Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 11600

 1                           Wednesday, 12 November 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 7             Mr. Registrar would you please call the case.

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

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

10     Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12             Good morning to you, Mr. Zganjer, as well.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I would like to remind you that the solemn

15     declaration that you've given at the beginning of your testimony still

16     binds you.

17             Mr. Mikulicic, are you ready to continue your cross-examination?

18             MR. MIKULICIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning

19     everybody in the courtroom.

20                           WITNESS:  ZELJKO ZGANJER [Resumed]

21                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

22                           Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic: [Continued]

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Zganjer.

24             MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... before I

25     begin that announce that I was going through my questions last afternoon

Page 11601

 1     and I could be finished within the first session, so until the first

 2     break.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 4             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Good morning to you, Mr. Zganjer, once again.

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Can all the extra

 7     microphones be switched off.

 8             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   The topic we're going to discuss this morning is the Official

10     Note.  We've already discussed this at great length, but I should like to

11     clarify certain issues and I would like to have your assistance in that.

12             It is true, is it not, that the Official Note is, in fact, a

13     form, a template that a police officer uses to record a pre-investigation

14     action, be it an interview with a suspect or a witness, or a search of an

15     area, a location, and so on and so forth?

16             Do you agree with me?

17        A.   Yes, I do, though I do want to correct you in one matter.  It's

18     not searching of an area, but going through an area inspecting.

19        Q.   Regardless of the way in which the Official Note is made and the

20     format used, it does not carry as much significance as other documents,

21     such as the record of an interview with a witness or a scene of crime

22     investigation report and so on.  That is right?

23        A.   Yes.  The Official Note is only a piece of information and not a

24     piece of evidence.

25        Q.   You've just used the term information or notification.

Page 11602

 1     Notification for whom?

 2        A.   Well, for the state attorney, who, before deciding to initiate

 3     criminal proceedings against a person, will draw upon the notification to

 4     learn certain facts that will be material to him to decide whether to

 5     initiate criminal proceedings against a person for a certain crime.

 6        Q.   In essence, therefore, the Official Note represents an incentive

 7     for the judicial bodies, be it the state attorney or the investigating

 8     judge, to go through with the formal evidence and pursue investigation

 9     activities based on the information contained therein.  Is that right?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   As for the Official Note made by the police once they've

12     conducted interviews, it could be divided roughly into two segments:  The

13     Official Note of the interview conducted with a potential witness; and

14     the Official Note of the interview with a suspect or a potential accused.

15     Is that right?

16        A.   Yes, that's right.

17        Q.   From a formal point of view, the procedural fate of such an

18     Official Note is also a different one, when we talk about the two

19     different types.  So the Official Note of an interview held with a

20     potential suspect must be, under the Croatian legislation, physically

21     removed from the case file.  Is that right?

22        A.   Yes, that is true.  It has to be removed, enveloped, and cannot

23     be used in the presentation of evidence at trial.

24        Q.   Exceptionally, though, it can be used where the accused

25     specifically invokes that possibility.  Is that right?

Page 11603

 1        A.   I don't think so.  I believe that the investigation judge or the

 2     trial judge hearing the case should, nevertheless, insist that the party

 3     concerned make the same statement before him as had been done before the

 4     police.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Zganjer, in the course of your interviews with

 6     OTP investigators, you touched at great length also the topic of the

 7     Official Note, did you not?

 8        A.   Yes, this was discussed as well.

 9        Q.   The OTP investigator, Mr. Robert Casey, in the course of the

10     interview you had on the 12th of July, 2006, I'm referring to pages 16188

11     to 16189, practically put to you his view, his interpretation of the

12     Official Note that -- notes that the police made at your request on the

13     events in Grubori from the conversations with members of the special

14     police and other individuals.

15             He characterized them in the following way:  That the interviews

16     conducted were very poor, that they were not compiled in any sort of

17     format, that the contents of these interviews did not really make a

18     contribution or bring anything in, and that you should not perceive this

19     as criticism levelled against you.

20             Do you recall the investigator saying something of the sort?

21        A.   Yes.  Mr. Casey did make certain comments, and Ms. Dave Morris I

22     believe did so as well.  She was present during my interview.  But these

23     were comments coming from the OTP, and I would not wish to go into that.

24        Q.   At any rate, some criticism was directed at you since a lot of

25     time had elapsed between March 2002 and November 2002, when you received

Page 11604

 1     the information.  However, you said that the incident at Grubori took

 2     place on the 25th of August, 1995, and that the police could have done

 3     something before 2001 as well.  That was your position, was it not?

 4        A.   Yes, that was my position.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  We broached the topic of the incident in the Grubori

 6     hamlet in the Plavno valley.

 7             You told us that at the time these events transpired, that's to

 8     say, the 25th of August, 1995, the body which had territorial and subject

 9     matter jurisdiction was the court in Zadar and, as a consequence, the

10     state attorney's office in Zadar as well.  Is that right?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   When you were informed of the case, once the jurisdiction was

13     transferred, you initiated the procedure on your own initiative in order

14     to establish what had actually transpired there.  Is that right?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Under the Croatian legislation, the state attorney has the power

17     of initiating proceedings, and where there is no criminal report filed

18     but the state attorney learns that something happened which might come

19     under his jurisdiction.  Is that right?

20        A.   Yes.  The Croatian provisions, legal provisions regulating the

21     work of the state attorney, state that the state attorney may become

22     active on a case as soon as he receives reports or information of a

23     criminal offence committed; in other words, there is no need for a

24     criminal report to come from the police.

25        Q.   However, it is true, is it not, that in the majority of cases,

Page 11605

 1     that is the way in which proceedings are initiated by the state attorney;

 2     that's to say, a report or notification, whether it come from the police,

 3     from various inspection bodies, or from private citizens?

 4        A.   Yes, undoubtedly, these are the most often ways in which the

 5     state attorney is prompted into action.

 6        Q.   To put it colloquially, once you got into the case itself, once

 7     you were familiar well it, is it true - and I tell you what happened -

 8     you came to know that the Zadar state attorney's office had never

 9     received a criminal report concerning the events in Grubori?

10        A.   Yes, that is what I learned.  Not only that a criminal report had

11     not been filed, but not even a regular report accounting the events in

12     Grubori.

13             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I'm referring to Exhibit P1061 on

14     this issue, Your Honours.  This is a letter, the correspondence between

15     the state attorneys of Sibenik and Zadar.

16        Q.   Similarly, Mr. Zganjer, you came to know that once the incident

17     in Grubori was entered into the log-book of the Knin police station, the

18     general duty police did not dispatch a patrol in order to secure the

19     crime scene.  We discussed yesterday the fact that this should have been

20     normally the first step taken in such a situation.

21        A.   Yes, that's true.

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 11606

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12             Please proceed.

13             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, if I may just correct the

15     record, this is a minor point; however, Mr. Mikulicic referred to P1061

16     as correspondence between the state attorneys of Zadar and Sibenik.  It's

17     actually correspondence between the state attorney of Zadar and the

18     public prosecutor of the Republic of Croatia, just for the record.

19             MR. MIKULICIC:  I'm grateful to my learned friend.  Thank you.

20        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Zganjer, did you know Ive Kardum.  Do you

21     know who he is?

22        A.   No, I don't know the gentleman.

23        Q.   We heard the testimony of Mr. Kardum, who, at the time of the

24     events in Grubori, was the chief of the crime police in Zadar and who

25     said that he had not been informed of the incident.  However, what you

Page 11607

 1     have most certainly established is that no sort of a crime scene

 2     investigation was conducted in Grubori, either by the state attorney,

 3     investigating judge, or the police.  Is that right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Therefore, no follow-up forensic examination of the injuries

 6     sustained by the victims in order to ascertain the mechanism of injury in

 7     which the injuries were inflicted -- by which the injuries were

 8     inflicted, or the cause of death.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Equally so, no evidence was collected from the crime scene.  We

11     see from your file that you asked the police to try and obtain the bullet

12     casings you saw on the photographs and which had presumably been taken by

13     the UN -- by the UN members.  Do you remember that?

14        A.   Yes, I do.

15        Q.   In actual fact, you were prompted by your report from Amnesty

16     International to launch the proceedings.  Is that so?

17        A.   Yes, that is correct.  That was the first notification that I

18     received about this incident, and it came from the Amnesty International

19     staff.

20        Q.   In that report, it is noted that one of the victims of the

21     incident, Jovo Grubor, had been killed in such a way that he was

22     slaughtered, that his throat was slit.  Do you remember that?

23        A.   Yes.  I think that the Amnesty International report did mention

24     the fact that one of the persons, Jovo Grubor, or perhaps somebody else,

25     had simply had his throat cut.

Page 11608

 1        Q.   In the course of the proceedings in which you tried to establish

 2     facts, was this fact really established by an expert through an

 3     examination of the body or perhaps an autopsy performed by a forensic

 4     pathologist?

 5        A.   While the case was in my hands, I don't think that we were ever

 6     able to establish this fact, so this remained a claim that was made in

 7     the Amnesty International report.  It never went beyond this claim, but I

 8     do allow that it was possible when the victims were exhumed from the Knin

 9     cemetery that the body of Jovo Grubor was among those exhumed.  I

10     attended the exhumation, but in the mean time, I had left Sibenik.  I do

11     know for a fact that the report on this exhumation and the autopsies or

12     post-mortem examinations that followed later was submitted to the state

13     attorney's office.

14             Now whether Jovo Grubor's body really was exhumed in that

15     exercise, I cannot claim that with full certainty, but I do allow that

16     this was possible; and if, indeed, it was exhumed, I don't know what was

17     ascertained upon the examination of Jovo Grubor's body.  I would not now

18     like to bother the Court with details, but if we're talking about any

19     evidence of his throat being cut, it is possible that no evidence was

20     actually found because of the decomposition.  That is a consequence of

21     the body being buried for such a long time.

22             This is just a layperson's assessment, so that would be my answer

23     to your question.

24        Q.   Just a follow-up question, do you remember -- regarding the

25     incident that occurred in August 1995, as we said, do you remember when

Page 11609

 1     the exhumation and the autopsy of the bodies were conducted?

 2        A.   I think it was in 2001.  I think it was in 2001 in mid-April or

 3     May, as far as I can recall.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Zganjer, let me go back to the interview that you

 5     had with the OTP investigators.

 6             The OTP investigator, Robert Casey, put it to you that there is

 7     no doubt there was an attempt to cover-up things; by that, he means the

 8     Grubori incident by the special police.

 9             Now, question to you is this:  As examined the materials that

10     were at your disposal that you were able to collect, did you ever obtain

11     any evidence or any knowledge that this claim that the Prosecution put to

12     was based on facts, facts that you had at your disposal?

13        A.   On the basis of the facts that I had at that time, I could not

14     reach a conclusion that this was, indeed, an attempt to cover up.  But I

15     have to say that, as far as I'm concerned, it was inconceivable to me why

16     this event was not reported to the duty investigating judge and the duty

17     state attorney.

18             This was an incident of such a nature and of such a scope that,

19     simply, this incident should not have engendered any kind of academic

20     debate, whether this should have been reported to the investigating judge

21     and the state attorney, because it is without a shadow of a doubt, it's a

22     case that should have been reported to them.

23        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, do you know that special police members are not the

24     element of the police force that carries out crime investigations --

25     crime scene investigation, and they are not the part of the police force

Page 11610

 1     that submits reports to the investigating judge and so on?  Can you

 2     confirm that?

 3        A.   Yes.  Special police has clearly defined special tasks,

 4     interviewing, citizens or suspects, conducting crime scene

 5     investigations, taking other operational crime investigation measures.

 6     These are not the tasks of the special police; that's for sure.

 7        Q.   A little while ago, you said that the mere fact that the state

 8     attorney received word or a report of a crime, this is enough to prompt

 9     them into action.

10             As you conducted actions on the Grubori case, did you come across

11     any facts that indicated that there was an attempt to cover up or to in

12     any other way tamper with the investigation from any side.  In that case,

13     you would have to institute criminal proceedings against any such party?

14        A.   Yes, quite naturally.  In such a situation, I would have tried to

15     clarify all the circumstances in which this attempt to tamper or cover up

16     of this whole incident by those persons was carried out.

17        Q.   And my last question on this topic:  As you dealt with the

18     Grubori case while you were the state attorney in Sibenik, did you ever

19     obtain any evidence or learn anything to the effect that General Markac

20     did anything to, in effect, prevent any investigation into the Grubori

21     incident and clarification of the circumstances of the incident?

22             Did you come across any traces of this activity on part of

23     General Markac?

24        A.   From the materials that I had at my disposal, I was unable to

25     establish any facts that would indicate that I should reach such a

Page 11611

 1     conclusion, the conclusion that Mr. Markac had in any way prevented or

 2     obstructed the actions of the police regarding the Grubori incident.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Now I would like us to move on to a different topic.

 4             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] The document P505, MFI, could I

 5     please have this document on the screen; P505, MFI.

 6        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, you will see this document in front of you.  It's a

 7     document that you received from the police, and it's a document, it's a

 8     purported memorandum from the special advisor to the minister of the

 9     interior, Mr. Mladen Markac, to the minister of the interior, Mr. Ivan

10     Jarnjak.

11             In response to the Prosecution questions, you said that you had

12     no reason to doubt the authenticity and credibility of this document

13     because, at your request, it was submitted to you by the competent

14     authorities, the Ministry of Interior in this case.  I fully respect and

15     understand your position, and, honestly, I would have the same position

16     in the circumstances because I did the same job as you did for a number

17     of years.

18             However, because of certain circumstances, in particular,

19     pertaining to this issue, I have come to suspect the authenticity and

20     credibility of this document, and let me now draw your attention to some

21     of the defects.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, you're introducing, first of all,

23     your personal experience, what your feelings were.  Of course, we are

24     here to hear the testimony of the witness, rather than your --

25             MR. MIKULICIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... my testimony, of

Page 11612

 1     course.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  -- testimony.  And if you say --

 3             MR. MIKULICIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... I was trying to put my

 4     case --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Of course, there's no problem with leading,

 6     but at a certain moment, it becomes counterproductive.  Could you please

 7     keep this in mind.

 8             MR. MIKULICIC:  I will try to avoid this, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

10             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Zganjer, could you please look at the

12     heading or the letterhead in this document and, in particular, the number

13     which begins -- the reference number which begins with 511-01-30, and now

14     this is an empty space here.

15             It is usual practice - could you please confirm that or not -

16     that usually the number from the registry book is entered here and the

17     first figures listed here define the body, designate the body that

18     actually issued this document, and it is quite clear that the numbers

19     that are put in by the registry book are missing here.  Is that correct?

20        A.   Yes, I agree with you.

21        Q.   If we now go back to the next page of this document.

22             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the registrar

23     to move to page 2.

24        Q.   We can see that Mladen Markac is designated here as the person

25     issuing the document, but the document is unsigned and there is no

Page 11613

 1     official stamp on this document.  It is usual for documents, official

 2     documents, to bear both.  Can you confirm that?

 3        A.   Yes, can I confirm that.  It is quite usual that such documents

 4     are signed by the drafter and an official stamp is affixed to them.

 5        Q.   In light of those circumstances, I went one step further and I

 6     sought official information.

 7             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 3D01-0565 up

 8     on our screens.

 9        Q.   We will have it in front of us.  However, I sent a letter to the

10     office for the Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal with

11     the Ministry of Justice, and I asked them to let me know, under item 1,

12     whether the controversial document, if it exists, was, in fact, signed.

13     I asked for a signed copy of this document to be sent to me.

14             I also wanted them to let me know whether the registry book of

15     the special police sector, for the year 1996, if there is any trace that

16     would indicate that this document signed by General Markac was, in fact,

17     sent and received in the office of the then-minister of the interior,

18     Mr. Jarnjak, and, furthermore, whether any such document was later on

19     forwarded to the Special Rapporteur, Elisabeth Rehn, from Mr. Jarnjak's

20     office?

21             Mr. Zganjer, you can see this in front of you --

22             MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... evidence,

23     Your Honour.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

Page 11614

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit number D909.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  D909 is admitted into evidence.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I received an answer to this

 4     letter or request, and that is document 3D01-0563.

 5        Q.   I received this reply from the Directorate for International

 6     Cooperation of the Justice Ministry.  It was signed and stamped by

 7     Mr. Markotic who is the head of the directorate, and we can see here that

 8     all the registry numbers are in place.

 9             I am notified in this letter that from the Justice Ministry -- or

10     rather, from the Ministry of Interior, they received information that

11     they have checked in their archives and were unable to find a signed copy

12     of the document at issue.  Furthermore, this memo was not entered in the

13     registry book for the relevant time-period; that is, 1996, of the former

14     assistant minister for special police, General Markac, and a copy of his

15     personnel file is provided by the directorate.

16             In the last paragraph, they note that the file was not entered --

17     that this document was not entered in the registry books of the office of

18     Minister Jarnjak.

19             MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... evidence,

20     Your Honour.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D910, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  D910 is admitted into evidence.

25             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I would ask the registry to show

Page 11615

 1     document 3D01-0567.

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] This is the registry book of the special police

 3     sector which at that time, in 1996, did exist.  It's a huge book, of

 4     course, and we will now look at the entries for the dates in question,

 5     and that's the 13th of March, 1996, and this is the date listed on the

 6     controversial document as the date that the document was actually issued.

 7             We can see in the upper area that this page starts with the date

 8     which is the 12th of March; and then further down the page --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, I am asking myself what exercise we

10     are engaged in at this moment.

11             The witness gave his view on face value of a document, and it's

12     clear from that what the basis of his assessment is.  The basis would not

13     easily allow for any inferences as to whether that is correct or not.  He

14     just gives his impression, the impression he gains on the basis of that

15     document.

16             Now you're taking us through a lot of apparent verification

17     exercises on the authenticity of this document.  Now, what would we

18     expect the witness then at then end to say, "Well, I was wrong, I was

19     right."  I mean --

20             MR. MIKULICIC:  That would be my final questions, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But, of course, these are questions for the

22     Court to decide --

23             MR. MIKULICIC:  No --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  -- whether he was right or whether he was wrong.  We

25     are not asking --

Page 11616

 1             MR. MIKULICIC:  That would not be my question whether he was

 2     right or he was wrong.  My question would be, if he knew then those

 3     facts, would it be that his impression would be the same.  That would my

 4     final question, and that's all.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, a hypothetical question, if you would have had

 6     another knowledge, would you have --

 7             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yeah, like this.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It's a matter of logic, rather than anything

 9     else, isn't it?  You think that the -- of course, if the witness could

10     say, "Well, I know that these records or these registers are not

11     complete; therefore, I would have to doubt to say so," et cetera.

12             But, of course, I'm asking myself whether providing this

13     information to the Chamber, and as argument to add to that, please keep

14     sharply in mind that what the witness says is just based on his --

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  Knowledge.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, what he knew at the time.  We, and especially

17     you, Trial Chamber, you know far more about the matter.  So if

18     evaluating, at face value, the assessment of this witness, please keep in

19     mind that the witness was not aware of that and that.  Then I'm inclined

20     to say that we could do the job, because the job is about -- simply, it

21     is if you have an initial, a provisional assessment of a situation, if

22     you add information, would that affect the assessment, if the witness

23     would say no.

24             Of course, if he can add anything to that, if you have any

25     knowledge about this or to say that this is incomplete, or "I know for

Page 11617

 1     certain that these records have been checked, and I know that it was

 2     always established that there were complete."  So if something is not in

 3     there, it could not -- I mean, if he has any such knowledge, I would

 4     certainly like to know for sure, because then he adds to what apparently

 5     is documentary evidence which gives a further insight in what this letter

 6     may be.

 7             Therefore, I'm asking whether this witness can add anything to

 8     what I take it, Ms. Mahindaratne, I heard of no objection, additional

 9     information, you accept as being obtained from the Croatian government.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Absolutely, Mr. President.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             Would you please keep that in mind, Mr. Mikulicic.

13             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, sure, Your Honour.  If the witness just can

14     answer my final question, whether he would state within his impression,

15     it was impression because he said that the document came through the

16     channels of the Ministry of Interior, and, therefore, he estimated his

17     authenticity and --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I think we can be very clear.

19             Verification seems not to confirm, Mr. Zganjer, does not confirm

20     that the letter was sent and/or received.  If you would have had this

21     information at the time, and since you see this kind of information now,

22     would you find that a reason to reconsider your first impression of

23     authenticity?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, I was aware of that

25     information at the time -- had I been aware of the information at that

Page 11618

 1     time, I would have called into question what I thought.  What I see now

 2     drives me to believe that there was some kind of a game played within the

 3     Ministry of Interior.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Mikulicic.

 5             MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... may I tender

 6     this document into evidence, Your Honour.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D911, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  D911 is admitted into evidence.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Zganjer, at the time you worked and was --

14     were active in the Sibenik state attorney's office, you were faced with

15     certain activities that the Ministry of Justice or the state attorney of

16     the Republic of Croatia undertook in terms of seeking information about

17     actions taken, statistics concerning crime, and so on and so forth.

18             This could be called the usual activity, could it not?

19        A.   Yes.  That was the usual activity in which every state attorney's

20     office engaged periodically, and regularly at the end of the year

21     informing the Ministry of Interior of the number of received criminal

22     reports, and informed the state attorney's office of the actions taken on

23     that score.

24        Q.   I will show to you a document concerning the military judiciary,

25     the military court.

Page 11619

 1             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can the registrar please call up

 2     3D01-0561.

 3        Q.   This is the memo from the then-minister of justice,

 4     Mr. Separovic, dated 5th of January, 1996, addressed to the presidents of

 5     the military courts in Zagreb, Bjelovar, Osijek, Karlovac, and Split, as

 6     can you see.

 7             In this memo, the ministry, in paragraph 2, seeks to be notified

 8     of the court proceedings against perpetrators of crimes committed after

 9     the military and police Operation Storm, regardless of whether the

10     proceedings were pending against persons of Serb ethnicity or persons of

11     Croat ethnicity, or members of the Croatian army.

12             Mr. Zganjer, were you aware at that time of this practice whereby

13     the Croatian authorities sought information on the criminal proceedings

14     pending; thus, wishing to be informed about the number and type of

15     criminal proceedings carried out after Operation Storm?

16        A.   Yes.  What you are showing to me here on the screen is a document

17     sent to the presidents of military courts.  I was not familiar with the

18     specific document, since it had to deal with military courts.  However, I

19     knew that the Ministry of Justice, through the state attorney's office of

20     the Republic of Croatia, sought, at the time, roughly the same sort of

21     information from state attorney's offices.

22        Q.   The competent state attorney was duty-bound to inform the chief

23     state attorney of the information?

24        A.   Yes.  All the district or county state attorney's offices

25     collected various information which was then compiled at the level of the

Page 11620

 1     national state attorney's office and forwarded to the Ministry of

 2     Justice.

 3        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, while you were performing the duty of a state

 4     attorney, did you personally ever receive any sort of instruction or

 5     order that in the course of criminal proceedings, you should make some

 6     concessions, refrain from certain criminal proceedings, or

 7     characterizations of certain crimes?

 8             Did you ever receive such sort of information from anyone in the

 9     various structures of the Croatian authorities?

10        A.   Counsel Mikulicic, all my life throughout my career in the state

11     attorney's office, I worked by following my conscience, and I was never

12     asked by anyone to turn a blind eye to anything.  I was primarily in the

13     service of my conscience rather than the service.  That would be my

14     answer, rather than in the service of my position.  I was never told by

15     anyone to turn a blind eye or to not see things clearly on any matters.

16        Q.   Did you ever hear from any of your colleagues that anybody else,

17     be it in your state attorney's office or in other state attorney's

18     offices that you were in contact with, had been subjected to such

19     influence?

20        A.   When it comes to the Sibenik state attorney's office and my

21     deputies, they knew full well what my professional work ethic was, and

22     nobody could have excerpted any sort of pressure upon them without me

23     knowing about it.  They were responsible for their jobs to me; and me, by

24     virtue of my position being the state attorney, I protected them from the

25     higher levels, be it the Ministry of Justice or the national state

Page 11621

 1     attorney office, regardless.

 2        Q.   My last question, Mr. Zganjer, on the issue of -- that we're

 3     discussing now.  When you left the Sibenik office, you ceased working on

 4     the Grubori case.  You said that at that time you left, the case was

 5     still open, it had not been closed.  Do you have any information as to

 6     whether this same case is closed today or whether the investigation is

 7     still ongoing?

 8        A.   I must admit that I do not have any specific knowledge about

 9     that.  In the month of September of 2002, I assumed a different position

10     within the state attorney system, whereupon I left the state attorney's

11     offices.  I have to be frank, that due to the great workload that I had

12     to take on after I left the Sibenik state attorney's office, I did not

13     have time or interest to know what was going on.

14             When I left the state attorney's offices system altogether in

15     February 2006, I did not have any way of knowing what was going on in the

16     Grubori case in operative terms; that's to say, after the 15th of

17     February, 2006.

18        Q.   Equally so, I believe you have no knowledge as to whether the

19     potential suspects or perpetrators of the Grubori incidents were

20     identified.

21        A.   I don't know, but I don't believe that they have been identified

22     so far.  I don't think so.

23        Q.   Thank you for these answers.  I don't have any other questions.

24             MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... on the screen

25     into the evidence, Your Honour.

Page 11622

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D912, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  D912 is admitted into evidence.

 5             MR. MIKULICIC:  I have no further questions, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.

 7             Mr. Kay, or Mr. Cayley?

 8             MR. CAYLEY:  We don't have any questions, Your Honour.  Thank

 9     you.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I didn't know whether you were third in line or

11     second in line without questions.  Thank you.

12             Mr. Misetic.

13             Mr. Misetic, Mr. Zganjer, is counsel for Mr. Gotovina and he will

14     now cross-examine you.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

17                           Cross-examination by Mr. Misetic:

18        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, good morning.

19             MR. MISETIC:  Let me start, Mr. Registrar, if can I call up

20     1D60-0074.

21        Q.   Let me start, Mr. Zganjer, with where you left off with

22     Prosecutor yesterday, which is this issue of the admissions or

23     confessions that had been made in the Varivode case, and you said that

24     the confession was made in front of the investigating judge, which is

25     correct.  But I'd like to show you statement of one of the accused or the

Page 11623

 1     Official Note of the interview of one of the accused before he went to

 2     the investigating judge, which is the Official Note of the interview of

 3     the subsequently accused Zlatko Ladovic.

 4             The note was taken by Ivo Kardum.  You will recognise that he was

 5     at the time the chief of the crime police in the Zadar-Knin police

 6     administration.  Is that correct?

 7        A.   I don't see the information on the screen, but I have no reason

 8     to doubt the truthfulness of what you say.

 9             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if we can go to page 2 in the

10     English, which is also page 2 in the Croatian.

11        Q.   Mr. Ladovic talks about - it's quite long; it's a three-page

12     Official Note - but he talks about the events in Varivode.  If we

13     start --

14             MR. MISETIC:  I won't go through the whole thing in order to save

15     time.

16             If we go to six lines below the line that has "Jakovljevic, Ivan"

17     in bold - it's six lines in the English and I am not sure how many in

18     Croatian - the sentence begins:  "He says that Coro was wearing the

19     camouflage pants ..."

20        Q.   Now Mr. Ladovic, according to the Official Note, says:  "He says

21     that Coro was wears camouflage pants and a black shirt, that his hair was

22     tied, and that he was carrying an automatic rifle.  Zlatko and Zuki moved

23     forward, and Coro and the short, blond guy stayed behind them.  He states

24     how he move -- sorry.  He states how he asked Zuki where the Chetniks

25     were and that he responded ahead.  Coro and the blond guy headed towards

Page 11624

 1     a garden and that he and Zuki continued along the road."

 2             Then a few lines below that, he talks about Ivica Petric, and

 3     then he says:  "He states that at one point, unexpectedly, Zuki fired at

 4     these civilians from an automatic rifle, and he didn't know what to do,

 5     until he realized what was going on.  Seeing what Zuki did them, he said

 6     to him, 'Zuki, those aren't Chetniks.  What are you doing?'  Then he

 7     replied, 'It doesn't matter, this is the same gang.'"

 8             Then it goes on to details about the killing of other civilians

 9     as well in Varivode.

10             Now, my question goes back to these Official Notes.  You

11     ultimately decided that the confession before the investigating judge, as

12     well as the confession made at least in the Official Note to Mr. Kardum,

13     did not even provide a reasonable basis to proceed with the Varivode

14     indictments.

15             My question for you is:  What is it about this Official Note that

16     was not credible to you as a basis for proceeding with charges against

17     Mr. Ladovic?

18        A.   I will have to explain a couple of things to you.

19             The Official Note that Counsel Misetic has shown me was not of

20     interest to me when I received this case for my action.  When I received

21     this case for my action - that was in 1999, if I'm not mistaken - I

22     focussed in particular -- or rather, I only focussed on the confessions

23     made by some of the accused before an investigating judge, and this is

24     what I really have to stress:  Before an investigating judge.

25             These people - Ladovic - were questioned by a investigative

Page 11625

 1     judge.  And in this stage, when the Supreme Court quashed the judgement

 2     and ordered a retrial, I only took into account Ladovic's statement and

 3     Jakovljevic's statement made before the investigating judge because only

 4     those statements were used as evidence at trial, and I could only

 5     evaluate them, not an Official Note.  This is why I see no need for any

 6     reference to be made to this Official Note.

 7             There is the -- there are statements of four of the accused in

 8     this case, given to an investigative judge; and this is an Official Note

 9     that we discussed at length in the proceedings.  This is merely a

10     notification; it is not evidence.

11             In this case, as regards the statement by Ladovic, as a citizen,

12     or as a suspect, we had his statement given to an investigating judge;

13     and when the case came to me, I focussed on analysing the parts of the

14     case file that had evidentiary value.  This Official Note does not have

15     evidentiary value; whereas, Zlatko Ladovic's statement before an

16     investigating judge does have such value.

17             This is why I focussed on that statement, not on this Official

18     Note, because I could not come to court and tell the judge, "I'm sorry,

19     judge, but this what is he said in his Official Note," because the Court

20     would simply brush aside this intervention, and they would say, "Now

21     you're referring to something that is not contained in the case file,"

22     because this Official Note had been redacted from the case file a long

23     time ago as material that cannot be used as evidence in criminal

24     proceedings.

25        Q.   Let me follow up.  You were asked some questions -- and, first,

Page 11626

 1     let me just explain to you, Mr. Zganjer, what we're trying to do here,

 2     first, with these Official Notes is determine their reliability.  You

 3     were asked some questions on this point both by the Prosecutor and by the

 4     Presiding Judge yesterday.

 5             What I'd like you to do -- even though you did not have this in

 6     the case file, you are aware of the facts of the case against Mr. Ladovic

 7     because you ultimately decided not to prosecute him.

 8             So what I'd like you to explain to us is, now looking at the

 9     Official Note and Mr. Ladovic's acknowledgment, at least in the Official

10     Note, of the events in Varivode and his presence there, my question is:

11     Looking at this, do you consider this a reliable statement to the police;

12     and, if not, why not?

13        A.   Well, this statement by Mr. Ladovic, this Official Note of an

14     interview with Mr. Ladovic, was, at any rate, a useful piece of

15     information.

16             But useful for whom?  The county state attorney's office in Zadar

17     at the time when the criminal report against the four people was

18     received.  At that time, this Official Note became a relevant document

19     for them, enabling them to decide whether criminal proceedings should be

20     launched against those persons or not.

21        Q.   I understand the procedural issues that you're addressing.  Let

22     me phrase the question a different way.

23             The official police note says that Mr. Ladovic says he was in

24     Varivode with Zuki and Ivica Petric, and Coro and Zuki fired at civilians

25     in Varivode and killed civilians in Varivode.

Page 11627

 1             Is that true?

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I object to that question.  I

 3     think this witness cannot answer that question as to whether that is true

 4     or not.  He has explained what the notes are and their purposes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let me see.  The objection is granted.

 6             But I do see what you'd like to know, Mr. Misetic.

 7             This Official Note first reflects a statement given to police

 8     officers by Mr. Ladovic.  Do you have any reason to believe that the

 9     Official Note does not accurately reflect what Mr. Ladovic told the

10     police officers?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do allow that what the police

12     officer recorded when interviewing the citizen or suspect Ladovic is,

13     indeed, accurate.  But --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that is an answer to my first question.  If

15     you'd like to add anything at a later stage, you may do so.

16             If you would, please, listen to my second question:  Do you have

17     any reason to believe that what was put on paper as the statement or what

18     was put on paper as reflecting what Mr. Ladovic had told the police

19     officers was not in accordance with the truth?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At this point in time, I have to

21     admit that I cannot recall details from Mr. Ladovic's statement, the

22     statement that he gave to the police officers.  I do allow that this is

23     what he really did say to the police officers, and that they recorded

24     this accurately in the Official Note.

25             However, Mr. Ladovic spoke about this in his interview with the

Page 11628

 1     investigating judge --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ...

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and I would kindly ask --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If you say the reasons for believing or the

 5     reasons to doubt the truthfulness of his statement is found in the later

 6     statement he gave to the investigating judge, if you say on the basis of

 7     what I've seen there, I have doubts as to whether he told us the truth -

 8     not us, of course - he told the truth to the police officers, if that is

 9     what you want to draw our attention to, please do so.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for this

11     intervention.

12             You, in fact, may have rendered in the most accurate terms what I

13     have been trying to say.  I have reason to doubt the contents of the

14     statement because what he said to the police, and in particular what he

15     said to the investigating judge, he and the other accused, well, what

16     they told the investigating judge in particular has nothing to do with

17     the scene of the crime.  It is enough for you to look at what they said

18     in the course of the investigation and to look at the photo file where

19     the crime scene is recorded.

20             You can see that it simply cannot be true.  The manner in which

21     they described having killed some people does not correspond to what was

22     established at the crime scene, and you don't have to be a genius.  All

23     you have to is read in detail their confessions and look at the

24     photographs, and you can see that there is something wrong with the

25     story.

Page 11629

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  If I do understand you well, you say that the

 2     reasons for you to believe if the Official Note accurately reflects what

 3     he said, the reason is that the statement he gave to the investigating

 4     judge is not consistent with what he apparently told the police.  You add

 5     to that that the details he gave do not match the information you had

 6     available on the events.

 7             I, when trying to understand your testimony, I noticed myself - I

 8     might be mistaken, where I said inconsistent - I haven't seen that

 9     material.  But I'm trying to understand what you're telling us.

10             You say:  This is apparently what he told, he gave a statement at

11     a later stage to the investigating judge, and details he describes there

12     do not match with the information he had about the events, the terrain,

13     and the circumstances.

14             Have I understood your answer well?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely, that's what I'm

16     trying to say.  If you allow just one more remark, as far as I can

17     recall, after seven or eight years, one of the accused said more or less

18     the following:  We were moving down the road towards the village of

19     Varivode; and at one point, two people we didn't know in uniform came

20     towards us, and I automatically turned my machine-gun towards them and

21     shot them, killing them.

22             None of the victims were found on the road.  The event that one

23     of the accused described would indicate that there was a certain distance

24     between those people and him, the man who fired the shots.  The people in

25     Varivode were killed in their own yards.  They were killed as they sat at

Page 11630

 1     their tables, in front of their homes.  For the most part, they were shot

 2     in the head.  They were shot in the head in their own front yards.  This

 3     is what I can recall.

 4             So this confession, this story about how those two people were

 5     killed, the circumstances as they with described, has nothing to do about

 6     what was established on the crime scene.  I'm sure that you have the

 7     files, that you have the photo file, and it would a very simple exercise

 8     to look at that time and come to this conclusion, to check it.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, please proceed.

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

11        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, my question on this topic, in light of your answers,

12     is this:  In light of your 27 or 28 years of experience in the Croatian

13     criminal justice system, do you have any insight that you could offer us

14     as to why these defendants, and in this particular case, Mr. Ladovic,

15     would tell the police or confess to the police that he, in fact, had

16     participated in the murders in Varivode?

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I don't know how the witness

18     could respond to that question as to --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  We do not know whether he can answer.

20             He is asked whether, in his experience, whether he could offer

21     any reason, in this particular case, why they would have told the police

22     that they were involved.  We don't know.  If he can't explain, he will

23     tell us.  If he has any information which would help him and help us to

24     understand this confession, he'll tell us.

25             Mr. Zganjer.

Page 11631

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my response, I can only refer to

 2     what, in the course of the proceedings, the accused actually did say, and

 3     what they did say is that they were beaten brutally by police officers.

 4     I cannot confirm that, but I cannot rule that out.

 5             I do know that had I been the state attorney at the time when

 6     they were brought into custody, I would have asked them to show me the

 7     evidence for this abuse that they allegedly suffered at the hand of the

 8     police officers, and then I would ask the investigating judge to record

 9     all this evidence.  In that case, that would give more or less credence

10     to what they were saying.  But this is what they stated in the course of

11     the investigative proceedings before a court in Sibenik.

12             MR. MISETIC:  [Previous translation continues] ... 1D60-0074 into

13     evidence.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit number D913.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  D913 is admitted into evidence.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if we could now have P1062 on the

20     screen, please.

21        Q.   This is the special report that you were shown by the Prosecutor

22     of the 27th of June, 2002, by Mr. Glavan.

23             MR. MISETIC:  And if we could go to page 3 in the English of this

24     report, please.  And if we could scroll down please in the English, and

25     it's page 2 of the Croatian.

Page 11632

 1        Q.   This is now the second paragraph from the bottom in the Croatian.

 2             MR. MISETIC:  And if we could scroll down in the English text

 3     please.

 4        Q.   It says:  "Furthermore, according to the information collected,

 5     Nenad Mrkota and other persons, together with Bozo Bacelic currently in

 6     detention of the county court in Sibenik, put pressure on the witnesses

 7     in the criminal procedure for the crime committed in Prukljani and crimes

 8     committed in Gosici and Varivode, suspected of being committed by Bozo

 9     Bacelic and Goran Vunic."

10             Now, Mr. Zganjer, this is sent to you at the end of June in 2002,

11     and I note from the Prukljani case, which you prosecuted, there was a

12     trial six weeks later -- I'm sorry, ten weeks later in September of the

13     same year, in which Goran -- in this case, it says Bozo Bacelic and Goran

14     Vunic were together, suspected of committing the crimes in Gosici and

15     Varivode; yet ten weeks later in the trial against Bacelic, one of the

16     witness against him was Goran Vunic.

17             MR. MISETIC:  We can see that in Exhibit D843, Your Honours.

18        Q.   My question is, Mr. Zganjer:  After receiving this report,

19     between the time you received this report and, ultimately, when Mr. Vunic

20     testified against Mr. Bacelic ten weeks later, did you do anything to ask

21     Mr. Vunic or question him or take any other measure to investigate any

22     basis for the allegation that he was involved in the murders in Gosici

23     and Varivode?

24        A.   Counsel Misetic, let me first clarify one thing.  I received the

25     document on or around the 27th of June, 2002.  You're talking about some

Page 11633

 1     ten weeks after that.  I don't know what ten weeks are we talking about.

 2     The judgement in the Bozo Bacelic et al case for the Prukljani case was

 3     made public on the 12th of September, 2002.

 4             It appears to me that if you're talking about Goran Vunic, that

 5     in the Prukljani case, Goran Vunic was examined as a witness before I

 6     received this document, that is, before the 27th of June, 2002; but, of

 7     course, we can check that by inspecting the case file.

 8             I do know for a fact that the judgement was made public in the

 9     Bozo Bacelic et al case on the 12th of September 2002.  I also know for a

10     fact that Goran Vunic was a witness that was called in that case, and I

11     think that Goran Vunic was examined as a witness at this trial before I

12     received this document that you're now showing me.

13             Now we have to check the case file and see when Goran Vunic was

14     actually examined as a witness in that case, in that trial.  So if you

15     can be more specific with your question.  So I would like to ask you to

16     take this caveat into account, and perhaps I could prompt you to verify

17     what I have just told you in some way.

18        Q.   I will do that during the break, and then we'll continue this

19     topic after the break, Mr. Zganjer.

20             But while we're on this document, regardless of whether he -- the

21     date of his testimony, you now have enough information at the end of

22     June 2002 certainly that Mr. Mrkota participated in the crime of

23     obstructing a criminal investigation.  Correct?

24        A.   Yes.  When I received this notice, I had quite specific

25     information about all this.  There was the statement by Davor Simic, a

Page 11634

 1     police officer.  As far as I can recall, there was his work plan, there

 2     were search warrants that were never actually implemented.  So I did have

 3     information that for some reasons, Nenad Mrkota may have obstructed the

 4     police action, actions aimed at Goran Vunic.

 5             So it is true, in fact.

 6        Q.   What happened?  What was the result of your investigation of

 7     Mr. Mrkota's obstruction of the criminal investigation in Varivode?

 8        A.   As I've already said a few times, in September, I went to Zagreb.

 9     So now we're talking about late June.  But if the Court is interested in

10     this, I can tell you what doubts I had when it comes to Nenad Mrkota and

11     the facts that transpired relating to his actions.

12             So, here, we have notice or notification that Nenad Mrkota may

13     have obstructed police actions; in other words, actions conducted by

14     himself, because Davor Simic was in the company that was under the

15     command of Mrkota.

16             So how could we qualify this in operational terms, in legal

17     terms?  If it is, indeed, true that Nenad Mrkota knew in advance what

18     Bozo Bacelic and Goran Vunic would do in Gosici, and if he promised that

19     he would assist them in this manner by obstructing the police

20     investigation, then, in that case, Nenad Mrkota would be held criminally

21     responsible for aiding a murder or perhaps even a war crime, if he

22     promised he would help them in advance knowing what they would do at a

23     certain location.

24             But if, in fact, Nenad Mrkota learned what Bozo Bacelic and Goran

25     Vunic had purportedly done at a later stage, then his conduct could be

Page 11635

 1     qualified as aiding a perpetrator after the commission of the crime.  So

 2     if we're talking about this crime, aiding after the fact, then at the

 3     time when we received this notification, seven years, almost full seven

 4     years after the crime was committed, we would be in an area where the

 5     statute of limitations had already expired in relative terms, and we

 6     could not prosecute Nenad Mrkota.  And if the former was the case, if he

 7     knew in advance what they would do and if he promised to assist them,

 8     then there would be no statute of limitations.

 9             We were in a legal quandary here.  We had to resolve that and

10     take action as appropriate.

11             Now, whether, after I left, the state attorney's office thought

12     along those lines and conducted appropriate checks, I can't tell you.  I

13     don't know that.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, if I could just correct the

15     record, the witness said Davor Simic, and it's been recorded as Davor

16     Simir, but I think also the witness was referring to Damir Simic, if I am

17     not mistaken.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that was on my mind as well.  As you also know,

19     usually the transcripts are reviewed after we leave the courtroom, and it

20     is a lot of work, but it certainly will assist those who are hearing the

21     transcript.

22             Please proceed.

23             MR. MISETIC:

24        Q.   Last question before the break, Mr. Zganjer:  Did you ever

25     consider at the time you received the report on the screen, that, in

Page 11636

 1     fact, the opposite was true and someone was obstructing the investigation

 2     in Varivode by claiming that Mr. Mrkota was, in fact, obstructing the

 3     investigation of the "real perpetrators"?

 4             In other words, did you ever consider that someone was trying to

 5     assist the accused -- the existing accused in the Varivode case by coming

 6     up with an alternative theory?

 7        A.   In the Varivode and Gosici cases, which were conducted against

 8     certain persons, we came by certain facts and information which led us to

 9     suspect that the crimes in Varivode and Gosici were committed by other

10     individuals altogether, individuals wearing the uniform of the Croatian

11     army, because the witnesses in that case made statements along those

12     lines.  You certainly must have the statements of these witnesses who

13     said that before hearing the gun-fire from Gosici, they had seen trucks

14     with uniformed individuals heading toward Gosici.  After that, they heard

15     gun-fire again and, upon arriving in the area, saw what they saw.  That's

16     what some witnesses said in no unclear terms, if I recall that well.

17             Among others, this was one of the facts which led us to suspect

18     that the possible perpetrators are either members of the Croatian army or

19     persons who put on Croatian army uniforms ad hoc.  There were quite a few

20     of those, you know, at the time who would put on Croatian army uniforms

21     in order to go and borrow things from abandoned homes.  They wore the

22     uniform of the Croatian army, but whether they were actually members of

23     that army is a big question mark.

24             MR. MISETIC:  [Previous translation continues] ... moment, Your

25     Honour.  This would be a good time for a break, Your Honour.

Page 11637

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll have a break.  We'll resume at 11.00.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 11.09 a.m.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, please proceed.

 5             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6             Mr. Registrar, if we could have Exhibit D843 on the screen,

 7     please.  If we could go to page 2 in the Croatian and page 4 in the

 8     English version, please, and down at the bottom of the page in the

 9     Croatian.

10        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, I'm just showing you this so that maybe you can help

11     us clarify this.  In the actual judgement for the Prukljani murders in

12     the Bacelic case, it says that the indictment was issued on the 1st of

13     March, 2002 and amended on 1 March 2002, as well as on 23 August 2002 at

14     the main hearing.  That's where I came to the conclusion that the trial

15     took place on 23 August 2002, but maybe you can clarify.

16             Do you recall when and over how many days the trial in the

17     Bacelic case took place?

18        A.   The trial definitely started after the indictment was filed.  If

19     it says here that the indictment was filed on the 1st of March, 2002,

20     then the trial must have ensued after that date.  I can't recall at this

21     time if the indictment was challenged in any way, but this does not

22     change my statement that the trial must have started after the 1st of

23     March 2002.

24             It is also true that one of the hearings in that case was held on

25     the 23rd of August, 2002.  It is also true that the trial ended on the

Page 11638

 1     11th of September, 2002, when this judgement was published, the one

 2     you're showing right now on the screen.  I'm now correcting the part of

 3     my statement where I said that the judgement was published on the 12th of

 4     September.

 5             I think that I saw on the cover page of this judgement that it

 6     was published or rendered on the 11th of September, 2002, and I change

 7     that part of my statement.

 8        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, I will move on to a different topic, and I'd like to

 9     show you --

10             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if we could call up 1D60-0001,

11     please.

12        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, what I'm going to you is the actually operative

13     action plan that the MUP came up with on the 15th of October, 1995, as

14     its a plan to establish the identity of the perpetrators of the homicides

15     in the settlements of Varivode and Gosic.

16             Now, this is the 15th of October, and you will note some of the

17     names:  Pero Perkovic; Zvonimir Lasan Zorobable; Zlatko Ladovoc, whose

18     statement we've looked at this morning; Ivica Petric; Boris Vunic;

19     Nedeljko Mijic; and on the right-hand side, Nikola Rasic Zes.  The work

20     plan states that by 0300 hours on the 16th, the correct addresses need to

21     be established for these individuals.

22             I ask you to note here that the only person so far with the last

23     name of Vunic who is suspected by the MUP is Boris Vunic on the 15th of

24     October.

25             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I asked that the exhibit be marked,

Page 11639

 1     and I tender it into evidence.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I would not principally object

 3     to this document, but you can see page 3 and 4 of the documents are

 4     missing from the Croatian version as well as the English version.  From

 5     what I can see, there is a signature at page 2; but at page 3, I don't

 6     know whether that is supposed to be an attachment or what it is.  Page 3

 7     is numbered as page 5, so obviously page 3 and 4 are is missing.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  I will be happy to disclose that counsel.  It is

 9     not a big deal to us.  Actually, we added the page 5.

10        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, if you could turn to that page.

11             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, it is the last page in this exhibit.

12             Because in the attachment to the MUP plan, it says that the

13     subject of the search is going to be the house of person Vunic Boris, son

14     of Ante, born on 20 December, 1971.

15             So, Your Honour, to satisfy Ms. Mahindaratne, I ask that the

16     exhibit be MFI'd, and I will come up with pages 3 and 4 for her.

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I agree to that, Mr. President.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D914,

20     marked for identification.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

22             MR. MISETIC:

23        Q.   Now, subsequent to the work plan, interviews were conducted with

24     some of the persons who are named in the wok plan.

25             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if could I have 1D60-0007, please.

Page 11640

 1        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, let me ask you a preliminary question.  If, during

 2     the course of an interview or an investigation of one criminal event, the

 3     police and/or the prosecutor's office learns of the commission of a

 4     different crime, what is the obligation of the police and/or the

 5     prosecutor's office with respect to the additional crime uncovered in the

 6     investigation?

 7             In other words, do they have an obligation to investigate that

 8     additional crime as well?

 9        A.   Of course, there is such an obligation.  The course of a criminal

10     investigation is always unpredictable, one way or the other.  You could

11     be initiating the proceedings for one crime, and then you may come across

12     helpful information indicating that other crimes may have been committed

13     in addition to the one you were investigating.

14             Generally speaking, the police uses such information in order to

15     investigate these other lines, indicating the commission of other crimes.

16     The police will inform the state attorney's office of that information.

17     But, as a rule, the police will always do whatever can be done today,

18     today, rather than leaving it for tomorrow.  If there is indication that

19     certain actions need to be taken right away in order to obtain useful

20     information, the police will do so, with a view to getting the

21     information necessary.

22             Of course, the police will inform the state attorney of all the

23     useful information they have gathered.

24        Q.   Let me take to you this statement now, and this is where

25     Mr. Lasan talks about, towards the middle of the page:  "Upon entry to

Page 11641

 1     the house, Zvonimir told them he had killed the old man, but he cannot

 2     remember the exact words he used.  After staying there for a short time,

 3     they left that village; and on their way to Kistanje, they met Petric and

 4     Patko who were also on their way to visit the area."

 5             Then it goes down, I believe, to the last sentence:  "Aside from

 6     this murder, Zvonimir states that he didn't kill or shoot at anyone else

 7     after Operation Storm, besides shooting at some Chetniks during the

 8     operation and burning one house when they entered Kistanje, which he

 9     thought was a Chetnik house because he saw a lot of books there that were

10     mostly in Cyrillic and a picture of a man in a Yugoslav uniform."

11             Now, my question is:  There seems to be specific information

12     about at least one of the perpetrators of a burning houses in Kistanje.

13     Do you know if anything was done on the basis of this information to

14     prosecute this individual, or anyone else who was with him, for setting

15     fires in Kistanje?

16        A.   I don't have specific information about that; however, I would

17     like to draw everybody's attention to one fact.  This statement taken by

18     the police officer, from the citizen Zvonimir Lasan, was taken in 1995 in

19     relation to the Varivode and Gosici events, if I'm not mistaken.  This

20     statement, in addition to the criminal report against certain individuals

21     for the crimes committed in Varivode and Gosici, was given to the Zadar

22     state attorney.

23             The year was 1995, and the area of Kistanje is mentioned here,

24     which also came under the Zadar-Knin police administration purview and

25     the purview of the Zadar state attorney.  Now, whether they, on the basis

Page 11642

 1     of the information provided by Citizen Zvonimir Lasan, acted in any way

 2     as a follow-up, that's something I don't know.  I repeat:  The

 3     proceedings were conducted by the Zadar-Knin police administration.

 4             A moment ago, you showed me the work plan that was drafted by the

 5     Sibenik police administration.  Nothing strange there.  What was involved

 6     was a serious crime and the stage was that of the pre-criminal proceed.

 7     In the attempt to identify the perpetrators of the crime, the members of

 8     the Zadar and Sibenik police administrations were involved; however, the

 9     case was so serious that the Zagreb crime police administration got

10     involved as well, as did the military police, and the security an

11     information service, too.  The case was such that it demanded an

12     all-encompassing police investigation.

13             MR. MISETIC:  I ask that this exhibit be marked, and I tender it

14     into evidence.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, again, principally I would not

16     object, but this is a matter that I raised with Mr. Misetic last evening.

17     We have only one paragraph, and there's another paragraph that has been

18     translated.  So, at this stage, I'm unable to, you know, make any sense

19     of what the rest of the notice is.  This is not a huge document, and I

20     believe parties generally submit partial translation where the documents

21     are large.  But we're now talking about a record of interview from a

22     witness.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's try to keep matters simple.

24             If you would be granted another 24 hours to review whether the

25     remainder of the document would cause to you ask the Chamber to

Page 11643

 1     reconsider admission or to reconsider the extent to which this document

 2     should be admitted into evidence, as far as translation is concerned,

 3     would that that do?

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So then we'll ask Mr. Registrar already to

 6     assign a number.  We'll give a decision on admission, but you're in a

 7     position to revisit the matter.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D915.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  D915 is admitted into evidence.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

13             Mr. Registrar, if could I have 1D60-0014 on the screen, please.

14        Q.   This is a statement or an Official Note, I should say, of an

15     interview with Berislav Setkanic, and I only put it on the screen because

16     it was taken as part of the Varivode, Gosic investigation.  It has a

17     reference to Vunic Bore, which is short for Boris, with a description,

18     and stating that he knows some of the individuals.  Two of them are

19     friends with Nikola Belic.

20             But in any event, it is Boris Vunic who is referenced or whose

21     name comes up in the course of the Varivode, Gosici investigation.

22             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I ask that this exhibit be marked,

23     and I tender it into evidence.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection on the same basis, Mr. President.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 11644

 1             Mr. Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D916.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  D916 is admitted into evidence.  The Prosecution has

 4     an opportunity, within the next 24 hours, to revisit the matters as far

 5     as completeness of the translation is concerned.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  Now, Mr.  Registrar, if could I have 1D60-0020.

 8        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, this is the 17 October 1995 Official Note of the

 9     interview with Boris Vunic.

10             MR. MISETIC:  And if we turn the page, please.

11        Q.   Actually, it's not an Official Note.  It says it's a record on

12     taking a statement, and it is actually signed by Mr. Vunic at the bottom.

13             Mr. Vunic, on the 17th of October, Mr. Boris Vunic said, at the

14     very top, that he was in Kistanje during the liberation.  "I was going

15     around houses for the purposes of finding war booty.  When we came to the

16     police station in Kistanje, right at the entrance, I found a

17     7.9-millimetre calibre M53 machine-gun which I immediately took for the

18     purpose of keeping it for myself.  After going through the other rooms in

19     the above-mentioned, I found a military bag in a closet containing the

20     following."

21             I won't read it, but there is a description of all the different

22     types of weaponry he found.  He goes on to talk about in the middle of

23     August going back into the liberated area with his brother Goran and

24     taking tractors, taking them back to his home.  He says, from the 1st of

25     September to 14th September, he was in the field in Drvar.  While in the

Page 11645

 1     field in Drvar, he found more weaponry and kept it for himself.

 2             Then he says:  "At the end of September, not remembering the

 3     date, I went to the liberated areas again by tractor to the settlement

 4     Djevrska; and from one family house also owned by people I don't know, I

 5     took around ten new windows, put the same on the tractor, drove them home

 6     to Ladjevci."

 7             Now, Mr. Zganjer, this is on the 17th of October.  You've seen

 8     that the Sibenik police had a work plan with Boris Vunic's name on it.

 9     In his statement to the police, Boris Vunic tells the police that he has

10     all sorts of weaponry that he acquired and took home for his own personal

11     use.

12             What would you, as the prosecutor, expect to be the next step in

13     the investigation with respect to Boris Vunic?

14        A.   This statement that was taken by the Sibenik police on the

15     17th of October, 1995, from Boris Vunic indicates that he, in fact, took

16     for himself various weapons that he found in Djevrska, Ladjevci.

17             At the time, well, I could tell what you I would have done, but

18     this case was not in my jurisdiction at the time.  But be that as it may,

19     the statement itself dictates that the weapons be seized from Boris

20     Vunic, that a search be carried out of his apartment, and that the

21     weapons be taken away from him.

22             It is possible that Boris Vunic might have agreed to hand over

23     the weapons, making the search unnecessary.  The weapons seized in this

24     manner would then perhaps be examined by a ballistics expert.  As far as

25     the taking of tractors and other items is concerned, now it's a matter of

Page 11646

 1     judgement, whether to prosecute Boris Vunic for theft or some other

 2     offence.

 3             So that -- those would the actions that would stem from this

 4     statement that he made.

 5             MR. MISETIC:  Now if we could go back to P1063, please.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, would you allow me to put one

 7     clarifying question.

 8             You said the theft, whether to prosecute Vunic for theft, that

 9     would be a matter of judgement.  What did you mean by that exactly?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, of course, a search would

11     have to be carried out, and it -- we would have to ascertain whether

12     Boris Vunic had, in fact, taken the tractor, as he claims here.  The

13     tractor should have been seized with appropriate receipt being issued to

14     him, the weapons should have been seized from him, and then a criminal

15     report should he been filed against him for theft or for unauthorised

16     possession of a fire-arm.  This is what his statement dictated quite

17     clearly.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Was it your experience that if such

19     information reached the police in 1995 just after Operation Storm, that

20     the appropriate action as you explained to us that should have been taken

21     was actually taken?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, at this point in time, I

23     don't know that.  I don't know whether any criminal reports were filed

24     against Goran Vunic on the account of this statement, and whether he was

25     prosecuted for what he had told the police officers here in this

Page 11647

 1     statement.  We're talking about 1990 --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ... what I asked

 3     you is whether such information in 1995 would have reached the police,

 4     whether, in fact, action as you described that would be appropriate to

 5     take on the basis of such information was taken in 1995?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, action would have been taken,

 7     should have been taken, because we face similar situations, countless of

 8     them; and many people were prosecuted for acts of this nature.  I'm

 9     talking about theft, taking of various items such as tractors and so on

10     from abandoned houses in the liberated territory.  There were many such

11     cases at that time.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you tell us, especially since there were many

13     of them, whether the capacity allowed for investigating them and

14     prosecuting them, or whether there was just a certain percentage that

15     would be investigated and prosecuted?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regardless of the lack of personnel

17     that we faced at that time, all the cases that came before the state

18     attorney's office were dealt with.  Actions were taken.

19             So, in spite of the small number of personnel in the state

20     attorney's office, we tried to deal with all those cases in a proper

21     manner and to forward them to courts when there was enough evidence to

22     prosecute persons against whom criminal reports were filed.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'm asking this question in relation to the

24     answer when you said in relation to the tractors, for example, it was a

25     matter of judgement.

Page 11648

 1             You didn't say, in relation to the weapons, that it was a matter

 2     of judgement whether or not to prosecute those cases; however, you did so

 3     in relation to the tractors.  But you explained, then, that you had to

 4     establish whether he actually had stolen those tractors.

 5             Well, wouldn't be the same be true for establishing whether he

 6     had taken the weapons?  I mean, you make a distinction there between the

 7     approach you would take in relation to the weapons and to the tractors.

 8     In the one, you say, "We'd go there, we'd search, we'd try to find them,

 9     they may have been given to the police already"; and in relation to the

10     tractors, you said it required judgement, and when asked to explain you

11     said, "Well, of course, you would have to establish the facts, and that

12     would be true for the theft of weapons as well."

13             So, therefore, I'm puzzled by the distinction you made there.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, your intervention is

15     quite subtle and apposite.  Let me be quite specific.

16             There is no substantial difference between tractors and weapons.

17     They are treated in the same manner; the procedure is same.  This has to

18     be reported and perpetrators have to be prosecuted.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could I ask you very directly:  Would it be

20     that, in view of the type of stolen goods - weapons, which create a

21     certain danger to society and tractors, which are primarily prejudicial

22     to the owners of the tractors - that, in fact, priority was given to

23     matters like weapons rather than to tractors and windows?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, priority had to be given

25     to weapons, rather than to old beds, frames, window frames, or ancient

Page 11649

 1     washing machines and tractors.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could it, therefore, mean that theft of such goods

 3     as you mentioned were less vigorously investigated and prosecuted?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I assume that you're talk being

 5     weapons now?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Or the other goods being less vigorously

 7     investigated and prosecuted, which, of course, means that, I would say,

 8     the dangerous stuff - weaponry, ammunition, machine-guns - to be more

 9     vigorously investigated and prosecuted.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only speak about my

11     experience while I worked in Sibenik and the time-period after the

12     military and police Operation Storm.  I think that my memory serves me

13     right if I say that, in fact, we did have more people who were prosecuted

14     for stealing furniture and furnishings than of people who took weapons.

15             So, in the huge mass of criminal cases, many more dealt with

16     household appliances than with weapons, cases where people found and then

17     took the weapons.  I'm talking about the Sibenik area, within the

18     jurisdiction of the state attorney's office in Sibenik.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  One follow-up question in that respect:  Are you

20     talking about absolute numbers, or are you talking about percentages?

21             To clarify my question, if you investigate and prosecute ten

22     cases of thefts of weapons, and if you investigate and prosecute ten

23     cases of theft of tractors and windows, then the ten for the weapons

24     might be 50 per cent if 20 of such cases were known; whereas, the

25     tractors and the windows might be one per cent if a thousand cases were

Page 11650

 1     known.

 2             So, if you say more cases were prosecuted in relation to these

 3     less dangerous goods, that does not yet give an insight on the priority

 4     given and on the level of vigour with which investigations and

 5     prosecutions took place?

 6             So, to keep it simple:  Were these, I would say, these less

 7     dangerous goods, were they from a point of view of percentage of

 8     investigations and prosecutions equally or less vigorously investigated

 9     and prosecuted.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, let me say this once again.

11     The cases involving theft of less dangerous goods were in the majority.

12     There were far more of them.

13             Let me precede this by saying that it was easier to identify the

14     perpetrator of a theft that involved less dangerous goods, such as

15     household appliances.  Why?  Because there were many cases of people

16     going to the liberated area and loading beds, wardrobes, washing machines

17     on to the tractors, and driving down the road, where they would be

18     stopped and military and civilian police.  Those items were then seized

19     from those people and they were given appropriate receipts, and criminal

20     reports were filed against them.

21             Those people who took weapons did not go around recklessly and

22     boldly with ten rifles hanging about their necks allowing themselves to

23     be caught by the police.  Those who stole weapons knew that this was a

24     more delicate matter that had to be concealed in some manner, and this is

25     why it was more difficult to identify those who stole or took weapons.

Page 11651

 1             This may be one of the reasons why the majority of criminal

 2     reports had to do with the theft of less dangerous goods, as opposed to

 3     the smaller number of cases that involved the theft of weapons.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's also the reason why I included in one

 5     of my previous questions limited the cases to those that had became known

 6     to the police.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 9             I'm reminded that I forgot to ask that 1D60-0020, which is the

10     statement of Boris Vunic, be tendered into evidence.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit number D917.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  D917 is admitted into evidence.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. MISETIC:

18        Q.   Now, Mr. Zganjer, you've told us that you expected, based on

19     Mr. Boris Vunic's statement, that for the weapons, there would be an

20     investigation or a search for those weapons.

21             MR. MISETIC:  If I could now take you back to P1063, please.

22        Q.   Now, this is the letter of the state prosecutor in Zadar of the

23     23rd of October.

24             MR. MISETIC:  And if we scroll down on the screen.

25        Q.   Again, it is concerning the Gosici and Varivode case and some of

Page 11652

 1     the names that were in the MUP action plan from the 15th, which I showed

 2     you a few minutes ago.  I will tell on this list, if you go to at

 3     point 4, it's Ivica Petric and Nikola Rasic.

 4             MR. MISETIC:  If we turn the page, to page 2.

 5        Q.   Number 5 is Nedeljko Mijic who also in the action plan and who

 6     also had already been interviewed by that point.

 7             Then if you look below paragraph -- the paragraph below paragraph

 8     number 5, the state prosecutor says, in relation to the stated:

 9     "Informative interviews should be conducted with the above-mentioned

10     persons regarding the committing of the stated criminal offences, as well

11     as with the eye-witnesses, and necessary verifications should be made

12     concerning the possession of certain weapons."

13             MR. MISETIC:  Now if we go back to page 1 of the document.

14        Q.   Now, you said yesterday that it was, indeed, unusual that in a

15     letter from the state prosecutor's office, in point 1, the name Vunic and

16     then the first name is deleted, and by hand somebody wrote in Vunic,

17     Goran.  I believe yesterday you said you don't know when that insertion

18     of the name took place.

19             But my first question is :  Again, you were the prosecutor in the

20     Varivode and Gosici case.  Did you find any evidence in the file before

21     the date of this letter in which Goran Vunic had been considered a

22     suspect by anyone in this case, in the case of Varivode, Gosici?

23        A.   If I could ask you, Counsel Misetic, to rephrase the question and

24     be a bit more specific or precise.  I have to say that I did not really

25     understand it, and I would like to be able to you a specific answer.

Page 11653

 1        Q.   My question is -- you have made statements in your statement

 2     about Goran Vunic being a suspect in the Varivode, Gosici case.

 3             My question to you is:  Do you know of any evidence in the file,

 4     prior to this letter, which would indicate that Goran Vunic was a person

 5     of interest to any authority in the Republic of Croatia?

 6             When I say that -- when I say "a person of interest," I mean

 7     specifically in the Varivode, Gosici case.

 8        A.   Well, I don't know if I will be able to give you a specific

 9     answer.

10             I don't know how I could know about some things about Goran Vunic

11     before this letter was even drafted.  If this letter or this motion by

12     the county state attorney's office drafted on the 23rd of October, 1995,

13     sent to the chief of the Zadar-Knin police administration by the Zadar

14     state attorney's office, and if all this happened in 1995, at that time I

15     covered an entirely different area, and I was not aware of this case.

16             My knowledge about Goran Vunic, as a potential perpetrator of the

17     crime in Gosici and Varivode, dates back to the time when I started

18     taking action in order to try to identify the perpetrators of the crimes

19     in Gosici and Varivode, if they were not the people who were charged with

20     this -- with these crimes.  So, after a decision was made not to

21     prosecute people who were charged with those crimes, I start taking

22     action to identify the actual, the real perpetrators.

23             It is it only then that Goran Vunic became a suspect, as a

24     potential perpetrator.  This is when I learned from the memo sent by the

25     military police that you showed me, the date is the 27th of June, 2002,

Page 11654

 1     what actually happened in relation to Goran Vunic and police activities.

 2     I learned about the alleged efforts to obstruct the investigation by the

 3     commander of the military police company, Nenad Mrkota, who obstructed

 4     the investigation that was put and trained by -- in a very proper manner

 5     by military police officer Damir Simic.

 6             The question then is why Nenad Mrkota did this in relation to

 7     Goran Vunic.  Why is it that, in 2005, he stepped in and prevented the

 8     search of the apartment and other premises used by Vunic, and why the

 9     weapons used -- the side arms and the other weapons used by the

10     reconnaissance company were not seized.  It is only then that Goran Vunic

11     became, in my eyes, a potential suspect as one of the possible

12     perpetrators of this crime.

13        Q.   I will take you through, now, why perhaps Mr. Mrkota stopped the

14     investigation, if he did, at all.  Let me ask you this question:  In the

15     state attorney's office, when you sent out a letter to someone else and

16     put the official seal on the letter, in the copy that was retained for

17     the file in the state attorney's office, it's true, is it not, that you

18     wouldn't necessarily put a seal on the file copy?  Correct?

19        A.   Well, it was not necessary, if we're talking about a copy that

20     remained in the files, in the archives of the state attorney's office.

21     But letters or documents that were sent to specific addressees, they had

22     to have the stamp affixed, the case number, and a signature had to be

23     there.

24             MR. MISETIC:  [Previous translation continues] ... this document

25     in its form in the file of the county state attorney's office in Zadar,

Page 11655

 1     which is 1D60-0024, Mr. Registrar, please.

 2        Q.   The file copy in the state attorney's office in Zadar has only

 3     Boro Vunic at point 1.

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I object to the -- the

 5     reference to the file copy.  Now, we do not know whether it is a file

 6     copy.  The Defence tenders this document.  We do not know from where the

 7     Defence has got it.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, anticipating that precise objection,

 9     I contacted the chief prosecutor in Croatia, Mr. Bajic.  While I was on

10     my feet, he has sent a letter of confirmation that this is the file copy

11     that they have in Zadar.  We will disclose it to Ms. Mahindaratne.

12     Should she have any other questions, she can address me.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  So I take it that, during the next break, you and

14     Ms. Mahindaratne will set together, to see whether there remains any

15     dispute as to the source of this document?

16             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.  If necessary we will translate the entire

17     correspondence with Mr. Bajic.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. MISETIC:

21        Q.   Now, Mr. Zganjer, as you heard, Mr. Bajic has confirmed for us

22     this morning that this is the file copy of the letter in Zadar.

23             Who -- let me put it a different way?

24             You have no idea who blocked out Boro, called Babac, in the

25     original, and then hand wrote in Goran Vunic.  Correct?

Page 11656

 1        A.   I really don't have any knowledge about that.

 2        Q.   Let's take a look at this further now.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I ask that the exhibit be marked.  I

 4     don't know if Ms. Mahindaratne wishes to MFI it until she looks at

 5     Mr. Bajic's correspondence.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I will object to the document, Mr. President,

 7     because I wish the Chamber to examine both documents.  In fact, I have,

 8     if the Chamber requires, I have brought printout hard copies of both

 9     documents, the Prosecution version and what the Defence has just

10     tendered.  You can see certain aspects on the Prosecution document which

11     indicates as to what the original document is.  For example, if you

12     compare the signatures --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Do I understand that you want to us look at both

14     documents at least.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  So it should be marked for identification anyhow;

17     and then perhaps after your discussions during the break, it will be

18     clear to the Chamber where exactly what the problem is.  And even if it

19     would be true, what you say, that could be relevant information for this

20     claim to consider; and that for that reason, whether it's a forgery or

21     whatever the background may be, that it would be good to have it in

22     evidence, just to consider.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.  The Defence has objected

24     to the Prosecution version.  In fact, it is in the MFI state.  So

25     perhaps, you know, both documents can be tendered into evidence, and then

Page 11657

 1     the Trial Chamber will have the benefit of comparing both documents.

 2             MR. MISETIC:  I have no objection to that, Your Honour, as long

 3     as -- I have no objection to that.  And in addition to that, if there is

 4     an issue still that Ms. Mahindaratne has that what I have put on the

 5     screen is confirmed by the state prosector in Croatia as filed

 6     [indiscernible] to me, then I will ask that the letter from Mr. Bajic to

 7     the Defence also be tendered --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I suggest -- first of all, we our at this moment

 9     hearing you, Mr. Misetic, and I have not asked over Defence counsel on

10     the matter.

11             I suggest that you sit together to see what joint conclusions you

12     can draw; and then, on the basis of that, inform the Chamber.  If there

13     is any matter of admission into evidence remaining after that, of course,

14     the Chamber will give its ruling on it.

15             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  We have it marked for identification for the time

17     being, Mr. Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D918,

19     marked for identification.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

21             Please proceed.

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

23             Now, let's look at -- I'm not what sure what the P number is now.

24     Just a moment.

25             Yes.  This is, I believe, being submitted by the bar table by the

Page 11658

 1     Prosecution, so I don't think it has a P number yet.

 2             It is 65 ter 6092 -- actually, I'm advised now it is P1072.

 3        Q.   Now, this is Mr. Simic's operative plan of the 25th of October.

 4     In it, in the first paragraph, he references the county prosecutor office

 5     in Zadar letter as the basis for putting the work plan together that

 6     we've just looked at.

 7             And if we look at point 1 of the plan - and this letter is dated

 8     25 October - point 1 of the plan says --

 9             MR. MISETIC:  If we can scroll down in the English.  Yes.

10        Q.   "Ascertain until 0800 hours, on 25 October 1995, the proper

11     addresses of the following persons," and then he identifies Goran Vunic

12     as one of the individuals.

13             The letter is date -- or the plan is dated 25 October, and the

14     plan requires that the address be obtained by 0800 hours.  So,

15     presumably, Mr. Simic is -- wrote this plan before 0800 hours on the

16     25th of October.

17             Do you see that?

18        A.   [No verbal response]

19             MR. MISETIC:  Now if we could go back to the first page and

20     scroll to the top.

21        Q.   I ask you to look at the UR number.  The UR number of the work

22     plan in which Mr. Simic asks that the address of Goran Vunic be found by

23     0800 hours ends in 51.  It's document 51.

24             MR. MISETIC:  Now, Mr.  Registrar, if could I have 65 ter 6094,

25     please.

Page 11659

 1        Q.   Now, this is the arrest warrants issued by Mr. Mr. Simic, again

 2     on the same day, 25 October.  In point 1, he asked that Goran Vunic be

 3     addressed and he now has the address that he is seeking in the work plan.

 4             If you look up at the UR number, the arrest warrant document

 5     number is 45.

 6             Now, you, as a prosecutor, is there anything -- when you see that

 7     the work plan document number 51 and the arrest warrant is document 45,

 8     does that give you any suspicions?

 9        A.   I actually don't know the way in which these reference numbers,

10     file numbers, were written in these memos.  The fact that in this

11     particular file number the number 45 is mentioned, and in the previous

12     one there is number 51, would indicate that this particular letter

13     numbered 45 was written before the 51 one.

14             However, if in document number 51 it is written that the address

15     of Goran Vunic needs to be ascertained, this would mean that the address

16     had already been ascertained by the time that letter was written, since

17     we have this particular letter here stating the address.  Those are my

18     assumptions.

19             However, the deadline given for ascertaining the address of Goran

20     Vunic, i.e., 8.00, this is nothing out of the ordinary.  That is the

21     character of police work.  This particular letter could have been written

22     at 5.00 in the morning on the 25th of October.

23        Q.   There's nothing particularly problematic to me with respect to

24     the 0800 hours.  What I wanted to point out was the difference between

25     the UR numbers.

Page 11660

 1             MR. MISETIC:  Now, if we could go -- sorry.

 2             I am asked to clarify that 65 ter 6094 is, in fact, P1074, MFI.

 3             If we could go to P970 now, please.

 4        Q.   This is that Official Note of Damir Simic upon which Mr. Glavan

 5     relied in his 2002 letter to you.  This Official Note has no class or UR

 6     number on it, does it?

 7        A.   Correct.

 8        Q.   Now, if in a criminal file, such as this, you've seen Mr. Simic

 9     on that very day enter documents into the file using the procedure of

10     putting class and UR numbers on the file, on the documents that day -

11     this document has no such identification on it - is it correct to say,

12     Mr. Zganjer, that this document at any point in time between

13     25 October 1995 and 2002 could have been inserted into the file?

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I object to that question.

15     This witness cannot answer that for -- in addition to which, Mr. Simic

16     testified in this court, and --

17             MR. MISETIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... Your Honour --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  We're not going to discuss the evidence available to

19     this ... [Overlapping speakers]

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President, that doesn't --  no,

21     Mr. President.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  The question, you objected to the question because

23     you said the witness cannot answer that, and then you wanted to add

24     something.

25             So let's focus on whether the witness can answer it.

Page 11661

 1             Whether there is a possibility that it was inserted in the file,

 2     that possibility remains open if, first of all, if the witness would not

 3     know when it had been, so if we ask the witness whether he has any

 4     knowledge when it was inserted in the file and find out about his

 5     knowledge, then, of course, logic could assists us all well.

 6             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, I am afraid I have to point out that

 7     the Prosecution has led evidence --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  We're not going to discuss evidence in the presence

 9     of the witness, at least if I do not know what it is, then I'm strongly

10     opposing it.

11             MR. MISETIC:  Well, can I ask that the witness then be excused

12     for a minute.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             Mr. Zganjer, could you please leave us for a second.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, since the witness has left the

17     courtroom, you will an opportunity also to now briefly discuss the

18     evidence which is already before this Chamber.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  May I --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, perhaps it's fair I stop

21     Ms. Mahindaratne at a time when she wanted to do it in the presence of

22     the witness, which I opposed, but now the witness is not there.

23             Please proceed.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

25             Mr. President, Mr. Simic testified in this proceedings, and the

Page 11662

 1     Defence did not cross-examine Mr. Simic on this basis at all.  In fact,

 2     he was cross-examined on a completely different basis.  It was suggested

 3     to him that the investigation was prevented by Nenad Mrkota because Goran

 4     Vunic testified in the same case; that is, the status from suspect was

 5     converted to that of a witness.

 6             Now, there was never a suggestion made that the identities were

 7     wrong, that there was a Boris Vunic, or that the documents had been

 8     inserted.  There was never a suggestion made to Mr. Simic that there was

 9     conspiracy involved or a fabrication of material.  He would have been the

10     only witness who could have answered these questions.

11             Now the Defence is attempting to lead that evidence, if I may use

12     the term with apologies, through the back door.  This is it not the

13     appropriate way to cross-examine witnesses.  This witness in court cannot

14     answer these questions.

15             That is all I have to say, Mr. President.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  We don't know whether he can answer the question,

17     because he has not given an answer.  We don't know what his knowledge

18     exactly is.  It could be, but it just imagining, that he heard from

19     someone that he inserted a document in a file at a certain date.  I don't

20     know.  I have to assume at this moment that you would not know either,

21     Ms. Mahindaratne, but you have a clear suspicion that he might not know

22     the answer to this question.

23             Let's make it a very factual question.

24             Mr. Misetic --

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, if I could just add one --

Page 11663

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I now give the opportunity to Mr. Misetic.

 2             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  It is somewhat surprising to

 3     hear my esteemed colleague on the other side of the aisle now complain

 4     that I'm asking questions about Mr. Simic, given that she herself put on

 5     a series of documents of Mr. Simic's that she never put to Simic and that

 6     she left for Mr. Zganjer.  I can go through them all for you.

 7             But now, suddenly, it is a problem when the Defence starts to

 8     cross-examine on the documents that she is trying to admit through this

 9     witness.  The problem is she failed to put her case to Mr. Simic, failed

10     to put these documents that Mr. Simic is the author of to Mr. Simic.  May

11     I suggest it that it is she who is trying to enter documents in through

12     the back do you remember.  I'm just trying to meet her case.  Those are

13     the simple facts.

14             Now, with respect to why I'm putting these matters to this

15     witness, not only is she trying to put the documents in through the back

16     door, she, at paragraph 38, has Mr. Simic testifying that:  "This

17     investigation was prevented from being carried out by the commander of

18     the military police company, Nenad Mrkota."

19             Then:  "I believe if this investigation had been carried out as

20     planned, the real perpetrators of this crime may have been brought to

21     trial.  As far as I know, Goran Vunic was always mentioned in the

22     capacity of the a suspect in relation to this case."

23             Now, I'm entitled to challenge those assertions, particularly

24     since Ms. Mahindaratne is putting those claims in through this witness.

25             Moreover, Ms. Mahindaratne went so far, yesterday, as to claim

Page 11664

 1     that the conspiracy rises all the way to the commander of the 72nd MP

 2     Battalion, Mr. Budimir.  Again, it's a matter that she never put to Mr.

 3     Simic, but she trying to get in through Mr. Zganjer.

 4             This is our response to her putting in Simic material through

 5     this witness, Your Honour.

 6             I might also add --

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, if I may --

 8             MR. MISETIC:  I might also add, with respect to the protected

 9     witness issue, I was putting to Mr. Simic matters that Prosecution

10     witness Ive Kardum told the Trial Chamber that he had heard.  So it is

11     not without foundation that I put those matters to him, and I simply took

12     what Mr. Kardum had said and put it to Mr. Simic.

13             Thank you, Mr. President.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, with the exception of one

15     document, all documents tendered through this witness were documents

16     received by him, attached to the special report that was handed over to

17     him by major Glavan.  So I did not tender a single document of Mr. Simic

18     with the exception of one document, which was a work plan which attached

19     to the special report that was received by this witness.

20             Now, I also want to point out that the Defence, both parties,

21     have an obligation under Rule 90(H) to put to a witness the opposing

22     suggestion, if the witness's testimony is contrary to the Defence or the

23     Prosecution position.

24             Now, Mr. Simic was here, and this position taken by the Defence

25     was never put to him.  He could have been the only person who could have

Page 11665

 1     answered whether he inserted a document or not.  Now to bring this

 2     evidence after he has left court is unfair by the witness.

 3             That is all I have to say, Mr. President.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I first ask before we continue --

 5             MR. MISETIC:  If I did put --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, I'm drawing your attention to page 62,

 7     line 7, where you're making reference to paragraph 38, and then you say

 8     Mr. Simic testified.  May I take it that you wanted to refer to

 9     Mr. Zganjer in that respect?

10             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  That was my mistake.  I

11     apologise.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  That has been corrected now.

13             Let me just take one second.

14             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, if I may, let me just --

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Both parties blame each other for not having put

17     questions to witnesses during the examination either in chief or

18     cross-examination at a certain stage.

19             The parties will forgive the Chamber for not having every detail

20     available immediately and to see what merits there are in those

21     positions.  We have considered the matter.  And if questions were not put

22     to a witness, and if there's a position taken that this is unfair and

23     that therefore questions should not be put to this witness, of course,

24     there are two remedies to prohibit putting any further questions to this

25     witness or to consider at a later stage whether the questions and answers

Page 11666

 1     given by this witness viewed in the totality of the evidence would urge

 2     the Chamber or would justify to call Mr. Simic again to answer questions

 3     you say he is the only one who could answer.

 4             The Chamber has considered the matter and will allow Mr. Misetic

 5     to proceed and will consider at any later stage whether questions and

 6     answers will create a need to re-call Mr. Simic.

 7             Could the witness be brought in --

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

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I'm looking at the clock.

10             Yes, Mr. Misetic.

11             MR. MISETIC:  Just so can I complete the record, in terms when

12     you look back at the transcript later, I believe I did put matters to

13     Mr. Simic.  I specifically asked him whether he advised anyone of what he

14     wrote in this Official Note.  He said with respect to -- the only person

15     he said is with respect to Boro Milas, and he said:  "I think I told him

16     orally."

17             I also specifically asked hem whether he addressed this note or

18     sent this in writing to anyone else, and he said "No."

19             So, to that extent, Your Honour, I did put it to him, and my

20     suggestion simply was that this is a document that nobody else can vouch

21     for expect Mr. Simic.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, if at any later stage the parties

23     will make submissions on whether or not Mr. Simic whether there's a need

24     to re-call Mr. Simic, then we'll get all these details you have already

25     put on the record by now.

Page 11667

 1             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm looking at the clock.  Perhaps it is it better

 3     that someone informs Mr. Zganjer that it's time for coffee anyhow, and

 4     that we'd like to see him back after the break.

 5             Mr. Misetic, could you give us an impression on how much more

 6     time you would still need.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, I would say a half an hour at the max.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             Ms. Mahindaratne, could you give us an indication on as matters

10     stand now how much time would you need for re-examination.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  At the most, half an hour, Mr. President.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So with half an hour and half an hour, that

13     would take us to the end of today's session.

14             Therefore, I, out of caution, inquire with Cermak Defence, still

15     no questions.

16             We will have a break and we will resume at twenty minutes

17     to 1.00.  The parties are urged to check their cross-examination and

18     re-examination, to see, in fact, wether we can complete the examination

19     of this witness today.

20                           --- Recess taken at 12.22 p.m.

21                           [The witness entered court]

22                           --- On resuming at 12.46 p.m.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, please proceed.

24             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Zganjer, when we were discussing a procedural

Page 11668

 1     matter, we were so close to a break that we took a break by then.  This

 2     is just as an explanation.

 3             Please proceed.

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

 5        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, let me ask it a different way.  The Official Note on

 6     the screen, you don't have any information as to when that note was put

 7     in the file, do you?

 8        A.   I saw this Official Note as an attachment to a document that was

 9     submitted to me on the 27th of June, 2002.  This was part of the special

10     report from the military police, the crime investigation division.

11        Q.   Okay.

12        A.   It contained this Official Note, and this is the first time that

13     I saw it.

14        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, let me ask you the following question, and it is

15     somewhat hypothetical but relevant to this issue.

16             If, in the Croatian system, a search warrant is issued for

17     person A, but should have been issued for person B, and person A and B

18     live together in the same house, pursuant to the search warrant misnamed

19     under person A, the authorities find incriminating evidence against

20     person B, assume for the sake of argument that the search warrant was

21     defective, would the evidence obtained purpose to the defective search

22     warrant cause any difficulties in the prosecution of person B, under the

23     Croatian system?

24        A.   The arrest warrant has to specify the person that is to be

25     brought into custody.  If the person who is brought into custody is not

Page 11669

 1     the person named in the arrest warrants, then we are entering the zone --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the question was about a search warrant;

 3     that is, to search the premises to see whether any evidential material,

 4     any evidence can you found there, not about arresting a person.  So the

 5     search warrant, saying there's a suspicion against Mr. A, we allow the

 6     search of the premises where he lives; A by the way is a mistake, because

 7     the suspicion is against B; and now during this search on this premises,

 8     incriminating evidence is found in relation B, whose name is not

 9     appearing on the search warrant.

10             Would that cause problems later on in using that evidence in a

11     case against B?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise.

13     Perhaps I'm unable to grasp this question due to my own failings.

14             Can we perhaps have -- clarify this in this manner:  We have

15     warrant for the arrest of a certain person, that's one situation; and

16     then we also have the search warrant for the search of certain premises.

17     So Counsel Misetic I would like you to clarify and specify this, and I

18     will be happy to answer your questions.

19             MR. MISETIC: [Previous translation continues] ... permission,

20     Mr. President, I will tell him in Croatian, because I'm not sure what

21     translation is he receiving.

22        Q.   [Interpretation] Search warrant, not arrest warrant.

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   So the arrest warrant lists person A, and it is erroneous because

25     it actually pertains to person B, and they live in the same house.

Page 11670

 1             MR. MISETIC:  I'll check the transcript later.

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] A search of a house is carried out based on the

 3     warrant that lists person A, and incriminating evidence against person B

 4     is found.  Now, can this evidence be used against person B in criminal

 5     proceedings, or would there be problems because the evidence was found on

 6     the basis of an erroneous search warrant?

 7        A.   If a search warrant pertains to the premises where person A is

 8     residing or is present, and if, in the course of the premises used by

 9     person A, items are found that do not belong to person A but to person B,

10     I think that, in that case, it would be a valid search, and I think that

11     evidence found in the premises used by person A could also be used as

12     evidence in criminal proceedings in a trial.

13        Q.   My question was a bit more specific than that.  So we're talking

14     about a defective search warrant against person A.  What I mean is that

15     the search warrant should have been issued for person B, but due to a

16     mistake, person A is listed in the search, is named in the search

17     warrant.

18             So there was no factual basis for the search of person A's house,

19     but due to a mistake, the defective search warrant was issued.  Could

20     this engender any problems in future criminal proceedings against

21     person B?

22        A.   Well, there could problems because the validity of evidence

23     obtained in this manner could be questioned if the search warrant named

24     person A instead of person B.

25        Q.   [In English] Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.

Page 11671

 1             You have some testimony here, and I understand very much that

 2     you're knowledge of what Mr. Mrkota may or may not have done in 1995 is

 3     based on what you were told by Mr. Glavan in 2002.  I understand that.

 4             However, part of your statement, at paragraph 38, says that:

 5     "The investigation was prevented from being carried out by commander of

 6     the military police company, Nenad Mrkota."

 7             Then you go on to say:  "I believe if this investigation had

 8     within carried out as planned, the real perpetrators of this crime may

 9     have been brought it trial."

10             Now, my question to you is:  As you were considering and as you

11     consider this evidence, in your judgement, is it possible, in light of

12     what I have shown you in terms of the state of the evidence against Goran

13     Vunic prior to that letter of the 23rd of October, that Commander Mrkota

14     stopped the search of the premises of Goran Vunic, on the basis that he

15     himself had no information that Goran Vunic was the target of the

16     investigation and thought that it could jeopardize the results of the

17     search of the home of Boris Vunic, because the search warrant would have

18     been issued in the wrong Vunic's name?

19        A.   Of course, I have to say, to be consistent with what I said

20     before, when I spoke about Nenad Mrkota, I was talking about the special

21     report from the military police administration, the CID.  Now, whether

22     the claims contained in the special report would be corroborated in the

23     course of the proceedings, now, that's a whole different question.

24             We talked about the validity of evidence given that the search

25     warrant erroneously named such-and-such a person.  I cannot rule out the

Page 11672

 1     possibility that this might have been the reason why Nenad Mrkota, if at

 2     all, if he did, in fact, prohibited any further actions and the search

 3     from going on.  But what is quite clear to me is the fact that Nenad

 4     Mrkota, Commander Mrkota, if he was motivated by those reasons to prevent

 5     a search, should have explained that.  He had to clarify whether this was

 6     Boris or Goran Vunic, and then we would know what to do, how to proceed

 7     from there.

 8        Q.   Let's take a look at that exact question.

 9             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if we could have 1D60-0042 on the

10     screen, please.

11        Q.   Now, this is a document from the 26th of January, 1996,

12     Zadar-Knin crime police department.  The subject is "Murders by unknown

13     perpetrators, ballistics report."

14             There are several dates about what the requests.  The last two

15     are 26 October and 22 November, 1995.  Here, the crime police sector is

16     reporting on forensic analysis on weapons seized from individuals.

17             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if we can go in the English to

18     page 5.

19        Q.   This is now -- I draw your attention to binder number 13.  One of

20     the ballistics tested done was on a Kalashnikov automatic rifle, calibre

21     7.62-millimetre, serial number, seized from Boris Vunic.

22             MR. MISETIC:  If we could go to page 12 -- actually, page 11,

23     please, of the English -- actually, page 10 then.

24             I'm sorry, Mr.  Registrar.

25        Q.   This is a letter from the 19th of May, 1997, again sending

Page 11673

 1     weapons which have been fired for the purpose of solving the murders by

 2     unknown perpetrators in the area of the Zadar-Knin police administration

 3     in the time-period between 28 September 1995 and 3 October 1995.

 4             MR. MISETIC:  And if we go to the next page, please.

 5        Q.   At number 26, we have the weapon of Boris Vunic.

 6             Now, on the basis of these documents from 1996 and 1997, would it

 7     appear to you that at some point in time, the authorities, in fact, did

 8     get the weapons, or get at least one weapon, from Boris Vunic?

 9        A.   Not only would that have appear to me, but the documents you're

10     showing me indicate that the subject of ballistics examination included

11     the weapons found on Boris Vunic.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. President, I ask that 1D60-0042 be marked, and I

13     tender it into evidence.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D919.

17             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar and Mr. President.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  D919 is admitted into evidence.

19             Please proceed.

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

21        Q.   Now, Mr. Zganjer, I also note that in the actual judgement in the

22     Varivode case in 1997, it's a 114-page judgement which has been tendered

23     by the Prosecution in its bar table submission.  There is no reference

24     whatsoever to Goran Vunic, but there are three references to Boris Vunic.

25             MR. MISETIC:  In the English, it's at page 18, page 52, and

Page 11674

 1     page 65.

 2        Q.   Now, I'm sure you reviewed that judgement many times.  If Goran

 3     Vunic had -- it had been alleged at any point that Goran Vunic was one of

 4     the persons in Varivode and/or Gosici at the time of these murders, based

 5     on your experience, would his name have come up during the trial in the

 6     Varivode case or in the judgement?

 7        A.   Well, I don't know.  In fact, we've been discussing Vunices all

 8     this time, Boris and Goran.  I believe that these are, in fact, two

 9     brothers.  As far as I'm able to remember now, Goran Vunic did have a

10     brother.  Whether his name was Boris or not, I don't know.  I can't

11     recall all the details of the judgement; and, consequently, I can't give

12     you a specific answer to that question, unfortunately.  I really can't

13     tell you whether the names of Boris and Goran Vunic were mentioned in the

14     judgement.

15             What I do remember is the fact that the ballistics examination

16     indicated that none of the weapons seized and which were subjected to

17     ballistics examination included the rifle which would have matched the

18     bullet casings found at the scene in Gosici and Varivode.

19        Q.   Okay.

20             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I'm going to switch topics, so I

21     don't know if there are any additional questions from the Bench.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  No, not at this moment.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. MISETIC:

25        Q.   One of the question I did have was, actually, is that one of the

Page 11675

 1     suspects in the MUP work plan from 15 October and mentioned throughout

 2     the rest of the Varivode case was a gentleman named Nedeljko Mijic.

 3             Are you familiar with that gentleman's name?

 4        A.   I think that the person by the name of Nedeljko Mijic was one of

 5     the persons in -- accused for the murder in Varivode or Gosici.  At any

 6     rate, a person by the name of Nedeljko Mijic was one of the persons

 7     charged with this incident.  I can't be sure whether it was in Gosici or

 8     in Varivode.

 9        Q.   I ask you that question because of a different murder, or two

10     murders, that took place in the area of Kakanj on or around the

11     18th August.  You, in your statement, talk about the fact that you

12     personally met with one of the victims who was not killed but was

13     seriously injured in that that incident, Mr. Mirko Ognjenovic, who

14     testified before this Trial Chamber.

15             Mr. Ognjenovic, in his statements and before this Trial Chamber,

16     said that one of the individuals who was in a uniform turned to the other

17     individual and referred to him as Nedeljko.

18             Now, I understand that there, in theory, could be many people

19     with that first name.  But in light of the fact that that murder and the

20     Gosici murders took place roughly nine or ten days apart, in the course

21     of your investigation of the Kakanj murders, did you investigate Nedeljko

22     Mijic as a potential perpetrator of those murders.

23        A.   Quite a lot of time has elapsed.  As far as I'm able to remember

24     now, I think that, together with a police officer, I personally spoke to

25     this person, Ognjenovic, in Kakanj.  I think that Mr. Ognjenovic

Page 11676

 1     recounted the circumstances surrounding the death of these two

 2     individuals to me and the policeman with me.  I believe he even showed us

 3     some photographs he had on him.

 4             The two persons killed were, in fact, exhumed subsequently in the

 5     cemetery in Zadar, if I'm not mistaken.  I might be at risk of making a

 6     mistake, but as far as I remember, Mr. Ognjenovic was telling us at the

 7     time about the correspondence between the two either members of the

 8     Croatian army or merely two individuals wearing HV uniforms.  I believe

 9     he told us at the time that one of the persons addressed the other one by

10     Nedjo.  That was everything Mr. Ognjenovic told us.

11             I don't believe that he used the full name Nedjelko.  I think

12     that he told the name was or Nidjo or Nedjo.

13             Well, now that person who was referred to as addressing the other

14     one as Nedjo or Nidjo supposedly would have tried to dissuade the other

15     person from doing what he was about to do, but I don't think he used the

16     full name when telling us the story of Nedjelko.  I think he used the

17     name of Nedjo.  I think it was the conversation taking place between the

18     two, and one of them was called Ognjenovic.

19        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... question on another matter.

20             You were shown a letter from Mr. Separovic, which is Exhibit D912

21     now, this morning by Mr. Mikulicic, in which Mr. Separovic asks the

22     military courts to send him their files so that those files can be sent

23     to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

24             From a disciplinary perspective, who did military prosecutors

25     answer to ultimately for their work?

Page 11677

 1        A.   The military prosecutor was directly subordinate to the hierarchy

 2     of the state attorney's offices.  I, as a deputy of a military

 3     prosecutor, was directly answerable to the military prosecutor of my

 4     district in Split; whereas, my prosecutor for the district in Split -

 5     that was Mr. Simic - was directly responsible to the state attorney of

 6     Republic of Croatia, and that was the only line of responsibility.

 7        Q.   Did the commander of the Split Military District - in this case,

 8     General Ante Gotovina - issue an order to the military prosecutor?

 9        A.   Absolutely not.  Absolutely not.  I would answer such a question

10     with a counterquestion:  Could have the military prosecutor suggested or

11     ordered to General Gotovina which axis he should use in an attack?

12        Q.   Now, the same question concerning discipline with respect to

13     military judges.  Who did military judges answer to vertically?

14        A.   They were directly subordinate to the Supreme Court of the

15     Republic of Croatia -- or rather, the county court and the Supreme Court

16     of the Republic of Croatia.

17             Of course, you, Counsel Misetic, know that full well, that this

18     is a different sort of subordination to that of military prosecutors.

19     The Supreme Court cannot order a judge of a military court what sort of a

20     judgement he should render; however, the national state attorney could

21     have instructed a military prosecutor on how to proceed in a given case.

22        Q.   And my final topic, Mr. Zganjer, Mr. Ive Kardum testified before

23     this Trial Chamber that in his assessment between 1991 and 1995,

24     approximately 10.000 homes --

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I object.  Mr. Zganjer is a

Page 11678

 1     practice in this -- established in the -- in this Court as to how to put

 2     other witness's testimony to a witness in court.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             MR. MISETIC:  Well, if he ... [Overlapping speakers]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Of course, we have not heard the question yet, but

 6     you are aware of this practice, Mr. Misetic.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  That's not what I'm ask being about, so --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

 9             MR. MISETIC:

10        Q.   As I said, Mr. Ive Kardum testified before this Trial Chamber

11     that approximately 10.000 homes had been burned down between 1991 and

12     1995 of ethnic Croats in the occupied areas.

13             My question to you is:  Did you prosecute people after Operation

14     Storm for the burning down of the homes of Croats during the occupation;

15     and, if so, how many; and, if not, why not?

16        A.   There were very few such cases in the area of the Sibenik county

17     state attorney's office.

18             Now, why didn't we process such crimes, or why didn't we receive

19     any criminal reports for such offences?  Well, you see, it was very

20     difficult to ascertain who of the members of which army set which houses

21     on fire.  It is a fact that many homes of Croats were burnt.  However,

22     after the war, it was difficult to ascertain which of the members of the

23     enemy army set fire to which house.  It was difficult to ascertain, and

24     there were only a handful of such cases.

25        Q.   Yes.  Mr. Zganjer, thank you very much for answering my

Page 11679

 1     questions.

 2             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I'm advised that there may be an

 3     issue on the transcript.  At page 68, line 2, it says "arrest warrant."

 4     Yes.  I believe I was speaking in Croatian at the time, and I believe I

 5     said "search warrant" and not "arrest warrant" in line 2, page 68.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I think, as a matter of fact, that the matter

 7     finally became clear on what we are talking about.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, any further questions for the

10     witness?

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I would urge the parties to see if you could finish

13     well within a half-hour from now, because there are a few procedural

14     matters I would like to deal with which are of an urgent character.

15             Please proceed.

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Very well, Mr. President.

17             Mr. Registrar, if you could bring up D919, please, on the screen;

18     D919, the weapons and analysis document that Defence just tender into

19     evidence.

20                           Re-examination by Ms. Mahindaratne:

21        Q.   I will read it while the document comes up.  Mr. Zganjer, in

22     fact, you were shown this document.  If you could go to the page 1D00 --

23     I don't think this is -- I will just read out the -- because Mr. Misetic

24     himself indicated the period for which he said these weapons were

25     obtained.

Page 11680

 1             "And it is for criminal proceedings for murders by unknown

 2     perpetrators in the area of Zadar-Knin police administration in the

 3     time-period between 28 September 1995 and 3 October 1995."

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I don't know in which document that

 5     information is, but I don't think Mr. Misetic will dispute that.

 6        Q.   Now, these weapons were obtained and analysed for crimes

 7     committed for that period, as I understand, from that document; that is,

 8     28 September 1995 and 3 October 1995.  Is that correct, Mr. Zganjer?

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If could you go perhaps to the page 1D60-0064.

10     I think it must be about page 7 or 8 of the English version.  Yes, we

11     have that page, and then the corresponding page on the B/C/S version.

12        Q.   That is correct, isn't it, Mr. Zganjer?

13        A.   No, no --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Yes, correct.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if we could bring up on the screen,

16     Mr.  Registrar, P970.  If you could take -- yes.  If you could take the

17     page down.

18        Q.   If you note that that paragraph numbered 1, it records that Goran

19     Vunic, and his details are given, member of the 113th Infantry Brigade,

20     is wanted for committing a crime on an undetermined day in August 1995,

21     together with two others as yet unidentified men, and the killing

22     incident is with regard to a person named Gojko Lezajic.

23             So, based on the date of offence, can you -- is it correct that

24     the weapons analysis document, which had crimes indicated for the period

25     28 September 1995 to 3rd October 1995, does not cover this particular

Page 11681

 1     crime for which Mr. Goran Vunic is wanted?

 2        A.   Yes.  The time-period mentioned in the previous document does not

 3     correspond to the period mentioned in this Official Note, but --

 4        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.

 5             MR. MISETIC:  [Previous translation continues] ... be allowed to

 6     complete the answer, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             If you could please ... [Overlapping speakers]

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

10        Q.   Please go ahead, Mr. Zganjer, if you have anything else to say.

11        A.   But if I may observe, the dates mentioned in these submissions

12     and in the evidence in this case is not as important.  When you seize

13     certain weaponry, you cannot be sure that there are reasons to suspect

14     that the weapons were used between a certain period, June and September.

15     It will be only through ballistics examination once it's done that you

16     may realize that there was a crime committed even before that date.

17             This is something that is simply possible.  Once you've seized a

18     concern amount of weapons, you can't say, "Yes, we do have reasons to

19     suspect that the weapons may have been used to commit crimes between

20     1st September and 30 October."  The ballistics examination will examine

21     the casings found at a crime scene even -- that were there even before

22     the 1st of September.

23        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

24        A.   And, of course, it can always be possible that from that

25     weapon --

Page 11682

 1        Q.   [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Zganjer.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, may I have D914, please.

 3        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, I was given only a very few minutes, and I will be

 4     grateful if you could respond to my questions briefly, because we're

 5     running out of the time.

 6             I just want you to take note of a document that I'm about to show

 7     you.  This was just tendered by the Defence.

 8             If could you go to page -- the third page, do you note, at the

 9     top of page, the investigating officer who arrested Mr. Boris Vunic is

10     recorded as "F. Mikulandra"?

11             If could you --

12             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, I'd ask for foundation that he

13     arrested him.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Well, because it is it noted there, and then

15     according to D917, Mr. Mikulandra has recorded his interview.

16             These are Defence documents --

17             MR. MISETIC:  I'm not sure that he was arrested, but that's fine,

18     Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  That's on the record then.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Then can we have D917, please.

21        Q.   This is it the record of interview with Boris Vunic, and at the

22     interview, Mr. Mikulandra present, according to the first page of the

23     document.

24             If you see, according to this first page, it mentions that he is

25     being investigated:  "In the course of proceeding, pursuant Article 151

Page 11683

 1     of the Law on Criminal Procedure, for reasonable suspicion of committing

 2     a criminal offence of aggravated theft as described in Article 126,"

 3      and the rest of the Criminal Code details are given.

 4             Now, so, there is no record that he has been brought in for a

 5     case of -- on suspicion of a killing incident in Gosici here, is there,

 6     Mr. Zganjer?

 7        A.   Correct.  As far as I'm able to recall his statement, he does not

 8     speak of any possible knowledge he may have of the events in Varivode and

 9     Gosici, and I'm referring to this statement.

10        Q.   Right.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If he could go, Mr. Registrar, right down to

12     the bottom of the page.

13        Q.   It records that:  "At the beginning of Operation Storm, to be

14     more exact on 4 August 1995, I was in the Croatian army 15th Home Guard

15     Regiment in the composition of the 2nd Company of the 2nd Battalion."

16             Your testimony was, and we have tendered a number of documents,

17     where Goran Vunic was --

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm sorry, Mr. President.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  This is Boris Vunic.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

21        Q.   I know.  I am referring to Goran Vunic.

22             Your testimony was that Goran Vunic was a platoon commander of

23     the 113th Brigade.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Then if we could have P10 -- I'm sorry, P1072.

25        Q.   Now, that is the work plan of the -- the Sibenik military police

Page 11684

 1     company.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If we could go to page 2 on English version,

 3     and, Mr.  Registrar, if I could just go down on the B/C/S -- sorry, the

 4     Croatian version.  Yeah.  No, I'm sorry.  It's also page 2 of the

 5     Croatian version, and right at the bottom of the page on both versions,

 6     bottom of the page.

 7        Q.   Do you note that one of the officers who is sent to search the

 8     premises of Goran Vunic is Frane Mikulandra?  He is assisting the

 9     military police in this search activity.  Isn't that correct?

10             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, I'm going to object.  Whether he is

11     assisting or not, his name on the page.  What happened, whether he even

12     knew his name was on the page, there is no foundation for it.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

14        Q.   Can you please respond to this question, Mr. Zganjer:  Was the

15     Sibenik criminal military police conducting this particular investigation

16     in cooperation with the Sibenik military police administration

17     officers -- I'm sorry, Sibenik civilian police officers who belonged to

18     the Sibenik police administration?

19        A.   Well, this work plan - and I don't know whether it was really

20     implemented or not - indicates that this was a coordinated activity,

21     which was part of the criminal investigation.  It was carried out in a

22     coordinated manner both by the military police and the general duty

23     police.

24        Q.   Thank you for that.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If I could have just one last document,

Page 11685

 1     Mr. Registrar, P1074.

 2        Q.   And while that is coming up, Mr. Zganjer, that is the special

 3     report that was sent to you -- I'm sorry, that is the investigation plan

 4     of the criminal military police.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm sorry I asked for the wrong document.  I

 6     beg your pardon, Mr.  Registrar.  If could I have P1073.

 7        Q.   Now, you were asked questions about the search warrant as to

 8     whether, if there were search defects in a search warrant, what the

 9     impact would be.  You were also asked the question as to whether is it

10     possible that Mr. Mrkota may have prevented the investigation from being

11     carried forward because he felt there was no evidence against Goran

12     Vunic.

13             Now, I'd like to draw your attention, while this document is on

14     the screen, to your supplementary statement, and I don't know whether you

15     have it with you.

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Madam Usher, if you could just --

17        Q.   If could you look at paragraph 41, you -- you're referring to the

18     search warrant.  And for lack of time I will go to the particular line,

19     which is about the seventh line, where you say:  "If for any reason the

20     warrant cannot executed, then the authority which is required to execute

21     the warrant - in this case, the Sibenik criminal military police - have

22     to report such fact to court.  I believe the military prosecutor in Split

23     to whom this search warrant was also delivered should have inquired as to

24     the execution."

25             Now, are aware of any report whatsoever or any documents existing

Page 11686

 1     in these criminal files where Mr. Nenad Mrkota or anyone from the Sibenik

 2     criminal military police reporting to the investigating judge as to why

 3     the warrant was not executed?

 4        A.   I don't know whether the military police company commander,

 5     Mr. Nenad Mrkota, military police in Sibenik, told the military

 6     prosecutor and the investigating judge why this search warrant was not

 7     executed.  The search warrant is quite clear and precise, and it pertains

 8     to the search of the premises in Sibenik at number 6 Zagrebacka Street,

 9     and a room in the Monting [phoen] Hotel, occupant which is Goran Vunic,

10     son of Ante.

11             So I don't know --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  This is going too deep.  The question was limited to

13     whether you were aware of any reasons being reported, not on whether it

14     was difficult to execute the search warrant.  I understood your answer to

15     be that you don't know of any such reasons being reported.  Is that

16     correct?

17             THE WITNESS:  Da [No interpretation]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

20        Q.   In fact, you did also -- I want to bring to your notice that the

21     address of the place to be searched is indicated in the search warrant.

22             Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I just have one more -- Mr. President I if

24     could just have a minute.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  That minute is granted.

Page 11687

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if I could quickly have

 2     document P1007.

 3        Q.   While that document is it being brought up, Mr. Zganjer, you were

 4     asked questions by Mr. Mikulicic about the military discipline records.

 5     I know you have been a military prosecutor, but since it has been some

 6     time, it is possible that you may have forgotten.

 7             I want to show you a particular document.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if you could go to page 2 of the Croatian

 9     version and page 4 of the English version.

10        Q.   Now, you stated that where a person was prosecuted in a military

11     court, there would not be a parallel proceeding against that same person,

12     same member of the military in the disciplinary courts.

13             Now, do you note Article number 8, where it is stated, I believe,

14     from paragraph 3:  "The military disciplinary court finds that the

15     offence against military discipline is, in fact, a minor one, shall issue

16     a disciplinary measure.

17             "If a criminal offence is found to be a major violation of

18     military discipline, the offender my also answer before ..."  --

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Counsel is kindly asked to slow down when

20     reading.  Thank you.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

22        Q.   "... may also answer before a military disciplinary court if this

23     is in the particular interest of the armed service.

24             "Proceedings before military disciplinary courts shall be

25     conducted independently of the proceedings or outcome of the criminal

Page 11688

 1     case."

 2             Do you note from that, Mr. Zganjer, that what you said, or your

 3     answer to Mr. Mikulicic's question, was incorrect.  That, in fact, where

 4     a crime is prosecuted in a military court, there can be a parallel

 5     disciplinary proceedings in the military disciplinary courts -- military

 6     disciplinary tribunals?

 7        A.   Well, obviously, I was not specific enough.

 8             These are the rules of service from 1992, but I cannot claim

 9     this.  I really don't know whether and in how many cases the special

10     interests of the service resulted in parallel military disciplinary

11     proceedings against persons who were, at the time, criminally prosecuted.

12             I really don't know.  If there were such cases, and if there

13     were, how many of them, cases where the same person would face for the

14     same acts, for the same offences, both the military disciplinary

15     proceedings parallel with the criminal proceedings for reasons that had

16     to do with special interest of the service.

17             I simply cannot envisage a situation where person A, an active

18     duty serviceman, is being tried before a military court for murder, and

19     that a military disciplinary proceedings are conducted before the

20     military disciplinary tribunal for the same offence.

21             But I have to say this with a caveat, I'm not sure whether I'm

22     correct, but I'm not sure whether in 1992, when the rules of service were

23     adopted, whether military disciplinary prosecutor's offices were in place

24     and military disciplinary tribunals were in place, or whether they were,

25     in fact, established at a later date.

Page 11689

 1             So take this with a grain of salt, I allow for the possibility

 2     that I may not be right.  But as far as I can recall, the prosecutor's

 3     office and tribunals for military disciplinary matters were established

 4     only in 1995 or 1996.

 5        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Zganjer, for responding to my questions.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, thank you.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Ms. Mahindaratne.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Zganjer, I have one question, if could you

10     perhaps briefly answer that question.

11                           Questioned by the Court:

12             JUDGE ORIE:  You told us that an Official Note containing an

13     interview, or at least reflecting what was said during an interview with

14     a suspected person, should be removed from the case file.

15             Do I understand that the same does not apply, even though not

16     being evidence, but that the same does not apply in relation to Official

17     Notes reflecting what a witness would have told the police?

18        A.   The Official Notes about interviews with suspects are removed

19     from the case file, as are Official Notes on interviews conducted with

20     citizens who provide information about a crime.  Both kinds of notes are

21     removed from the file and cannot be used as evidence at trial.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.

23             Have the questions by the Bench or questions in re-examination

24     triggered any need for further questions?

25             Then, Mr. Zganjer, this concludes your evidence in this court.

Page 11690

 1     I'd like to thank you very much for come ago long way to The Hague and

 2     for having answered the questions that you were put to you by the parties

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

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness out

 6     of the courtroom.

 7                           [The witness withdrew]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  One matter which is relatively urgent.  I would like

 9     to deal with it briefly; that is, I would like to deliver a decision.  It

10     is a decision on the Gotovina Defence's Rule 92 bis motion.

11             On the 4th of November, 2008, the Gotovina Defence filed a motion

12     for admission of a statement pursuant to Rule 92 bis.  The statement in

13     question was given by a person to the Prosecution in 1999, and

14     subsequently disclosed to the Defence.  That person is not on the

15     Prosecution's witness list.

16             On the 6th of November, 2008, the Cermak and Markac Defence

17     informed the Chamber that they do not oppose the motion.  These

18     submissions can be find at transcript pages 11.214.

19             On the 10th of November, 2008, the Prosecution filed its

20     response, opposing the motion.  The Prosecution argued that the Gotovina

21     Defence had not shown why it should be allowed to call a witness during

22     the Prosecution case.  The Prosecution added that, should the Chamber

23     decide to allow the Gotovina Defence to do so, the person in question

24     should be called for cross-examination.

25             Rule 85 sets out the sequence of presentation of evidence during

Page 11691

 1     trial, with the presentation of the evidence for the Prosecution

 2     preceding that of the Defence.  Presentation of evidence includes

 3     introducing testimony of witnesses viva voce, as well as pursuant to

 4     Rule 92 bis, 92 ter, 92 quater.  The Chamber may, if it is in the

 5     interests of justice, decide to vary the sequence of presentation of

 6     evidence set out in Rule 85.

 7             The Gotovina Defence has not provided any reasons why it would be

 8     in the interests of justice to introduce the testimony of the person in

 9     question now, during the Prosecution's case, as opposed to during a

10     possible Defence case.  If the Gotovina Defence intends to use the

11     statement during cross-examination of witnesses called by the

12     Prosecution, it may do so without having the statement admitted into

13     evidence.  This may be done by simply reading the relevant portions of

14     the statement to the Prosecution witness and then seeking his or her

15     comments.  This does not mean that the relevant portions enter into

16     evidence.

17             The Chamber does not find that it is in the interests of justice

18     to allow the Gotovina Defence to introduce the evidence of the person in

19     question during the Prosecution's presentation of evidence.  The Chamber,

20     therefore, denies the motion, without prejudice, to any further motion by

21     the Defence, with regard to the admission of the statement.

22             This concludes the Chamber's decision.

23             Very briefly, I see Mr. Hedaraly arrived.  He would be here

24     during the last session of the today.  He must have noticed that we did

25     not have sufficient time to discuss the photo spread issue in relation to

Page 11692

 1     Witness 3, but the Chamber is aware of the need to further deal with the

 2     matter and we'll find a moment for that very soon.

 3             Then, there is another matter in which there was an issue about

 4     objections against admission into evidence of P703, which is still marked

 5     for identification.  The Chamber invites the Prosecution to see whether

 6     P703 is still needed to be tendered, since P177 is virtually the same

 7     document, although under a different ERN number, and was admitted into

 8     evidence on the 1st of May, 2008.  Similarly, Defence is invited to

 9     explain why objections were raised now, the issue being that Mr. Marti

10     could not be questioned on the matter, where this document had been in

11     evidence already since the 1st of May, whether the objection stands.

12             Finally, the Chamber received information that for the next

13     witness, I think it was the Gotovina Defence that indicated that it would

14     need ten hours.  As always, the Chamber will closely follow the course of

15     how the cross-examination goes.  The Chamber hopes, at the same time,

16     that where, now and then, we have urged the parties to take less time,

17     that this does not result in asking for more time in the beginning, so as

18     to end at the very end with the same amount one has in mind.

19             MR. MISETIC:  No, Your Honour --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, I am not entering any debate on the

21     matter, but just to let you know, the Chamber will, as always, follow how

22     the time in cross-examination is spent to see whether, finally, it would

23     allow to you spend the ten hours.

24             MR. MISETIC:  I can tell you, Your Honour, that that goes without

25     saying.  Every time we're on our feet, we are aware that you are

Page 11693

 1     following how we are using our time.  Let me just state that the reason

 2     is that I, at this point, do intend to take the ten hours, and it

 3     directly relates to the fact that the Prosecution has decided not to call

 4     certain witnesses in its case in chief which were on their witness list

 5     concerning many relevant issue before the Trial Chamber.  We will attempt

 6     to cover them all with this witness, and, perhaps, we wouldn't have the

 7     need for extra witnesses that the Prosecution now does not intend to

 8     call.

 9             So there is really a valid reason why we need that much time.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  So you would say that a major portion of the time

11     spent may be spent under Rule 90(H), which says that if you go beyond

12     what is asked through witness in chief, if the witness who is

13     available --

14             MR. MISETIC:  No.  Actually, the witness does refer to all

15     relevant issues in his statement, and he has personal knowledge of the

16     issues.  Some witnesses would have perhaps been more knowledgeable, but I

17     will certainly put those matters to the witness.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we'll closely follow the course you take.

19             We'll adjourn for the day, and, again, apologies for the six

20     stolen minutes.

21             We will resume tomorrow, Thursday, 13th of November, 9.00 in the

22     morning, Courtroom I.

23                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.53 p.m.,

24                            to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day of

25                            November, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.