090122ED

Page 14846

1 admission of P1063 so that the Chamber can determine how to interpret

2 these two different versions of what is -- in many respects, the same

3 document.

4 D918 and P1063 are admitted into evidence.

5 We move on to D954. I do understand that the correct B/C/S

6 version of this document has been uploaded, which was, up till now, an

7 obstacle to admission.

8 MR. HEDARALY: Actually my recollection Mr. President is slightly

9 different and it was a longer article, and Mr. Mikulicic and I agreed to

10 have only three pages, the relevant three pages replace that article and

11 that has been done. So there is no longer any objections to D954.

12 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, there is one little issue.

13 And that is the original portion of this document that has been

14 released under 3D01-0620, which is corresponds with an English version of

15 the document. So the original should be attached to the English version

16 of the documents and, therefore, the entire 954 should be replaced with a

17 new translation of only three pages in English and two pages in B/C/S.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There was an issue about the original B/C/S --

19 the B/C/S original lacking, that was the reason that it was not admitted,

20 and it was also unclear whether the entire exhibit was sought to be

21 admitted or only a part of it. All this has not been settled, from what

22 I understand. The B/C/S original is uploaded, and the relevant portions

23 are there in translation.

24 Therefore, Mr. Registrar, I take it that the references given by

25 Mr. Mikulicic are sufficiently clear for you, and under those

Page 14847

1 circumstances, D954, being an article titled: "The Confession of the

2 Chetnik duke, Rade Cubrilo," 20th of March, 1996, is admitted into

3 evidence in its relevant portions.

4 We move on to D1079.

5 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, if I can assist the Chamber to

6 expedite the matter.

7 These were the following documents were all documents submitted

8 to the bar table from the Defence in connection with Mr. Theunens'

9 testimony, and the Prosecution does not object to any of them, so it's

10 D1079, D1083, and then D1106, up to and including D1199.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I have a far longer list.

12 Let's go through them one by one. The issue was - and I'm now

13 returning to D1079 - first there was a problem with the unsourced last

14 paragraph of this document provided by the assistant minister who

15 authored this document. That was one problem. And the second one was

16 that the Prosecution wished to examine the request by the Markac Defence,

17 the request underlying the response.

18 Now, I think, as a matter of fact, that the Chamber at that time

19 expressed views on these last paragraphs - let me just find it --

20 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, I could remind you, if I may,

21 that it was Your Honours' wish to read the document in its entirety. And

22 that's one issue.

23 And the other issue was that the Prosecution office has requested

24 to see the Markac Defence request to the Ministry of Justice, and we

25 provided the Office of the Prosecutor with this request.

Page 14848

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the time, the Chamber said the following,

2 and I'm referring to page 13528, where I said:

3 "I leave it for the time being to the parties, whether the --

4 for -- whether the appropriate action to take would be, for example, to

5 take out the last three lines that deals with facts and have a" -- and

6 then have as a result a redacted version tendered into evidence and

7 admitted into evidence, "or whether the parties agree that at this moment

8 no factual support for rather blunt factual statements are there so that

9 the parties agree that the Chamber, on the basis of this alone, could

10 ignore this information."

11 It's just untested factual information.

12 Now have the parties agreed on either to redact or do the parties

13 agree that the Chamber, on the basis of what the -- I think

14 Assistant Minister Rajcic that the Chamber could not establish anything

15 on the basis of that alone.

16 MR. HEDARALY: I don't think we have, but we'll talk with

17 Mr. Mikulicic, and we will resolve the issue and inform the Chamber.

18 MR. MIKULICIC: That's fine with me, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So then the issue of the request to be shown

20 to the Prosecution that has been resolved; but the other matter has not

21 been resolved.

22 Then we move on to D1083. The issue there was whether there was

23 a full translation.

24 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... whether it has been

Page 14849

1 uploaded.

2 MR. MIKULICIC: We are still waiting for the official

3 translation, so ... it has been re-sent to the TTS for translation.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So we can't finally deal with it at this

5 moment.

6 Then we move on to D1106. I think nothing at this moment opposes

7 admission of a set of letters which were MFI'd at the time.

8 MR. KAY: Quite so, Your Honour, they are old faithful, so to

9 speak. We've raised them a number of times and there's never, ever been

10 an objection to them.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then D1106 is admitted into evidence.

12 The next D1107, and following, going up to D1181; that is, a bar

13 table submission by the Cermak Defence.

14 On the 15th of December, exhibit numbers were assigned. It was

15 on the basis of this that I just gave you the numbers. It was

16 established that D -- no, let me just first.

17 MR. KAY: Shall I try and assist?

18 JUDGE ORIE: We had the numbers D1107 up to D1181 ready for

19 admission. Then we have D1182 and D1183 are duplicates and have been

20 vacated by now.

21 MR. KAY: Yes.

22 JUDGE ORIE: And then what remains is D1184 up to and including

23 D1199.

24 MR. KAY: Exactly, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ORIE: And that's -- so, therefore, admitted into evidence

Page 14850

1 are D1107 through to D1181, the last one included, and D1184 through to

2 and including D1199.

3 MR. KAY: Much obliged, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move on to D12 -- 12 is not a matter we'll

5 deal with at this moment.

6 We move on to D1223. I think D1223 was not yet admitted into

7 evidence because the witness was given an opportunity to review the --

8 the supplemental information sheet. He reported in court that he did not

9 find any inaccuracies, and for that reason nothing opposes admission.

10 Therefore, D1223 is admitted into evidence.

11 Next one, D1225. For this document, the Prosecution has asked

12 additional time to consider possible objections. This was done during

13 12th of January.

14 Any objections Mr. Hedaraly.

15 MR. HEDARALY: There are no objections and the same was true of

16 D1227 and D1229. So for all those three of those, the Prosecution does

17 not have any objection.

18 JUDGE ORIE: D1225, D1227, and D1229 are admitted into evidence.

19 We move on to D1231.

20 There was an issue whether this was -- should have been a bar

21 table document or not, because the witness could not say much about

22 D1231. But the Chamber is not aware of any objections even if the

23 witness could not say anything about it. It doesn't mean it

24 automatically lacks relevance and probative value.

25 MR. HEDARALY: Actually, Mr. President, my information and I

Page 14851

1 don't know what had transpired in court, if the objection was preserved

2 or not. But there was one problem with the document in itself, whether

3 bar tabled or through the witness, is that it was shown to the witness

4 whether he couldn't say anything about it -- about the date of the death

5 and there's an inconsistency within the document on page 2 of the

6 document, the date of death is reporting as being the 4th August and on

7 the page 3 of the very same document the date of death is 8th

8 of August and since that was the purpose for tendering it, I think there

9 was an issue with that.

10 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, for the record I don't think that goes

11 to admissibility as first point but secondly the item that Mr. Hedaraly

12 referred on the second page doesn't -- on page 3 doesn't say that there's

13 second date of death. It says when did the event occur. And it is

14 listed as 8/8. But in terms of what it explicitly says what is the date

15 of death, that is on the first page and it says 8/4.

16 Whatever the case may be, we can argue at trial or in closing

17 argument about the probative value, but I don't think this issue effects

18 admissibility.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.

20 MR. HEDARALY: I looked at that time last night, Your Honour, if

21 I can just have a few seconds just to make sure that I remember

22 correctly.

23 If the -- if the date of death is the 4th of August, and then the

24 incident that caused the death on the 8th of August. On its face there

25 is a problem with the document, and I don't think it's a matter of

Page 14852

1 weight. I think it's a matter much the reliability, the inherent

2 reliability of the document; and it is of such a point especially if it

3 is tendered for that very purpose to contest when death he occurred which

4 is why it was tendered initially then I think the probative value is so

5 low because of the inheritance inconsistency that it cannot be admitted.

6 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, these are records that we received

7 from the Office of the Prosecutor so I expect there is no issue about

8 authenticity. There is no issue that this is the official record. I

9 don't think there is any issue of admissibility here because there is

10 certainly no prejudice to the Prosecution if the document is admitted.

11 Again rather than spending time here arguing about the document

12 itself, I will reserve and argue it later; but I do think this is more of

13 an issue of argument rather than the document itself.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly, I take that the position of the

15 Defence is more or less let the Chamber struggle with this document but

16 that you would not oppose admission, and, of course, if there is

17 contradicting information in the document, be aware that it will be a

18 struggle for the Chamber.

19 Do you want us to engage in the struggle, or would you save us?

20 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, I was objecting to save the Chamber

21 the struggle, but if the struggle will be saved by letting it into

22 evidence then we will withdraw our objection.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ORIE: D1231 is admitted into evidence.

25 Then we move on to D1236.

Page 14853

1 Mr. Hedaraly, the Prosecution asked for time to review the

2 original document.

3 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, Mr. President. For D1236 and D1237 -- and we

4 have received those and we are satisfied. There are no objection to

5 those two documents.

6 JUDGE ORIE: D1236 and D1237 are admitted into evidence.

7 As far as D1265 is concerned which is the Netherlands army

8 publication entitled, "Combat Operations," I think the issue was what to

9 select from that document because it was a 103-page document. I think

10 parts of it were already in evidence, if I'm not mistaken, but I'm not

11 certain about that -- not.

12 MR. MISETIC: No, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ORIE: And what would be the selection.

14 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, as I understand it, we have now

15 rescanned only seven pages of this document, and they are located at

16 1D65-0520.

17 JUDGE ORIE: And those are what pages?

18 MR. MISETIC: If I may have a moment, we'll pull that up,

19 Mr. President.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 Then I'm already addressing you, Mr. Hedaraly, one of the issues

22 was that Mr. Russo would like to have a look on whether he would like to

23 have more pages selected.

24 MR. HEDARALY: Obviously we're waiting to know which pages the

25 Defence will select. Now we'll look, if there's anything else. My

Page 14854

1 understanding is I don't think in this particular document there is

2 anything. But if I can just get back to the Chamber just to be

3 absolutely sure that that is the position.

4 JUDGE ORIE: In order to avoid that we are keeping matters on our

5 MFI list, there always is a possibility to extend the number of pages

6 admitted now. May I take it that if the Prosecution wants more there

7 will be no objection against that.

8 MR. MISETIC: That's correct, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Then D1265 as it is uploaded now, that is, seven

10 pages are admitted into evidence and the -- if the Prosecution wants to

11 add more pages to the selected portion of this document, they should

12 inform the Defence and the Chamber within the next 48 hours.

13 Then we move to the Prosecution exhibits.

14 We start with P480. There was an issue about the authenticity of

15 P480.

16 Has any -- has this been resolved in any way or not?

17 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, pursuant to the Chamber's

18 instruction we provided the RFA response to the Defence back in the

19 summer, I believe; and the Chamber had given them one week and we hadn't

20 heard anything. This was the leaflet that had been exhibited, the bar

21 table attached to one of the witness statements.

22 JUDGE ORIE: That was on the 27th of August, I think, when a week

23 was granted to the Gotovina Defence to look at when and how the

24 Prosecution had received this document.

25 We have not heard anything since then. I now understand that --

Page 14855

1 that week.

2 MR. MISETIC: There's no objection, Mr. President.

3 JUDGE ORIE: No objection. Then P480 is admitted into evidence.

4 I do note that earlier there was a date attached to this

5 document, the 5th of August, 1995, upon inquiries with the Prosecution,

6 it turned out that that date, for which the basis was entirely unclear,

7 was an error and therefore does not appear anymore in the description of

8 this document.

9 Mr. Registrar, am I reflecting the present situation correctly?

10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move on to P482, the book, an excerpt of the

12 book. We have an English translation of ten pages. The whole of the

13 book in B/C/S is 159 pages. The parties were invited to agree on what

14 portions of the book should be uploaded and should be sought to be

15 admitted into evidence.

16 On the 25th of November, the legal officer of this Chamber asked

17 the OTP to give an update to the Chamber by the 26th of November. The --

18 no response was received on 26th of November; and, therefore, on the 28th

19 of November, the parties were reminded in court to resolve the issue, and

20 we have not received any further response from what I understand.

21 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, we have talked with the Defence and

22 the issue was the translation whether to have the entire book translated

23 or relevant portions. The Prosecution initially only tendered two

24 chapters of the book. The Defence wanted to tender the whole book, and

25 the Prosecution does not have any objection to the entire book coming

Page 14856

1 into evidence.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Is there a translation.

3 MR. MISETIC: Actually, Your Honour, I think we had a subsequent

4 conversation and the Prosecution was going to let me know -- we -- the

5 discussion was we didn't need the whole book. However, I think on the

6 record, when this came up the Prosecution was going to upload the

7 introduction by General Gotovina where I believe on the record I said it

8 says something to the effect of events as depicted in the book are not

9 necessarily as they were in reality and that was part of the introduction

10 and OTP was going to upload that portion which I think was one or two

11 paragraphs and in the discussion with Mr. Tieger and Ms. Gustafson in

12 order to avoid having to having to upload the entire book, there was a

13 discussion about whether OTP would stipulate that in the entire book

14 there is no reference of anybody having done anything wrong, and they

15 were going to get back to me on that. And that would avoid us having to

16 upload the entire book.

17 So with those elements in mind, we would have no objection to the

18 admission.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.

20 MR. HEDARALY: I was not aware of this latest development but I

21 will check with Mr. Tieger and --

22 JUDGE ORIE: One of the reasons why the Chamber scheduled this

23 housekeeping session at this moment is because any remaining issue we'd

24 like to be resolved within -- before Friday at the end of the day.

25 I think you would like to have a stipulation and then have no

Page 14857

1 further objections to those portions uploaded at this moment, or would

2 any additional part.

3 MR. MISETIC: Just the introduction. I would also add,

4 Mr. President, that CLSS has told us that they will not translate the

5 entire book. That was an additional reason why we had the discussion

6 with OTP about how we can avoid ...

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it now seems you are very close to resolution

8 of the matter.

9 MR. MISETIC: Yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: You are invited to reach a conclusion by the end of

11 tomorrow, close of business tomorrow, and then we can decide the matter.

12 I then move on to P505. I think that was the issue that was

13 MFI'd where you questioned the authenticity, I think the letter was

14 introduced --

15 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, let me remind you, if I may.

16 There is a really long pending issue. There is the letter of supposedly

17 the letter issued by Mr. Markac, but the letter was not signed, it was

18 not stamped and which not provided with an official number; and,

19 therefore, we corroborate our position through tendering the Exhibits 909

20 and 910, and this is a request from Markac Defence to the Ministry of

21 Justice and a response received from the Ministry of Justice, which

22 states that there was no records in the official books, log-books in the

23 Ministry of Interior of that letter.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now there once was an indication that the

25 Prosecution would tender this document again during the testimony of a

Page 14858

1 future witness. I'm not fully aware of which witness that would be,

2 but ...

3 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, it was -- it was discussed with

4 Witness Zganjer, who considered this to be an authentic document that

5 transcript reference 11499, line 13 to 11500, line 25 and the Chamber had

6 stated that it would decide on admission on the following page.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what we'll do. We now have all the

8 information we need to decide the admissibility issue. The Chamber will

9 decide the matter.

10 We move on to P703.

11 On the 12th of November, the Chamber has asked -- has invited the

12 parties to further consider the matter, and we'd like to know whether the

13 Prosecution still presses for admission of P703. And for the

14 Gotovina Defence, whether the objection is still upheld.

15 MR. HEDARALY: No, Your Honour. In fact, P703 is the same as

16 P177 already admitted, so P703 can be vacated.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Can be vacated. P703 is vacated.

18 Then we have a series of document, starting with P769, P770,

19 P771. Yes. These are documents which we're waiting, more or less, for a

20 decision which was finally filed on the 5th of December. These are the

21 reports on the terrain clearance. That was the issue of documents that

22 were presented on the list to be used during cross-examination but

23 finally not used.

24 The Chamber has decided this matter in the 5th of December,

25 decision, and, therefore sees no reason, at this moment, that the

Page 14859

1 objection would still stand, in view of the Chamber's decision against

2 P769, P770 and P771. These are, therefore, admitted into evidence.

3 P778, the Chamber invited the parties to agree on a redacted

4 version of this document. The Chamber understands that an agreement has

5 been reached, that the redacted document has been uploaded and is ready

6 for admission.

7 P778 is admitted into evidence.

8 We move on to P821. The issue there was whether the transcribed

9 portion of a handwritten document, whether there was -- whether it was

10 correctly transcribed, the Prosecution would check that. On the 5th of

11 November, information was sought whether it had been checked already, and

12 then we were informed that we'd further hear from the Prosecution, but I

13 think we have no final answer yet.

14 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, the transcriptions and the

15 translations in one language because if the Chamber remembers this

16 document was transcribed in Danish and in English, so the corrected

17 transcription raised in court by the Defence as well as translations in

18 one language in English and B/C/S have been done. They have been

19 forwarded to the -- to the -- to the registry late last year and it's

20 only a matter of, I think, uploading and linking them; and I think they

21 were sent to the Defence as well to verify but if not we can do that as

22 well.

23 But the documents are ready to be attached, and the corrected

24 versions are ready to be uploaded.

25 JUDGE ORIE: The notebooks, has the Defence teams received the

Page 14860

1 new version of P821 and are there any objections against this now revised

2 transcript of the notebook?

3 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I think we -- we're struggling to find

4 when it was sent to us. I don't doubt that it was, but we can't find it

5 so, Your Honour --

6 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest the following then that: The Chamber will

7 hear before tomorrow close of business whether there's still any

8 outstanding. So we receive a report anyhow. If the report would be

9 there are no further objections then it seems that the document is ready

10 for being admitted. If there are any further objections or if there's

11 any further time needed to review the revised transcript and translation,

12 then we'd like to hear from you not later than tomorrow, close of

13 business.

14 Then ... one second, please.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have a whole series of document, starting at

17 P899 up to and including P917.

18 I think these exhibits have -- there was a memo dated 23rd of

19 September which covered these documents, and the Chamber would like to

20 know whether there are any objections to these MFI'd exhibits.

21 MR. MISETIC: We have no objection, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: There's no objection against these documents to be

23 admitted into evidence.

24 Then P899 up to and including P917 are admitted into evidence.

25 Next one is P923, which is the matter at stake there is an

Page 14861

1 similar one as the matter decided in the 5th of December, 2008 decision,

2 and therefore, it appears that, on the basis of that decision, nothing

3 opposes admission anymore.

4 In the absence of any objections, P923 is admitted into evidence.

5 I would like to leave the decision on P1050 and P1051 for a

6 moment and move on to P1052, P1055, and P1056. The Chamber has almost

7 finished a written decision on these documents, so a decision will follow

8 if not this week, that would be then be for practical reasons, then

9 certainly early next week.

10 MR. HEDARALY: I'm sorry, Mr. President. I understand they were

11 admitted. The reasons were to follow so perhaps we could just admitted

12 them into evidence. On the 18th December, there was oral decision with

13 reasons to follow.

14 JUDGE ORIE: You're right. The reasons we are struggling -- not

15 struggling with reasons but struggling with writing down the reasons,

16 which is not the same, and I think you are right, Mr. Hedaraly. I think

17 what we put on the record is that the Chamber had decided to admit them

18 just to inform the parties what the result would be. I'll check

19 carefully. I know that at least one of the statements was already

20 admitted. Whether the others were formally admitted or not still to be

21 seen, but we'll --

22 MR. HEDARALY: In the interest of try not to keep the matters

23 outstanding. The transcript reference to the decision was on

24 18 December at 14110, and I think the decision was to admitted all notes

25 of interviews apart from those of the accused at that time.

Page 14862

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's for both the accused it was said

2 already, yes. That certainly is the decision, there's no doubt about

3 that, but the written version will then follow.

4 I would like to leave open for a second P057 where the Chamber

5 still has to decide.

6 P1059 is covered by the same decision, Mr. Hedaraly, where the

7 reasons will follow in writing.

8 P1063 we have dealt with that one in relation with D918, so that

9 matter has been settled as well.

10 I move now to P1064. This -- it was an error, it was by mistake

11 that this document was still MFI'd rather than admitted. The Chamber

12 ordered, on the 10th of November that the documents proposed in evidence

13 by the Prosecution be marked for identification because objections had

14 been raised in relation to some documents but not in relation to this

15 one. So, therefore, it was by mistake that it was not, at the time,

16 admitted and was still on the MFI list. And that would be true for P1064

17 up to and including P1071. Therefore, these nine exhibits are admitted

18 into evidence. No, I'm now making a mistake. There are eight documents,

19 not nine. P1064 up to and including P1071.

20 The next one is P1072, will be dealt with, together with P1073

21 and P1074, in an oral decision to be delivered later today.

22 Then P1075 was similar to P1064, was by mistake, kept on the MFI

23 list, whereas nothing opposes admission into evidence; and, therefore,

24 P1075 is admitted into evidence, for the same reasons P1076 is admitted

25 into evidence.

Page 14863

1 I now move to P1077, the crime registers for police stations

2 Obrovac, Gracac, and Benkovac.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE ORIE: In relation to these crime registers, the parties

5 were invited to provide further information to the Chamber. The

6 invitation was to review the documents and provide the Chamber with

7 information as to which police station each of these crime registers

8 belonged to and to indicate the relevant time-period covered by the crime

9 registers.

10 The Cermak Defence has responded on the 17th of December.

11 The Chamber note having received a response by all parts -- yes,

12 Mr. Hedaraly.

13 MR. HEDARALY: I'm sorry, Your Honour. We have sent -- we had

14 sent revised descriptions which have not been changed and than covers the

15 information. Can I either read it. It's very essentially P1077 is the

16 crime register for the Gracac police station from the period August to

17 December 1995; 1078 is the same, but for the Obrovac police station;

18 P1079 for the Benkovac police station; P1080 for the Drnis police

19 station; P1081 for the Knin police station; P1082, the Donji Lapac police

20 station; and P1083, the Korenica police station, and they all cover the

21 same period, August 1995 to December 1995.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that.

23 Where the Chamber has not received any response by the other

24 Defence teams, that is, the Chamber considers that the -- that the

25 documents can be admitted into evidence but does -- this does not deprive

Page 14864

1 the other Defence teams from making submissions, shedding further light

2 on the questions raised by the Chamber, if they wish to do so.

3 Therefore, P1077 up to and including P1083 are admitted into

4 evidence.

5 Then we move to P1084, P1085, P1086, P1087, P1088, P1089. These

6 are documents still on the MFI list, Mr. Hedaraly; and, therefore,

7 apparently the registrar has not marked them as now admitted, as you

8 said, the Chamber indicated that they had -- the Chamber had decided to

9 admit them, so they are now formally admitted into evidence, and the

10 reasons will be found in this written decision, which follows soon.

11 Then we P1090, which is the Official Note and interview with

12 Mr. Markac, is not admitted into evidence.

13 And then P1091 is the preliminary interview with Mr. Sacic which

14 is also covered by the decision on admission, where the -- only the

15 accused interviews were not admitted.

16 Therefore, P1091 is admitted into evidence.

17 We move on to P1096.

18 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, Mr. President. P1096 and P1097 were the maps

19 and description provided by Witness Novakovic. The parties were asked to

20 agree and one page was added; and Mr. Misetic and I had agreed on the

21 language. So there's a page in there that references the right part in

22 the transcript, so there's no -- no longer any issues.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that the objections against

24 P1096 and P1097 have been withdrawn and that there is an agreement.

25 Therefore, they are both admitted into evidence.

Page 14865

1 Then we come to a series of documents covered by a memo sent by

2 the registrar to the parties in which exhibit numbers were assigned, a

3 memo which was sent on the 18th of November and which covered P1103 up to

4 and including P1109, and these seven documents are admitted into

5 evidence.

6 We leave P1113 ...

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE ORIE: P1113, P1114, P1115; that is, the expert report by

9 Reynaud Theunens, the addendum to the expert report by Reynaud Theunens,

10 and the corrigendum to the expert report by Reynaud Theunens, are

11 admitted into evidence.

12 I would leave P1118 for a moment.

13 P1138 was vacated on the 11th of December, and, therefore, does

14 not appear on the -- should not appear on the MFI list anymore.

15 Numbers P1167, P1168, and P1174 were, by mistake, not on the list

16 that was sent to the parties, as I understand, because they were --

17 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

18 JUDGE ORIE: I misinformed you. We'll not, at this very moment,

19 deal with the Exhibits P1167 and P1168 and only for P1174 it is true that

20 they were, by mistake, not put on the list that was sent to the parties

21 because, by mistake, they been granted in our system the status of

22 admitted. Therefore, since it was not on the list of the parties, I take

23 it you have not prepared for an answer to P1174.

24 The issue is the same in relation to P1167 and P1168. Objections

25 were raised, and the Chamber is preparing a decision on the matter.

Page 14866

1 We move on. P1226 is an interview note and is also covered by

2 the decision on the Official Notes, admission of Official Notes prepared

3 by the MUP.

4 The same is -- no. Therefore, P1226 is covered by the decision,

5 the written decision that will follow, and since it was still on the MFI

6 list, there may be some confusion as whether there was a decision --

7 certainly there was a decision to admit but whether this has been put on

8 the record in such a way that Mr. Registrar -- Mr. Registrar has put it

9 in the system as an admitted document.

10 So P1226 is admitted into evidence. Reasons to follow in the

11 written decision.

12 MR. HEDARALY: I'm sorry, Mr. President, just for the sake of

13 consistency when we discussed these first four witness interviews, I know

14 we had --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Remind me to the numbers.

16 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, it's P1052, P1055, P1056 and P1059, and I

17 don't think they were formally admitted, but they are covered by that

18 same decision with reasons to follow.

19 JUDGE ORIE: And are admitted into evidence all the numbers, the

20 four numbers you just read.

21 For P1251; that is, the expert report of Dr. Clark, the

22 objections against admission of this report were rejected. Reasons to

23 follow. The reasons will follow.

24 Then P1252. That is a document, list of autopsy reports signed

25 by Dr. Clark which was disclosed at a very late stage, and for that

Page 14867

1 reason MFI'd so that the Defence would have a chance to review this list.

2 Mr. Misetic.

3 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour, we have no objections.

4 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Then in the -- on the assumption

5 that this is true for the other Defence teams as well, P1252 is admitted

6 into evidence.

7 The same is valid for P1255, Mr. Misetic?

8 MR. MISETIC: Yes. As well as for P1256, Mr. President.

9 JUDGE ORIE: And on the same assumption, P1255 is admitted into

10 evidence.

11 A similar issue arises with P1256 although slightly different

12 because part of the photographs were already in evidence but an

13 opportunity was given to further review the Knin exhumation photographic

14 presentation.

15 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President, we have no objection.

16 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Then P1256 is admitted into

17 evidence.

18 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

19 JUDGE ORIE: We now move to P1257. Mr. Kehoe asked for time to

20 review P1257.

21 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, we have no objection to the admission

22 of the report. It is disputed, however, for the record, that this

23 autopsy report is connected to the person to whom the Prosecution claims

24 it is attached along the lines of what I said earlier I think this is

25 more in the line for argument and not admissibility.

Page 14868

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then P1257 is admitted into evidence.

2 Then we have P1259, P1260, P1261, P1262. The Chamber will decide

3 on this expert report of Mr. Konings, the addendum to it, the terms of

4 reference, and the corrigendum but will not deal with it at this very

5 moment.

6 P1273, the famous "stacionar" issue.

7 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I think we have about half the

8 Tribunal working on that word and have not been successful so ...

9 JUDGE ORIE: Then you should engage the other half.

10 MR. MISETIC: Yes, we will, Your Honour. We will.

11 And if I may take the opportunity, Mr. President, I'm advised

12 that with respect to D914, we have uploaded the additional two pages,

13 pages 3 and 4, that OTP wanted uploaded, and it is now in e-court.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said D914. Is that ...

15 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Misetic.

17 Then as such, the even -- there were two issues in relation to

18 P1273, the first one was the translation or the meaning of the word

19 "stacionar" and the second was about the use of this map in

20 Operation Storm. Does that go to admissibility in relation to relevance

21 or ...

22 Mr. Misetic.

23 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I guess it would go -- the Court is

24 the gate keeper of what evidence comes in. If it is not related to

25 Operation Storm obviously we could put in various exhibits, and it might

Page 14869

1 have some probative value but in terms of under 89 (D), the overall

2 prejudice in terms of introducing matters that might be extremely

3 tangential unless there's a link established connecting that document

4 somehow to Operation Storm, we would argue that it shouldn't be admitted

5 because it might then call for to us to have to move some evidence in

6 about positions in 1993 which obviously the OTP's admitting it for some

7 purpose. We would have to come up with evidence to meet that purpose and

8 rather, in my view, spending time and resources on a training exercise

9 map from 1993 where there is no evidence that it is connect to the

10 operation, I would argue that it should not be admitted into evidence.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.

12 MR. HEDARALY: I believe the argument was made on the record but

13 I can repeat it, and the Prosecution's position is that it would be an

14 issue of weight. It is relevant to the extent that even if it is a

15 training map, there are targets that are listed there that on their face

16 are not military targets. So in any event, they do raise an issue

17 regarding intent which is obviously one of the issues in this case. So

18 there is relevance to it, and there is enough relevance and probative

19 value for it to be admissible. Of course, the weight of it will be less

20 because it is a training map from 1993 but that does not bar

21 admissibility of the exhibit.

22 JUDGE ORIE: And if you say on the face, you are primarily

23 referring to the description of --

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

25 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if I may just respond, very briefly.

Page 14870

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

2 MR. MISETIC: Again, under the protocol a structure is not on its

3 face not a military target that. Depends on what that structure was

4 being used for at the time, and whether something is a military target is

5 depends on the use; if there is no evidence provided by the Prosecution

6 stating even if their translation were ultimately to be used what that

7 facility was actually being used for, it doesn't tell us anything about

8 whether it was a legitimate military target or military objective or not.

9 MR. HEDARALY: There was also an issue raised by Mr. Konings

10 whether the very fact that things without descriptions that could lead

11 someone to believe that this -- not a military target without

12 specifically describing why or what the purpose of it was, so in that

13 sense it is also relevant in light of his testimony.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber admits into evidence P1273 and waits for

17 further follow-up, specifically in relation to the "stacionar" issue,

18 after the other half of the Tribunal has expressed its views on it.

19 Then before we go to the break because I'm aware -- but if we

20 could finish before the break, that would be good.

21 We have a few issues on maps. On the -- in the joint submission

22 of the parties on the division of Croatian municipalities which was filed

23 the 7th of November, in paragraph 7 both parties asked that the map in

24 Appendix A of this submission be admitted into evidence.

25 Mr. Registrar, could you please assign a number to this

Page 14871

1 attachment, which is Appendix A to the joint submission? And I think it

2 is uploaded under 65 ter number 5982.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P1282.

4 JUDGE ORIE: P1282 is admitted into evidence.

5 The second map issue. In the last paragraph of this joint

6 submission, the OTP has asked the -- for the map binder to be admitted.

7 There, unlike in paragraph 7, we do not see whether there's -- this is a

8 joint request or whether there's any objections. It's introduced as a

9 request by the Prosecution in a joint submission.

10 [Defence counsel confer]

11 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'm advised by Mr. Kehoe that we have

12 admitted some of these maps into evidence through the cross-examination

13 of Mr. Konings, and I think we need to check to make sure that we're now

14 not double counting.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then we'd like to hear whether there is

16 agreement on the whole of the map binder what to be -- to admit and was

17 is standard and what is not standard and whether there are any

18 objections. So if you could go through the map page by page, and then

19 see what is already in evidence, what is sought to be admitted into

20 evidence, and then finally whether there any objections on whether is

21 this is a joint request as well.

22 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

23 JUDGE ORIE: And we'll have to look at to what extent admission

24 of the binder as such would result in any duplicates.

25 Then the Chamber would like to put on the record that at

Page 14872

1 transcript page 13481, D1112 is admitted into evidence, but that is a

2 mistake. The transcript should read that D1102 is admitted into

3 evidence, not D1112, which, at that time, was -- or was still on our MFI

4 list. So there was a clear mistake. It's D1102 and not 1112 that is

5 admitted into evidence.

6 We have asked quite a lot from transcribers, interpreters, very

7 long session, but it allowed us to complete this housekeeping session.

8 Is there any urgent matter, really urgent matter to be dealt with

9 at this very moment? If not, we will have a break until quarter past

10 11.00, when the Prosecution will call its next witness.

11 --- Recess taken at 10.49 a.m.

12 --- On resuming at 11.23 a.m.

13 JUDGE ORIE: As far as the next witness to be called concerns ,

14 the Chamber has not had sufficient time to consider the details of the

15 objections against the admission of exhibits attached to the statements.

16 From I understand, the Cermak Defence had no objections

17 whatsoever; the Gotovina Defence had objection against mainly against the

18 exhibits attached rather than to the statements. Is that --

19 MR. KEHOE: That's correct, Mr. President. It's the exhibits not

20 the statements.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and then, Mr. Kuzmanovic, I haven't seen but it

22 could be my mistake.

23 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, it's been filed. I don't think

24 it's been sent out by the service yet. Basically the bottom line for us

25 is we don't object to the statements. The issue is with some of the

Page 14873

1 exhibits either duplication or exhibits that were late, or -- basically

2 along the same lines as the Gotovina Defence.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The question is whether we can proceed before

4 having finally considered this matter.

5 Mr. Hedaraly.

6 MR. HEDARALY: There are several issues that I want to try to

7 clarify.

8 There's issues about admissibility as I understand because the

9 Defence claims that the witness was not present at the time the reports

10 were prepared. To me, that's an issue of weight or admissibility of the

11 document at the time of admission not addition to the 65 ter list and for

12 those documents where he was not, he will be asked questions regarding

13 his knowledge of these events or sometimes patterns involved.

14 So I think those are not really objections -- they are formally

15 been objected to be added to the 65 ter list, but those all ultimately

16 admissibility issues, and we think it is a weight issue.

17 Then there are -- the other categories of document which are

18 three formal attachments to the witness statement, and the Prosecution

19 had indicated along time ago and the practice had been consistent that

20 attachments to witness statements were part of the witness statement and

21 although not formally sought to be added to the 65 ter list would be used

22 at trial as evidence, most of our witnesses had attachments to their

23 witness statements and then once again if the issues of admissibility we

24 can deal with that as we proceed. But so from the Prosecution's point of

25 view, the objections of the Defence are more admissibility objections

Page 14874

1 than admission to things we had added to the 65 ter list.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you say some of the issues raised in the

3 objections will be dealt with during the examination of the witness. And

4 as far as attachments being an inherent part of -- of statements, the

5 statements including the references to those documents and these

6 documents themselves were disclosed --

7 MR. HEDARALY: It is essentially a notice issue, Your Honour,

8 that once they were notified of the witness statement the attachments are

9 referred to it. So there is no notice aspect --

10 JUDGE ORIE: No. They are disclosed. The documents the witness

11 refers to in his statement are disclosed well in time.

12 MR. KEHOE: That that's not necessarily true.

13 JUDGE ORIE: That's why I'm asking.

14 MR. KEHOE: Yes, I was waiting for my learned friend to finish

15 before I disagree with me.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, even -- there might even not be a need to

17 disagree with him.

18 MR. KEHOE: Yes.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's hear what Mr. Hedaraly tell us.

20 MR. HEDARALY: There was an issue in this case about the diary in

21 the aerial photograph which apparently were not disclosed with the

22 witness statement last year for some technical reason, but regardless,

23 the witness statement in the second paragraph clearly said that the

24 witness provides a diary. There are repeated mentions of the diary in

25 the statement and we never heard from the Defence that those were not

Page 14875

1 disclosed. It is only in preparing for the witness that I noticed that

2 those attachments had not been formally disclosed, but they are referred

3 in such a way in the statement that everyone is clearly notified. So

4 that if the statements had been reviewed, we would have known that the --

5 there was a problem with disclosure.

6 But they were disclosed I think on the 8th of January when I was

7 preparing for -- for this witness, and I realised that there had been an

8 inadvertent omission with respect to two attachments to the 2008

9 statement which was disclosed well in time.

10 JUDGE ORIE: You disagree, Mr. Kehoe.

11 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, I mean first I appreciate that

12 counsel's onus to put the burden back on the Defence as opposed to taking

13 the responsibility of the OTP which was to routinely disclose those

14 exhibits that they are intending to put into evidence; and I assume that

15 in reviewing their case they recognised some time ago that they hadn't

16 disclosed this, and we only got notification of it in January.

17 There does seem to be a pattern with this with the OTP. We can

18 address that at a different time, but that is not the sole purpose of all

19 of these -- our objections to these exhibits. Yes, some of them fall

20 into disclosure and if we can just go down through them seriatim.

21 C 1, of course, is the one that is in his statement, but if we

22 look at what is C 2 and C 4, which are instructive, those are the diary

23 of the witness and also a report for ECMM dated 15 September 1995.

24 Now, this apparently was provided to the Office of the Prosecutor

25 in April of 2008. And were not disclosed. So I mean, obviously, there

Page 14876

1 is considerable delay in that regard.

2 C 1, of course, is a newspaper article that he doesn't refer to

3 in any way, shape, or form. The aerial photograph C 3, I mean that, of

4 course, was not disclosed either. And then we have a series of

5 documents -- well, actually there is a series of documents we're talking

6 about D12 which is frankly so redacted. No one can understand exactly

7 who is the source of that document.

8 But then we have a series of documents from going from D6 through

9 D17 which are ECMM reports -- excuse me D16, yes, D17 as well because it

10 refers to the time-frame when he was -- he, Mr. Hansen was gone. He was

11 gone from Sector South from 17 August to 5 September.

12 Now, the difficulty with this, Your Honour, is: Number one, the

13 Office of the Prosecutor had these ECMM reports; and number two, there

14 were ECMM officials such as Mr. Liborius, such as Mr. Hendricks, such as

15 others that were there during that operative time-frame, and for some

16 reason, known only to the Office of the Prosecutor, they chose not to

17 provide those witnesses with these document. I still don't understand

18 that why -- understand why.

19 Nevertheless they put these documents on a witness list with a

20 witness who wasn't even present at the time, and I suspect based on what

21 Mr. Hedaraly just said he expects to ask questions about information in

22 those reports when the witness wasn't even there.

23 That goes from -- if I can just check my notes, that goes from D6

24 through D17. We object, of course, to the redactions that are in D12.

25 And, of course, we reject to it, the failure to disclose C 1, C 2, C 4,

Page 14877

1 all of which were in the possession of the Office of the Prosecutor no

2 later than April of 2008.

3 Likewise just based on the prior rulings of the Court C 1 is a

4 newspaper article that this witness isn't quoted; this witness isn't

5 referred to. I think it's a Globus article of 11 August 1995.

6 So the objections pursuant to our motion fall into a variety of

7 categories: Lack of disclosure, lack of timely disclosure,

8 notwithstanding the Prosecution's attempt to put the onus on the Defence;

9 the redaction, and the attempt to put any number of exhibits D6 through

10 D17 in through a witness who wasn't there at the time when there were

11 many other witnesses with which these documents could have been

12 discussed.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Excuse me, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly -- yes, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

16 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I apologise for interpreting. We just want to

17 put our position the record, Your Honour. We just saw on the e-mail that

18 our filing has been submitted everyone.

19 There was one omission in the filing and that's related to C 1

20 meaning that we object to the argument -- or to the article as this

21 particular witness has not -- was not mentioned in the article. He has

22 nothing do with the article. And all of the other arguments that were

23 put fort in our motion will stand by and are similar to the arguments

24 that Mr. Kehoe's made, specifically regarding this particular witness not

25 being present during certain portions of -- of these ECMM reports and

Page 14878

1 many portions of these ECMM reports have information that is completely

2 outside the scope of -- of matters in the indictment meaning talking

3 about situations in other parts of the former Yugoslavia. Several of

4 those documents have large sections devoted to that.

5 Thank you, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 Now when we're talking about, Mr. Hedaraly, I will give you an

8 opportunity to briefly respond.

9 Now, as far as reports, including elements which deal with other

10 parts of the former Yugoslavia, would have you any problem in redacting

11 them to take them out. I think --

12 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, I think is a more a practical issue.

13 Usually those sections are clearly delineated. I think we have seen some

14 of the reports that usually overall reports from ECMM, higher, from

15 Zagreb, for example, and there's a section that clearly says Croatia. It

16 says Bosnia or Sector East. We can redact them but it seems that we can

17 all agree that those are irrelevant and should not be paid any attention,

18 and I am more than happy to stipulate those portions.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic, would that, at least in respect of

20 this element be would be a solution.

21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: That would be fine, Your Honour. Just as an

22 example, I can give you an example. 65 ter 7009, the last essentially

23 four -- two to three pages have nothing to do with Sector South so ...

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but it seems that a proposed solution there

25 could be reached.

Page 14879

1 MR. KUZMANOVIC: That would be agreeable, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Hedaraly apart from this rather practical

3 matter.

4 MR. HEDARALY: There's also -- there's a few issues that I

5 tried -- I think I tried to untangle, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

6 The report where it is came claims that Mr. Hansen was not there

7 this is an issue of admissibility with the witness or alternatively a bar

8 table issue but it's not an issue of addition to 65 ter list. That's the

9 first point.

10 With respect to the attachments and the disclosure issue, I did

11 not try to put the onus on the Defence. I acknowledged that it was an

12 error on the Prosecution's part. I was simply pointing out that the

13 prejudice may not be as high as it is claimed here.

14 Finally, the newspaper article has already been, a part of it,

15 admitted into evidence under P701, which is Mr. Alun Roberts's testimony;

16 and that was a globus article. Mr. Hansen attached a translation that he

17 had received in 1995 and had it provided to the Office of the Prosecutor

18 and attached to his statement; so we just are now using the full article

19 and we got the original, as well, uploaded. And it is not true that it

20 is not mentioned in any way, shape, or form in his first statement he

21 does -- although he is not mentioned himself in the article, it is his

22 position that he received that it is a contemporaneous newspaper article

23 of the time of 11 August.

24 So we're not talking about the 2000 or 1999 or 2006. We're

25 talking about a contemporaneous report of what happened during Operation

Page 14880

1 Storm.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kehoe --

3 MR. KEHOE: If is he not mentioned in it, he's not quoted in it,

4 he's got nothing to do with writing it, what is the relevance of going

5 true it with him? I mean, it's an exercise again of going through

6 documents with which the witness clearly has no applicability. Contrary,

7 I mean, the Prosecution seems to think that any document that -- they

8 bring before this Chamber can be admitted, and it's not a question of

9 admissibility, it's a question of weight. There has to be some screen to

10 this, and part of that screen is -- part of the screen that should be

11 imposed on the Prosecution is in a document such as this.

12 Now, the exercise -- I go back, and counsel has not answered

13 that, the exercise of putting documents in that counsel maintains go to

14 admissibility those documents -- when Mr. Hansen wasn't there, those

15 documents should have been discussed with witnesses that were there. Not

16 with somebody that was on leave someplace and certainly the underpinnings

17 of those documents go to its admissibility and asking the rhetorical

18 request: Why didn't the Prosecutor ask these questions to witnesses who

19 were there when they would have written --

20 MR. HEDARALY: Wouldn't it be more convenient to wait to see what

21 questions I put to the witness before making those decisions, and

22 frankly, I mean, I'm stunned by the fact that documents are being put

23 that the witness knows nothing about concerning a number of exhibits

24 numbers that the Defence has [Overlapping speakers] ... that's just

25 shocking, frankly.

Page 14881

1 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- I think we there's no need to spend further

2 time on one party blaming another party that publications are tendered

3 into evidence where the direct link with the witness is not always a full

4 100 percent clear.

5 I think that happened on both sides, or should I say on four

6 sides. The issue, that issue is clear to the Chamber and we struggle

7 with it now and then.

8 Any further submissions.

9 MR. HEDARALY: No, Your Honour, but it obviously would affect the

10 examination significantly. First of all, to know whether they are

11 admitted to the 65 ter list; and, second of all, and whether the

12 attachments will be objected to.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber needs perhaps not hours but at least

15 needs a bit of time to consider how to proceed. We'll adjourn but

16 everyone should remain stand by.

17 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Mikulicic.

19 MR. MIKULICIC: Just one little issue before the adjournment, as

20 it refers to D1079, Mr. Hedaraly and myself reached the agreement so that

21 the -- from the documents would be redacted three last lines as you

22 suggested previously.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And on the basis of this agreement and the

24 redaction that will be applied, D1079 is then admitted in this version.

25 That was the -- Mr. Misetic, I'm seeing that this was an issue

Page 14882

1 very much, I think, a document which was --

2 MR. MIKULICIC: That was the answer.

3 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... the answer, yes. It

4 comes as a bit of a surprise to me because we're not dealing with MFI

5 matters at this very moment. But if there is an agreement, Mr. Misetic.

6 MR. MISETIC: I apologise, Your Honour, actually I was reminded

7 by my case manager that I had advised the Chamber that we had uploaded

8 pages for D914 before we took the last break and we got off track and --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I was informed about that, and I'm a bit

10 surprised as a matter of fact. But since Mr. Mikulicic raised the issue,

11 and I thought at that moment the only thing I had to do is to say, Okay

12 then it is admitted. But it turns out to take more, but it is admitted,

13 and we'll deal with the others quickly.

14 We'll first deliberate for a while on how to proceed.

15 --- Break taken at 11.43 a.m.

16 --- On resuming at 12.13 p.m.

17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered the objection against

18 admission, and on the basis that those objections, the Chamber cannot

19 decide at this moment not to admit. It will defer its decision on

20 admission of the documents tendered in the motion until the end of the

21 testimony of the witness.

22 However, we make two specific observations. The one is about the

23 newspaper article. If, and that appears to be the case, the witness

24 can't tell us any more than this is a newspaper article which describes

25 A, B, and C, which is something which everyone who can read could tell

Page 14883

1 us, even without anyone telling us, we could read it ourselves. If he

2 has no other knowledge about the matter and -- unless he says, I have

3 read it at the time, and I was influenced by its contents and I did this,

4 or that, then of course that may have some relevance. But if is just

5 what we see on paper at this moment, then the Chamber will consider

6 admission of this newspaper article totally unrelated to this witness.

7 We'll carefully check what portions are already in evidence. We don't

8 have at our disposal at this moment all the details, when it was

9 tendered, what witness said what about it, but we'll then under those

10 circumstances deal with it as if it were a bar table submission. That's

11 one.

12 The second observation is about the diary. Well, the Prosecution

13 has already admitted that it was a mistake not to -- well, of course,

14 just omitting that you made a mistake is not sufficient to -- to give a

15 remedy to the other party. If there's any need for further time to

16 prepare further cross-examination on the diary, or if, in view of

17 investigations still to be conducted, the Defence of any of the three

18 accused would reserve its position as to have an opportunity to re-call

19 this witness, the Chamber will then seriously consider such a request.

20 What I also just said also means that the documents can be put to

21 the witness and, of course, Mr. Hedaraly, where we were not in the

22 position not to admit, that does not mean that, first of all, that it is

23 admitted; and, of course, we'll certainly look at a sharp eye on the

24 questions that you will put to the witness, and, of course, we have in

25 the back of our minds what the objections were.

Page 14884

1 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President. Just before we call our

2 next witness, I want to clarify the record regarding document C 4.

3 Although it was not provided with the witness statement in April of 2008,

4 it was independently disclosed to the Defence on 28th March 2007.

5 So for that document, the late disclosure issue does not apply.

6 With that said, we are ready to call our next witness, Witness 130,

7 Mr. Stig Marker Hansen.

8 JUDGE ORIE: And there are no protective measures, from what I

9 understand.

10 MR. HEDARALY: No, Mr. President.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, the parties are invited to find a

12 solution for the relevant portions in the documents; that is, in a

13 totally different geographical area or outside of the time-frame, as

14 suggested earlier.

15 MR. HEDARALY: That's -- we have a number of these documents on

16 the record. So that's why I was -- could just agree that the portions

17 that are outside the area will not be considered by the Trial Chamber.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 [The witness entered court]

20 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Marker Hansen.

21 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence in this court, the Rules of

23 Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration that

24 you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

25 The text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher, and I would

Page 14885

1 like to invite to you make that solemn declaration.

2 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

3 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

4 WITNESS: STIG MARKER HANSEN

5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.

6 Mr. Marker Hansen, English is not your mother tongue, as I

7 understand. Nevertheless, I take it that since there has been no request

8 for further translation that you will give your testimony in the English

9 language. Is that correctly understood?

10 THE WITNESS: That is correct.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you ever have any problem either in

12 expressing yourself in that language or to understand what others say,

13 please immediately address me and ask for further assistance.

14 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

15 JUDGE ORIE: You will now first be examined by Mr. Hedaraly.

16 Mr. Hedaraly is counsel four the Prosecution.

17 Mr. Hedaraly, you may proceed.

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

19 Examination by Mr. Hedaraly:

20 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Hansen. Can you please state your full name

21 for the record.

22 A. My name is Stig Marker Hansen.

23 Q. And just to clarify the record, in statements and documents you

24 are sometimes referred to as Mr. Hansen as your last name or

25 Mr. Marker Hansen hyphenated as your last name. Can you clarify for the

Page 14886

1 record what is your last name?

2 A. My last name is Hansen.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MR. HEDARALY: If we can have 65 ter 7000 on the screen.

5 Q. And, Mr. Hansen, do you recall providing a witness statement to

6 the Office of the Prosecutor on 18 December 1995?

7 A. I do.

8 Q. And is that the statement you see on the screen in front you. If

9 we move to the bottom, will you see your signature?

10 A. That is correct.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 MR. HEDARALY: If we could have 65 ter 7001.

13 Q. And, Mr. Hansen, do you also recall providing a witness statement

14 to the Office of the Prosecutor on 21 and 22 August 1997?

15 A. I do.

16 Q. And is that the statement that we see on the screen in front of

17 you?

18 A. It is, yeah.

19 Q. Finally do you recall providing a supplemental witness statement

20 to the Office of the Prosecutor on 23 and 24 April 2008?

21 A. I do.

22 MR. HEDARALY: If we could have 65 ter 7002 on the screen,

23 please.

24 Q. And can you confirm that that is the statement we see on the

25 screen?

Page 14887

1 A. It is confirmed.

2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hansen.

3 Did you have a chance to review these three statements in the

4 last week or so?

5 A. I did.

6 Q. And do these statements accurately reflect what you said to the

7 Office of the Prosecutor in the course of those interviews?

8 A. Yes, they do.

9 Q. Are the contents of these statements that you signed true, to the

10 best of your knowledge and recollection?

11 A. They are.

12 Q. Finally, Mr. Hansen, if you were asked the same questions today

13 that you were asked in those interviews, would you give the same answers?

14 A. I would give the same answers, yes.

15 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, at this time I would like

16 65 ter 7000, 65 ter 7001 and 65 ter 7002 to be admitted into evidence,

17 pursuant to Rule 92 ter.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could you assign numbers to these

19 three statements.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter 7000 becomes Exhibit P1283.

21 65 ter number 7001 becomes Exhibit P1284, and 65 ter 7002 becomes

22 Exhibit P1285.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's the understanding of the Chamber on the

24 basis of the submissions that there are no objection against the

25 admission of the statements themselves.

Page 14888

1 Therefore, P1283, P1284 and P1285 are admitted into evidence.

2 Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

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

4 At this time we'd also like to move five documents under

5 Rule 92 ter, which are attached to witness statements which were on the

6 65 ter list and which have not been objected to in the filing. Those are

7 65 ter 3193, 65 ter 4225, 65 ter 2837, 65 ter 4234, and 65 ter 3418 and

8 they are all discussed in the witness statements and therefore the

9 foundation is found there.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, as you may be aware, Mr. Hedaraly, the Chamber

11 has no 65 ter numbers. But I take it that the Defence teams will have

12 verified whether the 65 ter numbers you just read were documents to which

13 no objections were made.

14 MR. HEDARALY: I can provide the number on the exhibit list.

15 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. Let's -- as soon as -- could you just

16 briefly identify what are these ECMM reports.

17 MR. HEDARALY: Of course, 65 ter 3193 --

18 JUDGE ORIE: If you refer to the --

19 MR. HEDARALY: The first one, 65 ter 3193 is number 13 on the

20 list which is an ECMM daily report from headquarter ECMM on

21 5 September 1995.

22 65 ter 4225 is a weekly report from RC Zagreb covering the period

23 2 to 9 September 1995. 65 ter 287 --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Where you refer to where we find them on the list in

25 the motion because you just said 12.

Page 14889

1 I'm sorry, isn't it, the first one, no, 13 --

2 MR. HEDARALY: Which is B10. B10.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, have I in the motion, page 18801, I have under

4 number 13 -- oh, yes, there we have the 65 ter numbers, by the way.

5 13 on the list, you mean the Excel sheet.

6 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, Mr. President.

7 JUDGE ORIE: We will find it. We have sufficient information.

8 Thank you. You may proceed and we'll, in the absence of any

9 objections, Mr. Registrar, could you please assign number to the.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, those will Exhibit P1286 through

11 Exhibit P1290 respectively.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Exhibit P1286 up to and including Exhibit P1290 are

13 admitted into evidence.

14 Please proceed.

15 MR. HEDARALY: And if we could also marked for identification the

16 four documents referred to witness statements that are subject to

17 objections, which are found on number 20 to 23, 65 ter 7003, excuse me,

18 65 ter 7006. I will refer to them during the examination, and if they

19 are eventually admitted, then it will clarify the record.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could you please assign numbers in

21 order to marked for identification the numbers 20 to 23 on the list. The

22 first one being ECMM report, consequences in former RSK of

23 Operation Storm for the period 7 to 24 August 1995.

24 MR. HEDARALY: That's not correct, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'm lost with lists. What is --

Page 14890

1 MR. HEDARALY: Okay.

2 JUDGE ORIE: What lists are you using? I have got an Excel sheet

3 and on number 20. I see, I'm making a mistake, as a matter of fact.

4 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Excuse me, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: It's a newspaper article yes.

6 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If you have the Excel list on the bottom, right.

7 120, 2009 that should be the correct exhibit list.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I was making a mistake because I read the Excel line

9 numbering as the numbering of the exhibits. But number 20 on the list

10 appears on number 28 of the Excel list, but let's forget about the Excel

11 list. That's the newspaper article, Globus.

12 Mr. Registrar.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter number 7003 through 65 ter

14 number 7006 will receive Exhibit P1291 through Exhibit P1294 respectively

15 all marked for identification.

16 JUDGE ORIE: And keep that status for the time being.

17 Please proceed.

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

19 Q. Mr. Hansen, sorry about these delays, these procedural matters

20 that arise.

21 I first want to briefly ask you about the situation in Knin prior

22 to Operation Storm.

23 MR. HEDARALY: And, Your Honour, I have a binder of hard copies

24 of the documents on the exhibit list. If that can be given to the

25 witness.

Page 14891

1 Q. I first want to refer you to your first statement, which is at

2 tab 1 of your binder, which is now P1283. And I want to focus at the

3 bottom of the second page, the first page of text, where you stated:

4 "Apart from ARSK headquarters staff there was never a military

5 defence of Knin. Troops, artillery, and tanks were all deployed on the

6 front lines and soldiers were only seen in Knin when on leave and [sic]

7 rotating."

8 I want to ask, explore this will you a little bit, and my first

9 question for you is: Did you actually these ARSK troops, artillery, and

10 tanks deployed on the front line?

11 A. Affirmative. When travelling across the -- the front line, we

12 saw to some extent the deployment of RSK.

13 Q. And what could you see in Knin itself, in terms of ARSK troops,

14 artillery, and tanks?

15 A. Well, as I -- I highlight in the statement, we -- I don't recall

16 seeing any manoeuvring of heavy materiel or heavy equipment; and it was,

17 though, a regular mission to see uniformed personnel walking the streets

18 of Knin.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly, you announced in paragraph 2 of your

20 submission, 92 ter submission that you would read a summary. Now for

21 everyone to better understand the additional questions that will be

22 answered by the witness, perhaps it would be a good idea to do it right

23 in the beginning.

24 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, Mr. President.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Have you explained to Mr. Hansen?

Page 14892

1 MR. HEDARALY: I have a summary. I just omitted to read it.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

3 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. Hansen was an ECMM monitor in UN Sector South

4 from June 1995 to September 1995. He was on the N2 monitoring team until

5 the ECMM reorganisation in September 1995 when he became the leader of

6 monitoring team K1.

7 He personally observed the shelling of Knin on 4 August and

8 witnessed shells falling in residential areas including in the immediate

9 vicinity of his accommodation.

10 In the first days after the offensive, he was able to observe HV

11 soldiers storing and carrying away looted valuable items right in front

12 of the UN compound. In the course of his monitoring activities, he

13 witnessed various incidents of looting and burning, as well as cases of

14 harassment and killings of local Serbs.

15 Mr. Hansen had regular meetings with Accused Cermak, to whom ECMM

16 would often report about the lack of law and order in the Sector and

17 about restrictions of movement. He also met with Accused Gotovina on

18 20 September 1995 and confronted him with other members of ECMM with the

19 widespread crimes of looting, arson, and harassment.

20 This concludes my summary.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

22 MR. HEDARALY:

23 Q. Mr. Hansen, going back to Knin, before Operation Storm, did you

24 see any units or any organised groups of soldiers in the town?

25 A. No, we did not.

Page 14893

1 Q. And did you ever visit the northern barracks in Knin prior to

2 Operation Storm?

3 A. Affirmative. On a few occasions, we visited the barracks.

4 Q. And what was the context of those visits or the purpose of those

5 visits?

6 A. Well, liaison with -- with staff officers.

7 Q. Do you remember when was your last visit before Operation Storm?

8 A. I don't have any precise recollection of the dates of the

9 meeting.

10 Q. And can you describe your observations on those occasions

11 regarding the level of activity in the northern barracks on your visits

12 there?

13 A. As far as I remember, I -- I saw a kind of a dull, lower activity

14 situation, not really indicating a lot of activities.

15 Q. And was that the same on each of your visits there?

16 A. That is correct.

17 Q. In your first statement, still staying with your first statement,

18 on the paragraph immediately preceding the one we were just discussing,

19 you talk about the Tvik factory and the railroad and their contribution

20 to the economy.

21 And I just want, first of all, to clarify that when you're

22 referring to before the war, you mean before 1991; is that right?

23 A. That is right.

24 Q. Now, did you ever, prior to Operation Storm, visit the Tvik

25 factory in Knin?

Page 14894

1 A. Yes, I visited the factory on several occasions.

2 Q. And can you tell the Chamber what was the purpose of those

3 visits?

4 A. At that time, we were conducting an economic survey of the

5 pre-war economy in the entire region.

6 Q. And what was, to your knowledge, the purpose of the Tvik factory?

7 What was it producing?

8 A. It was producing nuts and bolts to the -- to the Yugoslav market.

9 Q. In your visits there is in June and July of 1995 --

10 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Your Honour, I object. That's not what he

11 said. If he wants to ask the dates he was there, that's fine, not

12 leading the witness.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.

14 MR. HEDARALY:

15 Q. Mr. Hansen, you arrived in Knin on 29 May 1995; is that correct?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. An Operation Storm started on 4 August 1995?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. So your visits to the Tvik factory would be between 29 May 1995

20 and 4 August 1995?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. Thank you. Now, in the course of your visits to the Tvik factory

23 in 1995, before Operation Storm, was the Tvik factory working, was it

24 producing anything?

25 A. No. The production had ceased and staff there were basically

Page 14895

1 maintaining or guarding assets at the factory.

2 Q. Did you have any conversations with anyone at the Tvik factory in

3 that -- in those times?

4 A. The dates of the visits I was in dialogue with a manager of Tvik.

5 Q. And in the course of these discussions with the manager of the

6 Tvik factory, did he ever tell you anything about converting the factory

7 to produce --

8 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, stop. I have to cease the leading. I

9 mean, if we are going to talk about a conversation; number one, it is it

10 hearsay, but at least ask what was said during the conversation and not

11 testimony by counsel.

12 MR. HEDARALY: It's a yes or no question.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's -- that's --

14 MR. HEDARALY: Did he have a --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, a yes or no question, leading questions are

16 very often yes or no questions; so, therefore, that answer as such -- but

17 let me just re-read it.

18 MR. HEDARALY: I can go through all the topics --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes.

20 The question leads to the extent that it directs the attention of

21 the witness into a certain area. That could have been done in a more

22 neutral way, and you're invited to rephrase your question.

23 At the same time, Mr. Kehoe, I was a bit surprised by your

24 previous objection which took Mr. Hedaraly quite a bit of time, the June,

25 July issue. If it is in evidence that someone arrives in late May. And

Page 14896

1 if it is prior to Operation Storm, of course, it could have been that he

2 had been there three years ago as well. But would you not expect under

3 those circumstances that the witness would immediately say, Of course, it

4 was not there, it must have been at another occasion. And technically it

5 might have been right whether it wasn't necessary to object against, that

6 leading is highly questionable.

7 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President if I could respond --

8 JUDGE ORIE: No. No. You're not going respond.

9 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ... there is an answer. When

10 do take a break, Mr. President, I'd like to respond to that because there

11 is a response because it goes directly to evidence that's already been

12 presented to this Chamber.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. The witness was there. June, July, just

14 talking about June, July, nothing else.

15 MR. KEHOE: He was there. But makes a difference based on

16 evidence that has been presented to this Chamber --

17 JUDGE ORIE: If it was or not in those moments.

18 MR. KEHOE: Of course, where in those months. Yes, absolutely

19 that was the point of my objection as opposed to what Mr. Hedaraly --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Can you ask further details, Mr. Kehoe, in

21 cross-examination if you think that the matter is not dealt with in such

22 a way that it is sufficiently assists the Chamber, but there is no reason

23 at that moment to object against that question.

24 Please proceed.

25 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President I would like to be heard on this

Page 14897

1 score when we do have a break.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.

3 Mr. Hedaraly.

4 MR. HEDARALY: Speaking of breaks, Your Honour, I don't know what

5 the Chamber had in mind. I know there was a break before the witness

6 started. But I don't know if that's a formal break or not, so I would

7 seek the Court's guidance in terms of timing.

8 JUDGE ORIE: You were invited to rephrase the question in a more

9 neutral way, such as did you ever learn about whether the production

10 was -- had been the same always or ...

11 MR. HEDARALY: Okay. I was asking about breaks in the -- in the

12 session since we had a long break, but not really -- I'm sorry.

13 JUDGE ORIE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

14 MR. HEDARALY: That's the guidance I was seeking. But thank you

15 for the guidance.

16 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break and we'll start at ten minutes to

17 1.00 and have a break until ten minutes past 1.00.

18 Not now, Madam Usher. I wouldn't say comedy of errors but it

19 seems that --

20 Mr. Hedaraly, please proceed.

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

22 Q. And let me ask you the question in the way that the

23 Presiding Judge has suggested.

24 Did you ever learn whether the production in the Tvik factory

25 would be changed to anything other than nuts and bolts?

Page 14898

1 A. No. And -- and on tours through the factory, we saw no evidence

2 of any production at all.

3 Q. Now, were you able to observe the machinery that was used in

4 the -- in the Tvik factory?

5 A. Yes. The manager took us on tours through the factory.

6 Q. Do you have any knowledge as to whether this machinery could be

7 used to produce anything other than nuts and bolts?

8 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Your Honour, there is no foundation for

9 that question, whatsoever.

10 MR. HEDARALY: Do you have any now, is the foundation.

11 JUDGE ORIE: The witness may answer the question.

12 THE WITNESS: As far as, I could see, it was a very old-fashioned

13 production facility that could not easily be used for any more fancy

14 production.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us whether you have any experience in

16 relation to machinery and products that can be produced by machinery, or

17 is it just a layman's impression.

18 THE WITNESS: That would be a layman's impression.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

20 Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

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

22 Q. Mr. Hansen, did you hear about the negotiations between the RSK

23 and the government of Croatia on 3 August 1995?

24 A. Affirmative. We knew about the -- the starting up of the peace

25 talks in Geneva.

Page 14899

1 Q. Do you have any further knowledge on those talks about those

2 negotiations?

3 A. We had no detailed information about -- no.

4 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, at this time since the witness

5 doesn't have any knowledge, I'd like to bar table 65 ter 3991, which is

6 at line 48 of the spreadsheet, but the number of the document,

7 65 ter 3996, which is number 49, and 65 ter 4115, which is item 353.

8 They all talk about these negotiations -- there is already evidence

9 before there Court about them and these are ECMM reports about those

10 negotiations. There's no need to go with the witness through them.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection against bar table admission of 3991,

12 3996, and 4115.

13 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, I'd like to take a look at them

14 to follow the bar table procedure that the Chamber has established.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is just a brief description and what to

16 specifically look at, that's -- have you prepared that?

17 MR. HEDARALY: Not in written form, but we can do that.

18 JUDGE ORIE: If you do it in such a way, and we'll provisionally

19 MFI them so that once the Defence has seen the proper document to

20 introduce them that we can hear from them.

21 Mr. Registrar.

22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, these will become Exhibit P1295

23 through P1297 respectively, all marked for identification.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

25 Please proceed.

Page 14900

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

2 Q. I want to move to the next page of your first statement, P1283.

3 And you state --

4 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, perhaps this could be a good time

5 for a break. I'm going change topics. So if that's convenient.

6 JUDGE ORIE: If that's the case, we'll have a break now.

7 We'll then resume at ten minutes past 1.00, sharp.

8 --- Recess taken at 12.48 p.m.

9 --- On resuming at 1.10 p.m.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, where the Chamber would have given you

11 later this morning, an opportunity to further make further submissions in

12 relation to your objection. I now understand that you will deal with the

13 matter on cross.

14 MR. KEHOE: That's correct, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly, please proceed.

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

17 Q. Mr. Hansen, moving to the page of the statement on the screen

18 that is the next page in your hard copy, page number 3, at the top, you

19 say:

20 "From my position, I could see impacts all over the city and

21 especially the area in the immediate vicinity of the hospital. Houses

22 close to mine were hit, and heavy smoke generated from a residential area

23 only a few hundred metres to the south."

24 And then a little later on:

25 "One grenade impacted only 20 metres from our HQ."

Page 14901

1 Mr. Hansen, can you clarify for the Court when you made these

2 observations?

3 A. That was in the early hours of the morning of the 4th of August.

4 Q. And where were you specifically when you made these observations?

5 A. I was at our office, at the ECMM headquarters in -- close to the

6 hospital.

7 MR. HEDARALY: If we can have what has been marked for

8 identification as P1293.

9 Q. And that's the aerial photo of Knin that you marked. And while

10 that comes up, let me ask you about the next portion of that paragraph,

11 when you say:

12 "In the afternoon en route to UN HQ, we passed the above

13 mentioned areas, pure residential, and saw private houses still ablaze,

14 among them also the residence of the Orthodox priest. We passed Tvik and

15 saw the impact, proceeded to the main street and passed impacts in the

16 middle of the street."

17 Now what I'd like to you do is, with the assistance of the usher,

18 if can you mark for us the location of the house of the Orthodox priest

19 that you saw being hit by a shell.

20 MR. HEDARALY: And if we can move to a different portion of

21 the -- of the photo. We'll get to that later on. If we can zoom back

22 out.

23 THE WITNESS: Yeah. What is circled here is the ECMM

24 headquarters --

25 MR. HEDARALY:

Page 14902

1 Q. That what's you refer to as number 1, Roman numeral I.

2 A. That's true. And the house of the Orthodox priest is one -

3 sorry - these houses here.

4 Q. Could you circle where you think that house is?

5 A. One of these here.

6 Q. And could you put an A next to that.

7 A. [Marks]

8 Q. Thank you.

9 Now when you were allowed out of the UN camp on 7th August, on

10 your first trip to Knin, and we'll talk about that trip in more detail,

11 but did you see this house again?

12 A. On the 7th, when we saw -- honestly, I'm -- I'm not totally sure

13 on that if it was the 7th or the 8th.

14 Q. Did you see that house again after you were allowed to leave the

15 camp, either on the 7th or later?

16 A. That's true, I did.

17 Q. And how did that house look?

18 A. Well, at that time it was a ruin. It was burned down.

19 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, if we could have P1293 with the

20 marking admitted into evidence.

21 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.

22 MR. KEHOE: No objections.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P1298.

25 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

Page 14903

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

2 Q. Now later in that same statement in the paragraph right before

3 number 4, you talk about your patrols on the 6th to the 8th, and that you

4 could see impacts in the streets near the residential areas.

5 And I just want to -- while the picture is on the screen, those

6 the areas that you identified as III Roman numeral; is that correct?

7 A. That is correct.

8 Q. And you also circled the hospital as 3. Now, to your knowledge,

9 was the hospital hit by shells?

10 A. To my knowledge, there was no structural damage, and therefore

11 not a direct hit.

12 Q. Did you see shells in the area of the hospital, impacting in the

13 area of the hospital?

14 A. Yeah, we saw, in the general area of the hospital, we saw

15 impacts.

16 Q. And in that same paragraph you state:

17 "The shelling is assessed to be psychological, with the purpose

18 to drive out the Serb population. The shelling was not meant to destroy

19 the city, and the general idea of the attack seems to be the retaking of

20 an intact and population-wise empty city."

21 Now, Mr. Hansen, can you provide the Trial Chamber because this

22 conclusion itself is not of assistance to the Chamber, can you provide

23 the Chamber with the facts ans observations that formed the basis of that

24 assessment?

25 A. Yes. I mean, during the first day of the shelling, we could hear

Page 14904

1 certainly the impact throughout town and we could see smoke develop in

2 different quarters of the town. We had the hospital area in direct line

3 of sights and could see the impact there and certainly we saw the impact

4 that landed just in our own garden.

5 At the time we -- we could patrol. I went to town and to the

6 residential area close to the Tvik factory, and what we saw there was

7 impact -- I would call it somehow, occasional impact with no structural

8 damage; and we saw basically facades on high-rise buildings being -- bear

9 witness of shrapnels and -- so the conclusion is that we did not see any

10 targeted structural damage, more a -- an occasional shelling of Knin.

11 Q. And when later in the statement you said that what you believed

12 to be military targets were not targeted, do I take -- should I take that

13 to mean there was no damage to them?

14 A. That is true. We -- I did not go into the northern barracks, but

15 passing by, we did not see any structural damage.

16 Q. If we can have Exhibit P1292 marked for identification. That is

17 your diary. That is at tab 21 of your binder. And you have the original

18 Danish as well in the binder if you want to refer to that. I will refer

19 to the English, for obvious reasons.

20 And if we can go to page 2 when it comes up on the screen. In

21 the middle of that paragraph, that is one of your entries for the 4th of

22 August, you say in the middle of that paragraph:

23 "I can quite simply not accept how people are being driven out.

24 I can understand the Croats, but I'm really disgusted by their methods.

25 They are breaking all the laws of war."

Page 14909

1 Q. And he says, regarding the 4th of August:

2 "Shelling Knin started at 500 hours. ECMM team took cover in the

3 shelter during the day. Fifty refugees from the neighbourhood joined

4 ECMM building, most of them families of our accomodation."

5 Now, Mr. Hansen, do you recall neighbourhood families seeking

6 shelter to the ECMM headquarters on the 4th of August?

7 A. Yes, I do. And I knew quite a lot of -- of the persons taking

8 shelter in our office.

9 Q. Can you describe for the Court whether these were civilians or

10 soldiers?

11 A. They were all civilian, mostly elders, women and children.

12 Q. Can you talk to the Court, what was the atmosphere in the ECMM

13 shelter?

14 A. Well, there was an atmosphere of uncertainty, nervousness, and

15 people afraid, scared, children crying, and absolutely uncertainty.

16 Nobody knew anything about what was happening.

17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hansen.

18 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, I would like to have 65 ter 4026

19 into evidence.

20 MR. KEHOE: No objection, Mr. President.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

22 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1299, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

24 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you.

25 Q. Mr. Hansen, let me change topics now and talk a little bit about

Page 14910

1 the looting that you witnessed.

2 First I want to start when you were still in the UN camp, not

3 allowed to get out, as described in your statement. Actually, why don't

4 I deal with that briefly first.

5 If you go to tab 25 of your binder. That is 65 ter 7008.

6 There is a report from the 7th of August, covering the period 4

7 to 6 August. On the third page of this report, under political

8 situation, it says:

9 "ECMM in Knin are blocked in their barracks by five HV tanks and

10 are not allowed to patrol the town nor investigate reports of small-arms

11 shooting. May suggest that clean-up operation that they did not want the

12 UN to witness."

13 Mr. Hansen, do you remember being prevented from leaving the UN

14 camp by five HV tanks?

15 A. I do.

16 Q. While we're on this document right after it says:

17 "ECMM reports that there are strong indications of killings of

18 ARSK soldiers following the taking of Knin and states that the town had

19 on 6 August been cleared of dead bodies on 5 August."

20 Next paragraph : "ECMM ... reports on 6 August that in some

21 parts of the former RSK territory advancing HV units burnt and destroyed

22 livestock and property, abandoned by Krajina Serbs ..."

23 My question for you is, can you tell the Court what was the

24 source of this information that ARSK soldiers were being killed and that

25 advancing HV units burned and destroyed livestock and property?

Page 14911

1 A. Mostly I would say that it is an anecdotal information given to

2 us by refugees. At this point by residents from Knin and the surrounding

3 areas seeking refuge in the southern barracks where we were hosted.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you. Your Honour, if I could have

6 65 ter 7008 into evidence.

7 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I just want to correct the record on something,

8 Your Honour. Page 74, line 11 what appears to have been read in was that

9 ECMM reports. I've lost it.

10 MR. HEDARALY: ECMM in Knin. Thank you, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: It says actually, UN forces are blocked in the

12 barracks, not ECMM are blocked in their barracks. The report itself

13 says, UN forces are blocked in their barracks by five HV tanks not that

14 ECMM forces are blocked.

15 That's the correction I wanted to make. Thank you.

16 MR. HEDARALY: I don't think that is it right, but the document

17 is in evidence.

18 Can we have 65 ter 7008 admitted into evidence, Mr. President.

19 JUDGE ORIE: No objection. Then, Mr. Registrar.

20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1300, Your Honours.

21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I hate to rise again, Your Honour, but this --

22 it may be a minor point, but we have all made mistakes reading documents

23 into the record. If you look at the page under political situation, it

24 says something crossed out and then later on in that same line it says,

25 "UN forces are blocked in their barracks."

Page 14912

1 Now in the transcript, it doesn't say that. It wasn't read that

2 way and that's the only thing I was trying to point out was --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Now let's see, where exactly --

4 MR. HEDARALY: That's page 73, line 24. I was looking at 74,

5 line 11.

6 JUDGE ORIE: I was focussing on the source Mr. Hedaraly gave and

7 I had difficulties in finding it.

8 Mr. Hedaraly, the correction you would agree.

9 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that.

11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question to you, Mr. Hansen.

13 Could you tell me exactly what you mean by anecdotal?

14 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. We would talk to -- to the

15 persons who were seeking shelter in the barracks, and I would categorise

16 the information as anecdotal, as people were under no obligation to

17 reveal a -- a fact to us or -- I believe we had no means of verifying the

18 information at this point.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Just what people told you, not in a systematic

20 questioning of those persons but just what -- what they spontaneously

21 uttered to say so. Is that --

22 THE WITNESS: Yeah, that is true, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: And I have another question and that relates to

24 something you said before the break.

25 You said, "We saw no production," when you were talking about the

Page 14913

1 Tvik factory.

2 Now, production, from what I understand, can mean a lot of things

3 but among others the following: Production, the act of producing

4 something but also the result of that act, that is a product.

5 Now did you want to say that you didn't see any production

6 ongoing or did you intend to say that you did not see any products.

7 THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm. Happy to clarify that, Your Honour. We

8 saw a lot of boxes and pallets with nuts and bolts but did not see any

9 operating machinery. So no ongoing production, but previous production.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

11 Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

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

13 Q. Mr. Hansen, I want to go back to your first statement, at tab 1

14 which is P1283; and I want to focus again on page 3 of that statement, in

15 the second paragraph, in the middle you say: "Shortly after" -- and

16 you're referring about when the Croatian flag was flying over Knin

17 castle:

18 "Shortly after, we saw all means of remaining Serb vehicles,

19 i.e., vans, cars, tractors, bikes, used by HV 4th Brigade to collect

20 valuables from the left-behind apartments and houses in front of the UN

21 HQ. A big garage was used as a storage site."

22 Then you say:

23 "A great number of vehicles off-loaded the goods at this storage

24 site guarded by the HV troops. The 6th August evening and night, it was

25 all loaded on military trucks and carried away, direction Drnis."

Page 14914

1 And, Mr. Hansen, can you tell the Court exactly what you saw?

2 A. Yeah. As -- we were, as I said before, we were prevented from

3 leaving the barracks but we could go to the top of buildings. And just

4 outside the perimeter, we saw an appeared to a parking area for lorries

5 or trucks, and that particular site was used for the compilation of

6 commodities that you were brought in by uniformed personnel.

7 It was -- we also saw that a particular building was used as a

8 storage, and it appeared it was a garage. So what we saw, the activities

9 that was ongoing, more or less, throughout the day was that all kinds of

10 vehicles were used to transport commodities and then further on, they

11 were unloaded on trucks and taken away.

12 Q. Let me show you the aerial photo again, P62, a blank aerial photo

13 and we will ask to focus on the UN camp on that photo. While that photo

14 loads up because it's pretty large, let me ask you: You talked about

15 commodities. What type of commodities did you see brought there on the

16 5th and then taken away on the 6th?

17 A. We saw television sets, stereos, refrigerators, and this kind of

18 stuff.

19 Q. And while we're still waiting let me ask you, you identify the HV

20 4th Brigade collecting these items. How did you know that they were HV

21 4th Brigade?

22 A. As far as I remember, the -- the insignia was painted on -- on

23 some of the vehicles.

24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. Once that picture comes up, I will ask

25 you to identify the garage where you saw these HV 4th Brigade soldiers

Page 14915

1 collecting valuables on the 5th.

2 MR. HEDARALY: If I can ask the usher to focus on the UN camp, at

3 the bottom right. Maybe just zoom in a little more. Thank you. And if

4 we can have the assistance of the usher to help the witness mark the

5 location of that garage.

6 Q. And if you can circle it, and place an A next to it?

7 A. [Marks]

8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hansen.

9 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, can we have this admitted into

10 evidence.

11 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.

12 Mr. Registrar.

13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1301, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Exhibit P1301 is admitted into evidence.

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

16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. I now want to move to the 7th and 8th of

17 August, the first days after you were allowed to leave the UN compound.

18 I will refer to both your diary and your third statement.

19 I will start with your diary, which is P1292, which is tab 21 of

20 your binder, and the entry for the 7th of August, which is page 5. At

21 the beginning where you say:

22 "I went into Knin twice today. Knin is no longer Knin. The main

23 road through the town has been destroyed. Large craters and shop windows

24 have been blown out. Houses, either are or have been in flames. The

25 objective of the first tour was to fetch our things from HQ ... where we

Page 14916

1 lived. We were just in time to save the computers and communications

2 equipment. The Croats were already in action when we got there. We told

3 them it was ECMM property, and they left with nothing more than a little

4 bit of diesel."

5 Mr. Hansen, do you remember seeing Croatian soldiers at the ECMM

6 headquarters when you arrived there on the 7th of August?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. And who was with you on that first trip?

9 A. ECMM colleagues were with me.

10 Q. Can you identify those?

11 A. By name?

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. Yeah, one colleague was which I am very sure was there, was

14 Soren Liborius, and as far as I remember also Mr. Eric Hendriks

15 participated in this trip.

16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. And after going to the ECMM headquarters

17 you went to your own accommodation; is that right?

18 A. That is true.

19 Q. And you also recount that in your diary when you say:

20 "My own lodgings had also visitors. Everything was upside down

21 but luckily my civilian clothes and uniform was still there. My camera,

22 CD's, speakers, et cetera, were gone."

23 If we could just leave the diary on the screen for a while, you

24 refer to your third statement at tab 3, at paragraph 20; and there you

25 say about the same trip:

Page 14917

1 "My interpreter's house is located in the residential area, north

2 of the Tvik factory and the house had shrapnel on the its walls and was

3 damaged because of the shell impacts, although the house did not receive

4 a direct hit. The house was also missing a number of valuable items,

5 such as a TV set. The main entrance door was broken, and the house had

6 been completely ransacked."

7 And I wanted to go on to the next page on your diary, I'll ask my

8 question:

9 "In the first few days after the attack it seemed that a certain

10 discipline prevailed, but now I can see that every single houses has been

11 gone through with a tooth comb and all valuables removed."

12 Mr. Hansen, can you explain to the Court what was the basis of

13 that statement?

14 A. Yeah. We as I said, in the -- in the diary entry, we met people

15 who were removing stuff from -- from our office and our private houses

16 when we got there. But also further on driving through town, it was

17 obvious that -- that each and every single house was broken into or every

18 apartment was broken into, and -- and we saw -- it was at this point very

19 visible in -- in -- in the streets that the people were collecting items.

20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hansen.

21 MR. HEDARALY: I saw the clock, Mr. President. We can adjourn

22 here.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Hedaraly.

24 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, just one issue with the -- with the

25 witness here. If we could have the opportunity to just take a look at