 MS. FROLICH: That is correct.


19 MS. FROLICH: Could we move on to 65 ter 4869.

20 Q. Mr. Elleby, is this your 10th of October, 2005 statement?

21 A. Yes, it is.

22 Q. Is this your signature at the bottom of the page, or one of the

23 three signatures?

24 A. Yes. The top signature is mine.

25 Q. Thank you.

Page 3345

1 MS. FROLICH: And could we move on to 65 ter 4870.

2 Q. Is this your 19th and 20th February, 2008 statement?

3 A. Yes, it is.

4 Q. And is this your signature in the bottom left corner of the

5 statement?

6 A. Yes, it is.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Frolich, I take it that the reports,

9 et cetera, will be dealt with separately?

10 MS. FROLICH: Yes.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Then Mr. Registrar 4867, the 17th of September, 1995

12 statement would be?

13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P214, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE ORIE: P214, from the submissions, I learned that there is

15 no objection against it.

16 P214 is admitted into evidence.

17 65 ter 4868 will be?

18 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P215, Your Honours.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, also no objection; therefore, P215 is admitted

20 into evidence.

21 Mr. Registrar, 4869, the 10th of October 2005 statement?

22 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P216, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. 216 is admitted into evidence.

24 Finally, the supplemental witness statements of the 19th and the

25 20th of February, 2008, 65 ter 4870, is?

Page 3346

1 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P217, Your Honours.

2 JUDGE ORIE: No objections against P217; therefore, admitted into

3 evidence.

4 Ms. Frolich.

5 MS. FROLICH: Thank you. Could we have 65 ter number 2147,

6 please, on the screen.

7 Q. Mr. Elleby, what do you see on the screen in front of you?

8 A. I see a fax message from UNCIVPOL headquarters in Zagreb.

9 Q. And how do you know this is a -- this is a CIVPOL headquarters

10 message?

11 A. It's a -- I recognise this because it's a form that what was

12 usually used. This is sent in October after I left the mission, it looks

13 like, on 29th of October, but the format is quite known.

14 Q. Did you ever use this sort of format -- or, rather, have you ever

15 seen this sort of format before?

16 A. I have. I recognise the format.

17 Q. Have you seen similar reports before?

18 A. Yes, I have.

19 Q. Where?

20 A. At my work in -- in headquarters in Knin.

21 Q. And when was that, sir?

22 A. That was from -- that was from the mid-May until the end of

23 September 1995.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 MS. FROLICH: Now, could we have 65 ter number --

Page 3347

1 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I have one or two additional questions.

2 Is it the way of addressing the persons, the way the abbreviation

3 is used in this document, is this what you usually found in reports of

4 this format?

5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. As far as I remember, this

6 was -- this was quite a usual message from the headquarters sent to more

7 receivers.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Including the ICTY, I see, is that so?

9 It is even another source for this document, Mr. Kehoe.

10 So it is the usual way of those who were addressed. Is there

11 anything in this document which would cause any concern as to whether it

12 would not fit into what you used to see?

13 I'm not saying there is. I'm just inviting you to carefully look

14 at the document.

15 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

16 The only thing is that this message was sent after I left the

17 mission. But besides that, I don't see any addresses or names who look

18 strange. I mean, these kind of documents are pretty difficult to read,

19 but I think this is how it looked.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed, Ms. Frolich.

21 MS. FROLICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Could 65 ter 3449 be called up, please.

23 Q. Mr. Elleby, what do you see on the screen in front of you?

24 A. What I see is an incident report from Sector South. This is

25 concerning the Knin station, it's a reported murder from the date of 23rd

Page 3348

1 of August, it is signed by station commander in Knin station, and I know

2 or recognise his name.

3 Q. What -- just a point of clarification, when you say "commander of

4 Knin station," it says at the bottom "Knin UNCIVPOL station." Would that

5 be correct?

6 A. I'm sorry. Yes, that is the Knin UNCIVPOL station.

7 Q. Is there anything else that tells that you this is a CIVPOL

8 document?

9 A. Yes. I recognise the format which was in the computers that we

10 used; and, again, I recognise the signer of the document.

11 Q. And, again, who was the signer of the document?

12 A. The signer is the leader of the Knin UNCIVPOL station.

13 Q. And his name is?

14 A. Petro Romassev.

15 Q. Did you know him?

16 A. Yes, I know Mr. Romassev. I used to work with him.

17 Q. Now, Mr. Elleby, how would these reports be -- I apologise. How

18 would this kind of report be generated?

19 A. After the monitors have seen something on their patrols, they

20 would go back to the station and they would, on the computer, write

21 incidents reports like this. They would carry it to their UNCIVPOL

22 station commander, and he would read it and he would sign it, if there

23 were no corrections to be made.

24 Q. Thank you. And where would this report go?

25 A. This report would go to the HQ, the headquarters, in Knin to my

Page 3349

1 staff, to my coordinators, and they would gather all the reports. We

2 would discuss them, and they would be faxed to headquarters in Zagreb.

3 Q. Are you familiar with the incident described in this report?

4 A. No, I don't remember this incident.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MS. FROLICH: Mr. President, if that is sufficient?

7 JUDGE ORIE: As I said before, an opportunity will be given,

8 which is a bit extraordinary procedure, Mr. Elleby. We're just now

9 talking about these two documents.

10 Is there any additional questions one of the Defence counsel

11 would like to put the witness in relation to these documents?

12 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour. There's just those two issues

13 brought up by the OTP.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that that's true for all of the Defence

15 teams.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, the objections against admission of the

18 two series of documents is denied by the Chamber. We'll give the reasons

19 in a written decision. At the same time, Ms. Frolich, now we have dealt

20 with 65 ter 2147 and 3449. Of course, there's a whole series, I take it,

21 you want to tender, and I take it that you want to ask the witness also

22 whether he has reviewed those documents.

23 Are we working on the basis of what I call list 3?

24 MS. FROLICH: I'm sorry. I don't know what you're referring to

25 as list 3.

Page 3350

1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, first of all, we had the -- first of all, we

2 had a 65 ter list, and I think you made in your motion an application to

3 have five documents added to the Rule 65 ter list.

4 MS. FROLICH: Yes, indeed.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now it might come to your mind that at least

6 two of these documents were already included in the exhibit list motion

7 of the 7th of March; and, therefore, two out of these five have already

8 been added to the list on the 15th of May.

9 Then, I think, three documents are remaining out of those five:

10 The first one is the minutes from the meeting with civilian police dated

11 30th of August, 1995; UN Knin incident report, 1st of September, 1995;

12 UNCIVPOL incident report, 30th of September, 1995. The first of these

13 documents, two pages; the others each one page.

14 In the Cermak and Markac responses, we have found no objections

15 against this, and the response by the Gotovina doesn't deal specifically

16 with adding these three documents to the 65 ter list.

17 MR. KEHOE: It doesn't, Your Honour. I would mention, with

18 regard to these documents, some of these documents refer to, as I

19 mentioned previously, the incident that we had with the protected

20 witness, concerning the murders that he initially told the OTP that he

21 did see --

22 JUDGE ORIE: We're just at this moment talking about adding to

23 the 65 ter list. That's the request by the Prosecution, no objections by

24 the other Defence teams, and you have not dealt with the matter --

25 MR. KEHOE: No --

Page 3351

1 JUDGE ORIE: -- which the Chamber understands to be that there is

2 no objection against adding these three documents to the 65 ter list.

3 MR. KEHOE: That's right.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, we have, then, Ms. Frolich, we were then

5 provided with a list of associated exhibits in the Rule 92 ter motion in

6 paragraph 10. There we have 66 documents, yes? I call that list 1.

7 MS. FROLICH: Okay.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes? Then you've also provided us with two exhibit

9 lists to be used with this witness. One dates from the 7th of May of

10 this year and I call that list 2; and one on the 19th of May, and that is

11 list 3. Both them are in Excel format.

12 MS. FROLICH: Right.

13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber noted that list 2 adds five documents to

14 list 1. But in list 3, we find four exhibits removed from that list.

15 Surprisingly, among those four removed are two that were just added. I'm

16 talking about the picture bearing initial of witness 110, and the

17 photograph of the Puma Brigade badge. That is added in list 2, and

18 immediately then removed on list 3. The same is true for the map of

19 Sector South, which was added on list 2 and then taken away again on

20 list 3.

21 I'm just trying to find out what exhibits we're talking about if

22 you're seeking admission. So what finally then remains is list 3. Is

23 that the basis on which we'll proceed?

24 MS. FROLICH: I need to clarify -- I think that a mistake has

25 been made in removing the picture bearing initial of Witness P-110, which

Page 3352

1 is 65 ter number 4828. In fact, I do not have -- I do not have that

2 version of the exhibit list. I'm not sure where the confusion arised at

3 this moment, but --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please check whether that picture, which

5 you say you didn't want to remove, whether that actually appears. It

6 could be that we overlooked it.

7 MS. FROLICH: I do not have a copy of that list. My case

8 manager --

9 JUDGE ORIE: You can take your time to verify that.

10 And the map of Sector South, was that intentionally removed?

11 MS. FROLICH: That was intentionally removed.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Intentionally added, and then intentionally removed

13 again. Well, then, at least we know what we are talking about.

14 The other two documents, which do not appear anymore on list 3,

15 appear to be the UNCIVPOL Sector South survey of human rights violations

16 of 26th August 1995, which seems to be an incomplete version of a

17 document with 65 ter number 1859.

18 MS. FROLICH: Mm-hm.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Then the other one, which we couldn't find anymore,

20 is the UNCIVPOL headquarters weekly report, 10th to the 16th of

21 September, 65 ter 1194.

22 I'm not seeking at this moment to discuss this in full detail,

23 but I just draw your attention to what the Chamber observed and noted.

24 MS. FROLICH: Can I just offer a few clarifications on that?

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if can you give them.

Page 3353

1 MS. FROLICH: First of all, we have informed yesterday the court

2 officer that we seek to withdraw several exhibits from this list on

3 account that -- which were similar versions of one and the same list of

4 human rights violations, for the reason that one of the documents was

5 already admitted. It became D00179. It was 65 ter number 4251.

6 There were three documents, in addition to that document, on our

7 list of associated exhibits that we would wish to withdraw at this stage,

8 and these were 65 ter numbers 1 -- excuse me, 65 ter numbers --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Frolich, you said you sent this to the court

10 officer. Did the Chamber staff receive a copy of that?

11 MS. FROLICH: I believe so.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we then make a consolidated list of the

13 documents you're seeking to be tendered into evidence, because I had not

14 learn by heart all the 65 ter numbers you just mentioned. If you could

15 please come up with a consolidate the list.

16 MS. FROLICH: There is just one more clarification.

17 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I hate to interrupt. Could we get that in

18 chronological order, because as they stand now, the documents are not in

19 chronological order.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I've seen that. The response by the Prosecution was

21 that Excel gives, as I hinted at already this morning, excellent sorting

22 facilities; but that, of course, requires the date to be as an entry in

23 the specific date format, and I do not know whether that has been done or

24 not because that allows everyone to sort the date.

25 Ms. Frolich, I see, on this Excel sheet, once the date appears as

Page 3354

1 04 August 1995, another one is 08/09/1995, which gives me an impression

2 that the dates have not been -- that the entries of dates are not in a

3 specific format which allows for sorting, and I think that was the

4 response of your case manager.

5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I did try, and I miserably failed.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So, therefore, the next time, if anyone

7 creates a Excel sheet with dates in it, please choose the format which

8 allows for sorting.

9 MS. FROLICH: I do apologise for any confusion or extra effort

10 that was had to be put into searching of the spreadsheet. We did

11 endeavour to sort documents chronologically and enter the right format.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But were you able to sort them according to

13 date? Let me just have a look.

14 I see that list 3, at least the version I've got now in front of

15 me, is apparently in chronological order.

16 I don't know whether that version is available to you,

17 Mr. Kuzmanovic. It starts with 24th to 30th of July, 1995; 4th of

18 August, 5th of August, 6th of August; 4th and 11 of August.

19 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, are you referring to list 3.


21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: My list 3 is not in chronological order. The

22 exhibit list --

23 JUDGE ORIE: As always, the Chamber appreciates if the parties

24 assist the Chamber. Here, the Chamber can assist the parties because our

25 staff has created a list 3 in chronological order. So, therefore, if

Page 3355

1 that would assist you, the legal officer might be able to distribute

2 copies. Whether it will be the final list, four plus five, minus four,

3 et cetera, is still to be seen. But at least it gives you some

4 assistance I hope.

5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 MS. FROLICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Then, having dealt with this bookkeeping, rather,

8 you have now an opportunity to examine the witness.

9 MS. FROLICH: I have just one more issue. One of the other

10 documents on the list, which was 65 ter 1194, was also admitted before as

11 D00148.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I asked to you provide with us a consolidated list;

13 and, of course, everything that shouldn't be there will be taken out.

14 Please proceed.

15 MS. FROLICH: At this point, I would like to move to tender all

16 these exhibits.

17 JUDGE ORIE: I think that we will deal with it tomorrow morning,

18 to give a decision on the matter, and once you have provided us with a

19 consolidated list and once Mr. Kuzmanovic has had a look at the

20 chronological list.

21 MS. FROLICH: All right.

22 JUDGE ORIE: We proceed at this moment. Of course, we have now

23 the specific objections still there.

24 Mr. Kehoe, how are we going do deal with that, because, of

25 course, we find some of it in your written submission. We have dealt now

Page 3356

1 with the two general objections, and there are also some specific

2 objections, isn't it?

3 MR. KEHOE: The specific objections, of course, with regard to

4 some of these documents. I mean, obviously, the document that counsel

5 just referred to, and I believe that is 65 ter 3449, and that deals with

6 a homicide. Many of these documents deal with homicides that Mr. Elleby

7 simply doesn't know anything about because somebody else did them.


9 MR. KEHOE: In those instances, Judge, in order to meet these

10 documents, I just -- if Your Honour decides to bring these documents in,

11 then we have some leave to, for instance, tender across the bar. Then as

12 soon as we gather them, we give them to the OTP. These are

13 investigations that were conducted by the Republic of Croatia at various

14 times in various theatres on many of these matters.

15 That's the only way --

16 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... you would say that would

17 give a balance to written reports on killings, then also written reports

18 on investigations and killings.

19 MR. KEHOE: That's right, sir.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Frolich, can you answer to that right away?

21 MS. FROLICH: Well, we certainly have no objections to bringing

22 in additional documents that would refer to possible investigations that

23 have been conducted, and we are certainly -- as the Defence is aware, we

24 are trying to gather our own documents into -- to serve them in a form of

25 a bar table motion on this subject as well.

Page 3357

1 So this is not an issue that is in dispute; but at this moment,

2 we would still tender CIVPOL documents --

3 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... now, have we asked to the

4 witness already whether -- perhaps I am bit confused here.

5 Have you asked the whether the witness reviewed the whole set of

6 the documents and whether he came to any different conclusions compared

7 to what he told us on the basis of the two examples.

8 MS. FROLICH: I have not asked him that anymore questions --

9 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I think that would be an

10 appropriate question put to the witness first, and then I will invite you

11 to continue. Then we'll see whether, tomorrow, we have a consolidated

12 list, if you could. It seems that there is no major disagreement about

13 you tendering then from the bar table investigative reports about events

14 described in the other reports.

15 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. Just a matter as housekeeping, for

16 instance, on the Varivode matter, I mean, I think that there are --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if you give Ms. Frolich - we're sitting

18 tomorrow in the afternoon - give her information as to what events that

19 are specifically bothering you in some detail, and then we could see

20 whether you could elicit some oral evidence on those, if the witness has

21 any evidence or knowledge about it.

22 If you would inform Ms. Frolich about that.

23 MR. KEHOE: Yes.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will now not decide yet on admission, but

25 use the remaining 12 minutes for you to examine the witness.

Page 3358

1 MS. FROLICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Frolich.


4 Q. Mr. Elleby, we mentioned your statement that you gave to the

5 Office of the Prosecutor on 19th, 20th of February 2008.

6 Do you recall, at this time, were you able to review a number of

7 documents?

8 A. Yes. I understand the question was that if I was shown a number

9 of documents during the interview, the two days in February, and I was.

10 We were running through many documents.

11 Q. What kind of documents were these?

12 A. Most of the documents were -- were inc-reps, incident reports.

13 There were also some documents written by myself and other CIVPOL

14 officers.

15 MS. FROLICH: Now, if we could bring up again P217, I believe

16 that was the statement, 65 ter 4870. If we could go to page 5,

17 paragraph 24.

18 Q. Mr. Elleby, do you see the table in front of you?

19 A. I do.

20 Q. What is this table? Can you explain.

21 A. The table is a list of documents that we were going through in

22 February, and I was asked about my knowledge and if I could say that

23 these documents were authentic or not.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 MS. FROLICH: At this stage, Your Honour, I believe, if there are

Page 3359

1 no other issues you would wish me to raise with the witness with respect

2 to these documents.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Not as far as I'm concerned. But still ten minutes

4 left.

5 MS. FROLICH: Thank you.

6 Just one additional item. There are three incident reports that

7 were added that were on the exhibit list that was sent, both, I believe,

8 numbers 2 and 3, that were not in the 92 ter motion, and these were also

9 documents that I wanted through this witness. They were listed in the

10 Prosecution second motion to amend the exhibit list, which has been

11 granted in the meantime, but the witnesses has not authenticated them in

12 the same manner as other CIVPOL documents.

13 Would you like me to lead these documents separately, each of

14 them, or can they be admitted on the same basis as previous CIVPOL

15 documents?

16 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection against -- I mean, apart from the

17 general objections and not -- but any reason to deal with it in a very

18 specific way or just to --

19 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ... the same --

20 JUDGE ORIE: -- in the same fashion; that is, include them in

21 your consolidated list.

22 MS. FROLICH: Yes, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

24 MS. FROLICH: Then I would like move to tender these documents as

25 well, and thank you.

Page 3360

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, you are invited, once the consolidate

2 the list is there, to see whether you can provisionally assign P numbers

3 to these documents, so that we don't lose time in court tomorrow.

4 Please proceed.

5 MS. FROLICH: I would like to move on to read to the 92 ter

6 witness summary for Mr. Elleby.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

8 MS. FROLICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Jan Elleby was an UNCIVPOL, or United Nations Civilian Police,

10 monitor in Sector South in Knin, from mid-May to the end of

11 September 1995. In his capacity as the deputy chief and later chief of

12 CIVPOL in Sector South, he was familiar with the reporting system within

13 UNCIVPOL, its structure, mandate, and monitoring system.

14 The mandate of CIVPOL was to monitor the work of the Croatian

15 civilian police and report human rights abuses. Mr. Elleby received

16 incident reports from CIVPOL monitors in the sector and forwarded them to

17 CIVPOL headquarters in Zagreb. His main task was to inform the Croatian

18 civilian police of the incidents reported by his monitors and supervise

19 his staff who also reported incidents themselves to the police, attend

20 meetings with the chiefs of police administration for Knin and Zadar, and

21 monitor their responses. He authenticates a number of CIVPOL incident

22 reports and other CIVPOL-related documents.

23 Mr. Elleby was in Knin during and after the shelling attack on

24 4th and 5th August 1995. He provides evidence about the pattern of

25 shelling and its effect on the civilian population. He provides evidence

Page 3361

1 about HV soldiers and civilian police looting and burning in Knin in the

2 aftermath of the shelling, the restrictions of movement placed on the UN

3 personnel, and the reasons given by Croatian authorities for the

4 restrictions. The witness observed graves in the Knin cemetery. He also

5 observed burning and destruction outside of Knin in the town of Kistanje

6 and on the road from Knin to Drnis.

7 Mr. Elleby provides evidence that neither the military nor the

8 civilian police did anything to stop the looting and destruction, that

9 the Croatian civilian police did very little or nothing in response to

10 notice of the crimes committed that was provided by CIVPOL, and that they

11 largely ignored the reports or denied Croat responsibility. The Croatian

12 military authorities had full control of the area in Knin and its

13 surrounds during the first few days of Operation Storm, and no one else

14 but the military authorities had access to it. Mr. Elleby also observed

15 members of the Croatian special police in Knin and heard about the

16 special police closing off areas during clean-up operations.

17 That concludes the summary, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Still five minutes to go, so please

19 proceed.

20 MS. FROLICH: Could we please bring up diagram 65 ter 4942.

21 Q. Mr. Elleby, could you briefly explain what the place of CIVPOL

22 was in UN structure in Sector South, but otherwise in Croatia?

23 A. CIVPOL was structured with a headquarter in Zagreb, and there was

24 a commissioner to whom I was subordinated as a sector chief. When I was

25 a deputy sector chief, I was subordinated to the sector chief in

Page 3362

1 Sector South which was Mr. Norman Boucher from Canada.

2 We did restructure in Sector South after Operation Storm; and in

3 the headquarter, there were some coordinators subordinated to me, and we

4 had under the headquarter some CIVPOL stations where it was a station

5 commander and some monitors.

6 Q. And could you tell us what relationship of CIVPOL to other UN

7 agencies was?

8 A. Yes. CIVPOL was just one of more branches in the headquarter in

9 Knin. There was a military, of course, and the head of headquarter was a

10 general. Then there was CIVPOL, we had UNHCR, Red Cross administrations.

11 I don't remember if there were anymore. Anyway, there was morning

12 meetings everyday where the general sat at the end of the table.

13 Q. Could you explain the relationship of subordination that is shown

14 in this diagram?

15 A. In the sector, after I became a sector chief, there was a deputy

16 who was assisting me, and the coordinators were responsible for one area

17 each. No matter what the incident was, there was investigation,

18 operations, or human rights, and they were reporting to me what was going

19 on in the -- in their area of responsibility. They got the knowledge

20 from station commanders which, again, got their knowledge from -- from

21 the monitors.

22 Q. Who reported incidents to the civilian police?

23 A. There were more levels of information, and the station -- the

24 UNCIVPOL station commanders had contact with the Croatian police. The

25 coordinators had contact with the Croatian police. And I had some

Page 3363

1 meetings with the head of police in Knin and -- and the officer he was

2 subordinated to in Zadar, and I also had meetings with a high level

3 officer in Sibenik.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Frolich, I'm looking at the clock, and I'd like

5 to adjourn for the day.

6 Before I do so, Mr. Gotovina, Mr. Cermak, and Mr. Markac, there

7 might be some delays in your transportation to the detention unit for

8 very practical and good reasons. So if you have to wait a bit longer

9 than usual, just be informed that there are practical reasons which do

10 not allow to do it any quicker.

11 Then we will adjourn for the day and resume tomorrow, 22nd of

12 May, in the afternoon, quarter past 2.00, in Courtroom I.

13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.

14 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day of May,

15 2008, at 2.15 p.m.