Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 9640

 1                           Friday, 26 September 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.

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

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

 9     everyone in the courtroom.

10             This is case number IT-06-90-T, the Prosecutor versus

11     Ante Gotovina et al.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

13             Mr. Williams, may I remind you that you're still bound by the

14     solemn declaration you gave yesterday at the beginning of your testimony.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, sir, I understand.

16                           WITNESS:  ROBERT SCHUMAN WILLIAMS

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic.  Mr. Kuzmanovic is counsel for

18     Mr. Markac.

19             Mr. Kuzmanovic, please proceed.

20             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kuzmanovic:

22        Q.   Good morning, sir.

23        A.   Good morning, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

24        Q.   Yesterday, during your testimony, you were asked several

25     questions about your involvement and observations during the course

Page 9641

 1     before and after Operation Storm, and on page 24 of yesterday's

 2     transcript, line 7, you were asked:

 3             "What made you believe that the Croatian special police were

 4     involved?"

 5             And your answer was:

 6             "I had no evidence Croatian special police were involved."

 7             When we look at P927, which is your supplemental information

 8     sheet of 23 September 2008, if you have that in front of you, sir, feel

 9     free to refer to it.

10             If you could pull that up, please, Mr. Registrar, page 2.

11             But before we get to that, sir, did you know that the special

12     police of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia was

13     part of the -- a lawful part of the Ministry of Interior?

14        A.   Yes, I knew that, sir.

15        Q.   Were you aware that the special police was one of three branches

16     of the police within the Ministry of Interior?

17        A.   I'm aware of that, sir.

18        Q.   What were the other two branches of the police?

19        A.   Within the Ministry of the Interior or do you mean the Croatian

20     government?

21        Q.   Yes, within the Ministry of the Interior.

22        A.   I don't recall offhand.  My only familiarity is with the special

23     police.

24        Q.   Were you aware of what kind of uniforms the special police wore?

25        A.   I'm aware that they often had single-colour uniforms as opposed

Page 9642

 1     to the multicoloured camouflage or BDU, the battle-dress uniform.

 2        Q.   Where had you seen those uniforms?

 3        A.   I had seen them previously in Zagreb.

 4        Q.   You hadn't seen them anywhere in the theatre of operations in

 5     Sector South?

 6        A.   No, I had not.

 7        Q.   On page 2 of your statement, the second -- first full paragraph

 8     that says "page 6" at the top, in the centre you say, of that paragraph:

 9             "He did not see any special police in Knin on 5 or 6 August, but

10     he does recall seeing soldiers dressed in single-colour uniforms and

11     wearing black berets during Akashi's visit.  He is uncertain as to

12     whether these were or were not Croatian special police."

13             Sir, it's a fact that you have no idea whether or not Croatian

14     special police were in Knin on the 5th and 6th of August; correct?

15        A.   I cannot confirm that special police were there or not; that's

16     correct, sir.

17        Q.   So any mention you made of special police is a mistake?

18        A.   Any mention I made of special police is an assessment, sir.

19        Q.   An assessment?

20        A.   Yes, sir.

21        Q.   Based on what?

22        A.   Based on the familiarity with the uniforms, and those from a

23     distance looked like the uniform.

24        Q.   Did you ever talk to somebody and ask them if they were special

25     police?

Page 9643

 1        A.   I did not, sir.

 2        Q.   Were you aware that the special police at that particular time

 3     were 80 to 100 kilometres away?

 4        A.   I was not aware of that, sir.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm listening now and then to the French

 6     translation, and the speed you develop is impossible for the

 7     interpreters.

 8             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I will remind myself to slow down.

 9     Thank you.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

11             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you.

12        Q.   In your statement, P925, if we can pull that up, please, page 6,

13     at the bottom of page 6, here, sir, you're talking about being back at

14     the UN Sector South HQ in Knin, and this is on the 5th of August.  At the

15     bottom of this page, you state, in part:

16             "I was thinking that the HV wanted to make sure that we, the UN,

17     stayed put in the camp, so that follow-up HV units and so-called Croatian

18     special police could continue into town and conduct their activities

19     unobserved."

20             Now, this is the particular reference to the Croatian special

21     police in which you said that you had no evidence that the Croatian

22     special police were in Knin at that time; correct?

23        A.   That's correct, sir.

24        Q.   And the same with the reference on page 7, referring to August

25     6th at the bottom of page 7, in the middle of the last full paragraph,

Page 9644

 1     you state:

 2             "The action against the UN was likely to prevent the UN from

 3     observing the town while HV and Croatian special police were looting,

 4     conducting selective arson and cleaning/mop-up operations continued."

 5             Again, you have no evidence that the Croatian special police were

 6     involved in any of that; correct?

 7        A.   Sir, if you're asking me if I could identify these people as

 8     Croatian special police, no, I cannot, and I do not have any evidence

 9     that Croatian special police that worked for the Ministry of Interior

10     were involved, no.

11        Q.   Thank you.  The last line here says you left Knin on 7 August

12     1995 in order to return to Zagreb.  Were you in Zagreb then full time?

13        A.   That full time, sir?  I'm not left.  I left on the 7th to return

14     to Zagreb for the rest of my tour.

15        Q.   Okay, that's what I meant by full time.

16        A.   Yes, sir.

17        Q.   So you left Sector South on the 7th of August?

18        A.   On the afternoon of the 7th of August, yes, sir.

19        Q.   How did you return to Zagreb on the 7th of August?

20        A.   I rushed to Zagreb in a UN helicopter to Split and then a UN

21     aircraft from Split to Zagreb.

22        Q.   Were you involved in any assessments of activities of the

23     Croatian military or any other Croatian formation while you were in

24     Zagreb?

25        A.   I provided a summary and attempted to provide an understanding to

Page 9645

 1     my Canadian commander of what had happened in the Krajina, yes.

 2        Q.   Did you ever return to Sector South after August 7th of 1995?

 3        A.   I did not, no.

 4        Q.   As a military intelligence officer, were you aware of how the

 5     Croatian military, during the course of Operation Storm, and I say

 6     "military" in a general sense, was split up and what particular forces

 7     went on what particular axis?

 8        A.   During the invasion itself, sir, or during the assault into the

 9     Krajina, I became aware of which particular units were on which axes, and

10     then as a postmortem we had a better idea after the event which units

11     actually took part.  We became aware of particular units reporting from

12     the battalions, the UN battalions in the sector, personal observation,

13     and other people reporting on the units, sir.

14        Q.   Do you know what particular units were involved in the -- in

15     Operation Storm coming down from the Velika Mountains?

16        A.   I don't recall.

17        Q.   Did you know at the time or you just can't remember?

18        A.   I knew at the time, but I cannot recall, sir.

19             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If we could pull up, please, P744.

20        Q.   Before we get to P744, sir, you had said that you were -- with

21     regard to the special police, that they had single-coloured uniforms.

22     What was the colour of their uniforms?

23        A.   To the best of my recollection, it was sort of an

24     off-greyish/steel colour.

25        Q.   And what kind of headgear did they wear?

Page 9646

 1        A.   Berets.

 2        Q.   What colour?

 3        A.   Black, to the best of my knowledge.

 4        Q.   Do you remember what kind of footwear they had?

 5        A.   I remember that it was not uniform, they were very -- what I

 6     though would be much more comfortable boots than I had on and much more

 7     efficient for walking.

 8        Q.   What colour?

 9        A.   I saw brown and black.

10        Q.   And what kind of weapons did the special police have?

11        A.   Pistols, some, and I can't recall further than that.

12        Q.   Just a sidearm, that you can recall?

13        A.   Just a sidearm, that I can recall, sir.

14             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  What channel is the

15     French channel?  I think I'm going to listen to that.

16        Q.   Okay.  We're now on P744 on your screen.  This is something that

17     was put together by you and Mr. Berikoff?

18        A.   I collated all this information from a variety of sources, sir,

19     yes.

20        Q.   I'd like to turn your attention first to page 4, in the middle of

21     page 4.  This is the 5th of August at 10.00 a.m. It says:

22             "Evacuation of ARSK, 15 Lika Corps started.  Destruction --"  I'm

23     assuming that means "destruction ."

24        A.   Yes, sir.

25        Q.   "... of ammo stores."  As a military intelligence officer, can

Page 9647

 1     you tell me something about the ARSK 15 Lika Corps and where it was

 2     located?

 3        A.   15 Lika Corps was in Sector North of UN Sector North and was the

 4     operational command level for a variety of brigades in that area.

 5        Q.   Was it in and around the area between Gospic and Gracac?

 6        A.   To the best of my recollection, that sounds like where they were,

 7     sir, but I can't be sure at this time.

 8        Q.   Now, the destruction of ammo stores, where were those ammo stores

 9     located?

10        A.   There were a variety of ammunition stores that they had access to

11     and were under their control.  I don't at this time recall which ones

12     those are referring to, sir.

13        Q.   More than one; correct?

14        A.   Yes, sir.

15        Q.   Now, this evacuation was toward Otric, was it not?

16        A.   To the best of my recollection, it was towards Gospic.

17        Q.   Towards Gospic or toward Otric?

18        A.   Otric, sorry.

19        Q.   Were you aware, Mr. Williams, of the strategic importance of

20     Gracac at the time?

21        A.   Yes, sir.

22        Q.   Were you aware that the ARSK, at one point, was set to defend

23     Gracac to the last man?

24        A.   I'm not aware of that, sir.

25        Q.   Further down on P744, on the same page, it says:

Page 9648

 1             "August 5th," again "1700 hours," and it says "a WDR."  What does

 2     "WDR" stand for?

 3        A.   A withdrawing.

 4        Q.   "ARSK --" is that convoy?

 5        A.   A company, sir.

 6        Q.   "... company surrounded and entered a Jordanian --"

 7        A.   Jordanian platoon position.

 8        Q.   At the site WK823326.  Where is that location; do you remember?

 9        A.   Exactly, no.  From the reference, I would say it's in the

10     Jordanian Sector, but I don't recall what exactly the village name, if

11     there was a name near that, sir.

12        Q.   Is that Pribicevac, does that ring a bell?

13        A.   No, sir, but I have no reason to doubt if that's what you say it

14     is.

15        Q.   Is it at or near the Bosnian border?

16        A.   I don't recall.

17        Q.   On page 5 of this P744 -- by the way, the company that you

18     referred to, do you know whether that was comprised of tanks with

19     transporters?

20        A.   I had no further information than a company size, sir.

21        Q.   They weren't walking?

22        A.   I have no further information whether they were walking or in

23     vehicles, sir.

24        Q.   On page 5, sir, the top third of the page of 6th of August, 1110,

25     if you can focus on that:

Page 9649

 1             "ARSK convoy of approximately 150 persons, 6 trucks, 2 guns, 1

 2     tank and police vehicle, heading from RSK to BH."

 3             Where would they be heading from the RSK to BH, what location?

 4        A.   I don't have any other information on that particular report, and

 5     I don't recall which battalion had reported that, sir.

 6        Q.   Do you know whether they had to go at or near Martin Brod?

 7        A.   Martin Brod was one crossing point into Bosnia-Herzegovina, but

 8     I'm not sure if that's referring to that, sir.

 9        Q.   They couldn't go through Bosansko Grahovo because that had

10     already been choked off; correct?

11        A.   That's correct, sir.

12        Q.   So the only other logical place for them to go, at least looking

13     at everything in context, would be through Martin Brod, would it not, if

14     they were heading into Bosnia?

15        A.   If they were heading into Bosnia and did not wish to go further

16     north, then Martin Brod would be a logical crossing, sir, yes.

17        Q.   Later on that very next entry at 11.15, it says:

18             "10 ARSK tanks and 200 troops reported heading to Bosnia through

19     area WK 8232."

20             Previously on page 4, the coordinate grid reference was A23326.

21     Are we missing a couple of numbers on this grid reference on page 5?

22        A.   No, sir, that was the grid reference I received.  Sometimes the

23     grid reference is not as precise when it's reported.  We try to report

24     with six- or eight-figure grid references.  In this case, four, I can see

25     your point, leaves a fairly wide area.

Page 9650

 1        Q.   Okay.  So these vehicles reported --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could I insist on small breaks, small pauses,

 3     between question and answer and answer and question.

 4             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I will struggle to do

 5     my best here.

 6        Q.   The wider-area grid reference, would this have been this

 7     particular group of vehicles heading into Bosnia through relatively the

 8     same area as the previous group?

 9        A.   That would make sense, sir, yes.

10        Q.   And as far as you can recall, Mr. Williams, you're not sure of

11     what city, village, or county those grid references refer to?

12        A.   No, sir, I do not recall.

13        Q.   Did you leave at the same time as Colonel Leslie did on

14     August 7th from Sector South?

15        A.   He was not on the same helicopter as I was, sir.  So I'm not sure

16     exactly what time Colonel Leslie left.

17        Q.   Do you know that he left on the same day that you did?

18        A.   I do not know that, sir.

19        Q.   Did you have any estimate, sir, of casualties as a result of the

20     shelling of Knin, casualties in Knin itself?

21        A.   Civilian casualties, sir, or casualties --

22        Q.   Casualties in general.

23        A.   Casualties in general?  I had no precise figures.  We heard

24     various -- from reports, various numbers, but no way to confirm.

25        Q.   Did you give an estimate at all, as a military intelligence

Page 9651

 1     officer, on what the casualties were?

 2        A.   I don't recall that I did.

 3        Q.   At some point in time in 2002 or 2003, the exhibit reference is

 4     D329, Colonel Leslie gave an estimate of civilians killed as between

 5     10.000 and 25.000 as a result of the shelling.  Do you have any figure

 6     to -- do you have any reason to agree with or dispute that?

 7        A.   I don't know where a number like that would have come from.  I

 8     have no confirmation of that, but that number seems to me to be quite

 9     high, if we're talking about in Sector South, specifically in Knin, sir,

10     or --

11        Q.   Specifically in Knin.

12        A.   That number would be far too high, sir.

13        Q.   That number is actually completely off base, is it not, based on

14     your observations?

15        A.   From my vantage point, I would say that number is somewhat -- was

16     actually far too high.

17        Q.   It's not just far too high, it's completely off base, is it not?

18             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, I think the point's been made.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, although, Mr. Russo, you can say, "Question

20     asked, question answered," but if Mr. Kuzmanovic has made his point I

21     think is not for you to decide, but this does not mean I disagree with

22     you.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

25             Why don't we pull up D329, just the transcript on page 2.  Go to

Page 9652

 1     page 2 of that transcript, please.

 2             This was a July 21, 2003, interview of both General Forand and at

 3     the time of the interview, General Leslie, and he was asked specifically

 4     about shelling.  At the top of this particular page, "L" stands for

 5     "Leslie."  He's answering:

 6             "I'm a gunner.  I'm an artillery officer, a professional, so

 7     I can comment on it with some degree of validity.  This was deliberate

 8     targeting on a massive scale of residential areas.  Why?  Because, I

 9     believe, it was targeted to break their will to resist.  And, by the way,

10     it worked.  It killed a lot of civilians, and we'll never know the exact

11     number.  But estimates -- estimates range from ten to twenty-five

12     thousand dead."

13             He did not get that number from you; correct.

14        A.   He did not, sir.

15        Q.   Do you have any idea where General Leslie might have gotten that

16     number?

17        A.   I have no idea where he would have gotten his data, sir.  His

18     comment of "we'll never know the exact number," I agree with.  The

19     estimates I find somewhat out of the range of possibility.

20        Q.   Sir, you had earlier answered one of my questions that I asked

21     about the withdrawal of the ARSK.  Just so it's clear, I believe you

22     initially said that the withdrawal was toward Gospic, but we corrected it

23     to towards Otric, O-t-r-i-c; correct?

24        A.   That's correct, sir.

25             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I don't have any further questions,

Page 9653

 1     Your Honours.  Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

 3             Since the Cermak Defence has no questions, Mr. Russo, is there

 4     any need to re-examine the witness?

 5             MR. RUSSO:  I just have a few brief follow-up questions,

 6     Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 8                           Re-examination by Mr. Russo:

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Williams, you were, if you recall yesterday,

10     questioned regarding your assessment of whether or not the ARSK would

11     have had several levels of lines to attack as the HV came toward them.

12     Do you recall that discussion?

13        A.   I recall that discussion, sir.

14        Q.   And you were also shown an UNCRO military information officer's

15     report, and if I could ask Mr. Registrar, please, to bring that up.

16     That's D819.

17             In the context -- while that's coming up, in the context of

18     Mr. Kehoe's questions to you, he showed you a Google Earth image with

19     confrontation lines drawn, some in red, some in blue, and for the Court's

20     benefit this appears at page 62, approximately line 5 in yesterday's

21     transcript, which, if my math is correct, is 9583 at line 5.

22             And you answered some questions there, Mr. Williams, regarding

23     what you believe would have been done.  I want to be clear.  If you could

24     explain to the Court whether or not you know if any of that -- in other

25     words, if several lines of defence were actually put up by the ARSK.

Page 9654

 1        A.   Right, Mr. Russo, if I understand what you're asking is, do I

 2     know for a fact or am I speaking in the hypothetical.  In yesterday's

 3     answer, I was speaking in the hypothetical.  I did not have confirmation

 4     of those lines.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  And looking now at 819, if we could move to the

 6     second page of the exhibit, and this paragraph, of course, is an

 7     assessment of the reasons -- possible reasons for the rapid collapse of

 8     the ARSK, and I'd like to focus your attention on number 42, where it

 9     indicates:

10             "Absence of a counter-attack reserve (armour has been observed

11     only on first echelon)."

12             Can you explain to the Court what "first echelon" would mean?

13        A.   The first echelon would be the first line of defence so that an

14     invading force -- this would be the first troops they'd meet besides the

15     reconnaissance forces from the opposing side.

16        Q.   What does the absence of a counter-attack reserve indicate?

17        A.   The absence of a counter-attack reserve would indicate that once

18     the first echelon were to be breached, there would be no reserve armoured

19     forces to counter-attack.

20        Q.   Does that mean that the HV only had one line to break on its way

21     in?

22             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, I object.  Leading.

23             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, I'm asking him if that's what it means.

24     It's not a leading question.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, if you're asking him what it means, then

Page 9655

 1     ask him what it means, instead of already suggesting what it may mean,

 2     because that's what makes it leading.

 3             MR. RUSSO:

 4        Q.   What does it mean, Mr. Williams?

 5        A.   Sorry, Mr. Russo.  What does what mean?

 6        Q.   The fact that there's no counter-attack reserve, what does that

 7     mean the HV would face on its way towards its objective?

 8        A.   The lack of counter-attack reserve would mean once the HV or HVO

 9     had broken through the first echelon of the ARSK, that they should not

10     encounter any further armoured, if there was no reserve.

11        Q.   And do you have or did you receive any information to indicate

12     that the assessment made here, which I understand is not your own, did

13     you have any information to indicate that the information of there being

14     no counter-attack reserve and armour only on the first echelon, do you

15     have any information that that is not correct?

16        A.   I have no way of confirming whether this assessment is correct or

17     incorrect.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  An assessment always exists of two elements.  The

19     first one is the factual basis of it.  The second one is whether the

20     assessment -- whether the explanation, even if the facts are correct,

21     whether the explanation is correct.  If you say that you have no way of

22     confirming this assessment, were you referring to the factual basis of

23     it?

24             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, I'm referring to the factual basis.

25     The absence or presence of armour I have no way of confirming.

Page 9656

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 2             Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

 3             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 4        Q.   Let's turn to your second statement, Mr. Williams, which I

 5     believe is P925.  It should be the second tab in your notebook, and if we

 6     go to, I believe, that it's page 3, and that's where you discussed your

 7     trip up to Strmica and also your observations in Knin on the 3rd of

 8     August, and it discusses there on the top paragraph some of what you saw

 9     on your way to Strmica.  The middle of the top paragraph there, it

10     indicates:

11             "On our way up to Strmica, we saw only temporary ARSK

12     check-points, two ARSK M-84 tanks and one ARSK APC in position.  This was

13     halfway to Strmica.  We did not see any troops or artillery.  I remember

14     that I was thinking that the deployment of the tanks was very

15     unprofessional and that I had expected to see more troops in the area."

16             Can you explain first what was it about the deployment of the

17     tanks that was unprofessional?

18        A.   I saw the -- in particular, the two M-84 tanks deployed in

19     positions where advanced tanks such as this is being used as a pill box

20     inside a house where the limit of main artillery fire, main gunfire, was

21     restricted.  So there was very restricted visibility from the house and

22     the ability to move out of there in a hurry, so I thought it was a -- it

23     was left there as a pill box.  And there were no troops in the area to

24     actually defend or to assist should infantry attack the position.

25             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.

Page 9657

 1             Your Honour, I have no further questions.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Russo.

 3             One second, please.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5                           Questioned by the Court:

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I have one short question for you.

 7             When you left in the helicopter on the 7th, was that helicopter

 8     in any way, as far as you could observe, inspected by Croatian forces or

 9     authorities?

10        A.   No, it was not, sir.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

12             Mr. Kehoe, you were on your feet.  Any need to put further

13     questions to the witness?

14             MR. KEHOE:  Just very briefly.

15                      Further Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:

16        Q.   Colonel, yesterday, taking this from redirect, I was talking to

17     you about the artillery positions of the ARSK, and I was talking to you

18     about the artillery being at three levels, at a battalion level, at a

19     brigade level and at an operational level.  Do you recall that?

20        A.   I recall that, Mr. Kehoe.

21        Q.   Now, you were aware of the fact that the ARSK had artillery?

22        A.   I was aware of that, yes, Mr. Kehoe.

23        Q.   Do you know where that artillery was deployed?

24        A.   I do not.

25        Q.   Were you ever shown the munitions depot of the ARSK at Guljabic

Page 9658

 1     [phoen]?

 2        A.   I was not, sir.

 3             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, I'm going to object to this.  This

 4     doesn't arise out of my redirect, where weapons were stored as opposed to

 5     where they were deployed.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, could you please --

 7             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Where do we find it?

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  The objection of Mr. Kehoe [sic] is that it does not

11     arise from re-examination.

12             MR. KEHOE:  The inference from the re-direct examination was that

13     the ARSK did not have capabilities to deflect the offensive of the HV,

14     and my examination of Colonel Williams yesterday had to do with the

15     levels of artillery and the fact that -- just asking whether or not he

16     had seen Guljabic.  He hadn't seen it.  I'm not going to go back into it.

17     Of course, it's the D715, the video of General Cermak viewing that.

18             But the inference from the Defence -- from the Prosecution that

19     the ARSK had no capabilities, certainly in artillery, are just simply --

20     that's the issue that's raised and that's what's being rebutted.

21             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, the specific question put to

22     Mr. Williams was with regard to counter-attack reserves, which, as he

23     answered, is troops to attack, not weaponry sitting in a depot.

24             MR. KEHOE:  The takeoff point from Mr. Russo's question, as he

25     knows full well, was the questions I had of Colonel Williams concerning

Page 9659

 1     the structure of the three levels of artillery support that was in -- up

 2     on the Dinara on the 4th and the 5th.

 3             MR. RUSSO:  Again, Your Honour, we're talking about --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Your questions, as they were put, do not arise

 7     sufficiently and directly from the re-examination, therefore would you

 8     please move on, Mr. Kehoe.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  One last issue -- thank you, Your Honour.

10        Q.   One last issue with regard to Strmica.  You were there, I take

11     it, on the 2nd or the 3rd of August as you were driving around.  Were you

12     aware, Colonel, at that time, from your intelligence-gathering, that the

13     ARSK was moving towards Grahovo to counter-attack and retake the ground

14     that was lost?  Were you aware of that?

15        A.   I spent approximately 20 minutes at Strmica on the ground on the

16     3rd of August.  I was not aware that the ARSK was planning a

17     counter-attack, sir.

18             MR. KEHOE:  Thank you, sir.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.

20             Other Defence counsel, no questions.  Then, Mr. Williams, this

21     concludes your testimony.

22             I'd like to thank you very much for having come a long way to

23     The Hague and for having answered all the questions put to you by the

24     parties and by the Bench.  I wish you a safe trip home again.

25             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 9660

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Usher, would you please escort Mr. Williams

 2     out of the courtroom.

 3                           [The witness withdrew]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm looking at the Prosecution.  Is the Prosecution

 5     ready to call its next witness, and will it be you, Mr. Hedaraly, or --

 6             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, it will be Mr. Hedaraly.  I would seek

 7     the leave of the Chamber to excuse myself.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  There's no pending issues as far as exhibits

 9     are concerned for the last witness?

10             MR. RUSSO:  I'm sorry, Your Honour, I didn't hear you without my

11     earphones on.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  There's nothing as far as exhibits are

13     concerned, in view of the last witness?

14             MR. RUSSO:  There is not, Your Honour, only the, I believe,

15     uploading of the sections of the Sekulic book, which I believe is

16     something we can work out without the Court's --

17             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, I believe we can work with Mr. Monkhouse

18     to straighten that issue out, with regard to uploading what particular

19     portions.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, there are two elements:  The technical part of

21     it but also, what is sufficient context, and there, of course, I would

22     expect the parties to -- that you would consult Mr. Russo and say, "One

23     page, would that do," or I have no idea whether it would be appropriate

24     for you to take one page or two pages or three.  That depends on the

25     context.

Page 9661

 1             Mr. Russo, you're excused.

 2             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

 4             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 5             Good morning, Your Honours.  The Prosecution would like to call

 6     Mr. Eric Hendriks as its next witness, and Mr. Hendriks has requested

 7     to testify in Dutch, and so we have Dutch interpreters in the booth

 8     occupied by the Albanian interpreters usually.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, which means that there are even more

10     interpreters that you should take care of that they do not get into

11     difficulties, and I'll listen to all the languages.

12             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour, while we're waiting for the witness,

13     I don't know if we can deal with the Prosecution's motion to add the 13

14     exhibits to its 65 ter list.  I know it was filed late so only the Markac

15     Defence had time to respond.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there an objection?

17             MR. KEHOE:  I do believe we did respond, and we didn't object.

18     Of course, we do have objections to the admission.  Adding it to the

19     65 ter list is step 1; admission is something else.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So no objection against adding it to the

21     65 ter list.

22             MR. CAYLEY:  No objection from the Cermak team either,

23     Your Honour.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Which means that leave is granted to add the 13

25     documents to the Rule 65 ter list.

Page 9662

 1             MR. HEDARALY:  And one further thing, maybe for the expediency,

 2     if we could have Mr. Registrar already assign numbers to the ones that

 3     are referred to in the statement, at least of the numbers 2 to 24, which

 4     were already on the 65 ter list and referred to in the statement.  I will

 5     refer to some of those so that could be useful, if that is possible.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar is invited to prepare a list for that,

 7     I take it, and not to deal with it already at this moment.

 8             Mr. Kuzmanovic.

 9             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, we have an exhibit list for this

10     witness that was provided.  Some of the documents in his exhibit list are

11     already marked as exhibits, so --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I think there are nine which were already admitted

13     into evidence as exhibits.

14             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.  And just so

15     we can have further benefit, if we can get the numbers e-mailed to us at

16     some point in time so during cross we can smoothly refer to them.  Thank

17     you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

19                           [The witness entered court]

20             JUDGE ORIE: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Hendriks, sir.

21     And I won't speak any more Dutch, because the official languages of this

22     Tribunal are English and French.

23             [In English] Mr. Hendriks, before you give evidence, the Rules

24     of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that

25     you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  The

Page 9663

 1     text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher.  May I invite you to make

 2     that solemn declaration.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Herewith I declare that I will

 4     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 5                           WITNESS:  ERIC HENDRIKS

 6                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Hendriks.  Please be seated.

 8             I take it that the parties take no issue with the Dutch text

 9     which doesn't require a solemn declaration but just a declaration, but

10     it's the same for Mr. Hendriks, I take it.

11             Mr. Hedaraly, please proceed.

12             Mr. Hendriks, Mr. Hedaraly is counsel for the Prosecution, and

13     he'll be the first one to examine you.  Please proceed.

14             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

15                           Examination by Mr. Hedaraly:

16        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Hendriks.

17        A.   Good morning.

18        Q.   Could you please state your full name for the record.

19        A.   My name is Eric Hendriks.

20        Q.   And what is your current occupation?

21        A.   I now work in a mortuary.

22             MR. HEDARALY:  Mr. Registrar, could we please have 65 ter 5470 on

23     the screen, please.

24        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, do you recall providing a witness statement to the

25     Office of the Prosecutor that you signed on 4 April 2008, and it was

Page 9664

 1     based on an interview on 27 March 2008?

 2        A.   Yes, I do recall that.

 3        Q.   And did you have a chance to review this statement yesterday?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And if you look at the screen in front of you and scroll down to

 6     your signature, is that the statement that we are talking about?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Does this statement accurately reflect what you said to the

 9     Office of the Prosecutor in the course of your interview?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And are the contents of this statement that you signed true, to

12     the best of your knowledge and recollection?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Finally, Mr. Hendriks, if you were asked the same questions

15     today that you were asked in that interview, would you give the same

16     answers?

17        A.   Yes.

18             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour, at this time I would like 65 ter 5470

19     be admitted into evidence pursuant to Rule 92 ter.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.  Mr. Registrar, that will be

21     number ...

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number P931, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  P931 is admitted into evidence.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. HEDARALY:  At this time, Your Honour, I would also like to

Page 9665

 1     seek admission of the 27 documents that are discussed in the statement,

 2     pursuant to 92 ter, four of which have just been added to the 65 ter list

 3     recently, and I can read those out.  That is 65 ter 5471, 65 ter 5472,

 4     65 ter 5473, and 65 ter 5474.  And just for the record, nine of these are

 5     already in evidence, so it should be 18 new documents.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Already in evidence, I see.  Yes, we see them on

 7     your list, which certainly will assist Mr. Registrar to prepare a further

 8     list, provisionally assigning exhibit numbers to them.

 9             Objections in relation to these documents?

10             MR. KEHOE:  Thank you, sir.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

12             MR. KEHOE:  They came kind of quickly.  I think we -- I think I

13     got it correctly.  It's 5471 and 5472 and 5473 are the photographs.  Is

14     that right, Counsel?

15             MR. HEDARALY:  Yes, that is correct.

16             MR. KEHOE:  We certainly have no objections to that, and I think

17     that 5474 is the 11 September ECMM report.

18             MR. HEDARALY:  That is correct.

19             MR. KEHOE:  Okay.  There's no objection to that.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Team K1.

21             MR. KEHOE:  I'm sorry?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Team K1.

23             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.  We have no objections.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections against any of the other documents,

25     which means that they are all admitted.  Mr. Registrar will provide a

Page 9666

 1     list wherein we'll find the not-yet-exhibited documents to which

 2     provisionally exhibit numbers are assigned.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  If I may just, Judge, I mean, I don't know if I --

 4     you said, "There are no objections against any of the other documents."

 5     Are we talking about the array of documents that are listed in the report

 6     or just these four?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I think, as a matter of fact, that you are

 8     seeking -- you are tendering all of the documents, and you just mentioned

 9     those who were added to the list recently.

10             MR. HEDARALY:  I'm only tendering those that are referred to in

11     the statement, so those are the 24 -- 2 to 24 which were on the 65 ter

12     list and the four I've mentioned that we've added to the 65 ter list.  I

13     don't yet have a foundation to admit the other remaining nine documents

14     that were not referred to in the witness's statement.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, is it clear to Mr. Registrar which ones are

16     referred to on the statement, because that --

17                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar will wait to receive a list of those

19     documents referred to in the statement, which means that he doesn't have

20     to verify all of that.  Then he'll prepare a list, and then we'll decide

21     on the basis of that list.

22             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

23             Just one point of clarity on that issue, that there are several

24     statements that are in the 65 ter list that have been admitted already.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 9667

 1             MR. KEHOE:  And with regard to, I could say, many of the balance,

 2     we do have objections to many of those reports, those ECMM reports.  I am

 3     not, of course, discussing those that have been put into evidence

 4     already, but the others that the Prosecutor is now offering.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You have now expressed your general objection

 6     against a number of ECMM reports.  Let's -- once we have received that

 7     list, let's specify and then know for sure where the objections are.

 8             Mr. Kuzmanovic.

 9             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I just -- for our

10     clarification, I have the exhibit list, and numbers 1 through 29, I

11     believe, are documents that are intended to be used through this witness.

12     Counsel, just so I'm clear?

13             MR. HEDARALY:  They are all to be used with this witness.  Some

14     of them have not been referred to in the statement, but that's why the

15     exhibit list for this witness are exhibits to be used with this witness.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And is that the last nine on the list?

17             MR. HEDARALY:  That is correct, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  That is.  So Mr. Registrar should focus now on the

19     first 29 on your list, which includes --

20             MR. HEDARALY:  With one exception.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  -- the one exception being ...

22             MR. HEDARALY:  Document 25 that is on the 65 ter list but was not

23     referred to in the witness's statement.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So the first 29 minus number 25, and then

25     you'll raise with the witness some or all of the remaining numbers, that

Page 9668

 1     is, the documents we find under numbers 30 to 39?

 2             MR. HEDARALY:  And 25.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And 25 as well.

 4             Mr. Registrar, this might assist you in preparing the list, and

 5     it also gives notice to the Defence teams where to object as listed

 6     documents, and I take it that numbers 30 up to and including 38, plus

 7     number 25, are the ones you can raise your objections once they are

 8     presented to the witness.

 9             Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

10             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

11        Q.   I'm sorry, Mr. Hendriks, for this little procedural pause.

12             Can I have the usher give the witness a hard copy of his

13     statement for his reference.

14             Mr. Hendriks, I want to ask you some further questions about

15     matters that are in your statement that I wish to clarify or additional

16     matters that are relevant to the issues in your statement.  The first

17     thing I would like to clarify is, if you go to paragraph 4 of your

18     statement, you state that your tasks as an ECMM monitor initially

19     included monitoring the humanitarian and human rights situation in the

20     area.  Did you want to clarify that?

21        A.   Our main task was, indeed, observing and reporting all sorts of

22     political, economic, humanitarian and human rights situations in the

23     area, so humanitarian and human rights situations was one or two out of

24     the three or four tasks that we had as monitors.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Then in that same sentence, it says:  "... and

Page 9669

 1     particularly to prevent and report the harassment of the Croat minority

 2     in the region."  Would you like to clarify what you meant by "prevent"?

 3        A.   Well, it was our task, indeed, to go to the Croatian minorities

 4     in the area to ask people how they were doing, how they were living

 5     there, if there was some sense of order.  So, actually, by our presence

 6     and by visiting the people in this way, the Croatian minorities would

 7     feel a little more protected in this area at that time.

 8        Q.   And when you talk about the Croat minority in the area, referring

 9     to July 1995, when you arrived in the region, how many villages in

10     Sector South had a Croat majority?

11        A.   A Croat majority?  Surely we're talking of minority here.  And as

12     far as I can recall, in the area that we had to patrol with our team,

13     there were four or five Croat minorities present, so not the entire

14     region but only the area that our team covered.

15        Q.   I just want to clarify, when I talk about majority, I know the

16     Croat were in a minority, but the villages themselves -- that within that

17     village, had a Croat majority, that's what I meant.

18        A.   Well, then I don't know how many villages there were.

19        Q.   So what do you mean by "four or five Croat minorities present in

20     the area"?

21        A.   The area at the time was a Serb area, a Serb Krajina, so the

22     majority were Serb, but there were a number of villages where actually

23     also Croat people lived.  However, they were surrounded by Serbs.  So in

24     that area, they were a minority.  That is what I meant to say.

25        Q.   So when you referred to the four or five villages, do you recall

Page 9670

 1     if those villages, within themselves, had a -- the Croats there, were

 2     they a minority, or were they a majority in those four or five villages?

 3        A.   Probably, in the village itself, the Croatians were a majority,

 4     but they lived in a Serbian area.

 5        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Hendriks.  And if -- and if I understood your

 6     previous responses correctly, you would visit those villages; is that

 7     correct?

 8        A.   Yes, we did pass them and talk to people there.

 9        Q.   And that was before Operation Storm, just to confirm?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And were you aware that in 1991, Serbs had burned houses of

12     Croats?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Now I want to focus after Operation Storm.  You and other ECMM

15     colleagues reported, and we have a number of reports, some are in

16     evidence, some we'll talk about later, about destruction that you

17     observed in various villages.  Now, during these patrols in 1995, were

18     you able to distinguish between houses damaged in 1991 and houses damaged

19     during or in the aftermath of Operation Storm?

20        A.   Yes, we could make that distinction.

21        Q.   And how would you make that distinction?

22        A.   Houses that had only been recently burned down were much darker,

23     burned colour, mainly in the wood of the roofs and the window sills.

24     Houses that had burnt in 1991 were different in colour, and there was

25     simply some vegetation as well.  You could see the house had been

Page 9671

 1     abandoned a longer time since.

 2             MR. HEDARALY:  If we could have 65 ter 5120 [sic] on the screen,

 3     please, Mr. Registrar.

 4        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, I will show you a report of 22 August 1995 from

 5     Team N2.  4120, 65 ter 4120.

 6             Thank you, Mr. Registrar.  If we can go to the middle of the

 7     page, there's a reference there to the village of Polaca.  I don't know

 8     if we can blow that up a little bit.

 9             Do you see that, Mr. Hendriks?  It says "Polaca."  There's a

10     coordinate, grid reference, and then:  "... totally damaged by 1991 war,

11     DPs returning."

12             Now, is this an example of damage that occurred in 1991 and that

13     you reported?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Now, Mr. Hendriks, is it fair to say that in your reporting, if

16     you did not specifically mention that the damage was in 1991, that the

17     damage or destruction reported was from 1995?

18        A.   That is correct.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             MR. HEDARALY:  Staying with the issue of these Croat villages,

21     and I'm not going to tender this one, Your Honour; that was one of the

22     documents that are in the list that Mr. Registrar will be preparing for

23     us soon.  If we can now go to 65 ter 5085 [sic].  I'm sorry,

24     Mr. Registrar, I meant to say 4085.  Apparently I misspoke.

25        Q.   And you will see on the screen soon a weekly report from the RC

Page 9672

 1     Knin to the headquarters on the 13th of August, and if we can go to the

 2     second page of that document, at the bottom.

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  The last paragraph -- I'm sorry, Mr. Registrar, I

 4     made another mistake.  Can I have 65 ter 2069.  My apologies.  Yes, thank

 5     you.

 6        Q.   That is a weekly report from the 13th of August.  Now if we can

 7     go to the second page at the bottom, the last paragraph, and it says:

 8             "All teams in the former Serb-held territory have been

 9     continuously reporting that, apart from the Croat minority village of

10     Polaca and the old Croat town of Drnis, almost all towns throughout the

11     area have suffered much burning of houses, and some of the smaller

12     villages and the towns of Donji Lapac and Kistanje have had every single

13     building burnt out."

14             Mr. Hendriks, do you remember if any of the four or five

15     villages of Croat majority that you referred to earlier today were

16     destroyed after Operation Storm?

17        A.   No, I don't recall that.

18        Q.   When you reported the destruction of houses or buildings in

19     villages throughout the area, did you usually distinguish between the

20     Croat villages, the few ones you mentioned, and the Serb villages?

21        A.   Not that I can remember, because we travelled through the whole

22     area and mapped as much as we could of what had been destroyed.

23        Q.   How were you going about that procedure of observing and

24     reporting these villages that had been burnt?

25        A.   During the morning meeting, they would tell us which team had to

Page 9673

 1     go to which area, there to map what had happened to the villages.

 2        Q.   And then can you explain for the Court what that means -- what

 3     that meant, to map the area?

 4        A.   With the aid of a map, you would get in a car, go to the area,

 5     and say, "Okay, I want to go and look at this village or these villages."

 6     You would drive there, you would drive to the village, and you would,

 7     well, cross through it, covering basically the whole village that you

 8     could then map, and this would take you all day, and around 4.00 or 5.00

 9     you would go back to base.

10        Q.   And what would you include in your reports?

11        A.   In particular, if and whether the houses had been burned or

12     looted, and if we could speak to people there, in particular Serb people

13     who'd been left behind, then we would do that.  And from those people, of

14     course, we heard all sorts of stories as well, and we would report them

15     also.

16        Q.   And during this patrolling and reporting, did you ever refer to

17     the 1991 census to see whether the village about which you were reporting

18     was, in 1991, a Croat majority or a Serb majority village?

19        A.   No, I did not specifically do that, nor did I see such a list.

20             MR. HEDARALY:  If I can have P815 on the screen, please.

21        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, we have seen some reports, as I said, there are

22     others in evidence, listing villages where there was destruction.  I want

23     to turn to the document on the screen, and this is a special report

24     prepared by Mr. Liborius on 26 August.  The second sentence in the

25     summary says:

Page 9674

 1             "A rough estimate is that between 60 and 80 per cent of the

 2     property in former UN Sector South have been fully or partly destroyed."

 3             My first question for you is:  Can you tell the Court, if you

 4     remember, what was the criteria used for whether a house was assessed to

 5     be fully destroyed or partly destroyed?

 6        A.   Entirely destroyed, we thought, were buildings of which only the

 7     walls were still up, so the roof was off, the doors and windows were out,

 8     the floors were burned.  Partly destroyed, we would characterize if the

 9     roof was partly burned or here or there a window was out, so criteria

10     like that.  However, they were not black and white on a list or paper.

11     It was just common sense that you would use.

12        Q.   And based on your observations and your patrols of the region at

13     the time, is that estimate of 60 to 80 per cent of the property being

14     either fully or partly destroyed consistent with those observations you

15     made on the ground?

16        A.   At the time, we described 60 to 80 per cent.  I'm sure it must

17     have been about 60 to 80 per cent, yes.

18        Q.   Let me show you a few specific reports, the first one being

19     65 ter 5041 -- 4041.

20             MR. HEDARALY:  Apparently I can't say 5 or 4 today.  I apologise,

21     Mr. Registrar.

22        Q.   Now, Mr. Hendriks, some of the incidents I'm going to ask you

23     about are already in evidence, so I will not ask you too many questions

24     about them, and that is not because I don't care.  It's simply to avoid

25     duplication for the Court.

Page 9675

 1             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Your Honour.  I must object to the

 2     commentary.

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  May I proceed?

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  It's an unnecessary comment.

 5     Mr. Hedaraly, you are aware of that, I take it.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MR. HEDARALY:  I apologise, Your Honours.

 8        Q.   If you look at the middle of the first page of this report, when

 9     it talks about what happened in the village of Biskupija, there's a

10     reference to HV soldiers with skull insignia that are described as

11     Diverzantia.  My question for you is simply:  Were you present during

12     that incident?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   In your statement, in paragraph 21, when you refer to this

15     incident, you say:

16             "I particularly remember the 7th Brigade soldiers burning houses,

17     without caring that people were observing them."

18             Did you talk to these soldiers at all?

19        A.   I don't remember that.  Probably not.  We were just looking,

20     watching from our cars what was happening, what they were doing.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly, you are referring to a 65 ter number

22     where it seems that you said it's already in evidence.  Would you then

23     please refer to the "P" number or the "D" number?

24             MR. HEDARALY:  That document is not in evidence.  I was referring

25     to the incident.  There's a separate --

Page 9676

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Incident, yes.  Whether an incident is in evidence

 2     is yet to be seen, Mr. Hedaraly.  I was not aware of incidents being in

 3     evidence.  And then this 65 ter number appears, and I tried to find it on

 4     the list, but --

 5             MR. HEDARALY:  It is --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  It's the third, perhaps.

 7             MR. HEDARALY:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I see it.  Thank you.

 9             Please proceed.

10             MR. HEDARALY:  If there are any documents that are part of this

11     additional ten, I will specifically reference them.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.  Please proceed.

13             MR. HEDARALY:  I would like now to go to 65 ter 4120 again.  We

14     looked at it briefly a few minutes ago.

15             And if we go a little down, there's a reference to the village of

16     Guglete.  Do you see that reference, sir?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And in the second page, under "B," there's a short description of

19     this incident where you saw members of the 72nd Military Police and an

20     INA truck and then a fire --

21             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Your Honour.  I object to the leading.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Excuse me, Mr. Kehoe.  I think that Mr. Hedaraly is

23     referring to what the text here says, and that should be clear to

24     everyone.

25             MR. CAYLEY:  Mr. President, not exactly.  I think Mr. Hedaraly

Page 9677

 1     said the 72nd HV, and it doesn't say that.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  If you are not referring to the text with

 3     precision --

 4             MR. HEDARALY:  The transcript says "Military Police,"

 5     Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, not 72nd?

 7             MR. HEDARALY:  It says 72nd Military Police, and Mr. Cayley said

 8     I said "72nd HV," which would have been a mistake on my part.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That being corrected, perhaps you could put

10     the question again to the witness.

11             MR. HEDARALY:

12        Q.   Do you remember this incident, Mr. Hendriks?

13        A.   Yes, I do.

14        Q.   And did you take a photograph of the house that you saw on fire?

15        A.   I or my colleague.

16             MR. HEDARALY:  If I can have 65 ter 5472, please.

17        Q.   Does this picture accurately reflect what you saw in Guglete on

18     that date?

19        A.   Yes, it does.

20             MR. HEDARALY:  If I can now go to P812, please.

21        Q.   And this is a team report from your team and two from

22     Soren Liborius and yourself on the 23rd of August.  If we now go to the

23     second page, under "B" it says:

24             "Kistanje:  In the auto workshop by the INA station, a fire was

25     lit at 11.04.  Next to the place was seen one civilian bus with HV

Page 9678

 1     soldiers, registration number SI 253-AB, and a Renault car SI 354-S.  As

 2     the fire was lit, soldiers embarked the bus and the cars left the scene."

 3        A.   I remember that.

 4        Q.   And were you present in Kistanje on that day?

 5        A.   Yeah.

 6        Q.   That was a team report.  Let me show you the corresponding RC

 7     report that was sent from Knin.  That is 65 ter 5476.  If we go to the

 8     second page of this report, under the heading 3(e), can you confirm for

 9     us that that is the same incident that we just saw in the team report?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Just staying on with this document, if we go back to the first

12     page, at the bottom of the page, under the heading 2(e), it says:

13             "Humo monitored the fruitless attempts of dozens former RSK

14     inhabitants in getting Croatian ID cards in Knin, despite all the people

15     were trying hard, commuting between police, municipality building,

16     searching for needed data.  ECMM was until now not able to watch one Serb

17     with Croatian ID card."

18             And my question for you is:  Do you remember Serbs having

19     difficulties obtaining ID cards?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Can you please describe what those problems were?

22        A.   We spoke to people who were, well, particularly outside of Knin

23     in the small villages, and they didn't have any means of transport.  They

24     had to go walking to Knin there, where the ID cards were being given out,

25     and they would get there and they would have to turn back without success

Page 9679

 1     because either things were not in order or people would just not do this

 2     for them.  In short, those people did not succeed in getting ID cards in

 3     these instances.

 4             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. Hendriks.

 5             Your Honours, I would like to tender 65 ter 5476 into evidence.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?

 7             MR. KEHOE:  [Microphone not activated] If I may.  Certainly, I do

 8     not believe that this witness is the author, and -- excuse me.  The

 9     witness is not the author and certainly is not mentioned in any of

10     these -- any of his reports.  Simply because he can point to one issue

11     that is consistent with P812 does not permit the rest of the document to

12     come into evidence.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

14             MR. HEDARALY:  First of all, he did confirm that there's one

15     report that -- he confirmed another portion that is consistent with his

16     memory, but beyond that, I think that is a matter that goes to the weight

17     of the document, not its admissibility.

18             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, if I may, this document that they are

19     attempting to put into evidence, and this is the objection on many of

20     these documents, has nothing to do with his particular team, and nor does

21     it appear that he was the author of this document.  And simply because he

22     can point to a passage in a document to say, "Oh, that is reflective in

23     yet another document, and I recall that," that admits the document, nor a

24     passage in a document that somebody else writes of some other entity

25     within ECMM to say, "Yes, I understand that individuals are having

Page 9680

 1     problems to get ID cards," certainly doesn't authenticate this document

 2     to permit it to come in.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  You said "doesn't authenticate."  Is there any

 4     problem as far as authenticity of the document is concerned or would you

 5     just say it does not justify this document to come into evidence?  It's

 6     not entirely clear to me.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  It's a multi -- it's a multi-levelled question, and

 8     the question of authenticity, especially since we first got this in quite

 9     a redacted form, is driven in large part by who the particular author is

10     of this document, and clearly this witness is not.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Authenticity, as far as I understand, is whether

12     this is a document prepared by the organisation at the time and a report

13     which was produced by that organisation.  Is there any suggestion that

14     this would not be an authentic document, which means that it is a forgery

15     or a --

16             MR. KEHOE:  Oh, no, no.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So that authenticity aspect does not arise;

18     yes?

19             MR. KEHOE:  And I have no indication that this is somehow a

20     forgery or, other than the redactions that I've received, being a

21     document that's been altered.  My main objection and the underpinnings of

22     this document is the complete inability of the Defence to go further as

23     to, for instance, what whoever this author was meant by various items.

24             The Prosecution has pointed to two paragraphs in a -- and I

25     assume they want to do this in many of these documents, in a three-page

Page 9681

 1     document that wasn't authored by them.  This witness then points to those

 2     and says, "I recall those incidents," and they are attempting to put the

 3     rest of the --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I think your objection is clear.

 5             Mr. Hedaraly.

 6             MR. HEDARALY:  Do I need to respond, Your Honour?  It seems to me

 7     this issue has happened before.  I mean, we have on the record how these

 8     reports are created, that the team reports are summarised by the RC

 9     reports, so there really is no authenticity issue, and this is just a

10     document that assists the Trial Chamber.

11             The Defence is objecting on the ECMM reporting with other

12     witnesses about what may or may not have been accurate in those reports,

13     so for this witness to be able to point out that that was in his team

14     report and later reflected in the RC report is an additional

15     [indiscernible] for relevance.  And, in any event, Mr. Kehoe's objection

16     goes to weight, not admissibility.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  The objection is denied.  Please proceed.

18             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, may I add?

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm sorry, Mr. Kuzmanovic, if I have overlooked you.

20             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  It's okay.  I guess I also join in the

21     objection, simply for the purpose of this witness lacks the foundation to

22     be able to have these documents admitted, since he's not the author of

23     many of these documents and only refers to specific portions in which

24     it's pretty clear that he hasn't -- you know, he hasn't written these

25     portions of these documents.  There's no question as to the, you know,

Page 9682

 1     authenticity of the document.  It's really an attempt to get the whole

 2     document in when, you know, three-fourths or five-sixths of the document

 3     has nothing to do with the witness.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That goes to weight, as far as the Chamber is

 5     concerned.  Of course, the Chamber will not, on the basis of such a

 6     report, just accept everything, what is in there, if we have no further

 7     information.  However, this witness says that what he reads in this

 8     report is, to some extent, and he explained it, consistent with his own

 9     observation, and that gives it sufficient probative value for admission.

10             Mr. Hedaraly.

11             MR. HEDARALY:  Can I have that in evidence, please, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Registrar.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P932.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  P932 is admitted into evidence.

15             MR. HEDARALY:  Mr. President, I have looked at the clock.  One

16     more document and it will be a suitable time for a break, if I have your

17     permission.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  You have permission.

19             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.  If I could have 65 ter

20     3067, please.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Where I earlier said that the document has

22     sufficient probative value, of course, relevance was not an issue and the

23     probative value is always looked at in the context of Rule 89(D), that

24     the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the need to ensure

25     a fair trial.

Page 9683

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MR. HEDARALY:

 3        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, if we can focus on the bottom part of this report,

 4     under item 3(b), it says:

 5             "In the Plavno Valley, Team N2 observed again houses on fire in

 6     spite of the promise of General Cermak, who visited the valley yesterday,

 7     that burnings will no longer happen."

 8             Do you specifically remember this incident in the Plavno Valley?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And can you please describe for the Court what it is that you

11     saw?

12        A.   What we reported?  That there were houses on fire.

13        Q.   And did you see who else was in the area?

14        A.   I don't remember, other than my team leader, my driver and the

15     interpreter.

16        Q.   Let me refer you to paragraph 34 of your statement, in which you

17     say:

18             "I specifically remember seeing soldiers in HV uniforms setting

19     these houses on fire.  They were there, walking around the houses, and

20     houses would go on fire.  And since there was no one else around, I

21     concluded that they were the ones setting the fires."

22             Is that still consistent with your recollection?

23        A.   Yes.  Now that you put it that way, indeed there were these

24     soldiers there who we saw walking around there, and therefore, we

25     concluded that these were the men who had set fire to those houses,

Page 9684

 1     because there were houses burning.

 2             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. Hendriks.

 3             Mr. President.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly, after the break, how much time would

 5     you still need?

 6             MR. HEDARALY:  I think I will be able to finish within the next

 7     session, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll have a break, and we'll resume at 11.00.

 9                           --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly, the assessment of the time you'd need

12     was one hour and a half in total.  It seems that you're --

13             MR. HEDARALY:  In the 92 ter submission, I had provided a revised

14     assessment of around two hours.  Obviously, it's at the Chamber's

15     discretion.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I may have missed that.  I still have the one and a

17     half hours.  If you could find something in one hour and 45 minutes,

18     Mr. Hedaraly.

19             MR. HEDARALY:  I'll do my best.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no.  I'm just asking for efficiency, and I've

21     got no complaints until now.

22             Please proceed.

23             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

24        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, we talked about destruction earlier.  I want to

25     show you a few specific portions of reports on a related matter.

Page 9685

 1             If we could have P806, please.  That's an 8 August report, and if

 2     we can go to the third page of that report.  At the top, under "B," it

 3     says:

 4             "Team Knin reports that, although there are many chapels

 5     destroyed, the Orthodox Church seems to be untouched and has a military

 6     policija guard outside."

 7             And just to be clear, if we go back to the first page of this

 8     report, that is the report from your team or from the RC; is that

 9     correct?

10        A.   Yes, I can see that.  It's a report from the RC.

11        Q.   Let me now move to 65 ter 4041, although we may have a "P" number

12     now for it, which is P933.  That's a 9 August report from your team.

13     It's going to come up on the screen in a few seconds.

14             If we look at the second page of this report, and you can see

15     under "Humanitarian matters" it says:

16             "Churches on the following locations were intact."

17             And then there's a listing of four villages.  Next to "Kosovo" it

18     says:

19             "On the door was put a sign, 'Do not touch, HV.'"

20             Do you remember seeing such a sign on the door of a church?

21        A.   Yes, I saw that.

22        Q.   Let me now move to P934.  This is an 11 August 1995 report from

23     the RC Knin which is going to come up in a few seconds.

24             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me.  I don't want to interrupt.  If we

25     could -- I understand the "P" numbers have been given, but just for the

Page 9686

 1     speed, I have them referenced by 65 ter numbers.  So if you could -- if

 2     counsel could give me that as well.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That is 65 ter 577?

 4             MR. HEDARALY:  That's correct.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  You find the number always next to the new "P"

 6     number.  When you refer to the "P" numbers, Mr. Hedaraly, it should be

 7     clear that these are provisionally-assigned "P" numbers.

 8             MR. HEDARALY:  I thought there was no objections to the first

 9     list of 22 documents that were from the statement.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  That was not entirely clear to me.

11             MR. KEHOE:  There are many objections to all of those documents.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So let's deal with that at a later stage.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, I said "provisionally assigned,"

15     Mr. Hedaraly, in order to avoid confusion in the future.

16             MR. HEDARALY:  That's fine, Your Honour.  The only point I would

17     raise is that if there are objections, then I may want to raise the

18     documents one by one.  I will not refer to all of them, but if there are

19     objections, then I may want to raise them with the witness, which is

20     going to take a lot longer.

21             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, I do have objections to it.

22             When I notified counsel that there was no objection putting them

23     on the 65 ter list, there was no statement that we objected to their

24     admissibility --

25             MR. HEDARALY:  But that's on the same document --

Page 9687

 1             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me.  This is two separate issues.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's not --

 3             MR. KEHOE:  I do have objections to the documents as proposed by

 4     counsel.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, D65 -- the 92 ter statement is now in evidence.

 6     Would you for the time being, then, except if reference is made to

 7     certain documents apparently shown to the witness, that they would at

 8     least be MFI'd out of these numbers, apart from what we finally would do

 9     with them, because I take it that Mr. Hedaraly's concern is that if they

10     are not admitted, that part of the statement is somewhere in the air,

11     rather than a meaningful statement for the Chamber.  That seems to make

12     sense.  Apart from your final objections, Mr. Kehoe, do you have any

13     suggestion, how to resolve that issue?

14             MR. HEDARALY:  I'm sorry, I may be confused.  I'm sorry, I think

15     I'm getting confused now, Your Honour, and I apologise for that.  There's

16     two separate sets of documents.  There are the ones referred to in the

17     witness statement that were all on the 65 ter list, for which we have not

18     sought leave to add.  I'm just wondering if Mr. Kehoe's objection are for

19     those new documents.  That was my understanding.  If I didn't understand,

20     then it's perhaps my mistake.  But if it is focused on those ones, I

21     understand, and that's fine, I'll proceed.  But if it's for the ones that

22     are already in the statement that has been admitted under 92 ter, I

23     didn't understand there to be an objection to those ones.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's be clear.  We had on our list numbers 1 to --

25             MR. HEDARALY:  25.

Page 9688

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  -- 25.

 2             MR. HEDARALY:  I'm sorry, 1 to 29, minus 25.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it's even more complicated.  We had the

 4     witness statement who is now admitted into evidence; that was number 1.

 5     Then we have the numbers 2 up to and including 29.  Now, we take off

 6     number 25.  You took that out, which means -- let me try to do the math

 7     as well.  29 minus number 25.  Then we have one, two, three, four, five,

 8     six, seven, eight, nine that were already in evidence, which makes 28

 9     minus 9 is 19 --

10             MR. HEDARALY:  Minus the witness statement.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  And then we have to take off the witness statement,

12     which brings us to 18, and these 18 now appear here on the list prepared

13     by Mr. Registrar.

14             Objections also against these 18?

15             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then now I come back to Mr. Kehoe, as to how

17     he would like to resolve the issue of statements referred to in --

18     documents referred to in the 92 ter statements which are entirely in the

19     air if we would do nothing with these 18.

20             Do you have specifics that you say number so-and-so on this list,

21     that's where the objections are?

22             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour, I do.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you already indicate the numbers?

24             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, I will attempt to go through this on the 65 ter

25     list, if I may.

Page 9689

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  The 65 ter list, as presented by Mr. Registrar.

 2     Yes, that's also a way of doing it.  Then put that -- yes, Mr. Kehoe,

 3     which ones?

 4             MR. KEHOE:  The first is 65 ter 4041.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  4041, number 1 on Mr. Registrar's new list.  Yes.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  If I may, my counsel is telling me that that might

 7     have been admitted already.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  That's admitted already, so --

 9             MR. KEHOE:  That's not in already, it's MFI'd, Judge.  That's

10     MFI'd at this point.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll look at what status it exactly has.

12     Objections against the others.  Which ones, Mr. Kehoe?

13             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, the objection is 65 ter number 577.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, 577.  That's number 2 on Mr. Registrar's list.

15             MR. KEHOE:  I don't know, Your Honour, if you, in fact, want to

16     discuss the individual objections to them.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if they are all of the same character, we can

18     go through them and then you would do it.  If they are all quite

19     different, then I think we have to resolve the matter now so that

20     Mr. Hedaraly knows what to do during the remainder of his

21     examination-in-chief.

22             MR. KEHOE:  I move on this basically because I thought that the

23     counsel put this on his exhibit list, that he was going to go through

24     these with the witness.  So with regard to 577, provisionally given

25     P34 -- 934, that is an RC Knin report.  It's not authored by this

Page 9690

 1     witness, and I believe that to the extent that it's even going to be

 2     discussed, it's going to be discussed in one particular incident.  So

 3     there's an objection to that.

 4             The next objection is --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  There's an objection, just for my understanding,

 6     similar to the one we denied before the break in relation to -- or is it

 7     different?

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Well, I think, Judge, we have to look through -- on

 9     these particular exhibits that I believe I'm going to go through now, and

10     I have to make sure of that, there's a difference between team exhibits

11     and RC Knin exhibits.  As we just discussed, there is Regional Centre

12     Knin exhibits and then his individual team.

13             Well, certainly this witness -- if I can start on the first

14     premise, many of the Team Knin exhibits he didn't write, but certainly

15     the RC Knin he didn't write.  And although his team may have had some

16     participation or their activities are delineated in that report, there's

17     simply no way for the Defence to cross-examine Mr. Hendriks based on

18     information that he didn't participate in.  So in that sense, it's

19     denying the Defence the ability to confront witnesses with exhibits that

20     are being introduced by the Prosecution during the course of his

21     examination.  It's as if this is just being thrown out there simply

22     because it's an ECMM document and accepted by the Chamber as being true,

23     with no opportunity for meaningful cross-examination because, with all

24     due respect to the witness, he doesn't know.  And most of these

25     documents, I will be frank with Your Honour and the Chamber, fall into

Page 9691

 1     that category.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And could you precisely, then, point at them?

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  If they are all, then it is quite simple, or if you

 5     could say, "This one does not belong to that category."  I see that we

 6     are talking about ECMM reports for -- starting with 577.  It's the next

 7     one, next one, next one.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  2069 is RC Knin.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  They are all on the original list, apart from those

10     already admitted.  I see that on the old list, you started with 4041.

11     That's an ECMM report, and then up to -- up to number 20, these are all

12     ECMM reports, objections --

13             MR. KEHOE:  Of two different versions.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             MR. KEHOE:  Some of them are team reports of which he is not the

16     author, and some of them are Regional Centre Knin reports of which he is

17     not the author.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             MR. KEHOE:  I will gladly go through the list for the record,

20     Your Honour, of those that I object to for those reasons.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any specific, more than what you've just

22     told us, or is there somewhere where you say, this is -- well, this

23     report is not beyond doubt an original one?  Is there anything else,

24     apart from the general objection to different categories you have

25     mentioned?

Page 9692

 1             MR. KEHOE:  There is no authenticity challenge at this point.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but there could be other matters.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  My challenge is -- objection is what I outlined for

 4     the Judge, the inability to cross-examine Mr. Hendriks on these

 5     documents --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but now you're -- you're now repeating what you

 7     said.  It's that and nothing else?

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Important enough, but nothing to add on specific

10     documents.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, I have not heard from other Defence

13     teams, whether they join Mr. Kehoe in his objections.

14             MR. CAYLEY:  I have nothing to add, Your Honour.

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Same here, Your Honour.  We join.  Nothing else

16     to add, thank you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber denies the objection against admission

18     and will admit into evidence all the documents listed on Mr. Registrar's

19     list, provisionally assigned numbers P933 up to and including P950.  They

20     are admitted into evidence.

21             Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

22             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I hope that the time

23     that we took here won't be held against me in the examination.

24        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, we were talking about a few documents where there

25     were churches that had not been destroyed, and we have now in front of us

Page 9693

 1     one more of these documents.

 2             If we can go to -- I'll just find it myself here -- the second

 3     page of the document, and towards the right -- towards the bottom half,

 4     right above "Humanitarian human rights matter," there is a part that

 5     discusses what happened -- what you saw in Grahovo.  It says:

 6             "The team then went to explore Grahovo, the scene of heavy

 7     shelling and the site of HV occupation on 28th of July.  They found the

 8     town almost completely levelled due to the amount of shelling and only

 9     the Orthodox Church still undamaged."

10             My question for you is:  Do you remember seeing the Orthodox

11     Church in Grahovo being undamaged?

12        A.   Yes, I have seen that.

13        Q.   There are more of these.  I won't go through all of them.  Let me

14     show you 65 ter 5480.  And this is a 9 September 1995 report on cultural

15     heritage in the former Krajina.

16             First of all, can you confirm that you prepared this report?

17        A.   I probably did.

18        Q.   And based on this report and on your observations, was it a

19     common pattern that you observed, after Operation Storm, that churches

20     were not destroyed?

21        A.   Yes, that was a common pattern.

22        Q.   Earlier --

23             MR. KEHOE:  Just get clarity.  "Churches" being Orthodox churches

24     or Catholic churches?

25             MR. HEDARALY:  I can re-ask the question.

Page 9694

 1        Q.   When you talk about the churches, it's Orthodox churches,

 2     specifically?

 3        A.   [In English] I can't remember that.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             MR. HEDARALY:

 6        Q.   And earlier you testified that 60 to 80 per cent of the property,

 7     you agree with that assessment, was destroyed, so that 60 to 80 per cent

 8     obviously excluded Orthodox churches; is that correct?

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me.  I believe the witness said he couldn't

10     remember about the -- with all due respect, the question of the churches,

11     whether it was Orthodox or Catholic.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  So it would be a general reference to churches,

13     then.

14             MR. HEDARALY:  That's a fair point.  I'll re-ask the question.

15        Q.   So earlier you testified that 60 to 80 per cent of the property,

16     you agreed with that assessment, was destroyed, so that 60 to 80 per cent

17     obviously then would exclude churches; is that correct?

18        A.   [Interpretation] The 60 to 80 per cent was all buildings, houses,

19     including churches.  So whether it was exactly 60 to 80 per cent of the

20     churches, I don't know.  Here, I see a list of churches, and whether

21     those are Catholic churches or Orthodox churches, I have no idea.  Just a

22     general list.  Those churches in those villages were, yes or no,

23     destroyed and/or damaged.

24        Q.   But you just testified earlier, and I want to make sure that it

25     was accurate, that as a common pattern, based on your observations, in

Page 9695

 1     large part churches were left undamaged.  Have I understood that

 2     correctly?

 3        A.   Yes, indeed, most of the churches were left undamaged.

 4             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you.  Your Honour, I'd like to tender

 5     65 ter -- I lost the number.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  5480?

 7             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President -- into evidence.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Objections?

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Based on the fact that he's the author, no

10     objections.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P951.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  P951 is admitted into evidence.

14             I have to add that where earlier I denied the objection against

15     the admission of P933 up to and including P950, that the Chamber

16     considers that it's a matter of weight rather than admissibility, and

17     that the probative value is not outweighed by the need to guarantee a

18     fair trial.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. HEDARALY:  I will, Your Honour.

21        Q.   Before I move on, let me ask you, Mr. Hendriks, about the

22     reporting.  The reports from your team were sent to the RC Knin; is that

23     correct?

24        A.   That is correct.

25        Q.   And then the reports at the RC Knin would be sent to the

Page 9696

 1     headquarters in Zagreb?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And would you review the reports that were sent from the RC to

 4     the headquarters?

 5        A.   Usually.

 6        Q.   And why would you do that?

 7        A.   Of course, I was interested in what aspects from my report were

 8     sent on to headquarters; in other words, did I not work for nothing all

 9     day, and in which way is it being reported to headquarters.

10        Q.   When you reviewed these RC reports to the headquarters, did you

11     ever notice anything that was inconsistent between your team reports sent

12     to the RC and these RC reports sent to the headquarters?

13        A.   No, not really.  Sometimes the method cut-and-paste was used for

14     my report or our reports, and sometimes it was a kind of summary of what

15     we mentioned in our reports, but there was -- there was no -- the truth

16     was not violated.

17        Q.   Let me go to 65 ter 4202, which is now P945.  This is a

18     6 September team report from your team to the RC.  And if we go to the

19     second -- just to confirm, there was a reorganisation at some point after

20     Operation Storm, and you moved from Team N2 to Team K1; is that correct?

21        A.   The figures changed.  On November 2 -- I was in November 2, and

22     that was later called "Kilo 1."

23        Q.   And if we go on to the second page of this report, at the last

24     point before "Humanitarian" -- up at the top of the page, the last point

25     before "Humanitarian and Human Rights Issues" it says:

Page 9697

 1             "At 1500 hours on the way Knin-Drnis, we saw for the fifth time

 2     in 10 days the Renault SI-821-BC driving with looted goods."

 3             Now, I want to show you the RC report for that same day, and that

 4     is 65 ter 5477.

 5             And if we look at item 4(b), it summarises some findings from

 6     Team Knin and says "also observed burning houses."  And in the next

 7     sentence:

 8             "Also looting activity is in process, becoming more and more

 9     organised, as the same transportation vehicles were observed for several

10     times in the area."

11             Now, does this RC report summarise the findings that you have

12     made that we saw in your team report?

13        A.   I think so.

14             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour, I would like to tender 65 ter 5477

15     into evidence.

16             MR. KEHOE:  It's the same objection, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Same objection.  For the same reasons, denied.

18     Mr. Registrar, that would be ...

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number P952, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  952.  P952 is admitted into evidence.

21             Please proceed.

22             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you.  And while we're on reporting, can we

23     go to P766, please.

24        Q.   Now, Mr. Hendriks, while we're on reporting, this is a report

25     from 26 August from Team N3, which is another monitoring team; is that

Page 9698

 1     correct?

 2        A.   That is correct.

 3        Q.   And am I correct in assuming that you did not prepare this

 4     document?

 5        A.   No, I did not prepare this document.

 6        Q.   Now, looking at this report, is it consistent with the general

 7     reporting practice from monitoring teams at ECMM?

 8        A.   Well, I think the regular format was used, the format that we

 9     always used.

10        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Hendriks.  Let me change topics now, and I want

11     to take you back to 7 August 1995, the first day when you left the UN

12     camp after Operation Storm and went back into the town of Knin, and I

13     want to clarify something in paragraph 18 of your witness statement.

14             When you went back in town, did you go to the ECMM RC building or

15     to your own accommodation?

16        A.   Both accommodations.

17        Q.   And which one did you go to first, the RC building or your -- or

18     where you were living?

19        A.   As far as I remember, I think we first went to the RC building,

20     after which I went to the house.

21        Q.   When you say "we went to the RC building," who are you referring

22     to?

23        A.   Mr. Liborius and Stig Marker-Hansen, and myself.

24        Q.   And on that day, did you go inside the RC building with them?

25        A.   Yes, indeed.

Page 9699

 1        Q.   And did you see any Croatian soldiers in the RC building?

 2        A.   I don't recall.

 3        Q.   And just to clarify that, do you -- when you say you don't

 4     recall, are you saying that you know for a fact there were no soldiers or

 5     that you have no memory of it either way?

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Your Honour.  I object to the leading.  "I

 7     don't recall," is, "I don't recall."  I think the answer was quite clear.

 8     I object.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  The witness may answer the question.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't recall.

11             MR. HEDARALY:

12        Q.   Did you understand my last question that I asked you?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's see.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you repeat the question,

15     please?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  A question was put to you, "And did you see any

17     Croatian soldiers in the RC building?"  You then said, "I don't recall."

18     Mr. Hedaraly seeks clarification to the extent whether you do recall that

19     there were not, which appears not to be your answer, or whether you just

20     don't recall whether they were there, which seems to be your answer.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not recall whether they were

22     there.  They may have been there, but I have no recognition -- sorry,

23     recollection of that fact.

24             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

25        Q.   Let me move to paragraph 12 of your statement, where you refer to

Page 9700

 1     ARSK soldiers in Knin on rotation.  And then you go on to explain that

 2     term:

 3             "What I meant by this is that there were ARSK soldiers in the

 4     town of Knin, but they were just hanging around and merely drinking.  It

 5     wasn't as if they were part of a unit from Knin.  I assumed that these

 6     were soldiers that were on leave from the frontlines, and I further

 7     assumed that these soldiers only would be rotated so that different

 8     soldiers would be on leave in Knin at different times."

 9             And the last sentence:

10             "I can confirm that I did not see any ARSK heavy artillery or

11     tanks in or around Knin."

12             We'll just pause for the translation.

13             Now, Mr. Hendriks, these soldiers that you saw in Knin, did they

14     appear to you to be defending the town?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   If we move a few paragraphs down to paragraph 14, and there is a

17     reference to some shells that fell very close to where you were.  And my

18     question for you is:  What's the basis for your knowledge that they fell

19     close to you?  Was it from the sound, from the damage?

20        A.   Especially the -- especially the sound.

21        Q.   Did you notice any damage, when you got out of the RC building on

22     the 4th of August, around you?

23        A.   When we left the RC building, we drove to the UN barracks, and

24     en route we did see some damage, yes.

25        Q.   And then in the next paragraph, 15, you talk about the

Page 9701

 1     residential building that was damaged.  If we can have 65 ter 5471, which

 2     is now P947, on the screen.  And in your statement, you talk about --

 3     those are the two residential buildings that you refer to; is that

 4     correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And you had a clarification to make, and I should have made it

 7     earlier.  I apologise.  In the last sentence of paragraph 15, you said:

 8             "Having observed the building, it appeared to me that it was

 9     damaged due to fire caused by a shell hitting the building."

10             Would you like to make that clarification now?

11        A.   I looked at those pictures carefully, based on the questions that

12     you put to me, and I wondered by myself how were they damaged.  Was it

13     through artillery, or was it through fire, or was it a combination of the

14     shelling and a fire as a result?  I don't know.

15        Q.   Let me ask you this:  After the 7th of August, when you started

16     patrolling again, did you notice any buildings on fire in Knin itself?

17        A.   Some buildings.

18        Q.   And if we move to paragraph 17 on your -- of your statement, in

19     the middle of the paragraph you say:

20             "I saw on many occasions that we were stopped while other

21     civilian and military vehicles were allowed to go through the

22     check-points."

23             And then a few lines down:

24             "I did notice that the police seemed to be acting more

25     professionally after the Varivode incident that occurred on 28 September

Page 9702

 1     1995."

 2             Just before I move on, can you just very briefly tell the Court

 3     what you mean when you refer to the Varivode incident?

 4        A.   Before the incident, it seemed as if the tasks of the police on

 5     the spot was not professional, whereas after the incident we saw that the

 6     check-points were manned in a more serious manner and that, for instance,

 7     the chief of police, whom we talked with, acted and said that he would

 8     really take matters in hand.  So the general impression was that

 9     something would change in the attitude of the local police, but that was

10     reduced later on.

11        Q.   Thank you.  My question wasn't that clear.  That was my next

12     question, but the question I wanted to ask you before that was:  The

13     Varivode incident itself, what was it, just briefly?

14        A.   Briefly, the Varivode incident, I think some nine people had been

15     killed.

16        Q.   And if we can go to 65 ter 5483.  This is a 9 October 1995 report

17     from your team, Team Knin, and the first paragraph under "General

18     Situation" says:

19             "The stronger Croatian police patrolling after the Varivode

20     massacre seems to improve the security situation.  However, little is

21     left to protect and it is clear that this new policy is the result of

22     international pressure rather than was a planned move."

23             Is that consistent with your recollection?

24        A.   Yes.

25             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour, can we have 65 ter 5483 into

Page 9703

 1     evidence?

 2             MR. KEHOE:  It's the running objection, Judge, same objection.

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  This is actually from Team Knin, Mr. Kehoe.

 4             MR. KEHOE:  It's the same objection, Your Honour.  There's no

 5     indication he wrote it.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  The objection is denied on the same grounds.

 8             Mr. Registrar.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P953.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  P953 is admitted into evidence, and I took it that

11     the objection was shared by the other Defence teams.

12             Mr. Hedaraly, please proceed.

13             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you.  If I can have 65 ter 5474 on the

14     screen.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  It's P950 at this moment, Mr. Hedaraly.

16             MR. HEDARALY:  Yes.  I was just informed of the same thing by my

17     case manager.  My mistake.

18             If we can go to the second page of that report, towards the

19     bottom, just before the last paragraph.

20        Q.   It says:  "Five days ago, one man was beaten by a uniformed and

21     armed man, who was shouting at him, 'Chetnik, go away.  This is not your

22     country.'  Therefore, the man hides himself during the whole day."

23             Mr. Hendriks, do you have a specific recollection of this

24     incident?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 9704

 1        Q.   And just to be absolutely sure, it says "uniformed man."  What

 2     kind of uniform was he wearing?

 3        A.   Possibly a Croatian Army uniform, but I did not describe it in

 4     the report, so I'm not quite sure.

 5        Q.   And then the next sentence at the beginning of the next paragraph

 6     says:

 7             "During our patrol in Vukse, we found two recently-shot dead

 8     women; one was shot in the back of the head and the other was shot in the

 9     belly and in the right side of the body."

10             Do you remember actually discovering these bodies yourself?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   I want to look at the CC reports, so after the reorganisations

13     your report would go to the CC and then to the headquarters; and that's

14     65 ter 5481.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I seek one clarification in relation to one of

16     the previous answers.

17             You were asked what kind of uniform he was wearing, and you said,

18     "A Croatian Army uniform," although you were not certain, since you did

19     not describe it.  Did you say that it possibly or probably was a Croatian

20     Army uniform?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

23             MR. HEDARALY:  I see I may have misspoken again.  If we can have

24     65 ter 5481 on the screen, please.

25             I'm looking, Mr. Registrar, for 65 ter 5481.  I may have made a

Page 9705

 1     mistake.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We're almost through your quota of mistakes,

 3     Mr. Hedaraly.

 4             MR. KEHOE:  Judge, I'll give him some of mine, in the spirit of

 5     collegiality.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Be careful, Mr. Kehoe.  You might need them.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. HEDARALY:  Could we go to the second page of this report.

 9        Q.   So there's a CC report for the same day.  Under 4(d) --

10             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour, when I have 65 ter 5481, I get a

11     different document on my screen, so it may be yet another mistake on my

12     part, but --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Other people are making mistakes now and again as

14     well, Mr. Hedaraly, if this is of any comfort to you.  Unfortunately, the

15     Chamber cannot check 65 ter numbers.  If anyone could assist

16     Mr. Hedaraly.

17             MR. KEHOE:  It is the correct one on the screen.

18             MR. HEDARALY:  We have the right one now, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

20             MR. HEDARALY:

21        Q.   If we go to the second page of this document, so under item 4(d),

22     and it says:

23             "Team Knin discovered during its patrol in Vukse the bodies of

24     two recently-shot women."

25             That is the same incident you just described in your own report;

Page 9706

 1     is that correct?

 2        A.   That is correct.

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour, I would like to tender this document,

 4     65 ter 5481, into evidence.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  [Microphone not activated] Same objection.  This is

 6     CC Knin, not --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The objection is denied on the same -- for the

 8     same reasons.

 9             Mr. Registrar.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number P954, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  P954 is admitted into evidence.

12             Please proceed.

13             MR. HEDARALY:  And, Your Honour, I would also like to tender from

14     the bar table 65 ter 2821, which is a UN incident report about two bodies

15     of two women that were discovered on the information provided by ECMM,

16     and the injuries were the same.  One was shot in the head, the other to

17     the side of the thorax and stomach respectively, and this refers to

18     additional killings numbers 305 and 306.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

20             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.  I -- we received notice of the

21     fact that they were going to use this this morning, so at this time -- at

22     this point, if I could just take overnight to take a look at it before

23     taking our position.  It could very well be that --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  If it's tendered from the bar table, there's no need

25     to decide on the matter in the presence of the witness.

Page 9707

 1             MR. HEDARALY:  I just wanted the record to have the two documents

 2     together just for the convenience --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you'd say they are related.  Defence will have

 4     time to make any submissions on the admission of this document, and then

 5     the Chamber will decide in due course after that.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you.  If we could have 65 ter 5478, please.

 8        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, this is a 7 September report, and this is from --

 9     prepared by your team; is that correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And let's just move to 65 ter 5479, which was -- which is your

12     team report for the next day, 8 September.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Counsel.  65 ter 5479 is not a team

14     report.  It's a -- it's blocked out.  Is this a CC report or is this,

15     again, a team report?

16             MR. HEDARALY:  It says "From K1."

17             MR. KEHOE:  We just had the deleted one, so thank you for the

18     clarification.

19             MR. HEDARALY:  It says on the top line on the screen "From K1."

20             MR. KEHOE:  Disclosure had --

21             MR. HEDARALY:  No problem.

22        Q.   Can you just confirm as well that this is the report from your

23     own team?

24        A.   Yes.

25             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour, can I have 65 ter 5478 and 65 ter

Page 9708

 1     5479, the two team reports from Team K1 from 7 and 8 September 1995

 2     admitted into evidence?

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?

 4             MR. KEHOE:  No objection, Judge.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, 65 ter 5478 becomes

 7     Exhibit number P955, and 65 ter 5479 becomes Exhibit number P956.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  P955 and P956 are admitted into evidence.

 9             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

10        Q.   Now, Mr. Hendriks, all these crimes that are in your reports,

11     the burnings, the lootings and the killings, did you or other ECMM

12     monitors report those to Croatian authorities?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And can you please tell the Court who you reported to, who you

15     reported those crimes to?

16        A.   Either to the police chief or to General Cermak.

17        Q.   And how often do you remember informing General Cermak of these

18     crimes?

19        A.   A minimum of two to three times.

20        Q.   And do you remember what specifically you or other ECMM monitors

21     would tell General Cermak about these crimes?

22        A.   Yes.  We talked about these types of crimes that had taken place.

23        Q.   And what was General Cermak's response to you?

24        A.   The general would say that it wasn't good and that he would try

25     to do something about it.

Page 9709

 1        Q.   And from your observations on your patrols following these

 2     meetings, did you see any difference on the ground, in terms of crimes

 3     being committed?

 4        A.   No, not really.

 5        Q.   Can you elaborate on that?  What do you mean by, "No, not

 6     really"?

 7        A.   Things didn't change.

 8        Q.   What things didn't change?

 9        A.   The looting, the arson, those kinds of things.

10        Q.   And you also mentioned reporting these crimes to the Croatian

11     police as well.  Now, was that at the same time or was it separately from

12     when you reported them to General Cermak?

13        A.   One time, we'd go to the police chief directly, and another time

14     we'd go to the General, or both, because General Cermak sometimes said we

15     had to notify these matters to the police.

16        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Hendriks.  One last area I want to explore with

17     you is the freedom of movement that the ECMM monitors had.

18             We already saw a reference to check-points in paragraph 17 of

19     your statement, when you talked about being stopped while seeing other

20     military and civilian vehicles going through.

21             Let me first of all show you P830, which is a 10 August

22     RC report.  And if we can go to the second page of this report, at the

23     top of the page.  Under item F:

24             "Team Knin report the continuing ROM in trying to get to Benkovac

25     and Obrovac.  They were told by the policija on the check-points that

Page 9710

 1     they could only get to these places with the written permission of

 2     General Gotovina."

 3             Mr. Hendriks, were you present when the policija made that

 4     statement?

 5        A.   Yes, I was in that vehicle.

 6        Q.   And did you hear that statement being made or was it reported to

 7     you later on?

 8        A.   It was said in Croatian, and our interpreter interpreted for us

 9     that written permission was necessary by General Gotovina.

10        Q.   Let me now move to 16 August 1995, which is 65 ter 5 -- no,

11     sorry, I'm going to catch myself before it's too late -- 4085, which is

12     also P936.  And if we can just stay at the -- under item 2(b), it says:

13             "N3 were again stopped at Vrlika check-point and was forced to do

14     the usual Split visit.  A strong protest will be given to

15     General Cermak."

16             Now, that's on the 16th.  Now, let me just move you to the 17th

17     August report, which is 65 ter 4094.  And just at the top, under item

18     "Freedom of movement," number 2.  So that's the next day after the report

19     we just saw.

20             "Today we went to General Cermak to complain about the

21     restriction of movement yesterday in the Vrlika area.  He apologised to

22     us for this accident that will never happen again.  Military and civilian

23     police should know that all international organisations have freedom of

24     movement in the whole area."

25             And then if we just move on:

Page 9711

 1             "The General reacted immediately by phoning the Minister of

 2     Internal Affairs."

 3             Now, Mr. Hendriks, were you present at this meeting where this

 4     protest was delivered?

 5        A.   Yes, I was.

 6        Q.   And who was the one that made the protest?  Was it you?

 7        A.   It was my team leader, Stig Marker-Hansen.

 8             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour, can I have 65 ter 4094 admitted into

 9     evidence.

10             MR. KEHOE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... authors.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The objection is -- I'm reading the

12     transcript.  It says "objection ... authors."  You raised the objection,

13     the same objection?

14             MR. KEHOE:  No, there was no objection, Your Honour --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  It's unclear the --

16             Yes, Mr. Registrar.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P957.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  P957 is admitted into evidence.

19             Mr. Hedaraly, you may continue.

20             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you.  So that's on the 17th, when the

21     protest is delivered.

22             Now let's move to the next day, the 18th of August.  If we can

23     have P511 on the screen, and if we can go on the second page under item

24     C, "Security and Freedom of Movement."

25        Q.   And it says:  "Having waited two minutes at the combined Croatian

Page 9712

 1     MUP/military police check-point in Dabar and being told not to move, and

 2     to phone General Cermak (see the report from yesterday) requesting him to

 3     solve the problem of freedom of movement.  This solved the problem, and

 4     after a few minutes N2 was back in business."

 5             Mr. Hendriks, you remember this occurring?

 6        A.   Not specifically, no.

 7        Q.   Do you remember an instance of someone from your team, when your

 8     team was detained at a check-point, calling General Cermak, and then the

 9     people at the check-point letting you through?

10        A.   This is -- this is likely to have happened, yes.

11        Q.   Do you remember if it happened once or more than once?

12        A.   Several times, I think, this happens.

13        Q.   And let me now move forward to the 1st of September, 1995.  If we

14     can have P818 on the screen, and it will be the second page again.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, Mr. Hedaraly, I'm trying to seek

16     clarification of the two last answers.

17             Mr. Hendriks, you said, "This is likely to have happened," and

18     then you were asked if it happened once or more.  Now, if it's just a

19     likelihood, how can you tell us that it was once or more, because you

20     said several times, "I think this happened."  How can I reconcile

21     probability with numbers, numbers of events?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That likelihood -- I refer for that

23     likelihood in that one incident that is in the report, and I'm not sure

24     whether I was there, but this did, in fact, happen a number of times.

25     Other teams and ourselves, we were sometimes stopped.  The calls were

Page 9713

 1     made to General Cermak, after which we could proceed.  I don't know

 2     specifically whether it happened at that date, but it is likely -- it is

 3     probable that it did happen also on that date.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Likelihood is just about the one event that was put

 5     to you, and your answer that it happened several times is at other

 6     occasions?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And with other teams, yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And how did you learn this from the other teams?

 9     Did they directly tell you not only that they called but also who they

10     called?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, because we worked in the same

12     buildings and we would talk to each other, and these types of matters

13     would be discussed either at the meeting the next day under the

14     leadership of the head of the RC.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

16             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.  If I could have P818 on

17     the screen, please, and this is a 1 September 1995 report.  If we can go

18     to the second page, towards the middle of paragraph (b).

19        Q.   And it says there:  "When N2 entered the very difficult

20     accessible hamlet, one HV soldier rushed to the car and demanded to see

21     the notebook of team leader N2.  When this refused, N2 was told that N2

22     was detained on the spot until the commander of the soldiers could be

23     present.  Allegedly, he was out in the hills looking for the ones having

24     started the fire.  After having informed the soldiers that within three

25     minutes N2 would call General Cermak, asking for an explanation to the

Page 9714

 1     strange situation.  Then N2 was no longer detained."

 2             And, Mr. Hendriks, do you remember an instance where a threat of

 3     calling General Cermak allowed you to go through a check-point?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And did that happen -- how often did that happen?

 6        A.   A few times.

 7        Q.   Finally, Mr. Hendriks -- these will be my final questions for

 8     you.  If we can have 65 ter 5482 on the screen, please, and this is a

 9     report from the CC Split of the 12th of September.  If we go to the

10     second page of that report, under item 3(c), at the bottom of the screen,

11     if we just scroll down a little more - thank you - it says under (c),

12     right above "4":

13             "Team K1," and that's your team, "reports that per order from the

14     Croatian Ministry of Defence only the Generals Gotovina and Cermak can

15     deal with international organizations directly."

16             Now, Mr. Hendriks, do you remember being told this?

17        A.   I understood the question, and indeed we were told that.

18        Q.   And do you remember who told you that?

19        A.   General Cermak.

20             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. Hendriks.

21             Your Honour, that completes my direct examination.  If I can just

22     tender 5482 before I conclude.  I'm sorry.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections against --

24             MR. KEHOE:  The same objection, yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  The same objection is denied for the same reasons.

Page 9715

 1             Mr. Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P958.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  P958 is admitted into evidence.

 4             I'm looking at the clock.  Perhaps it's best to have the break

 5     now.  Could we receive an estimate from the parties on who's first and

 6     what time will approximately be needed?

 7             MR. CAYLEY:  I will be first, Your Honour, and I would estimate

 8     an hour to an hour and a half.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Other parties?  Mr. Kuzmanovic?

10             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I'm going second, and I estimate

11     about the same time.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Kehoe?

13             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Depends on what the others --

15             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Depends on what the others --

17             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, yes, Judge.  I'm certainly not going to

18     duplicate the effort, certainly not try to --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Being third means that --

20             MR. KEHOE:  There is a degree of that.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll have a break and we resume at 20 minutes to

22     1.00.

23                           --- Recess taken at 12.22 p.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  You may proceed, Mr. Cayley.

Page 9716

 1             MR. CAYLEY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2                           Cross-examination by Mr. Cayley:

 3        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Hendriks.  I'd like to take you back to an

 4     exhibit that was being referred to just before the break, and if we could

 5     have, please, Prosecutor's Exhibit 818 on the screen, and the second page

 6     of that document.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  By the way, I should have introduced you,

 8     Mr. Cayley.

 9             Mr. Hendriks, Mr. Cayley, who will cross-examine you now, is

10     counsel for Mr. Cermak.

11             Please proceed, Mr. Cayley.

12             MR. CAYLEY:

13        Q.   Could you look at the screen in front of you, please,

14     Mr. Hendriks.  Do you see the entry under (b), which is the entry that

15     Mr. Hedaraly was asking you about before the break, and this is the

16     episode where you were stopped, and after having informed the soldier

17     that within three minutes N2 would call General Cermak, asking for an

18     explanation, then N2 was no longer detained.  Were you, yourself, present

19     at this particular episode?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Now, you said in your evidence that you remember a number of

22     occasions when calling General Cermak, and you couldn't remember

23     specifically any number, would essentially assure ECMM on its way.  Can

24     you now, from recollection, recall now, sitting here, any time when you

25     personally called General Cermak and asked for his assistance in being

Page 9717

 1     able to move within the area of Sector South?

 2        A.   I personally, myself, did not call General Cermak.

 3        Q.   Now, when General Cermak was being called in these episodes that

 4     you recollect, he was helping ECMM to move around Sector South, wasn't

 5     he?

 6        A.   Yes, he did.  He did help.

 7        Q.   Now, in terms of anyone else actually calling General Cermak,

 8     these episodes that you're referring to, as you sit here now, can you

 9     recall now whether, let's say, Mr. Hansen, whether you recall him, now

10     sitting here, ever calling General Cermak on the telephone to ask for

11     assistance in ECMM getting on its way?  I'm speaking now

12     Mr. Stig Marker-Hansen.  Can you recall any single time when

13     Stig Marker-Hansen called Mr. Cermak to get ECMM on its way in

14     Sector South?

15        A.   Whether this was Marker-Hansen or Liborius, I don't remember

16     specifically.

17        Q.   Let's have a look now at Prosecutor's Exhibit -- marked for

18     exhibiting 935 --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I thought they were admitted, Mr. --

20             MR. CAYLEY:  I'm sorry, they've all been admitted.  I apologise.

21     Then it's admitted Exhibit P935.

22        Q.   Now, if you could look, please, Mr. Hendriks, at the English

23     version of this document.  There's no author highlighted.  In order not

24     to waste time, I'm not going to go to your statement, but you do recall

25     the phrase on the second page of rakija unloads being used, so you opined

Page 9718

 1     that it could have been one of your reports.  Do you recall that in your

 2     statement?

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  I think that mischaracterises the witness's

 4     statement.  He said that could have been from his observation from his

 5     report, not that that was his report.  Maybe we should look at the

 6     statement to be clear.

 7             MR. CAYLEY:  We can move straight to the relevant paragraph.  I

 8     don't think it's a matter of great importance, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  If there's any dispute about that --

10             MR. CAYLEY:  I don't think there is.  I don't want to waste time

11     on it.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

13             MR. CAYLEY:

14        Q.   The paragraph that I'm interested in is where, in paragraph 1,

15     you'll see that it states, in the second paragraph, that the military

16     governor nor, General Cermak, is apparently the overall commander of the

17     former occupied areas of Sector South:

18             "He is being quite accommodating in his policy towards the UN and

19     the IOs and has been very helpful with regards to freedom of movement."

20             Now, in terms of Mr. Cermak being very helpful, was that

21     something that was reported to you or was that something that you

22     experienced yourself?

23        A.   I, myself, experienced this in the sense that at one time I was

24     at one of those meetings in which we put forward all sorts of things

25     about the burning and looting that took place, with also restriction of

Page 9719

 1     movement, and at the time that we mentioned this, General Cermak picked

 2     up the phone and called people of the Internal Affairs Ministry, I don't

 3     know exactly who, but he was willing to make sure that that restriction

 4     of movement was lifted.

 5        Q.   So you personally found Mr. Cermak to be very helpful towards

 6     you?

 7        A.   He said, "Well, I want to solve this situation.  You must have

 8     freedom of movement."  So in that sense, yes, he was helpful.

 9        Q.   Now, specifically I want to come on to the title of "military

10     governor" that is used here.  Were you aware, Mr. Hendriks, that in

11     August 1995 no such position existed within the military and political

12     structures?  Were you aware of that?

13        A.   No.

14             MR. CAYLEY:  Now, if the witness could be shown, please,

15     Prosecutor's -- I'm sorry, Defence Exhibit 31.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley, the Chamber has some expectation on what

17     may happen now and would certainly not object against an expedited --

18     again, of course, we're not here to give the details of certain matters

19     to the witness and to educate him, but rather to come to the point

20     apparently you want to move at.  I'm using these terms because, well, of

21     course, we do not know whether our expectations are right or not.  But in

22     an expedited way, to come to the point you want to make, would certainly

23     not bother the Chamber.

24             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, so that I can reassure the Chamber,

25     I've had a long discussion with Mr. Kay about this, and, yes, it will be

Page 9720

 1     expedited.  But when, of course, the evidence is brought for the

 2     umpteenth time before the Court, we do have an obligation to challenge

 3     it.  I know we've made the point on many, many occasions.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And it's also the way in which it is done, and

 5     sometimes if a witness has not a perfect understanding, then if --

 6     establishing that in itself, rather than to explore in full detail what

 7     the consequences would be for his perception of ...  et cetera,

 8     et cetera.

 9             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, it's very, very limited, but he does

10     admit a document into evidence makes reference to the position, so I have

11     to ask the question.  Thank you.

12        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, you'll see before you a document whereby

13     General Ivan Cermak was appointed as the commander of the Knin Garrison.

14     Were you aware, when you were in Sector South, that Mr. Cermak was the

15     commander of the Knin Garrison?

16        A.   Not specifically of Knin Garrison, but we saw General Cermak as

17     the regional military commander, let's say, so the person responsible or

18     in charge of that area.  Whether you call him a garrison commander or,

19     you know, whatever, in our view he was commander of that area.

20        Q.   You are a retired military officer, aren't you?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And you understand what the meaning of a garrison commander is,

23     being a retired Dutch army officer, don't you?

24        A.   Yes, I know what a garrison commander is.

25        Q.   And you would accept, wouldn't you, that there is a very

Page 9721

 1     significant distinction between a military governor and a garrison

 2     commander, isn't there?

 3        A.   I think that this would differ per country.  In Holland, we speak

 4     of governor, for example, of the Royal Military Academy, governor of the

 5     Academy as such a person would be, and then there you have a governor of

 6     a capital city.  We have operational commanders, regional military

 7     commanders and garrison commander.  So in Croatia this may well have

 8     different implications than in Holland, but I did not, in fact, know that

 9     General Cermak was garrison commander.  In our idea, he was the

10     commander, therefore, the person in charge of that area.

11        Q.   Now, very briefly, do you recall how many municipalities

12     Sector South actually covered?  I know it's many years ago, but do you

13     have any recollection?

14        A.   No.  I would have to look at a report.

15        Q.   Now, I'm not going to pull the exhibits out, but the Knin

16     Garrison itself covered these municipalities:  Knin, Nadvode, Kistanje,

17     Ervenik, Olic, Kijevo, and Civljane.  So seven municipalities were within

18     the Knin Garrison.  Now, to the best of your recollection, Sector South

19     covered many more municipalities than those seven municipalities, didn't

20     it?

21        A.   Well, I don't know the surface area of those municipalities, so I

22     can't really answer that.

23        Q.   So you don't know whether Sector South is identical to those

24     seven municipalities or whether it's a larger area; you can't say now

25     before the Court?

Page 9722

 1        A.   No.

 2        Q.   Do you recall how many military personnel were in the

 3     headquarters of Sector South, the military headquarters?

 4        A.   Do you mean the headquarters of General Cermak or of

 5     General Gotovina?

 6        Q.   No, General Cermak was not the commander of headquarters of

 7     Sector South, was he, so what I'm talking about is the UN headquarters of

 8     Sector South.  Do you recall how many military personnel were in that

 9     headquarters?

10        A.   The UN Sector South consisted of, I believe, four UN battalions,

11     and if you multiply that, you would easily get some 2.000 men, and to

12     that you would have to add staff, but I don't know -- support staff, but

13     I don't know how many people worked in that.

14        Q.   Do you know how many staff worked in the actual headquarters

15     itself of Sector South?

16        A.   No, I don't know exactly, but there were, well, in particular, a

17     staff, a sort of a brigade staff, and then you had the military UN

18     observers, so probably -- well, you know, I would have to guesstimate.  I

19     don't think it makes sense to give you an exact figure here.  I don't

20     know.

21        Q.   You're a NATO officer, a retired NATO officer.  How many staff

22     are normally in a brigade-sized headquarters?

23        A.   Of a NATO brigade, you'd easily have 200 people, but this was a

24     UN brigade, very different structure, very different numbers of people.

25     So for the life of me, I wouldn't know how many military would have been

Page 9723

 1     working in that UN headquarters.

 2        Q.   Did you know that General Cermak had nine people within his

 3     headquarters, within the Knin Garrison headquarters?  Did you know that?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   But certainly very different, in terms of size, when you compare

 6     it to a NATO brigade; correct?

 7        A.   As to size, it is a very different thing, but a NATO brigade is

 8     not comparable to a garrison.  You would have to compare such a NATO

 9     brigade to the division of General Gotovina.  So, you know, we're

10     comparing apples and oranges here.

11        Q.   Now, let's move on, and let's take a look at P957.  Now, I think,

12     Mr. Hendriks -- do you recall seeing this document?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Now, I'm not going to read it through again, because it's already

15     been read through partly before, but I'm right in saying that

16     General Cermak apologised to you over the restriction on movement; yes?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And I think he also explained to you that he was pretty certain

19     or he was sure that a low-ranking officer had acted on self-initiative.

20     Do you recall him saying that, in terms of stopping you at the

21     check-point?

22        A.   I don't recall him saying that, but it is in the report so he

23     must have said it.

24        Q.   And do you recall him speaking with the Minister of the Interior

25     and asking for the Minister of the Interior to make contact with the

Page 9724

 1     civilian police in order to ensure that this didn't happen again?

 2        A.   He did speak to somebody on the phone.  Who this was, I do not

 3     know.  It was said that the Minister of Internal Affairs was that person.

 4        Q.   And it says in the report:

 5             "The angry way of phoning the minister gave us the idea that he

 6     really wants to have a good relationship with the ECMM."

 7             Is that your comment there or is that Stig Marker-Hansen's, that

 8     Mr. Cermak wanted to have a good relationship with the ECMM?

 9        A.   That is from the two of us, because, of course, we would discuss

10     this in the car.  This is a reflection of what we felt about this at the

11     time.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I want to verify one of the answers.

13             One of your answers was:

14             "He did speak to somebody on the phone.  Who this was, I do not

15     know.  It was said that ..."

16             And could you then repeat what you then said?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was somebody from the Ministry

18     of Internal Affairs.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

20             MR. CAYLEY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

21        Q.   Let's move on, and let's have a look at P937.  Now, this is a

22     document from Regional Centre Knin to Headquarters ECMM, and if I could

23     have you, please, to look at paragraph 1(b), and the first paragraph, if

24     I read it:

25             "In favour of ECMM, the supreme commander of liberated Croatia

Page 9725

 1     (Cermak, the above-mentioned) tries to get freedom of movement to our

 2     teams and underlines this with an ECMM earwitnessed telephone call to the

 3     Croatian Minister of Internal Affairs."

 4             I'm not sure how the word "earwitness" will translate into Dutch,

 5     but ...

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  It's perfectly translated.

 7             MR. CAYLEY:

 8        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, do you recall this particular episode or is this

 9     from another monitor's report?

10        A.   This is from someone else's report, but it probably comes from

11     our report, the ones we were discussing just now.

12        Q.   So it's simply a reflection of the earlier report?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Now, I noticed in your earlier report that Mr. Cermak is not

15     referred to as the supreme commander of the liberated area.  Now, I'm

16     right in saying that you didn't hear Mr. Cermak being referred to ever as

17     the supreme commander, did you?

18        A.   I don't understand the question.

19        Q.   You'll see here that Mr. Cermak is referred to as the supreme

20     commander of liberated Croatia, and I'm putting it to you that you did

21     not hear him ever referred to by this title, did you, as the supreme

22     commander?

23        A.   "Supreme commander" means supreme commander, and he may not have

24     been that, but this is about the Knin area, so I'd almost say what's in a

25     name?  He was the responsible commander in that area.

Page 9726

 1        Q.   Let's have a look at P941.  This is a report from the 31st of

 2     August, and I'd like you to look at paragraph 3(a):

 3             "Team N2 was informed through a letter from General Cermak about

 4     ROM, restriction of movement, in the wooden areas northeast of Knin,

 5     stretching to Bosanski Grahovo in an area 20 by 20 kilometres.  All IOs

 6     are prohibited to go there due to cleaning actions done by special police

 7     forces.  The letter states that the operation will last two days counted

 8     from today.  Comment:  Especially in this area, cases of human rights

 9     abuses were discovered by IOs in the last weeks."

10             Do you recall this particular event and this letter?

11        A.   Not the event, but I remember the letter that was shown us, and

12     what is written here probably was in that letter.

13        Q.   Well, let's look at how these particular events developed, if you

14     recall the letter.

15             MR. CAYLEY:  Can we have, please, Prosecutor's Exhibit 409.  And,

16     Your Honours, if I can just point out the date of this report is the 31st

17     of August.  That's relevant to this.  And if we could please go to the --

18     if we can wait one moment.

19        Q.   Do you recall General Forand, Mr. Hendriks?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   He was the commander of Sector South?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And do you remember Mr. Al-Alfi?

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   If we can please go to the last page of this document, this is a

Page 9727

 1     meeting that took place on the 29th of August, so two days prior to the

 2     report that you've just seen.  And if you look at the top of -- in fact,

 3     if you look at the very last paragraph, which is marked with a "C," and

 4     that's Mr. Cermak talking at a meeting with General Forand and

 5     Mr. Al-Alfi:

 6             "We are planning a large-scale mopping-up operation and will

 7     block the roads, but you will be informed 24 hours in advance.  Could you

 8     please provide me with the additional list of people at the camp."

 9             And the rest is irrelevant for these purposes that we're talking

10     about.  But you'll note that it says there, "We are planning a

11     large-scale mopping-up operation," and this is two days prior to the

12     report of the 31st of August.

13             If we could now please go to Prosecutor's Exhibit 410, and this

14     is a letter to Mr. Cermak from General Forand, following on from the

15     meeting that we've just seen referenced in those minutes.  And you will

16     see, and I won't read all of it, but General Forand is saying in the last

17     sentence of the first paragraph, or the last part of the sentence in the

18     first paragraph:

19             "... I am unable to accept any unilateral restriction of movement

20     imposed by your office in the area of my command."

21             Do you see that?

22        A.   Yes, I see it.

23        Q.   And then, lastly, if we could please look at P411, and you'll see

24     just at the end of that paragraph that Forand wants to be ready to

25     consult at any time with Cermak about restrictions of movement.  Do you

Page 9728

 1     see that in the last paragraph?

 2             Now, this is General Cermak's response to that letter from

 3     General Forand, and you will see that Mr. Cermak is saying that:

 4             "It was not my intention to restrict the freedom of movement of

 5     UNCRO officers, but draw your attention to the danger your officers might

 6     be exposed to should they happen to be moving through the area where we

 7     intend to start a large-scale mopping-up operation tomorrow to clear the

 8     territory of defeated enemy groups."

 9             Now, is this the letter that you recall seeing when I asked you

10     the question earlier and you said you didn't remember the event but you

11     remembered seeing the letter?

12        A.   No, I can't tell you.

13        Q.   But you can see in this letter that Mr. Cermak is making it very

14     plain that there is no intention of restricting the movement of UNCRO?

15        A.   Yes, that's what the letter says.

16        Q.   And in the ECMM report, of course, it refers quite incorrectly to

17     the letter restricting the movement of personnel?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

19             MR. HEDARALY:  I think there's a mischaracterisation here.  The

20     witness just said he's not sure it's the same letter that is in the

21     report.

22             MR. CAYLEY:  Mr. President, I don't think --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  It becomes --

24             MR. CAYLEY:  This is the only letter we have from this time,

25     and --

Page 9729

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Of course, and the letter read in its entirety --

 2             MR. CAYLEY:  Yes, speaks for itself.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  -- speaks for itself or is interpreted by whomever

 4     reads it in the way he interprets that.  Intentions are expressed here.

 5     Two intentions are expressed in this letter.

 6             Perhaps you could move on.

 7             MR. CAYLEY:

 8        Q.   The letter that you saw from General Forand, the letter before

 9     this letter, had you ever seen that letter before?

10        A.   I don't recall.

11        Q.   Were you aware that there were renegade members of the army of

12     the ARSK in and around the Sector South area at this time?

13        A.   Not specifically, but if they were there, they could not

14     influence our operation, in the sense we didn't have to fear them because

15     we were a neutral party.  We went around in white vehicles with white

16     uniforms, so there was no reason for us not to be able to enter the area.

17        Q.   But specifically do you -- I mean, if you can answer the

18     question, sitting here now, are you aware or are you not aware that there

19     were members of the ARSK present within the Sector South area at this

20     time at the end of August of 1995?

21        A.   Yes, because General Cermak told us.

22        Q.   Let's please look at --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I would seek clarification of the answer.  You said,

24     "Yes, because General Cermak told us."  Did you have any other source

25     which would provide you with information about, at that time in

Page 9730

 1     Sector South, the presence of members of the ARSK?  So apart from, as you

 2     said, General Cermak told you.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It could be that it was cascaded to

 4     us also through the UN Sector South, so I myself did not get that

 5     information, but probably through the head of our action who was in touch

 6     with General Forand, and that way it may have ended up within our team as

 7     well.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  You said "it may have ended."  Is this speculation,

 9     or do you have any personal observation, or do you have any recollection

10     of reports given to you about the presence of ARSK members at that time

11     in Sector South?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not specifically.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Cayley.

14             MR. CAYLEY:  If, please, we could look at Prosecutor's

15     Exhibit 946.

16        Q.   Paragraph 2(b) of this particular document:

17             "General Cermak is starting a rather large action to stop illegal

18     moving into empty flats, looting and arson, which was unfortunately most

19     frequently done by HV members."

20             And then it goes on to explain that ten warrants of arrest have

21     been issued and that the perpetrators will face courts martial in Split,

22     and that these are members of the HV who are putting the HV to shame :

23             "They cannot remain in the Croatian Army."

24             And then he makes explanation -- or the report makes explanation

25     about units of military and civil military police have been enlarged in

Page 9731

 1     order to prevent such illegal actions.

 2             Do you recollect this particular event, Mr. Hendriks?

 3        A.   It is quite possible that this was discussed during one of our

 4     meetings with General Cermak.

 5        Q.   Just to assist you with your memory, if we could look at D59.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley, could we first seek clarification of the

 7     part you read?  You read everything, I think, up until the brackets at

 8     the end, where it says "SL Dalmacija."

 9             MR. CAYLEY:  I'm just about to deal with that, Your Honour,

10     actually.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  All right.

12             MR. CAYLEY:  If we could look at D59.

13        Q.   Did you regularly receive translations of newspaper articles,

14     Mr. Hendriks?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   Did ECMM at all receive translations, not you personally but

17     members of ECMM, did they receive translations of newspaper articles?

18     Now I'm talking about local newspaper articles in the area in Croatia, in

19     the southern part of Croatia.

20        A.   I can imagine that the head of our action was interested in what

21     the press wrote, and I think I remember that articles from the newspapers

22     were translated on a regular basis.

23        Q.   If we could just go to the bottom of this particular article, and

24     we'll see there an explanation for the purposes of the Presiding Judge.

25             Can you just go a bit further, please, and you'll see it says

Page 9732

 1     "Slobodna Dalmacija."  And within the original report, the

 2     Presiding Judge noted that -- I think it said "S. Dalmacija."

 3             You've never seen this newspaper article before, Mr. Hendriks,

 4     have you?

 5        A.   No, I've never seen this.

 6        Q.   But you do recall the operation to stop illegal appropriation of

 7     apartments and looting and torching of homes in Knin; you do remember

 8     that?

 9        A.   I said before that during discussions with General Cermak, this

10     has certainly been an issue.  So what the General declared to the

11     newspaper, he certainly also told us.

12        Q.   And you'll see, if you go to the top of this article, where it

13     says:  "There is no place for looters in the HV, in the Croatian Army,"

14     do you recall whether General Cermak also made that clear to you at the

15     meeting that you attended with him where this particular operation was

16     discussed?

17        A.   Not specifically.  General Cermak wanted to put an end to the

18     looting.  He said, "This has to stop, and I'll do my best to stop it."

19     So whether he said that there was no room for looters in the Croatian

20     Army, whether he said that or not, I don't remember.

21             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, I don't have any further questions of

22     this witness.  Thank you.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Cayley.

24             Next in line, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

25             You'll now be cross-examined, Mr. Hendriks, by Mr. Kuzmanovic,

Page 9733

 1     who is counsel for Mr. Markac.

 2             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I'll just get set up, Your Honour.

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

 5             MR. HEDARALY:  We haven't received any documents that are going

 6     to be used by either Mr. Gotovina's counsel or Mr. Kuzmanovic's [sic]

 7     counsel at this time, and I believe the procedure set out was that at the

 8     end of direct examinations --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps they would not use --

10             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, if I can take the blame for this,

11     because I overestimated the amount of time, Mr. Hedaraly, that I was

12     going to use, and I think Mr. Kuzmanovic has probably been taken a little

13     bit unaware.  So that's actually my responsibility.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I always thought it would be once the

15     examination-in-chief would have been concluded and not once the previous

16     cross-examiner has done his job.  That is what is on my mind, so that the

17     Prosecution is put on notice as soon as they have an opportunity to

18     include those documents in their examination-in-chief anymore.  That's

19     what is my recollection, but if we have to verify that -- at this moment,

20     it is as it is, Mr. Hedaraly.

21             MR. HEDARALY:  I have the transcript reference, because it was in

22     the joint motion that the Gotovina Defence filed, so it's the 13th of

23     March, 2008, at 660, and Your Honour's recollection is correct.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic, if -- I don't know how many

25     documents you are going to use in the next 16 minutes.

Page 9734

 1             MR. HEDARALY:  It's going to be okay for the next 15 minutes, but

 2     if for Monday we can have them.

 3             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I can send them right now.  It's just the

 4     exhibits that are being tendered -- that were tendered and the statement

 5     that was taken that was not tendered, 65 ter 2410.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  You may proceed, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  Thank you, Your Honour.  And it was my understanding,

 8     just for the Court's reference, that each party, and this is how we've

 9     been doing it all along, sends their list usually toward the end of the

10     cross-examination of the person in front.  So that's what we've been

11     doing all along and this is the first time we've had this issue come up.

12     So I will proceed --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's not make a drama out of it.  Please

14     proceed.

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you.

16                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kuzmanovic:

17        Q.   Sir, you came into Sector South in July of 1995?

18        A.   That's correct.

19        Q.   And you had three days of training in Zagreb?

20        A.   Three days in Zagreb, yes.

21        Q.   What kind of training did you have in Zagreb?

22        A.   It was particularly dealing with the means of liaison

23     [indiscernible] the whole situation in the area at that time, what was

24     going on, but all of these matters I had heard about in the Netherlands

25     previously during a course that we were made to take.

Page 9735

 1        Q.   What kind of a course did you take in the Netherlands before

 2     going to Croatia?

 3        A.   The course was called "The Monitors Course."

 4        Q.   And if you could just give us a brief description of how long

 5     that course was and what kind of curriculum was in that course.

 6        A.   We were given a course of English in order to improve our

 7     linguistic skills, and besides, we were told about the history of the

 8     Balkans, the conflict, the reasons for the conflict, how to deal with the

 9     population, how to work with interpreters, information on mines, all that

10     sort of thing.

11        Q.   How long was that?  Was that a week, a day?

12        A.   [In English] Let's say three or four weeks. [Interpretation]

13     Three or four weeks.

14        Q.   Now, when you came to Zagreb for the training that you had there,

15     you went to Knin, roughly, July 21st of 1995; correct?

16        A.   [In English] It was on the Friday. [Interpretation] It was on a

17     Friday, the 21st, yes.

18        Q.   Sir, when you communicated with your fellow ECMM monitors, it was

19     in English; correct?

20        A.   I spoke Dutch with the Dutch monitors, but there were also other

21     nationalities there, and with them we spoke English.

22        Q.   When you participated in putting together reports, did you put

23     those reports together yourself in English or were they in Dutch and did

24     somebody translate them?

25        A.   I read them in English.

Page 9736

 1        Q.   Now, we've had a great many of reports that have been tendered

 2     through you, sir.  Some of the reports, the authors' names have been

 3     redacted.  Would you be able to, between today -- after we are done today

 4     and tomorrow, tell us which of those reports that you wrote exclusively?

 5        A.   Yes, perhaps I probably could identify several.

 6        Q.   I would respectfully request that if you have those reports with

 7     you, sir, that you take a look at them.  It might make things go a little

 8     faster tomorrow.  If you could let us know which of the reports that you

 9     wrote, so -- and I will ask you some questions about those, if that's all

10     right with the Prosecutor's office.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

12             MR. HEDARALY:  Some of them, the answer is already in the

13     statement, so I don't want him to duplicate, when he says, "This my

14     report," or, "It's not my report."

15             Second of all, I wasn't planning to be here tomorrow.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I didn't want -- I didn't want to draw your

17     attention to the fact that it's Saturday tomorrow, but I think

18     Mr. Kuzmanovic is also seeking whether it's a report exclusively drafted

19     by the witness.

20             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Correct.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And it's not -- it's not much work, and --

22             MR. HEDARALY:  That's not the issue.  Just for the -- I think

23     everyone is aware the reason the names are redacted is because that's the

24     way that we were authorised to use them by ECMM.  Just so that the record

25     is clear.

Page 9737

 1             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Understood, understood.

 2             MR. HEDARALY:  I just wanted to make sure.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic, what is your interpretation of these

 4     limitations?  Would they bind this witness, in your view, or was it out

 5     of an abundance of caution that the ECMM redacted the names so as in

 6     order to protect the persons, which might mean that we also would have to

 7     ask the witness whether he feels that he becomes more vulnerable if he

 8     would identify the reports he drafted or --

 9             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I would agree with the latter, Your Honour, but

10     I think since he is testifying here and there are no protective measures

11     involved, I would think it would be fairly simple for the witness to find

12     which were the ones that he drafted, and we can talk about this in public

13     session.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's give it some thought on whether we -- the

15     Chamber might want to further consider whether it will ask the witness,

16     as you suggested, to identify those reports he drafted on his own.

17             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I think it would assist in at least making

18     cross-examination a little bit more efficient, Your Honour, from my

19     standpoint, rather than having to go through every single report, which I

20     really don't want to have to do.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, of course, efficiency is a great thing

22     but would not resolve all matters.  It comes into my mind to what extent

23     providing documentation, already redacted, and apparently without any

24     limitation in use, as far as the use as an exhibit is concerned, whether

25     that would be similar to a Rule 70 situation, where of course a state can

Page 9738

 1     give material and say, "Don't use it as evidence, but only do so if we

 2     give permission."  It's a bit -- it might need a bit more analysis, legal

 3     analysis before -- so therefore the Chamber will consider --

 4             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I do understand the dilemma, Your Honour.  I

 5     think, in light of the fact that the witness is here and he's testifying

 6     and it's in open session, I think it's only fair, at least from our

 7     standpoint, now that the documents have been tendered as evidence, for us

 8     to know which ones he specifically worked on.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  At least we could already ask the witness,

10     prior to further considering the matter.

11             Mr. Hendriks, would you have any problem - you didn't give that

12     impression - if you would be asked to identify the reports that you and

13     solely you prepared?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

16             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17        Q.   Sir, before coming to Sector South, what experience did you have

18     with either setting up or dealing with check-points?

19        A.   I have some experience, because I worked in the Dutch land force,

20     and they work with check-points as well, so I had some experience there.

21        Q.   What kind of experience did you have?  Was it in Holland or was

22     it somewhere else?

23        A.   In the Netherlands and in Germany.

24        Q.   And these were situations in which there was obviously no armed

25     conflict going on; correct?

Page 9739

 1        A.   No, no armed conflicts, only drills.

 2        Q.   Did you happen to have any experience in providing security to an

 3     area after a military operation?

 4        A.   During those drills, such issues, of course, were practiced?

 5        Q.   But in terms of having to actually put that practice in the real

 6     world in dealing with an area in which there was an armed conflict, you

 7     did not have that experience prior to coming to Croatia; correct?

 8        A.   That's correct.

 9             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I'd like to refer to, please, 65 ter 2410, if we

10     could pull that up, please.

11        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, this is a statement that you gave to the Office of

12     the Prosecutor on April 18th of 1996.  Does that look familiar to you?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And your signature at the bottom?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And if we could go to the last page of the statement.

17             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Hedaraly.

19             MR. HEDARALY:  Mr. Kuzmanovic, I have a hard copy, if you would

20     want the witness to refer to it.

21             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  That would be wonderful.  Thank you.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Usher, could you please assist.

23             MR. KUZMANOVIC:

24        Q.   Sir, that statement is five pages long, and at the end of the

25     page 5, are those your initials at the bottom?

Page 9740

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   On the first page of the statement, not the cover page, but the

 3     first page of the statement itself, which is on the bottom "page 1," if

 4     we can refer to that, please, you note in the first full paragraph of

 5     your statement, about a third of the way down, you didn't see killing,

 6     mis-treatment, or intimidation of civilians by the Croats.  And when you

 7     made that statement, that was during your entire time you were in the

 8     Sector South area; correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Later in that same statement, toward the bottom of this first

11     page, you describe the general military situation as tense, with a lot of

12     ARSK soldiers seen in Knin town, and you have "rotation?"  "And every

13     capable military man was mobilised."

14             Can you describe for me what -- the relative age range of every

15     military capable man who was mobilised?

16        A.   Between 18 and 50 is my estimate.

17        Q.   Later in that same paragraph, you note that:

18             "We were not allowed to monitor the ARSK defence lines."

19             How were you not allowed to monitor those defence lines?  Can you

20     describe for me?

21        A.   In the two weeks before Operation Storm, we talked to the

22     military commanders of the Serbs, and they said, "No, you're not allowed

23     to go on."

24        Q.   And was that something where you would issue a protest to someone

25     and -- how did you react to that?  Did you just accept it as a fact?

Page 9741

 1     What did you do?

 2        A.   We did, in fact, because it was an area of which they said, "We

 3     leave those lines intact and no one has any business there."

 4        Q.   Did you try to find various methods to get around their

 5     prohibition to go to those defence lines?

 6        A.   No.  Why should we?  It was not in our interest.  We did not have

 7     to monitor that.

 8        Q.   Then what was the purpose of the statement that, "We were not

 9     allowed to monitor the ARSK defence lines," if that didn't interest you?

10        A.   I think simply to complete our own picture for the report, that's

11     why I wrote it down; a general description of the situation at that time.

12     And I indicated immediately at that time we could not judge about it

13     because we could not report on it.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic.

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm looking at the clock.

17             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I will halt.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll adjourn for the day.

19             Before we do, Mr. Hendriks, I'll address you in your own

20     language.

21             [Interpretation] Mr. Hendriks, I instruct you that you should

22     talk to no one about the statements you have given so far, nor about the

23     statements you will be providing in the days to come.

24             [In English] I gave him the instruction in the language of

25     Mr. Hendriks.

Page 9742

 1             We'll adjourn, and we'll resume on Monday, the 29th of September,

 2     9.00 in this same courtroom.

 3                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

 4                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 29th day of

 5                           September, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.