Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 9913

 1                           Monday, 6 October 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon to everyone.

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

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon 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. Margetts, is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness.

12             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.  We're ready to call Witness

13     Number 76.

14             Mr. President, there is one matter that arises with this witness

15     and that is that we are not certain as to whether this witness has any

16     concerns as to his security because we haven't had the opportunity to

17     speak with him.  Our recommendation may be or our suggestion may be that

18     he be called into the court and we possibly start in private session.

19     And we inquire with him as to whether there are any objective bases for

20     any security concerns.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it that there is no objection from the

22     Defence teams to such an approach?

23             Then we turn into closed session.

24                           [Closed session]

25   (redacted)

Page 9914











11  Page 9914 redacted. Closed session.















Page 9915

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3                           [Open session]

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

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 6             Mr. Buhin, may I invite you to stand.  Mr. Buhin, before you give

 7     evidence in this court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you

 8     to make a solemn declaration, that you will speak the truth, the whole

 9     truth and nothing but the truth.

10             The text is now handed out to you by Mr. Usher.  May I invite to

11     you make that solemn declaration.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

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

14                           WITNESS:  STJEPAN BUHIN

15                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Buhin.  Please be seated.

17             Mr. Buhin, you will be first examined by Mr. Margetts.

18     Mr. Margetts is counsel for the Prosecution.

19             Mr. Margetts, please proceed.

20             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

21                           Examination by Mr. Margetts:

22        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Buhin.

23             Mr. Buhin, do you recall that on the 15th and 16th of

24     September in 2001, and again on the 9th of March, 2002, you met with

25     representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor?

Page 9916

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And do you recall that at the --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts, it is a good tradition that we first

 4     have the name and date of birth on the record.

 5             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.

 6        Q.   Mr. Buhin, apologies, I neglected just one matter and that is you

 7     could you please state your full name and date of birth for the record.

 8        A.   My name is Stjepan Buhin.  I was born on July 1st, 1953.

 9        Q.   Yes, Mr. Buhin, I referred to meetings that you had with the

10     Office of the Prosecutor.  Do you recall that at the conclusion of those

11     meetings that you gave a statement to the Office of the Prosecutor?

12        A.   Yes, I recall that.

13             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, if I could please have 65 ter 5491

14     brought up on the screen.  That is a statement of Mr. Buhin.  Mr. Buhin

15     has not had the advantage of seeing this statement in recent days.  So if

16     I could, if the court usher could please provide Mr. Buhin with a copy of

17     the statement in Croatian.

18             And, Mr. President, you will note that the original statement is

19     in Croatian, and we have a translation of that statement.

20        Q.   Mr. Buhin, if you could look at the document before you.  And are

21     you able to confirm, looking at that document there, that that is the

22     statement that you gave to the Office of the Prosecutor?

23        A.   Yes.  My signature is on each page.

24        Q.   Mr. Buhin, it's a statement of approximately 6 pages and,

25     Mr. President, it may be a convenient time for Mr. Buhin to review that

Page 9917

 1     statement, since he has not had the opportunity to do so prior to this

 2     time.

 3             So Mr. Buhin, would you be able to read through that statement,

 4     please, and just read it carefully and then indicated to us whether it

 5     accurately reflects the statement that you made in March 2002.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts, that might take some time, isn't it,

 7     to read a six-page document.

 8             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we first inquire into the -- the signatures

10     and what was -- whether he read it at that time or whether it was read to

11     him.

12             Mr. Buhin, when you gave this statement, have you read the -- the

13     version which is in front of you, the Croatian version of this statement?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was a minor problem with

15     this.  My first interview, which was in September 2001, was conducted via

16     an interpreter, and it was written down in English.  Once the interview

17     was over, I did not want to sign this because I didn't know what was

18     written down and I can't speak any English.

19             The second interview followed in 2002, in March, a similar

20     procedure occurred.  The interview was conducted through an interpreter

21     and the statement was written down in English, and the room we had the

22     interview in was really, really cold, so the interpreter, the woman who

23     wrote down the statement, it was -- for her it was the first time to use

24     this type of computer, so she made a lot of mistakes and this interview

25     took quite a while.  Once the statement was drafted, the investigators

Page 9918

 1     left us -- the two of us, there so that she could translate this back

 2     into Croatian and this took a while, and we were both freezing.  Her

 3     fingers were totally stiff it was so cold.  Once she finished the

 4     statement she read it back to me, and I signed this version, because I

 5     really was out of patience.  I was also sorry for her, because it was so

 6     cold, so that once she read this back to me, I just signed it, and I

 7     believed it was all right, although I did not read it myself.  And now I

 8     can see that there is only one statement, which would mean that this is

 9     one single statement from those two interviews, because I don't see two

10     statements.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that appears to be the case.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts, I suggest that we give the witness

14     time to read the statement, not necessarily all of us here waiting for

15     him.  He might feel under pressure.

16             Mr. Buhin, could you tell us, how much time would you

17     approximately need to read the six pages?  Would 20 minutes do or ...

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then upon your return, upon our return, we

20     would ask you whether this statement accurately reflects what you said at

21     the time, whether that was in September or March is not of vital

22     importance, I would say, so we'd like to know whether this reflects what

23     you said at that time, and also whether it is accurate and in accordance

24     with the truth, and we'll then also ask you whether you would give the

25     same answers if the same questions were to be put to you today.

Page 9919

 1             I think this is not a good environment to quietly read the

 2     statement.  We'll adjourn -- we'll have a pause until 3.00, so that you

 3     have a little bit over 25 minutes to read it, and afterwards please

 4     inform me, inform us whether -- what your answer is to the question is I

 5     just told you will be put to you.

 6             We'll have a break, and we'll resume at 3.00.

 7                            --- Break taken at 2.33 p.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 3.00 p.m.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Buhin, did you manage to review the statement?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Are there -- first question, as I said before, does

12     the statement accurately reflect what you said at the time?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe so.  It has been quite a

14     while.  There are some minor things that I noticed.  I'm not sure if I

15     actually said these things at the time, but maybe I would phrase them a

16     little differently now.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I suggest, there are a few - do I understand

18     you well - a few matters which you'd like to raise.  Then I will leave it

19     to Mr. Margetts, if you tell Mr. Margetts where they can be found, then

20     Mr. Margetts will further guide you through the document.

21             Mr. Margetts.

22             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

23        Q.   Mr. Buhin, if you could take us to the first paragraph where you

24     indicated something may be phrased in a slightly different manner,

25     indicate to the Court the correction that you'd like to make.

Page 9920

 1             Which page does that arise on?

 2        A.   Page 3.

 3        Q.   Okay.

 4             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar --

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 4.

 6             MR. MARGETTS:

 7        Q.   And, Mr. Buhin, if you could please give us the first few words

 8     of that paragraph so that we can locate it.

 9        A.   When I spoke with Josko Moric and Djurica Franjo they told me

10     that my position would be above the police chief, in terms of rank.

11        Q.   Okay.

12             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, will you see, and Mr. Registrar

13     that is on page 3 of the English.  And it's about the middle paragraph on

14     page 3.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16             MR. MARGETTS:

17        Q.   Yes.  Mr. Buhin, if you could continue.  And how would you

18     rephrase any of the sentences in that paragraph?

19        A.   At the time I talked to the investigators, we probably didn't pay

20     that much attention to these details.  Therefore, this is -- a very

21     simple explanation of what it means to be above the police chiefs in

22     terms of rank.  The role of the coordinators, and that's what we were,

23     was advisory.  We were high-ranking in the sense of providing advice,

24     providing assistance as to how they would set up their administration and

25     how they would organise their work.  But the final executive decision was

Page 9921

 1     in the hands of those newly appointed chiefs, if there were differences

 2     of opinions in certain matters that always had to be dealt with at the

 3     level of the ministry.  We didn't have the authority to take the final

 4     decision.  That's one thing.  And then three paragraphs down, Knin was a

 5     police administration in charge of the liberated territory in its

 6     entirety.  And then it goes on to say both Baric and I were positioned

 7     higher up than Romanic, but this is not explained and that's the problem,

 8     and that's what I said.  A higher position, yes, because we were from the

 9     ministry.  But this was only in terms of instructions, in terms of

10     coordination.  The newly appointed chiefs were the ones who had final

11     say.

12        Q.   Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Buhin.  I think that matter is clear.

13             Are there any other paragraphs that would like to take us to?

14        A.   Yes.  Towards the bottom of page 3.  When a case was reported

15     that involved persons in army uniforms, we would report that to the

16     criminal police and General Cermak would also find about that at daily

17     meetings.

18        Q.   Yes.  Mr. Buhin -- Mr. President?

19             JUDGE ORIE:  We've found it, yes.

20             MR. MARGETTS:  Page 4.

21             MR. KAY:  Page 4.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, page 4 the second paragraph in English.

23             MR. MARGETTS:

24        Q.   Yes, Mr. Buhin.  And the further matters you'd like to address in

25     relation to that.

Page 9922

 1        A.   This is something that will then be taken up by the military

 2     police, but as it continues, you can see that the military police would

 3     be informed so -- I apologise, actually, this is fine.

 4             Page 5, paragraph 2 up towards the top of the page.  The civilian

 5     police were not allowed to check military vehicles or anyone in military

 6     uniform.

 7             These were instructions from the MUP or an order from the MUP.

 8     They were killings and looting committed by people in military uniforms,

 9     but our hands were tied.

10             I don't know how this was interpreted at the time.  This bit

11     about our hands being tied.  The uniformed police, we provided

12     instructions for their work and guidance but they did their work, and

13     that was that.  Therefore, I don't know how this wording came about, in

14     terms of the hands of the police being tied.  The police did their work

15     and did it just fine.  Maybe not exactly in the way we would have liked

16     to, but that is what the circumstances were.  We were certainly trying to

17     do our best to the extent it was possible at the time and be as

18     professional as we could.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Buhin, this is not perfectly clear to me.  The

20     first line, the first sentence you say you were not allowed to check

21     military vehicles or people in military uniform.  That was an instruction

22     or an order from the MUP and this line you were referring to says:

23     "There were killings and looting committed by people in military uniforms

24     but our hands were tied."

25             Now, could you check or proceed against persons in military

Page 9923

 1     uniform that were suspected of killing and looting, or could you not?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  So your hands were tied to the extent that you could

 4     not proceed against anyone in military uniform, even if you suspected

 5     that person of being involved in killing and looting.  Is that how we

 6     have to understand this sentence?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, not quite.  If we had found

 8     or if we had been certain in a given situation that a certain person had

 9     committed a serious crime such as murder or robbery, the uniformed police

10     would then have arrested this person and handed this person over to the

11     military police.

12             However, there were simply no situations like that.  This is

13     simply what the investigator asked me at that time.  What if, what if you

14     had found this, what if you had found that, what would you as police have

15     done?

16             If there had been any reliable or unambiguous information about

17     that, we would have arrested the person and then handed the person over

18     to the military police and other appropriate services, but there was

19     nothing like that that actually happened.  The civilian police were

20     marked out.  You could tell them from an afar.  There weren't that many

21     of us to begin with.  And there was nothing like this that actually

22     happened anywhere in the presence of the civilian police.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  So in the theoretical situation, that's what you

24     described, you could have arrested someone suspected of having looted or

25     having killed, but if that was a military person, you would have to hand

Page 9924

 1     them over to the military police?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Next paragraph, please.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's a small error.  It's

 5     probably a copying error, third paragraph from the bottom up.  Sacic

 6     would have known where the military police were doing their mopping-up

 7     operations.  This should read:  Special police and not military police.

 8     The military police, as far as I know, was not involved in any mopping-up

 9     operations.  Rather, this was the job of the special police unit.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  That's on the record.

11             Any other paragraph which needs further attention?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have not really noticed anything

13     else.  Thank you.

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

15        Q.   So apart from those corrections, that further information that

16     have you provided to us, does this document set out that the statement

17     that you gave to the Office of the Prosecutor?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And if you were asked the same questions today, would you provide

20     the same statement?

21        A.   Probably not.  My views are slightly different now as opposed to

22     what they were back then.  It has been quite some time, and the reasoning

23     is now different.  My interpretation of certain matters would now

24     probably be different as well.

25        Q.   In terms of this statement, insofar as it refers to factual

Page 9925

 1     matters and events, is it an accurate depiction of those factual matters

 2     and events?

 3        A.   I think so.

 4        Q.   Yes.  So I just wanted to be clear in respect of those facts and

 5     events, if you were asked the same questions about those matters, would

 6     you give the same statement today?

 7             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, I'm --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic.

 9             MR. MISETIC:  I'm -- not sure now to proceed here because I don't

10     know that at the end of the day the Prosecution and the Defence at this

11     point are going to agree as to what is fact in the statement and what is

12     a conclusion, what's an opinion, so I -- I -- at this point would lodge

13     an objection unless the Prosecution is going to take him through the

14     statement and say, This specific fact you agree, yes or no.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which is not a very practical way of

16     proceeding.

17             Mr. Buhin, could you explain to us on what matters you have, as

18     you said, your interpretation would now be different?

19             Could you help us?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's difficult to say it like

21     that.  As far as any details are concerned that I might want to change.

22     But I'm certain that there are quite many generalisations here.  What if

23     this had been the case, what if that would have been the case, then what

24     should have followed as a result but ...

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you give us an example -- could you give us an

Page 9926

 1     example on where you feel apparently uncomfortable with your statement,

 2     in respect of what you just told us?  Could you take to us any ...

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's difficult to speak about

 4     specific examples in a hurry.

 5             I can't do this in a hurry.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I then suggest that we proceed and that in the next

 7     break, you will -- that you'll read it again and that you, after that

 8     break, point to us matters where you say -- or give an example of the

 9     kind of matters on which you say you may have changed your opinion.

10             And then perhaps, for the time being, we proceed and a final

11     decision on admission would then be delayed, but we proceed on the basis

12     as if the statement was admitted.

13             Mr. Margetts.

14             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And then of course

15     we'll -- if necessary, read the summary at the time that we seek

16     admission of the statement.

17             Mr. President, I have one matter and it is to do to the first

18     exhibit that I'd like to refer to.  And if we could just go into private

19     session for a short moment.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  We turn into private session.

21                           [Private session]

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 9927











11  Page 9927 redacted. Private session.















Page 9928

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11                           [Open session]

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

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

14             Mr. Margetts, you may proceed.

15             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16             Mr. Registrar, if I could please have 65 ter number 5266

17     presented on the screen.

18        Q.   Mr. Buhin, on the right-hand side of the screen, you will see an

19     organigram -- it is appearing rather small on my screen, Mr. Registrar.

20     Possibly if we could enlarge the top of the organigram.

21             Yes, Mr. Buhin, this is an organigram which was put together by

22     the Office of the Prosecutor.  And it shows the organisation of the

23     Ministry of Interior in the Knin region for the period August to

24     September 1995.

25             And if you look down to the bottom right-hand corner, you'll see

Page 9929

 1     that your name appears there as a coordinator, and there's a broken line

 2     that -- that links your office, that of the police coordinators of

 3     Kotar-Knin, to the Zagreb authorities, in particular, Djurica Franjo and

 4     then subsequently Marijan Tomurad.

 5             Could you look at that organigram, and could you indicate to the

 6     Court whether or not you consider that that accurately sets out the

 7     organisation of the authorities in the Kotar-Knin region and their

 8     superiors during the period August to September 1995?

 9        A.   Yes.  This is accurate.

10        Q.   Thank you -- thank you, Mr. Buhin.

11             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President.  If this organigram, 65 ter 5266,

12     could be given an exhibit number and entered into evidence.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic.

14   (redacted)

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, would you please assign an exhibit

16     number to it.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P962.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  P962 is admitted into evidence.

19             Can we go into private session for a second.

20                           [Private session]

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 9930

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5                           [Open session]

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

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 8             Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

 9             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

10        Q.   Now, Mr. Buhin, in the course of reviewing your statement, you

11     indicated the nature of the role of the coordinators and the relationship

12     that you had with the other police chiefs in the area.  I'd like to deal

13     with that matter a little further.

14             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, if could I please have 65 ter 2786

15     presented on the screen.

16        Q.   Now, Mr. Buhin, you'll see on the left-hand side of the screen

17     there an Official Note, and I'd just like to ask you some preliminary

18     questions in relation to that Official Note.

19             And that is this.  This note purports to be an Official Note that

20     was prepared following an interview that was conducted with you on the

21     9th of October, 2001, by Republic of Croatia Ministry of the Interior

22     officials.

23             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, if we could please move to page two

24     of the B/C/S and similarly to page -- to the final page of the English

25     which is page 3.

Page 9931

 1        Q.   Mr. Buhin, you'll see there there's a sign-off, or not a sign-off

 2     but at least the name of the gentleman Ivica Vesel.  So my first question

 3     to you is this:  Do you recall being interviewed by Republic of Croatia

 4     Ministry of the Interior officials, in particular, Mr. Vesel, on the 9th

 5     of October, 2001?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Okay.

 8             MR. MARGETTS:  If we could move back, Mr.  Registrar, to the

 9     first page.

10        Q.   You'll see, Mr. Buhin, that in the -- there's a sentence that

11     refers to the fact that this records information that you gave to the

12     officials, and then there is a paragraph of approximately four lines, a

13     further line, and then a second substantial paragraph which appears about

14     in the middle of the page.

15             Now, at the end of that paragraph there, there's a reference to

16     the role of the coordinators and it says that the coordinators were

17     appointed to coordinate, supervise and direct the work of police

18     employees at the Knin police station.

19             So that sentence there, is that correct, is that a correct

20     characterization of the role of the coordinators?

21        A.   Yes.  It should be.

22        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Buhin.  This document is not such a lengthy

23     document and it -- at this time it is probably convenient if I give you

24     an opportunity to read through it in its entirety and then just indicate

25     to me whether it accurately records matters that it refers to.

Page 9932

 1        A.   We can turn the page.

 2             I've read the Official Note.  I just skimmed it, actually, and

 3     I'm surprised that my colleague, the police officer, wrote this lengthy

 4     document before -- because before I was invited to give an interview to

 5     the investigators of this court, I requested that a member of the

 6     civilian authorities of the Republic of Croatia also attend this

 7     interview, because I was afraid there may be some abuse of that

 8     interview.

 9             I asked, through my colleagues who worked at the ministry, for

10     assistance but no one would assist me and then I was invited for this

11     interview.

12             The interview lasted about three to five minutes, with a

13     colleague.  He never took any notes.  And I just thought this

14     conversation was a mere formality, just to meet the formal aspects.  Now

15     that I see that this note was prepared, I suppose that he did it because

16     somebody asked that of him, and some of the facts that were set forth

17     here are incorrect.  For instance, the incident in the village of

18     Grubori, I don't recall -- I don't think that I would have said anything

19     to this effect, as stated here.  I wouldn't have said that it took two

20     days before it was reported, nor did I say that there was rainfall on

21     that day, so some of the things that he put in there must have been from

22     some other forces and not based on what I said.

23             When I returned to the MUP seat, to the headquarters of the MUP,

24     and -- so this reference to my return to the MUP and that the relations

25     cooled, I don't know what that would mean because there was no need for

Page 9933

 1     me to go back to Knin because another inspector had come there in the

 2     meantime.  He was a traffic expert.  And my colleague Baric remained

 3     there.  He was also from the regular police, so that now there were more

 4     involved in regulating traffic.

 5             Now, the reference to my retirement also in this Official Note is

 6     not well explained.  I retired because I wanted to and not because I had

 7     to and not because it would have been somebody else's wish.  The

 8     conditions at the year when I decided to retire were favourable for me,

 9     and I took advantage of this, so I decided to retire and I did this of my

10     own free will.

11             Therefore, I think that this note was just drafted based on the

12     recollections of what was said, and if you asked me, I would just discard

13     it.

14        Q.   Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Buhin, for that lengthy answer.

15             There's one matter I would like to refer to.  We referred to the

16     reference to the coordinators, and you indicated in your answer that

17     there were certain aspects of the information relating to the incident in

18     Grubori that you don't recall communicating to the official.

19             What I would like to ask you is whether or not you recall

20     indicating to the official the matters that appear from the bottom of the

21     first page.

22             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, if we could refer to the first page

23     of the Croatian version.

24        Q.   You'll see that five lines from the bottom, Mr. Buhin, there's a

25     reference to 25 August 1995, and that says it is possible that the date

Page 9934

 1     was 25 August 1995.

 2             And then there's a reference to various events that occurred.

 3     And I'd just like you to read on that part of the statement or that part

 4     of that paragraph to the end of that paragraph and just tell me whether

 5     those events that are recorded there are matters that -- that you're

 6     aware of and that you communicated to Mr. Vesel.

 7             Looking at the part that says:  "Namely, he remembers an incident

 8     that was indeed reported by UN members and continuing on until an

 9     investigation would be conducted the following day."

10        A.   This conversation was rather casual, the conversation that I had

11     with this colleague.  We just mentioned the event in Grubori.  I don't

12     think more than a few words were said about it.  And I believe that he

13     wrote this as he felt he should, because I couldn't have said any of

14     these things to him nor do I recall these events.

15             As far as I can remember, the complaint came in the morning

16     hours.  There was no need to wait for nightfall.  There were no

17     impediments of any sort.  I can't tell you exactly at what time we

18     received the complaint or the report.  It was in the morning, sometime in

19     the morning.  When I learned of this, I ordered that two teams of

20     civilian police patrols be sent to the site to determine what it was

21     about.

22             About midday I learned that the patrols had returned and that

23     they were unable to find this village, the village of Grubori, or any

24     bodies for that matter.  I have to stress that this police came -- had

25     come from different -- from other parts of the country.  They did not

Page 9935

 1     know the area very well, nor could they rely on the local population and

 2     ask people for their way.  They just had to rely on their own resources.

 3     The colleague Baric and I went to the UN headquarters, the UN police

 4     headquarters, discussed this or had a conversation with the police

 5     officers who had been on site and asked them to take us to the site and

 6     show us the bodies so that we could take the steps that were necessary.

 7     We agreed to do this in the afternoon hours, around 3.00 p.m., to allow

 8     us time to inform the police administration in Zadar, the crime police,

 9     and in order to make sure that an investigating judge would also attend.

10             This is how these events unfolded.  In the meantime,

11     Zeljko Sacic, the deputy chief of the special police, also came to our

12     headquarters.  He was rather angry because he hadn't been informed of

13     this, and he said that the mop-up operation had been conducted in that

14     area.  In other words, there was fighting going on.

15             I tried to explain to him what information I had and what we had

16     done up till then, but he claimed that even if there were any bodies,

17     they would have been bodies of men who died in combat and that this would

18     be handled by the civilian protection.

19             In the meantime, I received a phone call from the ministry, from

20     Josko Moric.  I cannot tell you how he learned about this event.  He was

21     rather angry, and he said to me that I should not get involved in

22     assignments that were not within my purview.  I reiterate, I was

23     responsible for the -- the regular police work and traffic regulation,

24     whereas this work was really something that the crime police should

25     handle.  When the crime police -- since the crime police had been

Page 9936

 1     informed, I decided not to follow up on this, and I left this to the

 2     crime police to resolve.

 3        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Buhin.  We will deal with some other documents

 4     later on relating to this matter and I will give you an opportunity to

 5     explain a little bit further in relation to some of those matters.

 6             Just following up now on that last issue, you said that you

 7     informed the crime police and earlier up in the answer, you said that the

 8     police administration in Zadar was informed.

 9             Who was informed in the police administration in Zadar?

10        A.   I cannot really tell you for certain, but I believe it was the

11     chief of the police administration, Ivo Cetina.  A lot of time has passed

12     since, and I don't have any notes here, but all -- all bits of

13     information of this nature would go to him.  We would send it to him.

14        Q.   Yes.  And you indicated that Mr. Moric suggested that this was a

15     matter for the criminal police and not for you.

16             When you received the information, did you immediately inform the

17     Zadar criminal police.  Or -- sorry.  Did you immediately inform the

18     Zadar police administration?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And when you heard about the matter, I think you indicated in

21     your answer there it was in the morning.  Did you hear about it on the

22     same day that it occurred, or did you hear about it at any later time?

23        A.   It was in the morning hours.  I cannot be more precise.  I was

24     informed then by the police station chief, I think it was Mr. Mihic.  He

25     told me that he had been informed by the UN police of bodies that were

Page 9937

 1     found in Grubori village.  How old these bodies were or how long they had

 2     been there, I didn't have any information as to the -- to that, and I

 3     just wanted to check the complaint that we received, or, rather the

 4     report.

 5        Q.   Yes, okay.  Thank you, Mr. Buhin.  As I say we'll return to that

 6     topic a bit later.

 7             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, in regard to this Official Note, I

 8     think the witness has indicated he has some reservations in relation to

 9     it.  I just want to be sure that we have on record his confirmation of

10     the specific sentence that we referred to, relating to the role of

11     coordination.  So I just would like to read that out to him again and

12     that would avert the need to introduce this Official Note into evidence.

13             MR. MIKULICIC:  I would object to that, Your Honour, because the

14     witness didn't confirm that those statements in the Official Note are

15     exactly the testimony or the conversation that he with the police

16     officer.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that is exactly the reason why Mr. Margetts

18     does not want to tender the whole of the document into evidence.  Is that

19     --  Mr. Margetts, is that what was on your mind.

20             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, my intention is to isolate the part relating

21     to the role of the coordinators and then not to seek admission of the

22     rest of the document.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  You may proceed.  We'll see --

24             MR. KAY:  Sorry, do we really need that -- sort a sentence out of

25     the document?  I'm not creating problems, but it seems a bit --

Page 9938

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  What we see is that the document in some respects

 2     confirms what the witness tells us today.  To that extent, the document

 3     has some corroborating value.  Therefore, I'm -- it's not yet clear on my

 4     mind whether this is a document -- apart from whether we would accept

 5     everything that is said in this document, whether not tendering would not

 6     give us some thought on whether we might call this as Bench evidence but

 7     of course I have to discuss this first with my colleagues.

 8             MR. KAY:  Yes.  I just raise it in terms of practicalities

 9     because we have to deal with the information and know what we're

10     precisely dealing with.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Of course I do not know exactly what portion

12     Mr. Margetts intends to read to the witness, and we'll see what remains

13     from the document and whatnot.  Little bit in the -- still in the dark.

14             Mr. Misetic.

15             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Your Honour, from our position I think our

16     position is that we don't have an objection to the document coming in.

17     It's not -- as long as we all understand that it is it not a witness

18     statement per se it's an Official Note, and I think there have been other

19     documents that have come in with other witnesses, with similar police

20     accounts.

21             The second point I wanted to make is while I agree with

22     Your Honour's observation about the corroborative value of what he had

23     said earlier, I'm not sure, and I sincerely say I'm not sure, what the

24     OTP's position is on whether this is corroborative of he said or

25     contradicts, and to that extent, then I just ask that it be put to the

Page 9939

 1     witness whatever the sentence is being used for in order to -- that we

 2     are clear in the future as to what the witness's position is with regard

 3     to that sentence.

 4             Thank you.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts, a lot of words in relation to a matter

 6     you tried to resolve in a simple way, isn't it?

 7             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Your Honour.  As it turns out I have had the

 8     opportunity in -- while the submissions being made to check the

 9     transcript.  In fact, the sentence found its way on to the transcript, in

10     any event, at page 19, lines 10 to 16.  So that averts the need for me to

11     proceed, and I don't intend to seek admission of this Official Note.

12             MR. KAY:  That accords with my idea, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's proceed on this basis for the time

14     being.

15             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. President.

16        Q.   Mr. Buhin, I'd like to ask you some questions about the military

17     police, in particular, the role of the civilian police and the role of

18     the military police.

19             You will have seen in your statement that you've reviewed earlier

20     today that you make reference to the role of the military police and the

21     role of the civilian police.

22             I'd like to refer you back to your statement and it's --

23             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, 65 ter 5491.  If we could refer to

24     page 5 of the B/C/S, and it's also page 5 of the English.

25        Q.   And, Mr. Buhin, that's from the top of page 5.  If you could just

Page 9940

 1     read down to effectively the middle of the page.  In the English, it

 2     starts at the third paragraph on the fifth page.  And it's the sentence

 3     that starts:  "When check-points were set up ..."

 4             Now, this is just a passage I'd like you to read, Mr. Buhin, and

 5     indicate whether you fully adopt that particular passage or whether any

 6     of those issues that you raised earlier in relation to interpretation

 7     arise in regard to -- to this first half of page 5.

 8        A.   Could you please just help me with how this paragraph begins.

 9     What are the words?  What paragraph exactly do you have in mind?

10        Q.   Yes, I have the paragraph at the top of the page that starts:

11     "When check-points were set up ..."

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   So that paragraph.  And the next two -- or the next three

14     paragraphs.  And you'll note that one of these paragraphs is one of the

15     paragraphs you developed and you provided some extra information in

16     relation to, earlier today.

17        A.   Our wish was to be efficient and for -- for better work, we

18     wanted the check-points of the military police and the civilian police to

19     be at the same spot.  However, in the early days, when we arrived there,

20     this was impossible, and the military police check-points were always

21     some 10 to 20 metres behind the civilian police check-points so that the

22     civilian police stopped, intercepted, and searched the civilians whereas

23     the military police stopped and searched military or people in uniforms.

24             Why this was so, I wouldn't know.  The military police probably

25     had their own reasons for this.  But when I subsequently thought about it

Page 9941

 1     a bit, it was probably more efficient or easier to do it this way so that

 2     everyone would do their part of the job.

 3        Q.   Mr. Buhin, if I could refer you past the second paragraph, which

 4     we already dealt with today and then past the third paragraph on page 5

 5     of the version in front of you, and you could read from the

 6     paragraph that starts:  "While I was working in the liberated area ..."

 7     and you could read down to the section that says:  "But they refused ..."

 8     which is the next two paragraphs, although there is no line-break between

 9     them.

10        A.   I think I've already explained this today.  In the event that a

11     vehicle with civilian plates had uniformed men in them, and in the event

12     that they were stopped by the civilian police, they would always show

13     their cards, military cards, to show that they were members of a certain

14     unit of the HV.  They also had documents to show about the goods that

15     they were transporting, and of course such vehicles we would let through.

16             There were questions by the investigator about this particular

17     paragraph.  The questions were very hypothetical.  What would have

18     happened if this was the case?  I would like to reiterate, if the

19     civilian police were to find a perpetrator in the course of committing a

20     crime, we would detain such a person and hand them over to the military

21     police.  These events here, described here, only concern transport and

22     crossing of check-points, and we would always let the military police

23     handle that because it was not within our competence and we did not want

24     to have conflicts with them.  Because the situation was such that in the

25     event of a major conflict, there could have been some far-reaching

Page 9942

 1     consequences.

 2        Q.   And those far-reaching consequences, are they the matters you're

 3     referring to at the end of this paragraph --

 4             MR. MISETIC:  Object on the leading, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts.

 6             MR. MARGETTS:  If I -- yes, Mr. President, I can rephrase the

 7     question if it would be helpful.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

 9             MR. MARGETTS:

10        Q.   Mr. Buhin, you just referred to there being far-reaching

11     consequences.  Could you just explain to the Court what the practical

12     situation was and what the consequences may have been and how you sought

13     to avoid conflicts that you referred to in your previous answer.

14        A.   At this time, the situation was very tense and dangerous.  Events

15     that today would appear to be very simple, in those days, for those same

16     events, people would draw their weapons.  Therefore, we advised our men

17     not to clash with armed -- with --

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction, with uniformed men --

19        A.   -- to let the military police handle that, because more often

20     than not, these were members of the HV who were demobilised and who were

21     from this area who came to loot and take away items, and they would

22     transport them away.  And it was to be expected that they would shoot the

23     civilian police because that's what the relationship was.

24             I will just say something here by way of an example.  They would

25     frequently use the following sentence, Where were you while we were

Page 9943

 1     fighting?  So in some ways they felt that they were above the Croatian

 2     police.  Considering themselves -- considering the police, the civilian

 3     police, to be someone who came on the scene late when the job had already

 4     been done.  So we told our policemen not to take any action because we

 5     could expect the worst to happen.  We told them to let the military

 6     police to handle this.  Fortunately, no such conflict occurred,

 7     materialized, but it was to be expected.  It could be expected.

 8        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Buhin.  Now this situation that you've just

 9     described to the Court, did you report that situation to your superiors,

10     Mr. Franjo and Mr. Moric?

11        A.   Yes.  They knew about these problems.  My colleague Ivo Baric was

12     supposed to and probably did talk to General Cermak about these problems

13     at meetings that were being held on a nearly daily basis.

14        Q.   So in addition to General Cermak, did the reports also go to your

15     superiors in Zagreb; namely, Mr. Moric or Mr. Franjo?

16        A.   Mr. Franjo certainly knew about these problems.

17        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Buhin.

18             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, if I could please have Exhibit

19     number D48 displayed on the screen.

20        Q.   Mr. Buhin, you'll see this is a document - if we can just show

21     the author at the bottom there, Mr. Registrar - that is from Josko Moric,

22     and it is addressed to the chief of the military police, Mr. Lausic.

23             If you could just take a moment, and if could you read that

24     document.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 9944

 1        Q.   If I could refer you to the third paragraph, you'll see that

 2     there's a reference there to the problems that the civilian police face

 3     and the final sentence says:  "The fact that the perpetrators wear HV

 4     uniforms completely blocks the work of the civilian police."

 5             Is that consistent with your experience in August of 1995?

 6        A.   Yes.  That is precisely what I was talking about a minute ago.

 7     The problem was all the more difficult because soon after we had entered

 8     the liberated territory of Knin, a train passed through carrying

 9     President Tudjman and civilians were allowed into these recently

10     liberated areas.  Civilians were now arriving on a massive scale to go

11     back to their homes, houses, and everyone wanted to take something from

12     there.  There was a lot of pressure at all these check-points, and we

13     were being kept very busy.  It was difficult with all of this going on to

14     keep under control the problems that were being caused by persons wearing

15     military uniforms, and this is precisely what Mr. Moric wanted to warn

16     Mr. Lausic about.

17        Q.   You have referred to the operation of the train, and also you've

18     referred to the train carrying President Tudjman.  And can you -- do you

19     recall, is that what's been come to be known as the freedom train.  Is

20     that the reference that you're making there?

21        A.   Yes, yes.

22        Q.   And do you recall what date that was that the freedom train came

23     to Knin, or when about in August 1995?

24        A.   I don't remember the exact date.  According to our assessments,

25     the assessments that we, the police, made at the time, it was quite soon.

Page 9945

 1     It was between five and eight days after the territory had been

 2     penetrated.  If you ask me, it was too soon because we were simply unable

 3     at this time to effectively cover the area, in security terms.

 4        Q.   And do you recall that -- that any -- any issues arising once the

 5     train was operating, in relation to freedom of movement -- in the area?

 6             MR. MISETIC:  I'm going object.  I'm not sure what freedom of

 7     movement counsel refers to, if we could get more specificity.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts.

 9             MR. MARGETTS:

10        Q.   In your answer you referred to the fact that once the train

11     passed through carrying civilians, there was -- civilians entered into

12     the liberated territory.

13             MR. MARGETTS:  I think probably the easiest way for me to proceed

14     may be if I show the witness some documentation that may be of

15     assistance.

16             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, if I may make a comment.  I didn't

17     rise before but I guess I will note it on the record now.  A document of

18     Mr. Moric was put to the witness and then he was asked, "Do you agree

19     with this," which I think is a similar situation to where I think we had

20     an agreement about putting statements of other witnesses to a witness

21     before having asked the witness his opinion of certain matters.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes.

23             MR. MISETIC:  Now in respect to this particular topic, I think

24     counsel and I are aware there are two different dates that the witness is

25     talking about and if before we show him a document we can ask him

Page 9946

 1     specifically which date he refers to, he talks about --

 2             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, we've got to, obviously, be a

 3     little bit careful in terms of the submissions that we intend to make on

 4     this topic and maybe if the witness could --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  If the witness could -- if we go into the substance

 6     I think it would be wiser to ask the witness to take his earphones off.

 7             Mr. Buhin, do you understand English?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you take your earphones off for a second?

10             MR. MISETIC:  I think the essence of what is happening here is

11     that the witness has mentioned the freedom train which travelled sometime

12     in late August, around the 25th, 26th, if I'm not mistaken, but he's also

13     simultaneously said that this issue arose five to eight days from when

14     the police entered.

15             So my objection is if we put a document to the witness regarding

16     that date without first asking him to specify what does he mean, is he

17     confused as to when the freedom train went through or is he consistent in

18     his belief that the civilians came in three weeks after Operation Storm.

19     That's the essence of what is at dispute here.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then perhaps, Mr. Margetts, if you would

21     follow the suggestion also heard as part of your question, the train

22     carrying civilians, which I did not catch before.  I don't know whether

23     it was a --

24             MR. MISETIC:  I think our position is also it was carrying

25     dignitaries.

Page 9947

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But, Mr. Margetts, you mentioned -- let me

 2     just find it.

 3             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President, I was attempting to follow the

 4     witness's answer as closely as I could.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but I did not hear, as a matter of fact, but I

 6     could have missed that, that the train was carrying any civilians.

 7             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you guide me to the page and the line where --

 9             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Your Honour, I'm just finding it now myself.

10     I think the answer starts at page 32, line 5.  The train passed through

11     carrying President Tudjman and civilians were allowed --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And civilians were allowed into this recently -- I

13     never understood this to be a train passed through carrying

14     President Tudjman and civilians, because then the next part of the

15     sentence would be without a subject.

16             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I understood a train passed through carrying

18     President Tudjman and civilians were allowed into this recently liberated

19     areas.  I never understood the line to mean that the civilians were on

20     the train.

21             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.  Yes, thank you very much for

22     that assistance.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  If could you please keep that in mind as well.

24     Although a document is not exactly the same as taking the witness to a --

25     to the testimony of another witness, it -- nevertheless, it's always to

Page 9948

 1     be preferred to see whether the witness, even without the assistance of

 2     documents and testimony of other witnesses, could tell us anything about

 3     what he observed or knows.

 4             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, if I --

 5             MR. MARGETTS:  May I actually -- I did have a submission in

 6     relation to that and the use of D48.  I would like to put it on the

 7     record that in terms of the use of that document, I think that the record

 8     will show there was a substantial development of this witness's

 9     knowledge, his reporting chain, his relationship with Mr. Moric, and the

10     extent, therefore, to which those events were connected prior to the

11     presentation of that document.  So I'd say that that was an instance

12     where I would hope that -- that the -- an adequate basis was presented

13     for presentation of D48.

14             MR. MISETIC:  I'll respond to that by saying I think that despite

15     that foundation, there's still the need to put matters to a witness

16     before you show him what somebody else wrote in a document that.  So that

17     would be our position on that.

18             The other thing is a strictly technical matter, Your Honour.  I

19     think in the future, it would be wiser if instead of asking the witness

20     to take off his earphones, we ask him to unplug the headphones from the

21     set because I think there's still some audio coming through in terms of

22     the translation.  I hear the sound coming from the earphones.  I just

23     want to make sure that in the future we arrive at a common procedure.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We would not invite witnesses to plug out

25     matters.  We'd certainly need the assistance of the usher for that.

Page 9949

 1             Mr. Margetts, again, a lot of words.  Do you think you could

 2     rephrase the question in such a way or put other questions first so that

 3     we could proceed after that without further interruptions.

 4             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please put up your earphones again.

 6             Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

 7             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8        Q.   Mr. Buhin, we just had a technical discussion relating to some

 9     procedures in terms of the questions that I'll be presenting to you.

10             Now a question relates to the issue of the travel of Mr. Tudjman

11     to Knin on the freedom train, and I just wanted to ask you again just to

12     be -- if you could again attend to the issue as to whether you could put

13     some type of date on the date that Franjo Tudjman came in.  Did he arrive

14     in early August, middle August, later August, about -- about when?  Are

15     you able to assist the Court?

16        A.   I'm unable to specify the date.  It was at the beginning of

17     August, three to five days after the entry -- three to eight, perhaps, at

18     the very most, after we entered Knin, and I can't be more specific than

19     that.

20        Q.   Now, are you able to assist the Court as to when the train was

21     again operating and was entering Knin after Operation Storm?

22        A.   I can't give you the date.  But from our security perspective, it

23     certainly was too early.  But I can't say when exactly.

24        Q.   Now, in terms of your security perspective, what types of freedom

25     of movement did persons have in the area of Knin?  Were you aware that --

Page 9950

 1     did people need to hold passes, did people need to register themselves

 2     with authorities?  What was the situation in terms of freedom of movement

 3     for people in the area of the Kotar-Knin jurisdiction?

 4        A.   I can't remember any details, but based on my recollection, I

 5     think that in the first days everyone needed proof of the fact that they

 6     were natives of the area and I think they were given some passes.  I'm

 7     not sure who issued those, the army, or the civilian authorities.

 8             Soon after, perhaps three to five days later, it was open to all

 9     those who wished to enter the area, and no passes were required.  That's

10     as specific as I can get on this.

11        Q.   Now, at the check-points that you were administering, were your

12     policemen checking to see whether or not people had passes to enter the

13     area and allowing those that had the passes and not allowing those that

14     didn't?

15        A.   Yes.  Probably the answer is yes, but I don't remember any

16     details.

17        Q.   Mr. Buhin, it's obviously been some time since you were dealing

18     with these issues.  Would it assist you if I was able to present some

19     documents to you, relating to that?

20        A.   I don't believe so.  We can give it a try, if you like, but I

21     don't remember.

22        Q.   Well --

23        A.   Give it a try anyway.

24        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Buhin, I will do that.

25             MR. MARGETTS:  If, Mr. Registrar, I could please present

Page 9951

 1     Exhibit D494 to Mr. Buhin.

 2        Q.   Now, Mr. Buhin, you'll see that this is a document from

 3     Ivo Cipci.  Do you know who he was?

 4        A.   I see now that he was chief of the -- or, rather, head of the

 5     administration, but I don't remember.

 6        Q.   And, Mr.  Registrar, if we could please refer to the second page

 7     of the B/C/S.  And you'll see there -- have you seen this pass before,

 8     Mr. Buhin?

 9        A.   I probably have, but I don't remember.

10             MR. MARGETTS:  Now, Mr.  Registrar, if we could please move to

11     another document that may be of some assistance.  That's Exhibit D496.

12        Q.   I've got another document here, Mr. Buhin, from Mr. Cipci.  And

13     you will see it's a document dated 15th of August, 1995.  And in fact it

14     refers in the first paragraph there, you'll see -- in fact, just if you

15     could read the document and I'll ask you some questions.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... is this the circumstance

18     that you were referring to --

19             MR. KAY:  I think a foundation needs to be laid, Your Honour,

20     before the witness gives his opinion on a document such as this.

21             MR. MISETIC:  And, Your Honour, I have also circulated an e-mail

22     specifically to address the freedom train issue before the next break, so

23     before we head down a path which I think is going to lead to much more

24     confusion.  Either that, or to ask the witness again to unplug his

25     headset and I will explain it.

Page 9952

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Usher, could you unplug the headset of the

 2     witness.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I think our position is that the

 4     confusion here arises because the witness is aware that the president was

 5     in Knin within three to five days of Operation Storm, he is just mistaken

 6     about how he got to Knin, whether it was by the train, which was the

 7     second trip at the end of the August, or by helicopter on the 6th.  So

 8     before we veer off on the path of trying to convince the witness that

 9     civilians couldn't come in until the freedom train which was three weeks

10     later, I think our position would be that he was simply mistaken about

11     the means that the president arrived.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  The parties agree on the first arrival not being by

13     train.  The second arrival being by train.

14             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.  We certainly agree to those

15     two facts in terms of attempting to assist the Court.  In terms of this

16     witness's evidence, I think we may have a different view.  It seemed to

17     us -- well, it seemed to me that the answer related to the return of

18     civilians, and I think it is helpful in light of that, in light of this

19     witness's central position in terms of overseeing the operations in

20     Kotar-Knin that we be as precise as we can, in terms of understanding

21     what he is referring to, when he is referring to that return of

22     civilians.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Do I understand, Mr. Misetic, that you would not

24     object against Mr. Margetts leading on arrivals by train or by any other

25     means of transportation so in order to avoid confusion.

Page 9953

 1             MR. MISETIC:  As my friend -- I think we can probably stipulate

 2     on when the train came, I think it is the 26th.  What I don't want to

 3     have happen is that the witness has already, I think twice now, said that

 4     the problem with civilians arriving was three to eight days, I think he

 5     said three to five, something like that, from their arrival on the scene,

 6     so that we don't try to convince the witness that because he referred to

 7     the train he must be mistaken as to when the civilians started to arrive.

 8     Rather, I would just put it to him rather than moving to impeach him on

 9     direct.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts, is this a suggestion that could you

11     live with?

12             MR. MARGETTS:  The -- I think it is important in terms of

13     addressing this issue with the witness a number of years subsequent to

14     the events, 13 years later, that he have as many contemporaneous

15     materials as we possibly can present to him to assist him in terms of

16     placing himself back at that time, and if ever I would submit there was

17     an opportunity for that, it's the opportunity that arises with this

18     particular series of documents that assist him in terms of the issuing of

19     passes, in terms of the impact of those passes, and in terms of the

20     relevance of those passes to the increased number of civilians.

21             I fear that if we proceed and we attempt to elicit the evidence

22     freely from the witness without assisting him here that possibly that

23     evidence will not be of great value to the Chamber.

24             So I -- I don't see -- I see that he is the perfect person being

25     centrally placed in regard to these particular events to comment on these

Page 9954

 1     materials, and that's the reason I proceeded in this way because I

 2     understood that that would provide quality evidence to the Chamber.  And

 3     it was for the very reason that I thought the evidence we were receiving

 4     was less than the greatest quality given the number of years that I've

 5     sought to proceed with the documentation rather than merely asking open

 6     questions to the witness.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, the problem is that of course it is

 9     what you put to the witness, and so I wonder if my colleague would have

10     shown him a video of Tudjman in Knin on the 6th, and then to say did you

11     mean that he helicoptered in on the 6th, or go down a path where the

12     Prosecution is only going to show him documents to suggest to him that he

13     is wrong about the date of the train and when civilians came.

14             I believe that the documents are what they are.  And that

15     actually the value of calling witnesses in testimony is to first check on

16     what they know on the basis of questions posed.  And rather than doing

17     what the Prosecution is proposing to do, which by another name, is called

18     leading him, using documents to lead him to a certain conclusion.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just try to understand.

20             What you want to establish, Mr. Margetts, is when the civilians

21     started to return is that -- or when they were returning?

22             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  When they were returning in sufficient

23     numbers to -- to be relevant through the answer that he provided and the

24     context that he gave to that return of civilians.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's see whether we can find out whether the

Page 9955

 1     witness has any recollection.  Because he arrived Knin immediately after

 2     Operation Storm.

 3             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, he arrived immediately after --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's see whether he can come any further.

 5             Could the earphones be plugged in again.

 6             Mr. Buhin.  Mr. Buhin, you told us about civilians returning to

 7     the area; do you remember that?

 8             Now, could you describe when did the civilians start returning to

 9     the area, and could you please tell us that in relation to the moment you

10     arrived in Knin?  Was it after three days, seven days, ten days?  When

11     did the civilians return, or start returning?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, civilians

13     started returning after the arrival of the freedom train.  That's what it

14     was called.  Those were the first arrivals.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You said they started returning after the

16     arrival of the freedom train, and I think that -- now, do you remember

17     approximately how many days after you arrived that the freedom train

18     arrived in Knin?  Was that after three days, seven days, ten days, two

19     weeks, four weeks?  Could you ...

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps seven to ten days later.  I

21     can't be certain, but it must be in that ballpark.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  When you say that it was a certain number of

23     days after you arrived, are you actually referring to the arrival of

24     Mr. Tudjman when you're talking about the freedom train?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  As far as I remember, he was

Page 9956

 1     among the people on that train.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first train to arrive.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, are you aware that Mr. Tudjman came to Knin

 5     during that month of August twice?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  The first time he was

 7     helicoptered into the area.  I think that was on day two, following our

 8     arrival.  He went up as far as the flag that was flown above Knin.  He

 9     was there for the hoisting of the flag, and he left soon after.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And the return of the civilians, you said,

11     was -- started only after the freedom train arrived?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Not any earlier?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say with certainty.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts.

17             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Due to the short break

18     that we took ...

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I have -- I have some thoughts.  We had a

20     relatively long break but almost immediately after the -- after the start

21     of this hearing.  I would suggest, with the -- unless I hear strong

22     protests from the booth -- that we have a break at 20 minutes to 5.00,

23     have then a little bit a longer break, until 20 minutes past 5.00 and

24     then continue until 7.00, so that we have relatively long sessions but

25     also relatively long breaks.  It also allows the witness to read again

Page 9957

 1     his statement during the second break.

 2                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And if we forget about it, the tape will stop us

 4     anyhow.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 7        Q.   Mr. Buhin, we were discussing until we talked about the various

 8     -- about the various times of arrival of Mr. Tudjman.  We were discussing

 9     effectively the role of the military police and the role of the civilian

10     police.  And you indicated in your statement the fact that there were

11     separate check-points, and you also various other aspects of the civilian

12     police's interaction with the military police.

13             Just to assist you further and to develop this topic a little

14     further, I would like to present to you some instructions that were

15     issued in February of 1993 by Mate Lausic.

16             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, if we could please have D510

17     presented on the screen, and it's page 4 of the Croatian and the -- and

18     it's also page 4 of the English.

19        Q.   Mr. Buhin, I'd like you to refer to -- yeah, if we could move --

20     if we could move on, Mr.  Registrar, to page 4 of the B/C/S, which is the

21     section 5.  So, yes, that bottom part there.

22             Mr. Buhin, you will see on the left-hand side of the screen

23     section 5, and that relates to means of coercion which is the topic we've

24     been talking about in terms of the civilian police's role with military

25     personnel.  And if you could read that section, section 5, and when

Page 9958

 1     you're ready if could you indicate to Mr. Registrar who can turn the page

 2     over.

 3        A.   I'm ready to turn the page.

 4        Q.   And the remainder, that's correct, just the remainder of

 5     section 5, Mr. Buhin.

 6        A.   I'm done.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  This section refers to when the civilian police are

 8     authorised to take action against military police -- sorry, against

 9     military personnel.  And that is only if no possibility of securing

10     timely intervention by military authorities exists.

11             Now, in the first full sentence that you see on the top of

12     page 5, so four lines down, it says that for legal implementation of the

13     means of coercion against a military person it is essential to find out

14     whether it was possible for the military police to have intervened in a

15     timely manner.

16             My question to you is:  In the circumstances that you've

17     described today, where you had separate check-points and you were

18     attempting to work with the military police with various success, were

19     there circumstances where it was possible for the military police to

20     intervene but they failed to do so?

21        A.   I can't remember any such situations.

22             MR. MARGETTS:  And Mr. President --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic.

24             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour, I have some doubt about this

25     document.  We all can see that this document is dated by February 1993.

Page 9959

 1     Could we first establish whether this document was still applicable in

 2     1995.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, of course you can seek to clarify that.  Let

 4     me -- we're talking more or less about the interpretation of the document

 5     rather than about the document itself.  The document being a Defence

 6     exhibit; is that -- or let me just have a look.

 7             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  It's a Defence document, so therefore I think that

 9     perhaps some consultation with your colleagues or -- and if there is any

10     issue that arises from it, of course you are free to raise it.

11             I'm looking at the clock, Mr. Margetts.

12             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President, we could take a break now.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  We will have a break, and we'll resume a little bit

14     later than usual, that is 20 minutes past 5.

15             Mr. Buhin, could you please go through the document again and try

16     to identify where you have developed a different opinion or assessment on

17     what you said at that time, so that we can hear from you after the break.

18             We resume at 20 minutes past 5.00.

19                           --- Recess taken at 4.39 p.m.

20                           --- On resuming at 5.22 p.m.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Buhin, could you assist us in telling us what

22     the result is of having read, again, your statement?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've read the statement briefly,

24     and there are two things that I would like to touch upon.

25             On page 5, toward the top of the page, the fourth paragraph, it

Page 9960

 1     states while I was employed in the liberated territory, I saw vehicles,

 2     HVO vehicles, which in my opinion, transported looted items.  When

 3     stopped they would show documents, proving that this was for the needs of

 4     the HV army.  I believe that many of these documents were forged.

 5             I think that I would not say that anymore, because the items that

 6     were transported in the Croatian army vehicles, I believe, they were for

 7     the needs of the Croatian army.

 8             It is possible that in a small number of cases, this was abused.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So you say, I no longer belief that many of

10     these documents were forged but that sometimes such documents may have

11     been abused.  Yes.

12             Was that the first issue you wanted to draw our attention to, or

13     is there more?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On page 6, the second

15     paragraph ends with the following sentence, And the cooperation with the

16     army was very poor.

17             I don't know whether that is what I said at the time, probably

18     not, because we had good cooperation with the military.  We had daily

19     meetings with them, and we had good cooperation with them.  There were

20     problems at first with the military police, but that is something that

21     we've already discussed at length today.

22             Later on, toward the end of my term, the check-points were joint

23     check-points, or combined military police and civilian police

24     check-points, and the cooperation had much improved.  This statement as

25     stated here doesn't sound very nice that was probably not what I meant to

Page 9961

 1     say.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, your correction is on the record.  Anything

 3     else?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the same page, the second

 5     paragraph from the bottom, the government through the ministry assigned

 6     us the task of protecting property and civilians, but it was impossible

 7     to do our job while the army was still there.  I don't know how this

 8     sentence can stand as formulated.  Maybe it was taken out of context

 9     because I'm sure that the army could not have different orders.  Rather,

10     I think it was, as we discussed it early today, that at the beginning, at

11     least, in those in those first couple of days, uniformed men wilfully

12     looted and torched other people's property.

13             It is a fact - that's what it says in the last sentence - that

14     military persons left that area earlier -- or had they left that area

15     earlier, it would have been much easier for us, because these uniformed

16     men would not then hide behind them and commit crimes.  And I would like

17     to stress one more time that I'm certain that there was no order.  To the

18     contrary, and that these were civilians who actually were -- who actually

19     were prone to crime.

20             Everything else could remain as standing.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that.  Just in relation to your last

22     -- is that your opinion that it must have been civilians, or did you

23     verify that all those, as you said, were involved in looting and torching

24     were civilians?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I learned subsequently, in

Page 9962

 1     conversations with my colleagues from the crime police, in cases where

 2     the perpetrators were discovered, in most of those cases, these were

 3     individuals who were dressed in uniforms but were not members of any

 4     unit, or they were members of the Croatian army demobilised at that time.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's what you learned later from your

 6     colleagues.  Is that understood well?  So it is not your permanent

 7     investigation that revealed that, but you learned that from those who did

 8     investigate?

 9             Now apart from --

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Apart from these corrections that you made and the

12     corrections you made earlier today, apart from them, does the statement

13     accurately reflect what you said at the time; that is, in September 2001

14     and March 2002?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And, again, apart from the corrections you just

17     made, did you give your statement in accordance with what was the truth,

18     to the best of your recollection?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And would you give the same answers if the same

21     questions would be put to you today?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe so.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I think the attestation under Rule 92 ter is

24     complete.

25             Has a number already been assigned to the 92 ter statement?

Page 9963

 1             MR. MARGETTS:  No, Mr. President.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Not.  May I take it that you tender it, and may I

 3     invite Mr. Registrar to assign a number.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit number P963.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I hear of no objections.  Therefore, P963 is

 6     admitted into evidence.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 9        Q.   Mr. Buhin, in the course of the corrections that you have just

10     made to your statement and in the statement itself, you refer to the fact

11     that the military police refuse to set up joint check-points.

12             I'd like to present a document to you.

13             MR. MARGETTS:  And Mr. Registrar, if I could please have D49 on

14     the screen.

15        Q.   And Mr. Buhin, this is another order from Mr. Moric we saw

16     earlier a correspondence from Mr. Moric of the 17th of August, and this

17     is it an order from Mr. Moric from the 18th of August.

18             My first question is:  Are you familiar with this document?  Do

19     you recall -- and take your time to have a look at it, but that will be

20     my first question, whether or not you're familiar with this document.

21     And obviously once you have finished reading the first page, if could you

22     indicate and we'll turn the page over.

23        A.   Could I please see the second page.

24             I've read it.

25        Q.   Do you recall this order being issued in -- on the 18th of

Page 9964

 1     August, 1995?

 2        A.   I recall that there was an order to that effect.

 3        Q.   And if you look at paragraph 3 there, item 3, it's an item that

 4     refers to the establishment or request for mixed check-points.

 5             Does that item there reflect the issue that you raised in your

 6     statement, the refusal of the military police to engage in those mixed

 7     check-points?

 8             MR. MISETIC:  I'm going object to the question because I don't

 9     think that is the testimony of the witness.  It assumes facts not in

10     evidence, and I think the witness clarified that point earlier.

11             MR. MARGETTS:  Well, I -- I'm looking at page 5 of the --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  The issue, could you perhaps -- whether it was a

13     refusal that's -- it -- at least it is -- it's leading, Mr. Margetts, if

14     you could phrase the question in such a way that the leading element is

15     taken out.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. MARGETTS:  Okay.

18        Q.   Mr. Buhin, you'll see that the issue of joint check-points is

19     addressed in item 3 of the order.  And --

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   You stated in your statement that you asked to have joint

22     check-points - and this is on page 5 of your statement - with the

23     military police but they refused.

24             Now, as at the 18th of August, was that the situation?

25        A.   I believe that this order is the result of what I mentioned.  We

Page 9965

 1     pointed out that there is a need for this, and following this, we had

 2     joint check-points.  The military police made an agreement with the

 3     civilian police and the check-points were combined or unified.

 4        Q.   Now, as at the 18th of August, how would you assess the extent of

 5     the crime that was taking place on the territory?  When I refer to crime,

 6     I refer to major incidents, such as burning of houses, major looting, and

 7     those type of incidents.

 8             As at the 18th of August, how would you assess the level of that

 9     crime?

10        A.   I don't know if I can do that.  I can't even give you an

11     approximation after all these years, an approximate assessment.  I think

12     that at this time, we had far fewer problems with persons in uniforms

13     that we were already beginning to have problems with citizens who were

14     coming to this area to loot, and --

15        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

16        A.    -- take away whether it was their own property or --

17        Q.   We've dealt with them in terms of identification and those

18     issues.  I'm just asking you that regardless of who perpetrated the

19     crime, just the extent of the crime that you were observing in your role

20     as a coordinator, you were present in the region, if you would -- could

21     you describe to the Trial Chamber, the extent of the crime that was

22     taking place, the looting and the burning and other incidents.

23        A.   I don't know that I can explain and describe what the extent of

24     those incidents were.

25             There were incidents of looting and torching, but for every house

Page 9966

 1     that was torched, for us, it was one house too many.  I don't know if you

 2     know what I mean.

 3        Q.   Yes.  I'm just trying to ask you and I don't -- and you have

 4     certainly answered me, but I would like to give you one other opportunity

 5     maybe to attempt to quantify that for the Trial Chamber.  Was it one

 6     house, was it a hundred houses, was it a thousand houses, was it

 7     extensive, was it obvious?  What was the extent of the crime that you

 8     were observing that was taking place, in terms of the looting and

 9     burning?

10        A.   Well, my answer to that question would be there were some

11     incidents or if I were to try to be more precise, in every hamlet maybe

12     there were one, two, or at most three houses that were torched.  There

13     wasn't widespread torching, but even this was too many cases for us.

14        Q.   If I could just refer you again to you D49.

15             MR. MARGETTS:  And Mr. Registrar, if you refer back to the first

16     page in the Croatian, please.

17        Q.   Because Mr. Moric states in the third paragraph that:  "The

18     torching of houses and illegal taking away of people's property has

19     assumed such proportions that it is inflicting political damage on the

20     Republic of Croatia ..."

21             What's your reaction to that assessment of the extent of the

22     crime?

23        A.   If we go back to what I said before, that every hamlet had one or

24     two houses torched in this wide-liberated area, that was -- that would

25     have been a rather large number, and it is certain that this was causing

Page 9967

 1     damage to the reputation of the Republic of Croatia.

 2        Q.   And in terms of your --

 3             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, I'm sorry there's a part of his answer

 4     at the end I don't think that the interpreter was able to hear, so if we

 5     could ask him to repeat the last portion.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  Mr. Buhin, what we have

 7     on the record is now is that after you explained that one or two houses

 8     were torched in every hamlet in a wide area, that would be a rather large

 9     number and that it is certain that this was causing damage to the

10     reputation of the Republic of Croatia.

11             Then apparently you added something.  Could you tell what you

12     said after you said:  "... damage to the reputation of the Republic of

13     Croatia."

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And the reputation of the Croatian

15     police.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

17             Mr. Margetts.

18             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

19        Q.   So we've looked at these reports of -- correspondence from Moric,

20     the 17 August letter and this 18 August letter, and you've indicated that

21     they reflect some of the concerns that -- that you had as well.

22             Now, in terms of your capacity to address the crime that was

23     taking place, how did the refusal of the military police to engage in

24     joint check-points impact on your capacity to address this crime?

25        A.   I think that this did not create major problems.  The only thing

Page 9968

 1     is we could not observe and monitor everything that was being taken out

 2     or transported out of this area.

 3        Q.   So in terms of items that were transported out by the military,

 4     your -- what was your capacity to observe that?

 5        A.   There weren't any, or there wasn't any capacity.  Whatever was

 6     taken out was in enclosed vehicles.

 7        Q.   And in terms of the -- you've described the fact that

 8     check-points were set up separately.  To what extent were you able to

 9     observe the conduct of those check-points by the military police?

10        A.   We could not observe this.

11        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Buhin.  I'd like to move on to another topic.  And

12     that's relating to --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts, I have some difficulties in

14     understanding.

15             You told us earlier, isn't it, that the military police would

16     have a check-point at a distance of 10 or 20 metres of the civilian

17     police.  And you have described how documents were shown, and now you say

18     you were not certain.  There may have been some abuse of those documents,

19     but you wouldn't say that that was often the case.

20             Now, isn't that a description of how the military police handled

21     these matters?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Information was probably reached or

23     we probably gained insight into this after the contacts between my

24     colleague Ivo Baric and his meeting with General Cermak and

25     representatives of the military police, these meetings were held.

Page 9969

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes --

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- so this is where we learned

 3     about this.  But the civilian police did not check military vehicles.

 4     And all that I can add now in view of how much time that has passed I

 5     cannot really confirm any details, but I believe that in those cases

 6     where military persons were found in vehicles without any plates or in

 7     civilian vehicles that they were being intercepted and they had to show

 8     their documents to show that they were driving or transporting these

 9     items for the needs of the army, and I believe that some, a small number

10     probably, of these documents were false, but at that time it was

11     difficult to check.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  So you could observe what happened at the

13     check-points of the military police because you're now describing it.

14             Mr. Margetts earlier asked you to what extent you were able to

15     observe the conduct of the check-points of the military police, and your

16     answer was, We could not observe this, whereas you now give quite a

17     description of what happened at these check-points, isn't it?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But we could not actually follow as

19     to what the military police did.  We could not monitor that.  In case

20     where these were military personnel, they were within the competence of

21     the military police and then we had no follow-up as to what happened

22     subsequently.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But, for example, you could see whether the

24     check-point would take over the goods that were transported, or whether

25     those who were transporting those goods were let through and could

Page 9970

 1     continue their way.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably.  But we didn't have

 3     anything written down or anything registered.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But the question by Mr. Margetts was not what

 5     you registered but whether you could observe what happened at the

 6     check-points manned by the military police.

 7             You changed your mind, to some extent, from that you said that

 8     these were mainly forged documents, but now you say, Well, I'm not -- I

 9     can't say that anymore at this moment.  I've reconsidered that.

10             Now, what in first instance did make you believe that these might

11     be forged documents; and what makes you believe that in some instances

12     abuse of the documents could have been made?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, probably from the practice

14     itself, and based on what was being done then and what was being

15     transported then, it is certain that there were instances where some

16     individuals using military uniforms looted and drove away those goods for

17     their own needs.  That was difficult to determine because it was not

18     within our competence to investigate what was forged documents and what

19     was not.  But I am sure that some of them were forged.  I don't have any

20     evidence of this.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And you also said based on what was being done

22     and what was being transported then.

23             Now, could you tell us what was transported then?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Whatever could be loaded onto a

25     truck or a car.

Page 9971

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ...

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For instance, household appliances,

 3     window-frames, doors, anything that was movable.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  A few ... I think I'm just trying to find it.  One

 5     of your previous answers said that this was all loaded on covered and not

 6     open trucks.

 7             How could you observe what was transported?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Personally I didn't see almost

 9     anything because I spent most of my time in my office.  But in

10     conversations with police officers, when I went to inspect the

11     check-points, I was told by the police officers about what was being

12     transported.

13             What -- as far as they could see, most of these items were

14     transported in covered vehicles, but there were also some open vehicles,

15     a small number, perhaps.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

17             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

18        Q.   Mr. Buhin, I'd just like to move on to another topic and that is

19     you refer in your statement and you have mentioned it in -- in passing

20     some of your answers today the fact that Mr. Romanic and Mr. Baric had

21     daily meetings with General Cermak.  And you indicated in your statement

22     that after these meetings Romanic and Baric would discuss the results of

23     meetings with you, and you also said that they would return, we would

24     discuss what had gone on at the meeting, and plan our day accordingly.

25             In terms of the conclusions that were reached at those meetings

Page 9972

 1     that were communicated to you, did you implement those conclusions?

 2        A.   We did, certainly, to the best of our ability.

 3        Q.   And the -- the conclusions that were implemented, did they

 4     include issues of freedom of movement in the area of the Kotar-Knin --

 5     freedom of movement of civilians in the Kotar-Knin ...

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And do you recall implementing any decisions relating to that,

 8     that emanated from these daily meetings?

 9        A.   I can't mention a single one off the bat.  I don't know what

10     specifically you have in mind.

11        Q.   Okay.  I just thought I may refer you to an example.

12             MR. MARGETTS:  And, Mr. President, I'd like to refer to a

13     document that is under seal.  So if we could go into private session.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  We turn into private session.

15                           [Private session]

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 9973











11  Pages 9973-9977 redacted. Private session.















Page 9978

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10                           [Open session]

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

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

13             MR. MARGETTS:

14        Q.   Mr. Buhin, you'll see here that there's an order here from

15     General Cermak and it's date the 15th of August, 1995.  And it refers to

16     the freedom of movement of civilians.  And you will see down there that

17     it is addressed to the Knin police station and the Knin military police.

18             This document here, is this the type of document you would see

19     the -- Romanic and Baric return from the daily meetings with and have you

20     seen documents of this nature before?

21             MR. KAY:  Shall we see if he has seen this document, Your Honour.

22     We're dealing with a specific document --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  One question by one.  So first, have you --

24     Mr. Buhin, have you seen this document?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember.

Page 9979

 1             MR. MARGETTS:

 2        Q.   And you don't remember in terms of this specific document,

 3     dealing with the movement of civilians?  You don't remember seeing this

 4     document.

 5             In terms of these documents generally, did Mr. Romanic and

 6     Mr. Baric return with documents after their meetings with Mr. -- with

 7     General Cermak?

 8        A.   I don't remember noticing anything like that.  Normally we would

 9     just talk about what had been discussed at any meetings that preceded the

10     situations.  It has been a long time and I find myself unable to

11     recollect details of this nature.

12        Q.   Yes.  But seeing this document, is this consistent with the types

13     of issues and information that they would convey to you when they met

14     with you after these meetings?

15        A.   Looking at this document, I don't know who the General ordered to

16     act in keeping with this document, or was this simply forwarded to the

17     civilian police and the military police in Knin just by way of

18     information.  I believe that we used our own chain of command to

19     coordinate with the Minister of the Interior following something like

20     this and then Mr. Cedo Romanic's order would have followed.  I don't

21     consider this to be a direct order to the police.  After all, if you look

22     at the addressees, there's nothing there, really.  We don't know who the

23     order is to.

24        Q.   Thank you --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts, again, the witness hasn't answered

Page 9980

 1     your question, and I prefer that he does so.

 2             The question was put to you, Mr. Buhin, whether the subject

 3     matter of what appears in this document, whether that is the kind of

 4     issues that they would convey to you as matters being discussed at the

 5     meetings you have told us about.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  This must have been a topic

 7     that was raised at those meetings.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that's what you learned from those that

 9     participated in those meetings, that these were the kind of topics that

10     were discussed during those meetings?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably so.  I don't know of any

12     other sources.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

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

15        Q.   I'd like to move on to another topic, Mr. Buhin, and that is the

16     issue of crime investigation.  And we've dealt with that earlier today to

17     some extent when we talked about the Official Note that you -- that

18     recorded or purported to record a meeting you had with the Republic of

19     Croatia, Ministry of the Interior.  And you have addressed it also in

20     your witness statement.  And that is that the process was, and I'm

21     confirming what is in your witness statement, that as I understand it,

22     when an incident of crime came to your attention, you reported that to

23     the Zadar police administration, and we dealt with the specific incident

24     of -- the Grubori incident, and you indicated that you reported that to

25     Ivica Cetina, to the best of your recollection.

Page 9981

 1             Did you also report these matters directly to the chief of the

 2     criminal police, in Zadar, Mr. Ive Kardum?

 3        A.   Not directly.

 4        Q.   And so how would you -- you say not directly.  Did you understand

 5     he received these reports from you?

 6             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour.  I'm going to object at this point

 7     because there is no foundation here and I'm having a hard time following.

 8     If we could first establish what report --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's --

10             MR. MISETIC:  What are the reports, when did he prepare them,

11     what are we talking about, and was this when did you forward them.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I do agree that the question is assuming a kind of

13     report which has not been identified yet.

14             At the same time, if someone says there was no -- it was not

15     reported directly, that suggests that this is an indirect reporting and I

16     took it that what Mr. Margetts was referring to.

17             Perhaps we just ask the witness --

18             You said it was not directly -- the question was:  "Did you

19     already report these matters directly to the chief of the criminal police

20     in Zadar, Mr. Ive Kardum."

21             You said, "Not directly."

22             Now tell us, if it was not directly, what then happened that

23     makes you say that it was not reported directly.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believed it was sufficient to

25     inform the chief of the police administration, Mr. Ivo Cetina, and I'm

Page 9982

 1     sure he knew about what was going on.  He promised that he would set up a

 2     team for an on-site inspection and make sure there was an investigating

 3     judge there.  He also promised to dispatch them to Knin.  At this point,

 4     there was no further need for me to check whether he had, in fact, done

 5     that or had informed the chief of the crime police.

 6             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  -- I put on the record that I assume from the

 9     answer that we're talking specifically about the Grubori incident and not

10     how the system functioned generally.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  That was another problem in the question that you

12     started with the Grubori incident and then you enlarged the subject of

13     your question.  Mr. -- precision here also avoids a lot of -- yes.

14             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, the balance I'm trying to strike

15     here is, instead of going straight to specific paragraphs of the

16     witness's statement, I'm trying to strike a balance between taking

17     information that we're all familiar with in his statement and developing

18     it without needing to take the compass and technique of specific

19     reference, so --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it's good that you explain what you were doing,

21     Mr. Margetts.  We observe what you were doing, and we also observe what

22     then happens.  This is not to encourage the Defence to object against

23     every question, but it certainly also encourages you, Mr. Margetts, to

24     phrase your questions in such a way, and I would add to that, to

25     introduce them in such a way that Mr. Misetic or the others have not even

Page 9983

 1     a chance to object.

 2             Please proceed.

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

 4             Mr. Registrar, if I could please have the witness's statement

 5     presented.  It's now P963.  And if we could refer to page 3 of the B/C/S

 6     and to -- it's page 4 of the English, the first paragraph.  Page 3 of the

 7     B/C/S, if we go down to the bottom of that page, Mr. Registrar.  It's the

 8     last paragraph there.

 9        Q.   Mr. Buhin, you'll see in that -- the start, the first part of

10     that last paragraph, you refer generally to the procedure that you

11     engaged in.  And that -- the general procedure of reporting to the Zadar

12     criminal police.  You state that it was usually Romanic or Mihic who

13     reported it and sometimes you or Baric would go directly to Ivica Cetina.

14             Just referring to the system that was in place in August 1995, I

15     am interested to know, in August 1995, were there criminal policemen who

16     were in Knin, were they working, for example, at the elementary school or

17     otherwise; and if you do know of any criminal policemen that were in Knin

18     in August 1995, would you be able to give the Trial Chamber their names?

19        A.   No.  The crime police were not in Knin.  There were none in Knin,

20     in fact.  They were in Zadar.  As far as work in the Knin area was

21     concerned, we would always have crime policemen from Zadar come over and

22     then they would take care of the job.

23        Q.   And these crime policemen from Zadar, were some of them taking

24     care of tasks that were performed in the elementary school where people

25     had gathered?

Page 9984

 1        A.   I know nothing about that.

 2        Q.   Do you know -- is the name Slavko Raspovic familiar to you?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   And I'd now like to move on to another topic, a related topic but

 5     another topic, nonetheless, and that is the matter of the Grubori

 6     investigation that we've already touched on today.

 7             Now, you indicated earlier when we were addressing the Official

 8     Note you had informed probably Ivica Cetina of the -- of the incident

 9     that had taken place, and I'd just like to refer you to your statement.

10             MR. MARGETTS:  And again, Mr. Registrar, we've got it up on the

11     screen.  And if we could go to page 4 of the B/C/S, and that's page 4 of

12     the English.

13        Q.   And about two-thirds of the way down, you refer to the issues of

14     the conversation with Sacic and the steps that had been taken.  And you

15     said that it had been agreed to have an investigating judge come from

16     Zadar with the criminal police to investigate and try the killings.

17             Are you able to identify any of the people from the prosecutor`s

18     office or otherwise who had been -- who were going to come down and

19     investigate the killings?  Do you recall who they were or what their

20     names were?

21        A.   I never knew their names.  I don't know who they were.  I don't

22     know who the prosecutors were in Zadar at the time.  The job itself was

23     left to the chief of the police administration, Ivo Cetina.

24        Q.   So up to that point, had you been present when any investigations

25     had been conducted by the criminal police or the prosecutors in the area,

Page 9985

 1     or hadn't you been present and, therefore, hadn't you had the opportunity

 2     to meet these people?

 3        A.   Do you mean the Grubori incident or some other situations?

 4        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... I'm just referring generally

 5     to your knowledge of the personnel who were operating either engaged by

 6     the prosecutors's office or engaged by the Zadar criminal police.  At

 7     that stage, had you had the opportunity to meet any of those persons.

 8        A.   I am certain that I did not meet any prosecutors or investigating

 9     judges.  As to members of the crime police, if indeed I met some of them,

10     the one thing I can tell you is I don't know their names.

11        Q.   Okay.

12             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, I need to deal with two exhibits

13     that are under seal.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  We turn into private session and the exhibits not to

15     be shown to the public.

16                           [Private session]

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 9986











11  Pages 9986-9995 redacted. Private session.















Page 9996

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.58 p.m.,

 5                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 7th day of

 6                           October, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.