Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 9743

 1                           Monday, 29 September 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

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

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

 9     Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             Mr. Hendriks, before we continue, I would like to remind you that

12     you are still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the

13     beginning of your testimony.

14             Mr. Kuzmanovic, you asked the witness to prepare a list of

15     documents he solely authored at the time.

16             Mr. Kuzmanovic, we have considered whether we would encourage the

17     witness to do so.  Over the weekend, we have looked at the correspondence

18     between ECMM and the Chamber, and we thought that could be done safely

19     without in any way interfering with the reasons why the documents were

20     redacted; however, Mr. Hendriks has prepared a list but has not limited

21     himself to shows documents he solely prepared himself.  So, therefore, I

22     suggest -- I take it that the reason why you'd need that is just to know

23     better how to cross-examined, rather than --

24             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, one of the problems is that on the list

Page 9744

 1     Mr. Hendriks has prepared, we find more than just his own name.  So,

 2     therefore, I'm afraid that we have to redact this list again, so it

 3     exclusively provides you with the information.

 4             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I know the specific ones that he

 5     has written that were not redacted, and that is 812 -- and I can go

 6     through that list now, Your Honour, because I had that list already:

 7     P812 - these are all P numbers by the way - 814, 818, 945, and 957.

 8             The other documents -- and I did get a call from Chambers, and I

 9     appreciated the assistance that I received from Chambers.  We went over

10     the remaining documents, and those were the documents either that were --

11     that were all redacted, which I was not sure whether he wrote them

12     himself or he -- or the witness co-authored him.

13             And those were the ones I was looking for, Your Honour.  Make we

14     could ask the witness, or if he has provided that to Chambers, that would

15     be a route to go.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But the problem is he provided them in such a

17     way that sometimes when he was not the sole author, it, nevertheless,

18     appears on the list and also names the other person who authored that.

19     So we have to --

20             I'll ask Ms. van den Berge to perhaps take out again those

21     documents from the list that are not authored solely by Mr. Hendriks, and

22     then provide it to you.  Would that be --

23             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  That would be wonderful.  Thank you.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

Page 9745

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic, you'll receive a list, although a

 2     very short list of documents, solely authored by Mr. Hendriks.

 3             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I appreciate that.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hendriks, thank you, first of all, for doing

 5     your homework during the weekend.  Thank you for that.

 6             Mr. Kuzmanovic will now continue his cross-examination.

 7             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes.  Thank you, Your Honour.

 8                           WITNESS:  ERIC HENDRIKS [Resumed]

 9                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

10                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kuzmanovic: [Continued]

11        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Hendriks, for reviewing those documents.  I

12     appreciate it.

13             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Before getting into those documents, I wanted to

14     pull up 65 ter 2410, please.

15        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, that's your statement of April 18th, 1996.

16             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If we go to page 2 of that statement, please.

17     Page 2 of the statement itself, not the second page of the document.

18        Q.   This statement, Mr. Hendriks, was not part of your -- not part of

19     your -- I'm sorry.  This statement was not discussed in your direct

20     examination, Mr. Hendriks.  We talked about it briefly on Friday.

21             The first part of your statement here, at the stop of page 2,

22     discusses that it was your impression that the Croats were able to take

23     over the Krajina within two days, and you listed several reasons, the

24     first being that Operation Storm was well prepared and executed on an

25     unexpected day.

Page 9746

 1             When you say "Operation Storm was well prepared and executed,"

 2     what do you mean by that?

 3        A.   Exactly as it reads, such an Operation Storm only has a chance of

 4     successful if it is well prepared and carried out accordingly, so rapidly

 5     and smart.

 6        Q.   Okay.  I understand that rapidly and smart is an assessment that

 7     you made based on your observations, but what were the specific things

 8     that made it rapid and smart?

 9        A.   I can't elaborate too much on that because I wasn't present.  I

10     was in a bunker and was unable to observe anything.  But the mere fact

11     that it was finished within a day was cause for me to say they managed to

12     take care of that quickly.

13        Q.   Now, your second point was the ARSK was not well equipped and

14     organised.  Was that based on your observations when you were in

15     Sector South, before Operation Storm?

16        A.   No, because, in effect, we were not allowed to observe the ARSK

17     lines; but, later on, we saw basically what they looked like and we

18     concluded that -- well, that distribution was not that rock-solid --

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  The defence was not

20     that rock-solid.

21             MR. KUZMANOVIC:

22        Q.   Did you have any indication that there was mobilisation called at

23     the end of July of 1995, of all able-bodied mean in the Krajina?

24        A.   Yes, because among others, my interpreter's friend was mobilised.

25     So it was said that all able-bodied men were mobilised at that point.

Page 9747

 1        Q.   Point number 4 on this document, sir, says:  "Most of the ARSK

 2     defence forces pulled out after the recommendation of the Krajina

 3     authorities (by radio Knin) to the population to flee asap."

 4             Now, was it your understanding that Radio Knin was broadcasting

 5     an evacuation of the population out of the Krajina?

 6        A.   I'm not sure exactly how it worked.  That is what I heard from my

 7     interpreter who also had that from hearsay, and that is about how it must

 8     have gone.  So I can't be clear about that.

 9        Q.   Just to make -- just to clarify that a little bit, it's your

10     understanding that you learned from your interpreter that Radio Knin was

11     broadcasting an evacuation of the local population.  Is that correct?

12        A.   Yes.  I learned that through my interpreter, yes.

13        Q.   Do you recall the name of your interpreter?

14        A.   There were two.  I know only their first names:  Renata and

15     Sandra.

16        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Later on, in page two of your document at the

17     very bottom, you say:  "The Croats didn't want to destroy the main cities

18     because they would like to populated them asap with all the DPs ..."

19             I'm assuming that's displaced persons.  Correct?

20        A.   [No verbal response]

21        Q.   I see you're nodding your head.

22             DPs is displaced persons, correct?  Yes?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   "... from the coastal areas."

25             Now, where did you get the information that the Croats didn't

Page 9748

 1     want to destroy the main cities?

 2        A.   That was, in effect, a conclusion we reached on our own because

 3     Knin was not destroyed and other large cities were not destroyed, so the

 4     Croats had that problem with displaced persons and got back to that later

 5     on.  So we didn't hear from -- we didn't hear about that from somebody

 6     else, that was our own conclusion.

 7        Q.   On the next page of your statement, page 3, at the very top, it

 8     says:  "To the assessment of General Forand, the commander of UN

 9     Sector South, the pause of the shelling could have been a deal between

10     Tudjman and Milosevic in order to prevent a slaughtering by giving the

11     opportunity to the population to flee away to Bosnia/Serbia."

12             Now, was this something that you heard directly from General

13     Forand?

14        A.   I didn't hear that directly, but I do know that General Forand

15     wrote his own account of the Operation Storm situation and his

16     conclusions on that subject; and I believe that this was the subject we

17     spoke about.  So, in effect, that was his conclusion about that.

18        Q.   You didn't have any indication that that occurred, meaning a deal

19     between Tudjman and Milosevic, did you?

20        A.   No, I didn't, but I can imagine it.

21        Q.   Now, later on, in that paragraph, there's also some speculation

22     about "the new RS general," who joined the ARSK forces a short time

23     before Storm, "played a big role in breaking the resistance of the army

24     by advising the commanders not to resist, but to save as much lives as

25     possible."

Page 9749

 1             Where did you get the information that led you to that?

 2        A.   I believe from that same summary by General Forand, but I can't

 3     say that for sure.

 4        Q.   Okay.  Just so I'm clear, the assessment that you make, based on

 5     what you thought was something that came from General Forand, is that the

 6     new general essentially broke the will of his own military to resist?

 7        A.   Not so much the will to resist as the will to indicate at a

 8     certain point:  "Men, don't let massive slaughter happen, get out of here

 9     in time."  Something like that.

10        Q.   Well, sir, your statement specifically says that this new RS

11     general played a big role in breaking the resistance of the army.  And by

12     "army," we're talking the RSK army, correct?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

14             MR. HEDARALY:  Sorry, Your Honour.  If he is going to put the

15     statement of the witness, he should be accurate in telling that the

16     statement says that "it might be," not that it was stated as a fact.

17             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I think the question is very simple and spoke

18     for itself.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the context is clear enough that it is a

20     possibility which is described, "it might be."

21             I have another question on my mind:  The new RS general, who is

22     that?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know his name.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Kuzmanovic.

25             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 9750

 1        Q.   Was that perhaps General Mrksic?  Does that name ring a bell to

 2     you?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   Getting back to my earlier question, your statement specifically

 5     says:  "The new RS general played a big role in breaking the resistance

 6     of the army ..."

 7             My question to you is:  The army was the RSK army, correct?  He

 8     is referring to his own military?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   So, again, I'll ask you:  The conclusion here is that the RSK

11     general broke the resistance of his own army?

12             MR. HEDARALY:  I'm sorry.  That question was asked --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  The question was asked, and not only that, but then

14     the witness explained exactly what he meant by those words.

15             Let's not make it -- he said "a massive" and "then get out."  He

16     has --

17             MR. KUZMANOVIC: [Microphone not activated]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

19             MR. KUZMANOVIC:

20        Q.   Later on, in this paragraph -- or in this statement on this page,

21     sir, in the paragraph which begins:  "If the authorities ..."

22             About the eighth line down, there's a sentence that says:  "The

23     absence of responses to requests for the results of investigations into

24     numerous killings reported by UNCIVPOL, and then it says:  "Figure until

25     3rd October 1995, 84 ... and the lack of patrols in the remote areas in

Page 9751

 1     order to stop the incidents underlines the attitude of the authorities."

 2             Now, I have several questions regarding that portion of your

 3     statement.  The Croatian police had no obligation to report anything

 4     about results of investigations to UNCIVPOL, did it, or do you know?

 5        A.   I don't know whether or not they had such an obligation; but if

 6     UNCIVPOL had asked about that, apparently they didn't receive

 7     satisfactory answers.

 8        Q.   Now, you, yourself, don't know what kind of investigations were

 9     undertaken by the Croatian police.  Correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Meaning my statement is correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And you don't know how many people may have been arrested or how

14     many people may have been tried, or convicted, or acquitted.  Correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Further down in this same statement, the next line says:  "I

17     think that the authorities must have been able to prevent most of the

18     criminalities by sending out 'flying patrols' and by arresting, followed

19     by punishment, the criminals."

20             My first question to you is what is a "flying patrol"?

21        A.   You shouldn't take it literally as it reads here, but simply a

22     patrol that goes through the area here and there, not along a regular

23     route but at random so that's not expected.

24        Q.   And you say in the -- further in this sentence:  "By arresting,

25     followed by punishment."

Page 9752

 1             Is it your assertion that people should be arrested and punished

 2     without any kind of judicial process involved?

 3        A.   No, I don't mean it that way.  There should always be a judicial

 4     process involved.

 5        Q.   And, simply, if someone is arrested doesn't necessarily mean that

 6     they have to be punished if they're not convicted.  Correct?

 7        A.   No, the judge decides that.

 8             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I'd like to move 65 ter 2410 into

 9     evidence, please.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

11             MR. HEDARALY:  No objection.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  That is the whole of the statement, Mr. Kuzmanovic?

13             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Has an attestation been given on the whole of

15     the statement?

16             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I will ask, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think that is the appropriate way because it

18     would then be, more or less, a 92 ter statement, unless you would want to

19     limit it to one way to the portions read, but then there is no need to

20     tender it, wouldn't it?

21             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  No, I do want to tender it, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  No, fine then.

23             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I could go through it briefly.

25             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Sure.

Page 9753

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Do we know whether the witness had an opportunity to

 2     review this statement?

 3             Mr. Hendriks, did you recently have a look at this document and

 4     were you able to review whether it accurately states what you said at the

 5     time, or haven't you seen it for a while?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do you mean my statement from 1996,

 7     Your Honour?  I did, in fact, re-read it last week.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  When you re-read it last week, did you find it an

 9     accurate reflection of the statement you gave in 1996?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, because it's 13 years later

11     now, and I don't have any reason to take a different view of things.  I

12     set it forth in writing at that time as I felt about it then.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  So may I understand your last answer to be that you

14     gave that statement at that time, to the best of your recollection, in

15     accordance with the truth and that would you not give any answers

16     different from the answers given at that time, if you would be asked the

17     same questions today?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document is it's own story.

19     It's just -- it's not based on any standard list of questions, other than

20     what I wrote in the document at that time; and, at that time, that was my

21     truth.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And you still consider this statement to be the

23     truth, to the best of your recollection, today?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that this would be the attestation we would

Page 9754

 1     need under Rule 92 ter.

 2             Mr. Hedaraly, you have no problem with that?

 3             Then, Mr. Registrar, could you please assign a number to the 1996

 4     statement, or rather, written report by Mr. Hendriks.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D820.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  D820 is admitted into evidence.

 7             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 8        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, you were kind enough to review many of these ECMM

 9     reports over the weekend to determine, other than the ones that were

10     identified, which of the redacted reports you had written exclusively,

11     and I will briefly like to go through those with you.

12             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  P951, if that could be called up, please.

13        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, this is a document dated September 9th of 1995, and

14     it is entitled "Special report of the condition of cultural heritage in

15     former Krajina."  I believe you were asked some questions generally about

16     this in your direct examination, if I'm not mistaken.

17             You do mention in a number of instances, for example, in Cetina,

18     in Vrlika, and in -- excuse me, Biskupija, the specific -- and Milosi,

19     the specific type of church, whether it is Catholic or Orthodox, whether

20     it was damaged or intact.  But for the most part, in this report, there

21     is not a designation of which church, whether Catholic or Orthodox, was

22     touched or untouched, damaged or undamaged.  Correct?

23        A.   Yes, that's correct.

24        Q.   Was there any specific reason, as far as you know, that you did

25     not, other than those few instance, designate the type of church, whether

Page 9755

 1     it was an Orthodox church or a Catholic church, was damaged or undamaged?

 2        A.   It's perfectly possible that at that time we didn't know exactly

 3     what type of church it was, so I didn't -- I didn't associate a specific

 4     designation with it.

 5        Q.   The next redacted document that you said you had written yourself

 6     was P955.

 7             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If that could be pulled up, please.

 8        Q.   That's a document dated September 7th.

 9             On the second page of the document, you note, toward the bottom

10     of the document, that there's a Serbian gentleman who had a Croatian

11     friend, and the comment is:  "The Croatian friend said that the looting

12     can't be prevented because this revenge can't be stopped in a 'country in

13     war,' where no proper law and order is present."

14             Now, the assessment of the friend of this Serbian gentleman, what

15     caused you to put that in your report?

16        A.   A team comment has same value as the writer attributes to it.  In

17     effect, that was my reflection at the time that if even in Croatia people

18     don't really believe in having order there, what should we believe in

19     then?

20             In other words, he made it appear as if it was simply something

21     you would have to get used to; and, on that day, it surfaced in my mind

22     as something that I wanted to set forth in writing.  That's my opinion,

23     and the higher echelons should do with that as they please.

24        Q.   But the looting and killing at some point did stop, did it not?

25        A.   I can't say exactly.  I was in that area until the end of

Page 9756

 1     October; and, when I left, the looting and killing had not really stopped

 2     yet.

 3        Q.   So it's your assessment that at the end of October of 1995, the

 4     looting and killing had not stopped at all?

 5        A.   I don't remember anymore.  I would need to review reports from

 6     that period.  But as far as I remember, it had not stopped yet when I

 7     left the area.

 8        Q.   The other report that you had written yourself is 65 ter 5475.

 9             This is a report dated August 2nd, 1995.  This is before

10     Operation Storm.  Correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   You note, in the middle of this paragraph, which is point

13     number 2:  "At the KenBat," meaning Kenyan Battalion, "meeting, we heard

14     that with RSK shelled the area of Strmica-Grahovo at least 50 times with

15     artillery, and that they now have taken their positions and that they are

16     trying to solve the supply problems."

17             Now, before Operation Storm, according to your report, the RSK

18     was shelling the area of Strmica to Grahovo.  Correct?

19        A.   It reads that according to the Kenyan battalion that had bombed

20     the RSK, and that's what I reflected, but I'm not sure whether it was

21     correct.

22        Q.   Well, wasn't that part and parcel of the RSK's position, to try

23     to counterattack to retake Bosansko Grahovo that had fallen to the

24     Croatian military?

25        A.   I couldn't tell you exactly what the situation was because that

Page 9757

 1     was not the area of our interest, but we did try to gain an impression of

 2     what was taking place there.  But whether the artillery had been by the

 3     with RSK, it can also be a misperception by the Kenyan battalion because

 4     there was no actual investigation as to who fired the artillery and

 5     where.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic, I didn't intervene before the

 7     witness answered the question, but if you ask about a report and if the

 8     witness says, "Well, that's what they said, but whether it is true or

 9     not," then the next question to see, "wouldn't that part and parcel

10     of ..."

11             So, of course, if the witness doesn't know whether it happened at

12     all, to ask him to put in an certain context something he says he doesn't

13     whether know is true or not is not something that greatly assists the

14     Chamber.

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... understand, Your

16     Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  But, happily enough, in the answer, the witness

18     could explain.  It is very difficult for him to answer a question.

19             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I understand that, Your Honour.  What is

20     puzzling to me, though, is whenever there is an indication of the RSK

21     shelling or committing some act, he doesn't know, but whenever there is

22     some allegation about the Croats doing something, all of a sudden it

23     becomes --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  This is inappropriate comment, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

25             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you.

Page 9758

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  That's one.  Second, there is an reason here,

 2     because RSK is here put between, how do you call it, not brackets but --

 3             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Quotation marks.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- quotation marks.

 5             Therefore, I find, first of all, that in this specific instance,

 6     that there is a reason in the written report for the answers the witness

 7     gave.  Whether they're correct or not, of course I have no judgement on

 8     that at this moment.  But you should refrain from --

 9             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I will, Your Honour.  I apologise.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- from telling that this witness gives answers in

11     such-and-such direction.  I take that the apologies are directed to

12     Mr. Hendriks.

13             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes, and to the Chamber.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I'd like to move 65 ter 5475 into evidence,

17     please.

18             MR. HEDARALY:  No objection.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D821, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  D821 is admitted into evidence.

22             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If we could go, please, to P952.

23        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, I'm now going to move to ECMM reports, most of

24     which have redacted authors, and these documents were documents that you

25     indicated you were not the author of.  But they have all been moved in

Page 9759

 1     through you, so I'm going to ask you some questions about a certain

 2     selection of them, just so you know.

 3             This is a report dated September 6th of 1995; and, on point 5,

 4     which is on the second page, the heading is "Economic, industrial, and

 5     infrastructure matters."  Section a says:  "43.000 people used to live

 6     before in 43 local communities of the Knin municipality, covering 1.079

 7     square kilometres."

 8             Do you have any knowledge, Mr. Hendriks, as to where these

 9     particular figures were discovered or what the source of those figures

10     is?

11        A.   No.

12        Q.   The reason I ask you that question is there -- there has been

13     considerable testimony about the number of people in the Knin

14     municipality and in Sector South that left before and during the course

15     of Operation Storm.  At least according to this ECMM document, the 43.000

16     people who used to live in these communities, there is no indication as

17     to how many of those people stayed.  Correct?

18        A.   Well, I'm sure they figured out how many people lived there at

19     the time and how many people were still present after Operation Storm has

20     been estimated as well, but I couldn't tell you how many there were.

21        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  Later, in that same paragraph, it talks about:

22     "Knin's commissioner's office having 453 flats under their supervision,

23     but most of those people needing flats/houses or accommodation do not

24     wish to move into houses of run-away Serbs."

25             Now, at least according to this report, it appears as though

Page 9760

 1     displaced persons did not want to populate flats that had been abandoned

 2     by Serbs.  Is that correct?

 3        A.   As it's stated there, yes, that's correct.

 4             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If we could go to P954, please.

 5        Q.   This is a report.  While it's coming up, I'll give you the date

 6     of it, sir.  It's September 11th of 1995.  Point number 2, political

 7     matters, it says:  "Team Gospic learned from the," and there's a

 8     redaction, "of the Lika-Senj Zupanje that this county has 3.700 square

 9     kilometres and 71.000 inhabitants."

10             Now, it appears from this document - and please correct me if I'm

11     wrong - that the 71.000 inhabitants referred to in this paragraph are

12     people currently living in this zupanje, or county.  Correct?

13        A.   I don't know.  I did not draft this report.  I assume that at the

14     time there was a summary at CC level of what was known at the time.  So I

15     can't tell you exactly whether it was before or after that point.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Later in this document at the bottom, under military,

17     operational and security matters, point b, it says:  "UN reports 500 to

18     600 explosions heard during the Sunday," and then going on to the next

19     page, "morning hours in the general area of Boricevac in direction of

20     Bosnian border.  After this shelling, the state of the alert in the

21     Donji Lapac area is relaxed, but HV police troops are still deployed,

22     manning check-points wearing helmets and flak-jackets."

23             Now, do you know what the "HV police troops" is referred to in

24     that paragraph?

25        A.   No.

Page 9761

 1        Q.   It appears from this paragraph that there's some significant

 2     fighting on at or near the Bosnian border and near Donji Lapac, at least

 3     as of the date of this report of September 11th.  Correct?

 4        A.   That's perfectly possible.  I don't think that they simply wrote

 5     that in the report for no reason.

 6             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If we could, please, go to P932.

 7        Q.   This is another ECMM report that was admitted through you,

 8     Mr. Hendriks, obviously noting that you're not the author, dated

 9     August 23rd of 1995.

10             And if we look at section 2.d, it says:  "During a visit in

11     Mogoric, Team Gospic learned from in the village deployed policemen that

12     the reason for their presence is to secure the remaining Serbs and to

13     receive those who are hiding in the woods."

14             Then there's a comment:  "The fact that these policemen are from

15     one department north-east of Zagreb shows that their superiors are afraid

16     to use domestic police for their tasks, fearing crimes and harassment

17     being committed against Serbs."

18             Now, do you know were in any domestic police available in the

19     newly liberated areas?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic, there may be a translation issue

21     here.

22             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Should I shorten and repeat the question, Your

23     Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm intervening because it has been done twice, so I

25     don't think that repeating the question -- yes.  But, perhaps, we could

Page 9762

 1     seek clarification with you.

 2             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Sure, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  You used the expression "domestic police."  Did you

 4     want to refer to the police that would be locally present?

 5             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  I understand.  I will --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  "Domestic police" can be translated in several ways

 7     and that might cause a problem.

 8             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I will -- I know where you're coming from, Your

 9     Honour.  I will rephrase.

10        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, from the context of this paragraph, it's clear that

11     police in this area of -- liberated Croatia were police from Zagreb.

12     Now, Zagreb obviously is not in Sector South.  The comment about the need

13     for use of police from Zagreb apparently showing that certain superiors

14     are afraid to use what is termed here "domestic police" is apparently an

15     issue in the report.

16             Now, domestic police - you can tell me if I'm wrong - within the

17     context of this paragraph, that is police that were locally based.

18     Correct?

19        A.   I assume that that's correct, yes.

20        Q.   Now, were you aware during the time that you were in

21     Sector South, Mr. Hendriks, of any domestic police that were native to

22     the areas that were liberated, having been established right after

23     Operation Storm; or were most of these police forces brought in from

24     outside the area, if you know?

25        A.   No, I can't tell you anything about that.

Page 9763

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             On the following page, under section 5, again, "Economic,

 3     industrial, and infrastructural matters," there's a notation that says:

 4     "For the first time -- the first time, after four years water from the

 5     Zrmanja river started flowing again to Zadar."

 6             Were you aware, prior to Operation Storm, that the water flow to

 7     the area of Zadar which was not occupied was interrupted?

 8        A.   No, I did not learn anything about that.

 9        Q.   In section b, there's a discussion that this is an project to

10     redistribute live stock to people, and there's a mention that says the

11     person whose name is redacted "was concerned that the governmental

12     returning plan enabling people to return as quickly as possible to their

13     former homes can only work in large cities but not in small villages or

14     hamlets."

15             Now, what I wanted to ask you about was the redistribution of

16     live stock.  There have been several indications throughout the course of

17     this trial and in reports that livestock were being taken away by either

18     civilians or members of the Croatian military.

19             Now, it appears, at least by this report, that livestock was to

20     be redistributed to people.  Did you have any indication that livestock

21     that you saw was being prepared for redistribution?

22             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

24             MR. HEDARALY:  The question in its form is fine, but I object to

25     the commentary that led up to the question; that is, "there have been

Page 9764

 1     suggestion in this trial" and then he asks the question.

 2             If anything, it should have been done the other way around.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I fully agree with you that this is suggestive; but,

 4     of course, suggestive questions in cross-examination are not, as such,

 5     prohibited.

 6             MR. HEDARALY:  It is not the suggestion of the answer in the

 7     question, it is the suggestion that there is evidence in the trial before

 8     that has said something.  It could be in misleading more than just --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  That is an old issue.  It certainly doesn't reflect

10     the totality of the evidence we have received on the presence of

11     livestock in the area and in what state they were.  Nevertheless, it's

12     also true that at least part of the evidence certainly reflects a system

13     of redistribution.

14             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I'll rephrase the question, Your Honour.  I'll

15     re-ask it.  I don't think there is anything wrong with it --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But perhaps if you would also put the question

17     in such a way that -- I would know exactly what you were asking for

18     because for me it would be very difficult to see whether a cow is

19     prepared for redistribution if it's in a meadow, but, of course, there

20     could be other situations which may be more clear.

21             Please put the question again to the witness.

22             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I will, Your Honour.

23        Q.   In the context -- in the context of this particular paragraph,

24     sir, there is a -- at least appeared to be a plan to redistribute

25     livestock to people.

Page 9765

 1             Now, during your course of time that you were in Sector South,

 2     did you have any opportunity to observe what was being done with

 3     livestock and whether there was, in fact, any redistribution of

 4     livestock?

 5        A.   The only thing that I saw was that livestock was being loaded up

 6     by people.  It could have been a systematic plan but livestock could also

 7     have been stolen or both processes could have taken place, but I don't

 8     have any genuine indications to that effect.

 9        Q.   So, one or the other, you can't -- you don't know is a fair

10     answer.  Correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If we could go to P933, please.

13             You must have the wrong document here.  It's 65 ter 30 --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, Mr. Kuzmanovic, your last

15     question, where you said "you do not know whether it was the one or the

16     other," that is, theft or redirect examination, by that question, did you

17     aim at excludeing other possibilities?

18             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I guess I did not.  The question was one or the

19     other, but I suppose there could be other possibilities.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, a third, or a fourth or a fifth option, and

21     owner.  Someone owning cattle, loading up his cattle, and moving to

22     another place would neither be redistribution or theft.  What the witness

23     said, I think, that he observed was people loading up cattle, that's all.

24     So you did not intend to exclude other possibilities by the last question

25     because, otherwise, we would have to put it to the witness.

Page 9766

 1             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Correct.  I did not exclude anything, Your

 2     Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Then it may be clear from his observation that the

 4     factual observations of the witness apparently were that cattle was

 5     loaded and transported.

 6             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  And beyond that, nothing else.  Correct.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 8             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 9             The correct exhibit designation is P940.  Mr. Registrar, I think

10     that is 65 ter 3067, if I'm not mistaken.

11        Q.   And while we're waiting for that to come up, Mr. Hendriks, that's

12     a report dated August 29th of 1995, and I'd like to go down to section e

13     of number 3.

14             Section e of number 3, says:  "H-u-m-o."

15             Could you tell me what that stands for, Humo?

16        A.   Humanitarian officer.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             It says:  "Humanitarian officer reports that in Podinarje valley,

19     nine RSK soldiers surrendered to HV under UN observation?"

20             Then there is a comment:  "As this joint action of UN/HV was

21     successful, and the lifeline of Serb soldiers dwindles, we can expect an

22     increasing number of surrenders."

23             Now, were you aware that there were pockets of Serb soldiers in

24     the mountains and woods of Sector South, similar to the ones that

25     surrendered here?

Page 9767

 1        A.   That is perfectly possible, but I can't be absolutely sure.

 2        Q.   Were you aware of any military activity that was ongoing in

 3     late August/early September 1995 to try to find these small pockets of

 4     ARSK soldiers that may be hiding in the mountains and woods?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If we could go to P934, please, and if we go to

 7     section 3.

 8        Q.   It says, "Military, operational, and security matters."  This is

 9     August 11th of 1995, and there is an notation here that says that:  "The

10     team was assured of complete FOM, freedom of movement, but was -- but

11     advised them to remain on the main roads due to the ARSK snipers who

12     remain in the hills.  The team also met the chief of police in Gracac,

13     Mr. Kavurin, who was busy setting up the policija station in town.  They

14     were, once again, assured of complete freedom of movement.  Team reports

15     much damage from shelling in the town, with many houses burnt, and a

16     number of civilian protection forces men ..."

17             I believe that should be "cleaning" the streets, not "leaning"

18     the streets.  Correct?

19        A.   Yes, that's how it reads.

20        Q.   Were you -- did you happen to go to Gracac at any point in time

21     around the 11th of August of 1995?

22        A.   Most probably not, because this is about the Korenica team and

23     that was the northern area and that was not our area.

24        Q.   All right.  Thank you.

25             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If we could go to P935.

Page 9768

 1        Q.   This is an August 13th, 1995 report, and it discusses in the

 2     first section, political assessment, talking about the new mayor of Knin.

 3             It says in the first paragraph:  "He is expected to be a puppet

 4     for the controlling Croat authorities and is purely a figurehead for the

 5     world to see how 'well' the remaining Serbs are being treated by the

 6     Croats."

 7             Now, can you give me any information upon what that assessment

 8     was based?

 9        A.   No.  This report was compiled by the RC, and they had their own

10     observations and conversations at that time.  So that is their opinion

11     that is reflected here.

12        Q.   I do understand that, Mr. Hendriks, and these document were

13     admitted through you as a member of ECMM.  So I guess I'm asking you as

14     to whether or not had you any independent knowledge, other than what the

15     authors in this report apparently said, about whether or not this new

16     mayor of Knin was purely a figurehead.

17             Do you have any information on your own regarding that?

18        A.   No.  I don't feel that information is very valuable.  When you

19     talk to the men, you form an opinion; and, as I mentioned, this was

20     written by the RC perhaps based on conversations or perhaps translation

21     from a newspaper.  It is a general story, it's a political assessment.

22     So, whether or not he was a puppet, that is not for me, in any case.

23        Q.   Did you ever have any interaction with that gentleman, the mayor

24     of Knin?

25        A.   Not as far as I remember.

Page 9769

 1        Q.   On page 2 of this particular document, there's a military

 2     assessment and analysis.  It says, in the second sentence of that first

 3     paragraph:  "It is assessed that the swiftness of the success of

 4     Operation Storm caught not only the HV by surprise but also the civilian

 5     authorities who were supposed to go in afterwards and take over.

 6     Consequently, as the 'capital' fell in 36 hours, instead of the expected

 7     week, the military and civilian police who were next to arrive did so

 8     late."

 9             Now, was it your experience that the Croatian government, based

10     on your observations, was unprepared to deal with the situation because

11     it happened so quickly in and around Knin?

12        A.   Yes.  The authorities in Knin had some difficulty getting it all

13     off the ground.  That was my observation.  It was not pretty well

14     prepared yet.

15        Q.   And it's true, is it not, that before Operation Storm occurred,

16     the assessment was that the Croatian military would not be able to

17     re-take -- the general assessment by Western observers, anyway, was that

18     the Croatian military would not be able to retake the Sectors North and

19     South.  Correct?

20        A.   I don't know.

21        Q.   The fact that it was taken within a short time caused quite a bit

22     of chaos and unpreparedness on behalf of the Croatian government, did it

23     not?

24        A.   You would need to ask them that.  I don't know.

25        Q.   Well, based on -- do you agree with that -- with my statement,

Page 9770

 1     based upon what you observed during the course of time you were in

 2     Sector South?

 3        A.   You can't simply state that cut and dry.

 4        Q.   Okay.  What can you state then?  What do you mean by your answer?

 5        A.   The real cause of the chaos and whether the Croatian government

 6     was unprepared is impossible to tell.  Perhaps, it was business as usual.

 7     On the other hand, things might have happened faster than expected and

 8     they didn't see it coming.  I can't assess that.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If we could go to section 3 of this same report,

11     under "Humanitarian assessment."

12        Q.   Again, this as of August 13th of 1995.

13             The first sentence of this says:  "A well-planned and carefully

14     executed clean-up operation has been in action throughout the week.  The

15     Croatian army and police have swept up through the former RSK, removing

16     evidence."

17             My question to you is:  Removing evidence of what?

18        A.   I don't know.

19        Q.   I mean, there was cleaning-up going on in and around Knin of the

20     shops and the things that were smashed and broken, and the damage.

21     Correct?

22        A.   Yes, also.

23        Q.   Now, the implication at least is that there was something to hide

24     by this statement?

25        A.   Yes, you might say that.

Page 9771

 1        Q.   Yet the press and teams like the ECMM and the UNMOs and the HRAT

 2     team, they were all over Sector South during that time, were they not, as

 3     of August 13th of 1995?

 4        A.   Yes.  At the time, they were present, yes.

 5        Q.   On the last page of this exhibit, sir, the second-last paragraph,

 6     the second sentence, it says:  "Knin town and immediate surroundings have

 7     suffered only superficial damage and, therefore, are the only area where

 8     DPs can be expected to re-establish themselves.  There appears to have

 9     been a specific policy to protect the town, as with the majority of

10     Orthodox churches in the former Sector South."

11             Now, was it your observation as well that Knin town and immediate

12     surroundings suffered only superficial damage?

13        A.   The town of Knin did, indeed, suffer superficial damage; but

14     depending on what you consider to be the immediate surroundings, I would

15     qualify that because as soon as you got outside Knin, there were a lot of

16     burnt out houses and similar damage.

17             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If we could go to P937, please, at the very

18     bottom of that document, under 2, "Military assessment."

19        Q.   It says:  "In the former RSK ..."  - again, this is 20th of

20     August, 1995 - "... still an unknown number of Serb soldiers are fighting

21     and hiding in the woods.  The areas, according to UN and CALO, are

22     Strmica, Mogoric, Mazin, and the wooden mountain range of Pljesevica

23     (north Korenica).  The HV tries with special anti-guerilla forces to

24     catch these soldiers; but during their mopping actions, some HV solders

25     were killed or caught by them.  Also, in the Dinara area, some nests of

Page 9772

 1     ARSK soldiers are presumed, and so the HV authorities state that the

 2     whole country, not even Knin vicinity, is not 100 percent safe yet."

 3             My question to you regarding this military assessment is:  Did

 4     you ever have an opportunity to observe these anti-guerilla forces in

 5     action; and in what areas, if so?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic --

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't see them.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  -- the witness has answered the question.

 9     Nevertheless, part of the portion that was read to him by you does

10     neither appear on the transcript, and approximately the same portions

11     were not translated to him either due to your speed of speech.

12             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Sorry, I thought I was going slow.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  If you perhaps -- because in your question, you were

14     talking about anti-guerilla forces and that is exactly, for example, the

15     portion which was not read to him.

16             I suggest that you read again now the whole of the portion at

17     such a speed that the witness can hear the translation, that the

18     transcribers are able to transcribe what you said, and that you then put

19     the question again to the witness.  He may come up with the same answer,

20     but I would rather have a complete file on which he bases his answers.

21             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I will.  Thank you, Your Honour thank.  I will

22     endeavor to read more slowly.  Just so Your Honour knows, I have about

23     three more reports to review after this, and then I will be done.  So, if

24     we need to go beyond the break, it will be very, very short.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If you can could that, well, let's say, within

Page 9773

 1     the next ten minutes approximately then, we would have the break a little

 2     bit later, so that --

 3             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I will do that, Your Honour, so I can finish,

 4     and I will do my best to read a little more slowly.

 5        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, you understand when you read English, do you not?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Did you have a chance to read this section 2, "Military

 8     assessment"?  I know I read it to you, but you had a chance to review it

 9     on your screen.  Correct?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps if we invite the witness to read on from the

11     top of this page, especially where it reads "the HV tries with ..."

12             Could you please read that portion again, Mr. Hendriks, in

13     English.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC:

16        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, I had asked you a question earlier about whether or

17     not you had a chance to observe what's termed in this report "special

18     anti-guerilla forces of the HV."

19             Can you tell us, please, once again, whether or not you had a

20     chance to observe them; and if so, when and where?

21        A.   We didn't see them.

22             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If we can go to P939, please, which is an ECMM

23     report dated August 27, 1995, we'll go to page 2, the bottom of page 2,

24     please.

25        Q.   Under section b, it says:  "Operation Storm seems not to be

Page 9774

 1     finished yet due to the big number of police, special police, and HV

 2     monitored in the Srb, Donji Lapac, and Mazin area.  Local commanders

 3     passed to UN and ECMM some unconfirmed information about small fighting

 4     between diminutive groups of ARSK soldiers hiding in the woods west of

 5     Srb and Donji Lapac, and HV and police forces ransacking the wooden

 6     terrain."

 7             Now, had you had an opportunity to go up into this area where

 8     these operations were going on, Srb, Donji Lapac, and Mazin?

 9        A.   As far as I know, those areas were outside our patrol area, so

10     that would have come from a different team.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If we could go to P941, this is an August 31st

13     ECMM report.

14        Q.   Again, there's a mention in section 3, under "Military,

15     operational, and security matters," that:  "Team N2 was informed through

16     a letter from General Cermak about ROM," restriction of movement, "in the

17     widen areas north-east of Knin, stretching in to Bosansko Grahovo, in an

18     area 20 by 20 kilometres.  All IOs," meaning international organisations,

19     "are prohibited to go there due to cleaning actions done by special

20     police forces."

21             Now, were you made aware of areas in which special -- mop-up

22     activity was going on by special police forces?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Where was it made known to you that these mop-up activities by

25     special police forces were occurring?

Page 9775

 1        A.   As it says here, we saw a letter signed by General Cermak, but I

 2     don't remember where I saw that letter.

 3        Q.   Were you ever in any areas after mop-up operations had occurred?

 4        A.   Undoubtedly.

 5        Q.   Can you tell me, as we sit here today, what areas those might

 6     have been?

 7        A.   We drove throughout the entire South Sector in September.  There

 8     were two or three teams that covered the South Sector.  So that included

 9     the areas where the mop-up operations took place.

10        Q.   But you, yourself, didn't observe what may or may not have

11     happened after those mop-up operations took place, correct?  You just

12     drove through the areas where they occurred.

13        A.   Yes.  But I also spoke with people there, so our standard

14     operating procedure of driving, visiting villages, talking to people, and

15     listening to hear what had taken place.

16        Q.   None of that specific information about what happened and who you

17     spoke to after a mop-up operation is contained in any of the reports have

18     you written.  Is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   The last document I'm going to go through with you, sir, is P958.

21     It's dated the 12th of September of 1995, and section 2, "Political

22     matters," the part b.

23             It says:  "The chief of police in Gospic," and then there's a

24     redaction, "informed Team G-1 that, for the moment, coordination between

25     police and other administrative authorities is not possible and that the

Page 9776

 1     police, as a lack of personnel, for effective control in the AOR,"

 2     meaning Lika-Senj County.  "The looting in the liberated areas is,

 3     according to him, the result of deep hate and revenge feeling.  He

 4     stressed that ten policemen have already been fired because they

 5     committed criminal acts.

 6             "He also complained that police arrested thieves but justice does

 7     not react in a proper way.  Chief of police explained the duties of the

 8     special police:  Discover minefields and clear them, find hidden

 9     warehouses of ammunition, look for hidden people.

10             "Finally, he said that Croatian leaders saw only problems to

11     liberate the occupied area, but now they are faced with problems they

12     have not expected before."

13             And there are two questions I'd like it ask but that section that

14     I just read to you.

15             From what you saw and you observed during the course of time in

16     Sector South, it is true, is it not, that the civilian authorities, based

17     upon what was going on in Sector South, were not prepared to deal with

18     the problems they were facing, specifically looting and burning.

19     Correct?

20        A.   I suspect that that is correct.

21        Q.   Now, the issue of the duties of the special police, as described

22     by the chief of police in Gospic, did you ever observe the special police

23     involved in any of the activities described here:  Discovering,

24     minefields, finding hidden warehouses of ammunition, and looking for

25     hidden people?

Page 9777

 1        A.   No.

 2        Q.   Did you have any reason to disagree with the explanation of the

 3     role of the special police, at least as described here?

 4        A.   This is the account of the chief of police in Gospic, he said

 5     that; but, moreover, Gospic is not a mine area.  That was stated to the

 6     Gospic team and they simply wrote that down, and I have no reason to say

 7     that that account is nonsense.

 8        Q.   One final question:  Based on your observations in your area of

 9     responsibility, is it fair to state that, other than engaging in mop-up

10     operations, you were not aware of what the role of the special police

11     was?

12        A.   Very generally, we knew what the role was of the special police.

13        Q.   Okay.  I guess -- other than mop-up operations, what did you

14     observe the role of the special police was in your area of

15     responsibility, if you know?

16        A.   I didn't observe any of that, but we did know what the purpose

17     was of the special police.

18        Q.   Okay.  I don't want to keep asking the same question.  But what

19     was the purpose, from your understanding, of the special police?

20             You've told us that you knew what it was, but you haven't told us

21     what it was.

22        A.   Well, tracing munitions warehouses, discovering minefields, and

23     those types of things.

24        Q.   Thank you very much, sir.

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

Page 9778

 1     for the extra time, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

 3             Mr. Kehoe, everything depended on what time the others would

 4     take, isn't it right, for cross-examination?

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.  I would expect in two hours, I

 6     finish, I do believe.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll have a break, and we will resume at five

 8     minutes past 11.00.

 9                           --- Recess taken at 10.41 a.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, the third cross-examining party always

12     has the advantage, could also call it disadvantage, that part of the

13     ground has already been covered by the others.  In view of that, I'd like

14     to encourage you to see whether you could do it in one hour and a half;

15     and, of course, if you show that your questions are always focussed not

16     too much art of advocacy, just the advocacy in itself would do, I would

17     say.

18             And, of course, if you proceed in that way, we see that could you

19     not conclude within that one and a half hour.  We would give you

20     additional time, but take the advantage of part of the ground already

21     been covered by the others.

22             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hendriks, you will now be cross-examined by

24     Mr. Kehoe, and Mr. Kehoe is counsel for Mr. Gotovina.

25             Please proceed.

Page 9779

 1                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:

 2        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Hendriks.

 3             I will try not to cover ground that has been covered before, but

 4     I will bounce between some of the things in your statements and ECMM

 5     statements.  So, if at any point my questions are not clear or you just

 6     you need some time to refer to your statements, please take that.

 7             Mr. Hendriks, in response to some questions on direct

 8     examination - and I'm referring to paragraph 12 of your statement at

 9     931 - if can you go to your statement from 2008, in paragraph 12, you

10     note:  "In my previous statement, I also stated I saw a lot of RSK

11     soldiers in Knin and that they may have been on rotation.  What I meant

12     by this is that there were a lot of RSK -- ARSK soldiers in the town of

13     Knin, but they were just hanging around and mainly drinking.  It wasn't

14     as if they were part of a unit."

15             Now, shortly after you arrived in Knin, you were aware, were you

16     not, that the HV had taken Bosansko Grahovo, were you not?

17        A.   Not specifically.  It's perfectly conceivable that that was

18     mentioned, but I don't remember that specifically.

19        Q.   Were you aware, Mr. Hendriks, that on the 28th of July, President

20     Milan Martic declared a state of war on the entire territory of the

21     Republic of Serbian Krajina?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And if we can go to your first statement from 1996, which is

24     D820, at the bottom of the second page of the document, and the first

25     page, it is a fact that at the time, prior to Operation Storm, the

Page 9780

 1     military situation was tense, was it not?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   As you said in your 2008 statement, there were a lot of soldiers

 4     in town and; also, you also noted that every military capable man was

 5     mobilised, and I think you told us on direct between 18 and 50 years of

 6     age.

 7             So, for the situation in Knin, in the latter part of July and the

 8     first days of August, everything was very tense and there was a fear of

 9     something about to happen, wasn't there?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Now, you also noted that in your statement to the Prosecution,

12     again in paragraph 12, in that last sentence:  "I can confirm that I did

13     not see any ARSK heavy artillery or tanks in and around Knin."

14             Now, my colleague, Mr. Kuzmanovic, brought to your attention D821

15     which is an ECMM situation report or ECMM report for the 2nd of August,

16     where the Kenyan Battalion reported shelling by the ARSK, at least 50

17     times.

18             Now, sir, when you are saying and you told the Prosecution that

19     you didn't see any heavy artillery, you are not saying that they didn't

20     have the artillery; simply that you didn't see it.  Isn't that right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And, in fact, I think you told us that you were not allowed to

23     monitor the confrontation lines prior to Operation Storm that were being

24     held by the ARSK?

25        A.   Yes, I said that.

Page 9781

 1        Q.   So, if they had artillery and tanks at the front line on the

 2     morning of the 4th of August, you simply wouldn't know about it.  Is that

 3     right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Now, you also -- if I can just shift topics but say in the same

 6     vein of pre-Storm, you noted in your 1996 statement that:  "Prior

 7     Operation Storm, people were ..." -- and I refer to page 2 of the

 8     statement.

 9             If I can get the exact location, it's about three quarters of the

10     way down:  "In the days before Operation Storm ..."

11             Do you see that, sir?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   "In the days before Operation Storm, there a lot of rumours among

14     the people and they became very restless, and not knowing what to do,

15     some of them were able to leave to Serbia or Bosnia."

16             Now, one of your -- your landlady attempted to go as well, didn't

17     she?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And understanding that you came to the area on the 24th of July,

20     how much prior to that did this departure of people from Knin or the area

21     begin?

22        A.   I didn't understand the question.

23        Q.   Okay.  Let me rephrase it.  It was probably not a very clear

24     question.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 9782

 1             MR. KEHOE:

 2        Q.   With the understanding that you came to Sector South on the

 3     24th of July, approximately when did this departure of people from Knin

 4     begin?

 5        A.   I believe it was in the week of 31 July, perhaps the weekend

 6     before that.

 7        Q.   Now, the evacuation came in earnest after this radio broadcast on

 8     the 4th of August by the RSK authorities.  Is that not correct?

 9        A.   Yes, that's correct.

10        Q.   And was this -- were you familiar with the evacuation order that

11     was signed by President Martic?

12        A.   No.

13        Q.   But this evacuation began -- I think you told us the evacuation

14     began towards the eve -- on the evening of the 4th of August.  Is that

15     right?

16        A.   That was told by the people who entered the barracks, and they

17     said that to my interpreter.  It was said that the evacuation started in

18     the course of the evening.

19        Q.   So, if we can just take this chronologically from your own

20     experience, the shelling of Knin began in the early morning hours of

21     the 4th; and then these people told you that sometime in the afternoon,

22     Radio Knin broadcast that the civilian population should evacuate; and

23     then that's when the civilian authorities began to evacuate.  Is that

24     basically the progression?

25        A.   That's basically the progression.

Page 9783

 1        Q.   And as part of this progression, you told us -- or, actually, is

 2     mentioned in Exhibit 820, that buses came to - and I'm looking at 820,

 3     your 1996 statement - buses came to the governmental building to pick

 4     people up and to take them away.

 5             Do you see that, sir?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... told that as well.

 8        A.   Yes, I was told that as well.

 9        Q.   Now, after the evacuation began, you were also informed that that

10     is when the ARSK soldiers began to leave the front lines to go back to

11     their families.  Is that correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   In a sense, they --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

15             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  May I seek clarification on one of the previous

17     issues.

18             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hendriks, in one of the questions of Mr. Kehoe

20     the Knin Radio, could I say, call for an evacuation was put to have taken

21     place in the afternoon; and you apparently agreed with that.

22             Could you tell me exactly what the source of your knowledge of

23     the radio broadcast by Radio Knin in the afternoon, on what that is

24     based?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I heard that through the report by

Page 9784

 1     my witness.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  But did your interpreter tell you that it was in the

 3     afternoon?  Was any time given?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm translating what it says here.

 5     So I heard from my interpreter that in the afternoon of the 4th, after an

 6     entire afternoon of broadcasting music, there was a recorded tape by

 7     Martic, stating there was no reason to panic because the defence

 8     positions were stable.  So, exactly when this broadcast took place is

 9     impossible for me to say, but I suspect it was sometime in the afternoon.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I may just try to find where exactly what you read.

11     Of course, some of these statements are relatively new to us as well.

12             So you were reading.  I haven't got it in front of me at this

13     moment.  Which page is that of the --

14             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, if we go to -- it's D820; and if we go

15     to the top of, it's page 3 of the document.  Actually, it's on the

16     screen, Judge, if we can just scroll up just a bit.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             MR. KEHOE:  And we look at point 3:  "The leadership in Knin was

19     the first who fled away.  From my interpreter, I learned that in the

20     afternoon of the 4th, after a whole day of broadcasting music, a recorded

21     tape of Martic was broadcasted with a statement that there is ..."

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Because you earlier said "From your own

23     observation, you said ..."

24             But I do understand that you learned from your the interpreter

25     that it was the afternoon.  I'm just trying to follow the chronology.

Page 9785

 1             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  And, Mr. Kehoe, I am aware that I urged you to do

 3     this efficiently as possible, but sometimes I have a need to verify

 4     exactly what the basis for the question and the answer is.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.  I don't know if Your Honour wants any

 7     additional clarification on the chronology.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  No, it's clear enough.  The question came to my mind

 9     when you referred to his own observation and the broadcasting in the

10     afternoon, where I had no recollection that the witness testified that he

11     personally observed or heard.  But it is hearsay and it appears here, and

12     that has been clarified now.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. KEHOE:  I think I did ask the question on the recollection.

15     I think the witness corrected me and said "I heard it from my

16     interpreter."  So maybe I threw you off with my question.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Your question was about chronology.  So the personal

18     observation and where the chronology came from exactly, that was on my

19     mind.

20             Please proceed.

21             MR. KEHOE:

22        Q.   And I think we left off, Mr. Hendriks, that this abandonment of

23     the positions by the ARSK soldiers began after this notice on the radio

24     that the civilian population should evacuate.  Is that right?

25        A.   That's perfectly possible.  Perhaps, before that, some soldiers

Page 9786

 1     are left as well, but I think that the majority of the soldiers left

 2     after that broadcast.

 3        Q.   If we can just shift subjects for one moment -- for the next

 4     series of questions, Mr. Hendriks, and I want to focus just briefly on

 5     paragraph 16 of your 2008 statement, P931.

 6             And you note towards the bottom of the page, and we're talking

 7     about the artillery, that the purpose was to break the resistance of the

 8     army by having them surrender or flee and, at the same time, to scare the

 9     civilians into abandoning the area.

10             Now, sir, as an artillery -- as an anti-aircraft officer, or

11     retired anti-aircraft officer with the Dutch military, you know that the

12     purpose of artillery, in part, is to break the resistance of the

13     opposition, is it not?

14        A.   That would -- could be one of the duties of artillery fire, yes.

15        Q.   And one of the other purposes of artillery fire could be knocking

16     out the communication capabilities of the enemy; and by that, I mean

17     radio, television, any other means of communicating that a military force

18     might have.  Is that right?

19        A.   That's possible, depending on the priorities of the artillery

20     fire.

21        Q.   Now, with regard to the shelling of Knin, you do not know whether

22     the headquarters of the army of the Serb Krajina were, in fact, hit, do

23     you?  And I'm talking about the shelling on the 4th, on the 4th of

24     August.

25        A.   I stated at the time that most important sites and buildings were

Page 9787

 1     not destroyed, so probably not the headquarters of Serb Krajina army

 2     either.

 3        Q.   Well, sir, let me, if I may, let me show you D389.

 4             And, sir, this is an intelligence report by the army of Serb

 5     Krajina from the 4th of August of 1995, and I refer you to the fourth

 6     paragraph down.

 7             Of course, this is a report by the ARSK concerning the attack on

 8     the 4th.  It notes that:  "Knin was attacked from Livanjsko Polje from

 9     several directions, and by the time this information was drafted between

10     2000 and 300 rounds of different calibres impacted on the town.  The

11     first to strike was carried out on the building of the SVK General Staff

12     which suffered great damage ..."

13             This is a report in evidence concerning what the ARSK reported.

14     My question to you, sir, is:  You didn't know about this.  Is that

15     correct?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Kehoe --

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't speak about this, no.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, if you speak too quickly, there is an

19     additional problem, that is, that the interpreters will rely, more or

20     less, on the transcript as well, just to catch up with where they are

21     behind.  Then we may have sometimes double problems:  One, that the

22     transcript is not always fully able to follow you; and, then, the

23     interpreters relying on the transcript have additional problems.

24             Could you please keep this in mind.

25             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

Page 9788

 1        Q.   My question -- and I apologise, sir, and to the interpreters for

 2     moving too quickly.

 3             My question to you, sir, is that when you were writing your

 4     reports, you did not know that the ARSK headquarters had been hit by

 5     artillery fire on the morning of the 4th, did you?

 6        A.   No, I didn't know that.

 7        Q.   Okay.  If we continue with this document and go to the next

 8     sentence:  "Later, the fire was transferred to the military barracks,

 9     13 Kaplara, the Tvik factory, the railway intersection, and residential

10     buildings and the area beneath the Knin fortress."

11             You, likewise, did not know that the military barracks had been

12     hit, nor the Tvik factory and the railway intersection.  Isn't that so,

13     sir?

14        A.   No.

15        Q.   No, you didn't know they were hit?

16        A.   No, I didn't know that.

17        Q.   So when you told the Prosecution in paragraph 16 of your

18     statement - and I'm talking about 931 - that first sentence:  "My

19     observations were that shells seemed to be following everywhere and no

20     where, and did not seem to be aimed at specific targets."

21             You made that statement, did you not, because you didn't know

22     what specific targets had been hit.  Isn't that correct, sir?

23        A.   In paragraph 16 and in general, to be quite honest, during our

24     drive through Knin, the general observation was that large parts of those

25     targets were still intact.  It is perfectly possible that they had been

Page 9789

 1     hit, but then the question is what degree of destruction had taken place.

 2        Q.   Let me take one step further.  You just mentioned your drive

 3     through Knin when you were going to UN Sector South.  Approximately what

 4     time of day was this?

 5        A.   Around midday, around noon.

 6        Q.   And during that drive through Knin, you saw no casualties, did

 7     you?  I refer you to your 1996 statement, D820, in the last paragraph.

 8        A.   I did not see any injured during that ride.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Now, if I can bring up P947, P947.

10        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, this is a photograph that Prosecution put into

11     evidence through you, noting that this was damage in Knin that you

12     observed on the 12th of August of 1995.  Is that right?

13        A.   Yes.

14             MR. KEHOE:  Let me turn our attention to P62.  I'm sorry, P62.

15     Okay.

16        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, this is an overhead of the Knin area.

17             MR. KEHOE:  And I would ask the assistance of the usher,

18     Mr. President.

19        Q.   I would like, Mr. Hendriks, if you could use this overhead and

20     tell us where these buildings were that you identified as being in Knin

21     which we just saw on P947.

22        A.   Well, I would have to take a guess, but I suspect about in this

23     area, but I'm not sure.  Because if I remember correctly, this is where

24     the UN barracks were and that our homes were about here, and this is

25     about how we drove.  So I suspect about halfway, but it's a guess.

Page 9790

 1        Q.   If I can orient you just a bit, so maybe it could be a little bit

 2     easier.  If you look at the --

 3             MR. KEHOE:  With the assistant of the usher, could we blow up the

 4     right-hand side of the photograph, so maybe it would be easier for

 5     Mr. Hendriks to get oriented.  Oh, okay.  They tell me it would lose the

 6     red mark.

 7        Q.   Just at the right-hand side, sir, the right-hand side of the

 8     photograph there that is encircled, that is the UN barracks.

 9             My apologies to you.  I probably should have done that

10     previously.  But, with all due respect, with that in mind, sir, and if

11     you orient yourself, if you want to re-draw that with that orientation.

12             MR. KEHOE:  We certainly is would have no objection to that,

13     Judge, because I think that --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  But the usher could to assist, too, if you are

15     seeking to remove the earlier one, or should we keep it?

16             MR. KEHOE:  No.  I think, in fairness to the witness, Judge, if

17     we orient him, and I think he was just a bit confused as to where the UN

18     barracks was.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  But my question is whether we want the first marking

20     to be removed and then to be replaced by it, or that we add to the

21     original, perhaps mistaken, marking another one.

22             MR. KEHOE:  I have no objection to removing it, counsel.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I think it might be less confusing for those

24     who will at a later time look at it.

25             Madam Usher, could you assist the witness in removing this.

Page 9791

 1             MR. KEHOE:  And if I just, now that it is removed, if we could

 2     zoom in on the UN barracks on the right-hand side, so that the witness

 3     could just get oriented just a bit.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  We start over again.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hendriks, you may always ask to have portions

 7     being zoomed in, if that assists you in orienting yourself.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, that's fine.

 9        Q.   Now, with that orientation, Mr. Hendriks, can you tell us where

10     this photograph that you took -- or that was taken and you identified,

11     P947, was taken in Knin?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

13             MR. HEDARALY:  I would just like, pursuant to the witness's

14     previous answer, to invite him not to guess, but, really, if he remembers

15     where the location is.

16             MR. KEHOE:  Of course.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we do not expect anything less from

18     Mr. Hendriks.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't really remember.  It would

20     really boil down to guessing, but I do know that somewhere in Knin were

21     these two buildings.

22             MR. KEHOE:

23        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, let me show you a series of photographs, which is

24     1D55-0020.

25             MR. KEHOE:  And, Your Honour, this is a series of three photos.

Page 9792

 1        Q.   Now, looking at the first photo that you had, this is the

 2     photograph that you admitted into evidence, which is P947.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  If we could then go to the next paragraph.

 4        Q.   Sir, those are the photographs of the same buildings in the same

 5     area, obviously taken after these buildings have been refurbished, is it

 6     not?

 7        A.   That's what it looks like, yes.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  If we could go to the next photo.

 9        Q.   And this is an overhead of the street in the previous photograph,

10     which is in Grahovo, the street is actually Sarajevska Ilica,

11     S-a-r-a-j-e-v-s-k-a.

12             MR. KEHOE:  And just for reference purpose, Your Honour, this

13     photograph is taken from -- if we could go back one photograph, just to

14     reference ourselves.  This is taken from the direction of Livanjsko Polje

15     going into Grahovo.

16        Q.   So would you agree with me, Mr. Hendriks, that the photograph you

17     identified as being in Knin is a photograph of buildings that were -- or

18     are located in Grahovo?

19        A.   Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I take it on the condition that these are

21     photographs taken in Grahovo.

22             Mr. Hendriks, would you make a clear distinction between what you

23     know and what you are, even in this courtroom, told.  You have had

24     perhaps 30 seconds to look at all this, and then you confirm that this is

25     Knin but Grahovo.  Well, I can imagine that you say, "Well, it looks very

Page 9793

 1     much as if it is the same, and if I thought that the first photograph was

 2     taken in Knin, and if this photograph is not taken in Knin, so I must

 3     have been made a mistake."  That's all fine.

 4             But you now already have situated when have you been for the last

 5     time in Grahovo and have identified these buildings as being in Grahovo.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  In my first statement from

 7     1996, I attached a photograph; and then, in April 1996, I thought that

 8     the apartment buildings were Knin.  That's why I said that the photograph

 9     had been taken of apartment buildings in Knin.  It's possible, because

10     there was no caption under the photograph, that I made a mistake at that

11     time, because we didn't go to Grahovo that many times.

12             But if this building -- these buildings could be in Grahovo, but

13     exactly the same buildings could be in Knin, but I don't know.  So I

14     don't know whether that photograph was taken in Knin or in Grahovo.  But

15     in 1996, I thought that the photograph had been taken in Knin.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  There's no question about that.  Your testimony now

17     is that from what you see now, that you made a mistake at that time,

18     which, of course, is important for to us know.

19             At the same time, I did put this question to you in order to make

20     you aware that you apparently, as I take from your last answer, without

21     any factual knowledge, you just now locate these buildings in Grahovo

22     where they may well have been.  I was not able to check that on the basis

23     of Google Earth.  I see "photograph of Grahovo, 2008."  So, apparently,

24     someone writes on this photograph that it was taken in Grahovo.  But,

25     apparently, you have you no knowledge of that.

Page 9794

 1             What you do have is a strong impression that you perhaps have

 2     made a mistake, and whether this is a Grahovo building or whether it's

 3     any other place.  If you know, please tell us; if you don't know, please

 4     be more careful in answering to questions that you would agree with

 5     Mr. Kehoe that this is a building in Grahovo.

 6             Let's move on.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.  If I could move into evidence

 8     1D55-0020, the array of three photos.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  This issue seems to me -- I mean, of course, we

10     could do a lot.  It takes a bit to compare surroundings.  It is also

11     known that sometimes buildings are approximately the same, especially new

12     buildings.  It seems to me that this is an excellent opportunity to speak

13     with the Prosecution and see whether they agree, which avoids that the

14     Chamber starts analysing exactly on the basis of the photo material not

15     having any opportunity to go beyond that, and perhaps reach conclusions,

16     perhaps wrong conclusions, perhaps right conclusions; whereas, the

17     parties are in a better situation to compare all information they have

18     and to come to an agreement on whether the witness really made a mistake.

19             Perhaps could you agree on that.

20             MR. HEDARALY:  Certainly, Your Honour.  I mean, I haven't seen

21     these before yesterday, so I'm in the same position as you are.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not asking you at this moment to come to final

23     conclusions and to agree, but it appears to me that this is by accident

24     an opportunity to agree on a very factual issue.

25             MR. HEDARALY:  I'm more than happy to discuss the foundation of

Page 9795

 1     this picture with Mr. Kehoe and see if we can come to an agreement.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, please proceed.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, I don't know if you want to MFI this at

 4     the time or just take it into evidence, subject to --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  I think, Mr. Hedaraly, can we take it into

 6     evidence?

 7             MR. HEDARALY:  I think we can, but there's the foundation issue

 8     that you've raised.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Of course, if the witness says it is Grahovo

10     where has no knowledge of it, of course, we'll not give much weight to

11     Grahovo, nor to 2008, nor to anything else.

12             Mr. Registrar.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D822.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  D822 consists of three photographs and is admitted

15     into evidence.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. KEHOE:

18        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, just staying a bit with the shelling issue, I take

19     it that -- or were you involved with any of the UN military observers who

20     did an assessment of shelling of Knin and determined that the shelling

21     was concentrated on military objectives?  Were you involved in that or

22     did you become aware of that?

23        A.   I was not involved, but I did become aware of it.

24        Q.   And did you learn that the assessment of the UN military

25     observers was that the shelling of Knin was, in fact, concentrated on

Page 9796

 1     military targets -- or military objectives?

 2        A.   Not specifically.

 3        Q.   Well, generally, were you aware that that was their conclusion?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Were you, likewise, aware that the UNCIVPOL -- that UNCIVPOL did

 6     a similar analysis and came up with a similar result; that is, that the

 7     shelling was concentrated on military objectives?

 8        A.   No.  We did not learn anything like that from the UNCIVPOL.  We

 9     were in contact with the UN headquarters for Sector South, and that's

10     where the military analysis came from.

11        Q.   Let me shift gears with you just a moment, sir, and let me take

12     you to the period of time directly after Operation Storm.

13             And were you aware that right after Operation Storm, north of

14     Knin and north up through Strmica, there continued to be fighting between

15     the ARSK and HV troops?

16        A.   I don't remember whether that was known.

17        Q.   Well, maybe, were you aware at this point if any fighting was

18     taking place north of Strmica at all after Operation Storm?

19        A.   It is perfectly possible that that took place at the time, but I

20     don't know now whether I was aware of it at the time.

21        Q.   Now, if I can take you to exactly -- or ask you about some of the

22     events transpired directly after Storm.  Were you aware that on the

23     9th of August that General Gotovina issued an order for active defence in

24     the confrontation line between the Serbs and the HV?  Were you aware that

25     that took place on the 9th of August?

Page 9797

 1        A.   No.

 2        Q.   Let me turn your attention to P830, which is an ECMM report of

 3     10 August 1995.

 4             MR. KEHOE:  And if I could move to the second page, 3 f, towards

 5     the top of the page.

 6        Q.   This was read to you during your direct examination:  "Team Knin

 7     report the continuing restriction of movement.  In trying to get to

 8     Benkovac and Obrovac, they were told by the policija on the check-points

 9     they could only get to these places with written permission from General

10     Gotovina."

11             Do you recall, Mr. Hendriks, if there were HV troop movements

12     during this particular area when you and other members of the Team Knin

13     came to this check-point?

14        A.   No.

15        Q.   Were there troop movements coming from or resupplying, if I

16     may -- were there anybody resupplying from the coast up through this area

17     and up to the confrontation line?  Was that going on, if you know?

18        A.   No, I don't know anything about that.

19        Q.   So it would be fair to say, Mr. Hendriks, that at this particular

20     time, you didn't know anything about what the HV was doing concerning

21     troop movements, resupply, or somehow planning for the next operation.

22     Is that right?

23        A.   We didn't receive that information from General Cermak or CALO,

24     and those were our counterparts.  We were not told what the HV troops

25     were doing.  That was not really our business.

Page 9798

 1        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Let me shift, if I may.

 2             And I noted in your statement - and I'm talking about your 1998

 3     [sic] statement at paragraph 8 - that you reviewed reports before they

 4     were sent to Zagreb:  "And I have never seen anything in these reports

 5     that struck me as being inaccurate or inconsistent with my observations

 6     for that day."

 7             I'd like it turn your attention to P805, and if I could go to --

 8     and P805, just to orient you, sir, is a 7 August 1995 report by ECMM.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  If I can go to the second page of this report.

10        Q.   And on the 7th of August, ECMM reports in point b:  "In the Knin

11     area, it seems as if random looting and destruction of houses and

12     property is about to reach a degree where it will get even more difficult

13     to re-start normal life."

14             Comment:  "It is very unlikely that this is a deliberate policy

15     of the authorities."

16             Now, you agree with that, do you not, sir?

17        A.   I don't really understand the question.

18        Q.   Well, the comment, ECMM comment, let me just stay at the

19     beginning that you told us in direct and on also in your statement at

20     paragraph 8, you have never seen anything in these reports that struck me

21     as being inaccurate, and you noted on direct that you read these reports.

22             And the comment here is that it says it is very unlikely that

23     this, talking about looting and destruction of property, that this is a

24     deliberate policy of the authorities.

25             Now, you agree with that, don't you, sir, or this assessment made

Page 9799

 1     by ECMM on the 7th of August, 1995?

 2        A.   What I meant in my statement here about everything that I saw and

 3     read elsewhere, I was referring primarily to segments of text that were

 4     taken over from my own report or summarized.  So I didn't mean that I

 5     always agreed with entire RC reports because that was not my

 6     responsibility; but the sections gleaned from my own team report I was

 7     curious about them, I read them, and they conveyed the truth at that

 8     time.

 9        Q.   Now, this is -- this report is written by Mr. Bigland and

10     Mr. Liborius and on behalf of RC Knin.

11             Now, this accurately reflects the position of RC Knin on the

12     7th of August, does it not?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Now, Mr. Hendriks, I'm not saying that looting did not take

15     place, but, initially, some of the searches of -- let me withdraw that.

16             As a military man, you understand that some of the searches that

17     were taking place in the Knin area were, in fact, done for security

18     reasons, were they not?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Let us turn your attention to some of the reports that talk about

21     the civilians returning to Knin.

22             MR. KEHOE:  And what I'd like to do is if I could just, in the

23     spirit of moving more quickly, Your Honour, just go through a couple of

24     reports and then just ask a question from there.

25             If I can turn first to P352.

Page 9800

 1        Q.   This may not have been a document that you saw previously, but it

 2     is a Sector South situation report from 6th August 1995.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  If I could go one, two, three, five pages in, if I

 4     may, or maybe six pages, yeah, six pages in.

 5        Q.   Let's focus on paragraph F.  It reflects in the middle that:

 6     "More civilians, including cars with Split licence plates, are seen in

 7     Knin ..."

 8             MR. KEHOE:  If I can go to P806 which is an ECMM report of

 9     8 August 1995, and if I could go to second page, 4 a.

10        Q.   Last sentence:  "DPs, displaced persons, already returning to

11     their homes, as of the 8th of August."

12             MR. KEHOE:  P933, which will be the last report in this series,

13     which is a report to RC Knin of 9 August 1995 from November 2, Team N2.

14        Q.   The last paragraph on that general situation:  "It seems like

15     Knin, for the first time, is becoming a big tourist attraction.

16     Extensive traffic was recorded on the main road between Knin and Drnis."

17             MR. KEHOE:  If we can just turn to the next page.

18        Q.   In the middle there:  "We saw the same development in Drnis.  A

19     lot of civilians are in the city, and it seems that they are looking for

20     property that belonged to them ..."

21             Now, almost immediately after Operation Storm, Mr. Hendriks, the

22     civilian population began to come back to Knin and the outlying areas to

23     attempt to re-take their property.  Isn't that right?

24             MR. HEDARALY:  I think there's a vagueness to the question.  Are

25     we talking about the Croat civilians that came back that left in 1991 or

Page 9801

 1     during the war, or the Serbs that had left in August --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please be more precise in your question,

 3     Mr. Kehoe.

 4             MR. KEHOE:

 5        Q.   Well, Mr. Hendriks, were there a lot of Croat displaced people,

 6     who had been evicted from Knin between 1991 and 1995, were a lot of those

 7     Croats coming back to Knin and the outlying areas to attempt to take

 8     their property that previously belonged to them?

 9        A.   Well, I believe they were displaced persons.  You could tell that

10     from the licence plates on the cars.  But whether they were looking for

11     their own belongs or belongings of others, I can't say.

12        Q.   Well, if we look at this report, it notes that:  "A lot of

13     civilians are in the city, and it seems they are looking for property

14     that belonged to them previously."  What does that mean?

15        A.   That would, indeed, mean that they were looking for their own

16     home to check for their belongings.  That's what it says.

17        Q.   Now, this happened almost -- and the first report that we talked

18     about was the 6th of August.  This happened almost immediately after

19     Operation Storm, didn't it?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Now, let us take that issue of the civilians coming back into the

22     area with the situation report that my colleague, Mr. Kuzmanovic,

23     discussed with you, which was P35, the second page under "Military

24     assessment," where it is written that:  "It is assessed that the

25     swiftness of the success of Operation Storm ..." --

Page 9802

 1             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me.

 2                           [Defence counsel confer]

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me.  I'm sorry, P935.  My apologies.  P935.

 4     My apologies, Mr. Usher.  Could we go to the second page of that

 5     assessment.

 6        Q.   It notes, yes:  "It is assessed that the swiftness of the success

 7     of Operation Storm caught not only the HV by surprise but also the

 8     civilian authorities who were supposed to go in afterward and take over.

 9     Consequently, as the capital felt in 36 hours, instead of the expected

10     week, the military and police who were to next arrive did so late.  The

11     civilian authorities were also caught on the hop and have not been able

12     to bring their move forward at all."

13             MR. KEHOE:  One last report, which is P830, section 2 a.  This is

14     an ECMM report of 10 August 1995.  It notes that:  "The political

15     authorities of Knin have still not moved in.  There is no one to talk

16     to."

17        Q.   So, Mr. Hendriks, at this particular point, beginning on

18     6th August, there is a civilian population that is moving down into --

19     coming back into Sector South; the military and the civilian police have

20     gotten in late; and ECMM reports that as late as 10 August, there is

21     still no political authorities that have moved in and no one to talk to.

22             Is that an accurate assessment of the situation when we combine

23     those ideas?

24        A.   Yes, that's possible.  I have a different impression.  The

25     Croatian troops invaded the area and then are basically in command of the

Page 9803

 1     area, so they might put up all kinds of check-points and other obstacles

 2     to obstruct the civilian population.  Apparently, that didn't happen, but

 3     perhaps the civilian authorities were not prepared for the rapid

 4     conquest.

 5        Q.   And were you aware, Mr. Hendriks, that in -- on the 6th of

 6     August, 1995, the constitutional order of the Republic of Croatia was

 7     reinstituted in Knin and that civilian authorities took over on the

 8     6th of August?  Were you aware of that?

 9        A.   Not, specifically, but I assumed that that was the case.

10        Q.   In the early days after Operation Storm, sir, there was a serious

11     power vacuum in the Knin area, wasn't there?

12        A.   I can't answer that properly because we were quickly introduced

13     to General Cermak, the military commander on site, who represented

14     himself as being responsible for law and order throughout the area.

15        Q.   And I think you said in response to questions by -- by my

16     colleague, Mr. Cayley, that General Cermak was attempting to be helpful

17     to the ECMM and the UN, wasn't he?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   But prior to Operation Storm, in the area, some 12.000 Croat

20     homes had been destroyed, hadn't they?

21        A.   Do you mean in the war in 1991?

22        Q.   Between 1991 and 1995, were you aware that 12.000 homes had been

23     burned, Croat homes, prior to Operation Storm?

24        A.   I was aware that at the time there had been some damage; but

25     whether it was 12.000 homes, I couldn't tell you.

Page 9804

 1        Q.   I reference you to the testimony of Ive Kardum of last week at

 2     page 9420, line 17.  It says:  "As I already mentioned, there some 12.000

 3     Croat house, Croat houses that had been burned.

 4             You, as you sit here, you were unaware of that figure.  Is that

 5     correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Now, with the knowledge that you were unaware with that figure,

 8     when you were assessing the 60 to 70 per cent of houses destroyed as a

 9     result of Operation Storm -- and I'm referring to the report of -- that

10     was filed as P815.  That would be the first page, where it notes:  "It is

11     a rough estimate that between 60 and 80 per cent of the property in the

12     former UN Sector South have been fully or partially destroyed."

13             When that was reported, was that reported without the knowledge

14     that approximately 12.000 homes, Croat homes, had been burnt prior to

15     Operation Storm?

16        A.   I don't know.

17        Q.   Well, let me just discuss the report that Mr. Hedaraly addressed

18     to you, which is P920.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe --

20             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, P920.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

22             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  You earlier referred to line 9490, line 17, as far

24     as the -- that's at least what I read in the transcript.  I'm there

25     discussing with Mr. Mikulicic how much time he would need.

Page 9805

 1             MR. KEHOE:  I'm sorry, Judge, if I made a mistake.  It should

 2     have been 9420, 9420, line 17 and 18, if I misspoke on that score.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's where I am -- no, I think that is --

 4             MR. KEHOE:  9240.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps I misspoke.  9420, line 17, in my

 6     transcript, is a discussion with Mr. Mikulicic about how much time he

 7     needs.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  It is in the -- actually, it is interesting.  There

 9     is an number up here, if we can turn to 9498.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  9498.

11             MR. KEHOE:  I was referring to the number at the top, but it may

12     be 9498, line 17.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's the real source, yes.

14             MR. KEHOE:  I think the reference number at the top is when the

15     testimony actually begins, and I was reading that number as opposed to --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I found it.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. KEHOE:  And if I could bring up P938.

19        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, this is the document that Mr. Hedaraly showed to

20     you on direct examination; and on the -- I believe he directed your

21     attention to Polaca, P-o-l-a-c-a, which is about in section c, about one,

22     two, three, four, five, six, or seven down, where you noted that the

23     damage was by 1991 damage.

24             Do you see that, sir?

25        A.   Yes, I see that.

Page 9806

 1        Q.   Now, so do we take it from the rest of this report that the

 2     damage in all of the rest of these villages was as a result of post-Storm

 3     activities?

 4        A.   Yes, as a consequence of operations after Operation Storm.

 5        Q.   Let me bring up for you, if I may, D751, and turning to pages 2

 6     and 3 of that document.

 7             And this is the villages that are listed for that date for the

 8     22nd of August that Mr. Hedaraly referred you to, and with the

 9     clarifications that are set forth in the left.

10             And if we could just go to the next page of this document, I'd

11     like to just to talk to you a little bit about this.

12             Now, just looking at that, some of these villages -- and if we

13     look at the top, third from the left, Pridraga, which is Donja Viduka,

14     which is on your list and you note that it is totally destroyed, and the

15     1991 census reflects that it is almost entirely a Croat village.

16             Over to the lower right-hand corner, we have Lisicic, which is

17     not an entirely a Croat village, but virtually all Croat.  That is

18     totally destroyed.

19             If we just go up to the right just a little bit more, in

20     Medjvida, the report reflects that is totally destroyed, and that is a

21     mixed village with more than half being Croat.

22             Staying with this document, if we can go to Zupane in your list,

23     you say it is partially destroyed.  That is on the left-hand side.  And a

24     partially destruction reflects it is mostly a Serb village.

25             Rodaljice -- excuse me, I'm sorry.  It is Kolarna, which is in

Page 9807

 1     the area of Rodaljice, which is another Croat village that is partially

 2     destroyed.

 3             Now, just staying with this, sir, based on your assessment, what

 4     were villages that were mainly Croat villages prior to Operation Storm,

 5     your reports reflect were destroyed after Operation Storm.  Is that

 6     accurate?

 7        A.   No, I didn't get that.  I don't understand the question properly.

 8        Q.   Let me just take these one by one, and maybe I moved too quickly.

 9             Look at the top, we have Pridraga, which is in the top left-hand

10     corner, and then in parenthesis is "Donja Viduka."  We have according to

11     the 1991 census 1.770 Croats, two Serbs, and seven others.  So the 1991

12     census reflects that this is a Croat village.

13             Your assessment, in your report that we have reflected in this

14     map, is that this village was totally destroyed and there's no indication

15     that it was destroyed prior to Operation Storm.

16             So is it your position, Mr. Hendriks, that the Croats, after

17     Operation Storm, were destroying villages that were almost entirely Croat

18     prior to -- well, per the census of 1991?

19        A.   No.  My perception was that villages were destroyed primarily

20     where Serbs were in the majority, but there were also houses burned that

21     belonged to Serbs.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hendriks, let me try to see whether I can get

23     you on the track of Mr. Kehoe.

24             Mr. Kehoe is drawing your attention to the following:  In the

25     survey of the damage to villages, you have indicated, at least once for

Page 9808

 1     Polace, that this was damage pre-Operation Storm.  Yes?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  As far as, for example, Pridraga is concerned, the

 4     report does not indicate that it is pre-Operation Storm damage and

 5     describes the village as totally destroyed.

 6             Mr. Kehoe puts to you that the population of Pridraga, on the

 7     basis of the 1991 census, was by a very vast majority Croat.  He now

 8     wonders whether the damage, which appears in your report, total

 9     destruction, is Operation Storm damage, which would mean that the Croats

10     would destroy a village which was by the vast majority Croat, in 1991,

11     during Operation Storm; that is to say, that they were destroying their

12     own villages.

13             That, Mr. Kehoe, if I well understood you, is the issue you

14     wanted to raise with Mr. Hendriks.

15             Mr. Hendriks, could you comment on this line of reasoning as a

16     product of your report at that time and the added information of the 1991

17     census.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It seems unlikely to me that during

19     Operation Storm, the Croats would completely destroy a village that,

20     prior to 1991, was overwhelming Croat.  Perhaps the survey was

21     incomplete, but I can't say that now.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Incomplete in what respect?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That perhaps it should have

24     indicated that the village had already been destroyed prior to 1991, but

25     I couldn't tell that you now.

Page 9809

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

 2             MR. KEHOE:

 3        Q.   Well, sir, let me just take this one step further, and if we can

 4     look at the two villages that you have toward the top.  One is Zapuzane

 5     which you have undamaged; and Komazeci in the Komazeci valley, which is

 6     also untouched.  If with go to the map, Zapuzane is on the left-hand

 7     side, midway down:  "Nine Croats and 532 Serbs."

 8             So we could say that is virtually an entire Serb village.

 9             And if we go to the other side of the map and we go to Komazice,

10     that is, by the 1991 census, an entirely Serb village.  Your report

11     reflects that both of those entirely Serb villages were not damaged.

12             Do you see that, sir?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   So if, in fact, ECMM was of the belief, as they say in 815, P815,

15     that the destruction of these Serb homes was -- or destruction of the --

16     withdraw that -- that the burning that was going on was organised in some

17     fashion, why do we find Croat villages that are totally destroyed, while

18     in the same patrol that you took on the 22nd of August, you have Serb

19     villages which are virtually intact?

20             Do you have any explanation for that?

21        A.   I don't have any explanation for that.

22        Q.   Now, the damage that you are looking at and that you observed,

23     that was coming at a time when the Republic of Croatia had a serious

24     problem housing displaced people who were down on the coast or were in

25     other locations, weren't they?

Page 9810

 1        A.   It is possible.

 2        Q.   Well, possible.  If it is possible, let's just talk about it.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Let's go to P935.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, can we concentrate on what the witness

 5     knows.  I don't know whether -- he says this is possible.  Of course, if

 6     you give him further information, he might say it is likely or the

 7     document says so.  That, of course, is not the kind of testimony we are

 8     seeking at this moment.

 9             But please proceed, and keep this in back of your mind.

10             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Maybe it is easier, Judge, if I go through again a

12     series of ECMM reports.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, I don't know if you want to take a break

14     now.  I can probably shorten this up and finish relatively quickly when

15     we come back.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Perhaps that could be a good idea, but I'd

17     like to put one or two additional questions before we do so, which are

18     the following.

19             I have looked, Mr. Hendriks, at these photographs, not only 30

20     seconds but a bit more, and I looked at your statement.  Let me say it

21     cautious at this moment, there is a likelihood on the basis of the

22     Google Earth map where it's indicated that the other picture would have

23     been taken in Grahovo.

24             From the Google Earth, I take it Bosansko Grahovo?

25             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

Page 9811

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2             Now, you said you have taken this picture approximately 12th of

 3     August.  Now, could you tell us when you last visited Grahovo,

 4     Bosansko Grahovo?  Did you go there after Operation Storm?  Did you go

 5     there prior to Operation Storm?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were in Grahovo before Operation

 7     Storm, and I believe afterwards, again.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hendriks, when you went there before Operation

 9     Storm, was there already considerable damage to that town?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  When you went there after Operation Storm, was that

12     town substantially damaged?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that either.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'm asking this because you're producing a

15     photograph with, well, substantial damage to the buildings shown there,

16     and that there's a likelihood that this is a photograph taken from an

17     apartment building in Bosansko Grahovo.

18             Now, I'm trying to understand where, what, went wrong?  Is there

19     is possibility, yes?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not that something's going

21     wrong.  It's --  the issue is my memory.  In April 1996, I assumed that

22     the photograph had been taken in Knin.  Perhaps it turns out know that

23     the buildings were in Grahovo.  Then apparently, on 12 August, I was in

24     Grahovo, but I don't remember anymore.  That was 13 years ago.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  You say on the 12th of August.  Your statement says

Page 9812

 1     it was on or around.  Apparently, now you have a piece of information

 2     which focuses you exactly on the 12th of August, or is it?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, because my first statement

 4     reads dated approximately, so about 12 August.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what I described on 23rd of

 7     April, 1996.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  But you're now saying:  "Then apparently on the 12th

 9     of August, I was in Grahovo."  Is this just a deduction from what you see

10     on the photograph because you say, "I took it; I must have been there."

11             Is that what you're telling me?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If those buildings are, indeed, in

13     Grahovo.  But the same type of buildings may have been in Knin.  But if

14     they were not in Knin, if that's concern, then this photograph was taken

15     in Grahovo, or it could have been a different city.  I can't explain

16     that, but we were in Grahovo.

17             So, presumably, we were in Grahovo around the 12th, and I took

18     this photograph or my colleague, Stig Marker-Hansen, did.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Hedaraly.

20             MR. HEDARALY:  I may have some information that helps the

21     Chamber.  I don't want if you want to address it while the witness is

22     present or not.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we will ask the witness to already take his

24     break, and then you can address me.

25             Could I ask Madam Usher to escort the witness out of the

Page 9813

 1     courtroom.

 2             We'll have a break of some 20 minute, approximately,

 3     Mr. Hendriks.

 4                           [The witness withdrew]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

 6             MR. HEDARALY:  There is a report, Your Honour, that was addressed

 7     in direct examination.  It is a P934, which is an 11 August daily report.

 8     And on the second page, there's a reference to the damage in Grahovo.

 9     It's listed there in the report as damage from shelling, and I raised it

10     with the witness because the church was undamaged.  So that would seem to

11     indicate that the witness was in Grahovo on the 11th of August.

12             I don't know if that assists.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Where the witness earlier refers to the 12th,

14     he earlier appeared not to be certain about whether it was the 12th or

15     not.  That could explain it.

16             Of course, I'm asking this because, of course, I have great

17     concerns in that, if there are made such mistakes, could it be a

18     photograph taken by someone else who has kept the negatives, because I

19     think it was not all electronic photographing yet.  So it's a matter of

20     exploring what seems to be mistakes and to try to understand what

21     happened in order to be better able to assess where we should be

22     extremely cautious in material that is produced.

23             Have you ever asked the witness whether he still has the negative

24     available to him?

25             MR. HEDARALY:  I have not, Your Honour, because he said it was in

Page 9814

 1     Knin, and I --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You had no reason at that time to doubt that.

 3     I think, after the break, one of the things we could do is to ask him

 4     whether he has still kept the negatives, because if that is the case,

 5     then it might further assist you in coming to agreement.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  If the new photographs are taken in Grahovo - and of

 8     course, I have no reason at this moment to have any doubt about that -

 9     then it really seems that the other photograph is taken in Grahovo as

10     well, and all kind of other details, which is, of course, of some

11     concerns.  Not that the photograph was taken, but that it is presented as

12     Knin damage.

13             We will have a break and resume at 1.00, and we would like to

14     finish with the witness today.

15             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

16                           --- Recess taken at 12.39 p.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 1.03 p.m.

18                           [The witness entered court]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hendriks, a few more questions on the photograph

20     of the damaged building.

21             Do you still have the negatives?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you know where they are?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps Stig Marker-Hansen has

25     them.

Page 9815

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  This one photograph, was it by chance that you had

 2     kept it, or do you have a whole series?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have several photographs.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Have you shown all of them to the investigators or

 5     the members of the Office of the Prosecution?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  You've just shown this one.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Well, the five that were

 9     attached to the first statement.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Would you be willing to make available the

11     other photographs you still have?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't know whether the parties have any interest

14     in looking at other photographs.  Then, of course, if that's the case, we

15     would invite the witness to tell us when they were taken, and perhaps

16     even more important, where they were taken.

17             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  If there's any need for that, then we know at least

19     that there's a source of information.  How relevant, I have got no idea.

20     But if the parties want to explore it, it is there.

21             Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

22             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

23        Q.   Mr. Hendriks, before we move off the -- the chart that's on the

24     screen, and also looking at your list of villages that is in P938, given

25     your answer previously, sir, it's accurate to say that you cannot tell

Page 9816

 1     whether the damage you observed on the 22nd of August, 1995, happened

 2     before Storm or after Storm.  Isn't that right?

 3        A.   I can't say for certain.  But what we were looking for at the

 4     time, of course, we were looking for recently damaged and burned houses.

 5     So if the report read damaged, without stating that we could that he will

 6     it was from 1991, then it had been burned recently.

 7        Q.   So staying with the village that we talked about previously,

 8     which virtually an entirely Croat village, Pridraga, which is Donja

 9     Viduka at the top of the page, which had 1.770 Croats, and you say that's

10     totally destroyed, you don't know, as you sit here, whether that was

11     destroyed before Storm or after Storm, do you?

12        A.   No, I don't know that.

13        Q.   Now, just a last subject here, sir.  You noted for us, in

14     response to the questions by my colleague, Mr. Kuzmanovic, and this is at

15     line -- excuse me, page 33 today, line 12:

16             "From what you saw and you observed during the course of time in

17     Sector South, it is true, is it not, that the civilian authorities, based

18     upon what was going on in Sector South, were not prepared to deal with

19     the problems they were facing, specifically looting and burning.

20     Correct?"

21             Your answer is:  "I suspect that is correct."

22             Now, if we could just briefly, quickly go through a series of

23     ECMM reports, and I'd just like to ask you a question or two from them.

24             MR. KEHOE:  Now, going to first P935.  This is an ECMM report of

25     the 13th of August, and if we can go to the page three of this document

Page 9817

 1     at the bottom of the page, "Humanitarian assessment."

 2        Q.   The second -- bottom of that page, just before it ends at

 3     paragraph:  "DPs," displaced people, "from hotels, caravan sites along

 4     the coast, and refugees from Western Europe, have been seeping back to

 5     visit their original homes, (some to stay).  Representative of Split

 6     Zupanja, DPs association estimates 100.000 DPs will return to free

 7     territories?"

 8             MR. KEHOE:  If we could go to P511, this is an ECMM report of

 9     18 August, and if we could go to the second page, "The Economic

10     infrastructure."

11        Q.   Towards the bottom of that page:  "Today the rain and the sheer

12     lack of unburned houses meant that few fires were observed.  And the lack

13     of unburned houses meant that few fires were observed.  The fields are

14     still left with nobody working in them.  How the Croatians will harvest

15     the crops is not yet known.  It seems to become a large problem, or will

16     they just rotten in the fields?  Will the DP become forced labour in the

17     fields?"

18             MR. KEHOE:  Next, just to 20 August 1995, which is P937, another

19     ECMM report, and if we can go to the last page, which is under

20     "Humanitarian assessment," 3 d.

21        Q.   "DPs and refugees from Croatia and Europe are filtering back into

22     the area; however, no infrastructure and destroyed houses make immediate

23     habitation possible."

24             MR. KEHOE:  P812, 23 August 1995, under the political station.

25     If we can just scroll down just a bit, under:  "The plan..."

Page 9818

 1        Q.    "The plan for B," being Benkovac, "is to serve as accommodation

 2     to DPs coming from the tourist areas.  These will be accommodated in

 3     tents, if necessary."

 4             MR. KEHOE:  Let us turn to P3 -- 953, which is the last document.

 5     This is 9 October 1995, and if we can go to the economic matters on the

 6     second page.

 7        Q.   This is a discussion between the Team Knin:  "Meet the manager of

 8     the screw factory Tvik in Knin," and there's a discussion, you can read

 9     it, about ECMM assisting at Tvik factory.

10             Towards the bottom of that paragraph, it notes:  "Team comment,

11     TC:  'Housing problem is paramount.  Nobody will come to work without

12     this problem solved.'"

13             Now, sir, my question, based on those reports, is that ECMM saw

14     that this burning was causing a tremendous problem for the Republic of

15     Croatia because it was preventing displaced people from coming back into

16     the area.  Isn't that right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   So you would agree with me that while this burning was going on,

19     it did not serve the interests of Croatia -- of the Republic of Croatia

20     because it prevented these displaced people from coming back to their

21     homes or inhabiting other homes.  Isn't that right?

22        A.   Houses that had been set on fire could obviously not be occupied

23     by displaced persons; but in the cities, a lot of houses had not been set

24     on fire, and then the question was simply which house do we allocate to

25     whom?  So there was a housing problem.  On the one hand, there were some

Page 9819

 1     houses available to put people in, but it had to be authorised; but

 2     houses that had been set on fire, that was a problem because you can't

 3     occupy those for the time being.

 4        Q.   Well, we saw, based on the P953 that we have on the screen, that

 5     there wasn't enough housing in Knin for the workers to work at the Tvik

 6     factory.  Is that right?

 7        A.   Not one on one.  So there were homes, but people would move into

 8     those who were not entitled to move into them, so it was rather

 9     disordered.  There was no organised procedure for who was to allow live

10     where; and as long as it was so disorganised, fewer people came to Knin

11     to join in that mess.

12        Q.   It was chaotic, wasn't it, sir?

13        A.   Yes.  That housing problem was chaotic.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ... make is that -

15     and, of course, this is not the first time that the matter is raised -

16     that burning houses would prevent them for being used for those who were

17     in need of houses, then the point is made, that this may have been in the

18     interest -- not burning, in this respect, would not have served the

19     interests of Croatia at that point is perfectly clear.

20             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

22             MR. KEHOE:

23        Q.   My last couple of questions for you, Mr. Hendriks, has to do with

24     your report, which is P951, which is your report concerning churches.

25             MR. KEHOE:  P951.

Page 9820

 1        Q.   Now, in that church -- that list of churches, I don't see Knin.

 2     Do you know what happened to the Catholic church in Knin?  This is prior

 3     to Operation Storm.  Do you know what happened to the Catholic church in

 4     operation -- in Knin, prior to Operation Storm?

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   The fact is that most of the churches that were preserved

 7     throughout Sector South were Orthodox churches, weren't they?

 8        A.   I can't assert that.

 9        Q.   Well, let us look at P --  the last of the documents, P934.

10             MR. KEHOE:  And if we could go to -- this is an ECMM report of

11     11 August 1995, and if we could go to the third page, which is 3 G.

12        Q.   At the bottom, Team Knin, 3 g:  "Team Knin reports the churches

13     in Polace and Vrlika, Orthodox, undamaged; but the Catholic church in

14     Vrlika recently destroyed and with Serb graffiti on the wall."

15             Comment:  "Team had interviewed Serb refugees in the camp who

16     were from that area, and they said that the church was untouched when

17     they had left after shelling had started.  They believed that the damage

18     may have been done by the HV in order to put the blame on Serbs.  This

19     seems fairly sensible as it is unlikely that people fleeing for their

20     lives would stop to write nasty messages on the wall."

21             Mr. Hendriks, this was your team.  Was it seriously the position

22     of the team that the HV destroyed their own Catholic church in Vrlika?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   Thank you, sir.

25             MR. KEHOE:  I have no further questions question, Your Honour.

Page 9821

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.

 2             Mr. Hedaraly, is there any need for re-examination?

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  Briefly, Your Honour.

 4             If I can have D820 on the screen, please.

 5                           Re-examination by Mr. Hedaraly:

 6        Q.   And, Mr. Hendriks, this is your 1996 statement, a statement about

 7     which you were asked a few questions, and I want to clarify a matter in

 8     there.  I don't have if have you a hard copy if front of you, but I would

 9     like to go to the third page of that document, page 2 of the statement

10     itself.

11             MR. HEDARALY:  And if we can focus on the top part.

12        Q.   Now, you were asked questions about item 3, where it says:  "From

13     my interpreter, I learned that in the afternoon of the 4th, after a whole

14     day of broadcasting music, a recorded tape of Martic was broadcasted with

15     a statement that there is no reason to panic because the defence

16     positions are stable."

17             Now, I want to move to item 4 which is in the next paragraph.  It

18     says:  "Most of the RSK defence forces pulled out after the

19     recommendation of the Krajina authorities by radio Knin to the population

20     to flee asap in order to assist the families to escape Krajina."

21             Now, it seems to me, and I am asking you, were there two messages

22     that you were told were broadcast on the radio, the first one saying that

23     defence position was stable, and second one saying that the population

24     should leave?

25        A.   I don't know whether there were two separate broadcasts.

Page 9822

 1        Q.   When you read item 3 and 4 in your statement, you wrote that.  So

 2     reading it again, does it seem like you're talking about the same message

 3     or about two different messages?

 4        A.   Then it appears to be about the same message.

 5        Q.   So, in the same message, in 3, it says that the defence positions

 6     are stable.  It also says that the people should leave.

 7        A.   Let me read over paragraph 3 again first.  Just a moment, please.

 8        Q.   Yes, take your time.

 9        A.   Well, in paragraph 3, it reads that a radio broadcast had been

10     inserted, and the friend of my interpreter who was in the army heard

11     something and talked about that, and refugees in the camp reported things

12     as well.  So this account is basically based on three sources.

13        Q.   And that's an account of number 3 in your statement?

14        A.   Numbers 3 and 4.

15        Q.   Okay.  If we can go to your 2008 statement now, I want to direct

16     to paragraph 18.

17             MR. HEDARALY:  P931.  I'm just going to wait until everyone has

18     it on their screen.

19        Q.   And this is when you describe the state of the town on the 7th of

20     August when you leave the UN compound, and you say:  "I saw a lot of

21     personal goods, such add clothing, furniture, and so on, thrown out of

22     the houses and buildings in the yards.  My own house was looted, and my

23     watch, radio player, cassette recorder, and other items were missing when

24     I returned home."

25             Now, Mr. Kehoe asked you, at page 56 of the transcript:  "As a

Page 9823

 1     military man, you understand that some of the searches that were taking

 2     place in the Knin area were, in fact, done for security reasons, were

 3     they not?"

 4             And you said:  "Yes."

 5             And my question for you is:  What you saw in town on the 7th,

 6     with all these goods in the street, did that seem consistent to you with

 7     security searches?

 8        A.   No.

 9             MR. HEDARALY:  I have no more questions, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I may have a few questions, but I'm first seeking

13     information from Mr. Kehoe.

14             You asked the witness during his ride he saw --

15             MR. KEHOE:  Casualties.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  -- casualties, yes.  You referred to D820, last

17     paragraph.

18             MR. KEHOE:  Page 2.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Page 2, yes.  That is missing then.

20             MR. KEHOE:  If you go down a paragraph, Your Honour --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  If I have page 2, and then --

22             MR. KEHOE:  It's, actually, page 3 of the document, page 2 of the

23     statement.  They're page natured differently.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let me first read it.

25             MR. KEHOE:  Midway through.

Page 9824

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  One short question on that.

 2                           Questioned by the Court:

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  You were asked about casualties.  You said, "I

 4     didn't see any injured people."

 5             May I take this to include that you didn't see any dead persons?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  That is also in view of this paragraph in your

 8     statement.

 9             Could we have P952 on the screen.

10             If the parties could assist me, on what page I find the

11     question -- let me just see.  Could the parties assist me.  There was a

12     question put in relation to the persons who will be hesitant to take --

13     to occupy the houses that was left by Serbs.

14             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Section 5 on page 2, Your Honour, in the middle

15     of that, section a.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could we enlarge that portion.

17             It is the portion about the 453 flats, Mr. Hendriks.

18             At the end of this subparagraph, I find the words, "Slobodna

19     Dalmacija."  I would like to know what that means for the reporting.  I

20     know that Slobodna Dalmacija is a newspaper.  Now, what does it mean,

21     that the name of this newspaper appears under this paragraph 5 a?

22        A.   I think that the entire paragraph 5 a is a translation of what

23     was published in that newspaper on that date.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.

25             Some questions were put to you in relation to redistribution of

Page 9825

 1     livestock.

 2             Did you observe livestock which was dead and apparently not had

 3     died to the extent you could see that from natural causes?

 4        A.   Yes, one pig.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for those answers.

 6             Is there any need to put further questions to the witness.

 7             Mr. Kehoe.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  No, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley, Mr. Kuzmanovic?

10             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  No, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hendriks, this concludes your testimony in this

12     court.

13             [Interpretation] Thank you very much for coming and for answering

14     all questions from parties and from the Judges.

15             Ordinarily, I add that I particularly appreciate somebody having

16     come from so far away, but that would not be entirely appropriate.

17     Nonetheless, I wish you a safe trip home.

18             Thank you very much.

19             [In English] Madam Usher, would you please escort Mr. Hendriks

20     out of the courtroom.

21                           [The witness stands down]

22             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour, There is one housekeeping matter.

23             I had tendered 65 ter 2821 from the bar table, but our colleagues

24     from the Cermak Defence kindly informed us that another version of that

25     document was already into evidence under P258.  So I will withdraw the

Page 9826

 1     request to tender 2821, and just so the record knows that P259, my

 2     apologies, is the right exhibit.

 3             Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Therefore, was a number already provisionally

 5     assigned to it, Mr. Registrar?

 6             MR. HEDARALY:  It was not, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  It was not.  Then we don't have to take any action.

 8     The withdrawal is on the record.

 9             Are there any other procedural matters because I do understand

10     there is no witness available for the next 11 minutes.

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

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Any other procedural issue to be raised?  If not,

13     then we'll adjourn.  We will adjourn until Wednesday, the 1st of October,

14     9.00 in the morning, in Courtroom --

15             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, just one issue.  I note that it's a

16     subject near and dear to your heart, but it has to do with the excerpts

17     of the Sekulic book.  I don't know if you want me to put it on the record

18     exactly what the parameters of that was, or if you want me to do it some

19     other way.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  If I may, I was just about to say in which courtroom

21     we would resume, but since I have not done that yet, the adjournment is

22     not complete.

23             You have greed with the Prosecution about the context pages?

24             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  We would then have in evidence what pages you are

Page 9827

 1     tendering?

 2             MR. KEHOE:  This is 1D01-0005, which is D777; and 1D01-0001 is

 3     D813.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, you will understand that is now entirely

 5     clear to me what is in evidence and what is not in evidence.

 6             Mr. Hedaraly, I take it that you'll check on what is uploaded,

 7     whether no mistakes were made, because that's the worst I could think of.

 8     Then, of course, the Chamber will know exactly which portions of the book

 9     are now tendered, and I think we admitted the portion you focussed on but

10     we wanted to get rid of a lot of extra pages, which you were not

11     focussing on.

12             Which means, that I give it another chance, that we resume on

13     Wednesday, the 1st of October, 9.00, Courtroom II.

14                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.36 p.m.,

15                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 1st day of

16                           October, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.