Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 15117

 1                           Monday, 26 January 2009

 2                           [Open session]

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

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

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

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

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

 8     Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

10             I'd just like to put on the record that the Chamber was informed

11     about an exchange of e-mails about the timing of the submissions the

12     Chamber asked for.  I do understand that the Gotovina Defence has filed a

13     submission and sent a curtsy copy to the Prosecution, and it seems that

14     this has resolved the matter.

15             MR. TIEGER:  Well, I'm not entirely sure it resolved the matter,

16     Your Honour, in the sense that Prosecution's last e-mail indicated the

17     nature of the problem.  We're doing our best to conform to the schedule.

18     I believe we will do so.  I would urge as a somewhat separate matter that

19     where possible and I, appreciate the fact that there are circumstances

20     where the exigencies of time may dictate otherwise, that we try not to

21     impose orders that absolutely require people to come in on weekends to do

22     that work.  I know there's an understanding which unfortunately is true,

23     that everyone works weekends any way but to actually schedule matters to

24     be done on a Sunday, I think, is a matter that should be avoided, where

25     possible.

Page 15118

 1             In any event, we're -- we believe we will be able to file a

 2     response by the noon deadline.  We'll advise the Court if the matter is

 3     otherwise.  At the moment, I think we're on schedule.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  It's understood and appreciated that the parties

 5     would say like to avoid, to the extent possible, any forced labour during

 6     the weekend.  That's on the record.

 7             And -- yes.  Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?

 8             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Your Honour.  The --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  No protective measures, Mr. Tieger?

10             MR. TIEGER:  That's correct.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Then Mr. Lausic would be your next witness?

12             MR. TIEGER:  Correct, Your Honour.

13                           [The witness entered court]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Lausic.

15             THE WITNESS:  Good morning, sir.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Before you give evidence in this Court, the Rules of

17     Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration, that

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

19             May I invite to you make that solemn declaration, of which the

20     text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher.

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

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

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Lausic.  Please be seated.

24             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lausic, you will first be examined by

Page 15119

 1     Mr. Tieger.  Mr. Tieger is counsel for the Prosecution.

 2             Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

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

 4                           WITNESS:  MATE LAUSIC

 5                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 6                           Examination by Mr. Tieger:

 7        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Lausic.

 8        A.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Tieger.

 9        Q.   Mr. Lausic, let me begin with a pure formality.  Can you state

10     your full name for the record, please.

11        A.   My name is Mate Lausic.

12        Q.   Mr. Lausic, I wanted to move on to some of the formalities of

13     utilizing some of the materials you've provided previously, so let me ask

14     you these questions.

15             In 2004, on the 13th and 14th of May, is it correct that you were

16     interviewed by representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor, and, at

17     that time, your rights under Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure and

18     Evidence were read and the interview was tape-recorded.  Is that correct?

19        A.   That's correct.

20        Q.   And subsequently, on the 11th of August, is it correct that the

21     interview of the 13th and 14th was reduced to statement form and that you

22     had an opportunity to review the accuracy of that statement and initial

23     the pages of that statement and sign it at that time?

24        A.   It is it correct that in the month of August of 2004, the

25     transcript in the English language was read back to me; that was my

Page 15120

 1     statement in the capacity of a suspect that -- that was a statement taken

 2     of me in May of 2004.  And over a couple of days in the month of August,

 3     the OTP investigators, with the assistance of interpreters, went through

 4     that May 2004 transcript with me, and I signed a witness statement in the

 5     English language back in 2004.  At that time it was read back to me,

 6     there was no audio or videotape given to me.  But up until the 17th of

 7     December, 2008, I had not been able to see either the transcript of the

 8     interview of me as a suspect of May 2004, or the statement that I gave in

 9     August of 2004 in the Croatian language, the language that I understand.

10        Q.   Okay.  Let's take it a step at a time then.

11             MR. TIEGER:  If I could ask that 65 ter 7032 be called up.

12        Q.   And, Mr. Lausic, do you recognise 65 ter 7032 now on the screen

13     as the statement you referred to a moment ago, that was read back to you

14     and that you signed in August of 2004?

15        A.   Correct.

16        Q.   Okay.  Now you may have foreshadowed the next question, but I

17     will ask you that.

18             Did that statement, the August 2004 statement, accurately reflect

19     the information you provided the representatives of the Office of the

20     Prosecutor in August of 2004?

21        A.   I said that I saw that statement in the Croatian language for the

22     first time on the 17th of December, 2008, when investigator Brian Foster

23     handed me the Croatian version in the Zagreb office of the ICTY.

24             As I went through the Croatian version of my witness statement of

25     August 2004, I observed some errors that were of purely technical nature

Page 15121

 1     and others that were quite substantial in nature.  If I may indicate one

 2     difference between the English and Croatian versions, on the first page,

 3     is that of rank.  In the Croatian version, it is said that I'm a retired

 4     Croatian army Colonel General, whereas in the Croatian general it says

 5     that I was a Major-General.  Have I noted a substantial number of such

 6     errors in the notebook that I have taken along with me here.

 7        Q.   Well, Mr. Lausic, it is my intention to provide the Chamber with

 8     this statement in its most accurate form and, of course, I intend,

 9     therefore, to ask you if you had any corrections to make to the

10     transcript, having reviewed it, so perhaps it's best if we -- if you

11     advise the Chamber of any inaccuracies in the statement that you noted

12     and that you indicate those by paragraph number so the Chamber can follow

13     in the transcript it has -- in the copy of the statement it has before it

14     where those corrections should be made.

15        A.   I'm grateful for that, and I would kindly ask to be given that

16     possibility, yes.

17        Q.   Okay.  So the first correction you indicated, Mr. Lausic, with

18     respect to your rank at retirement is found at what paragraph?

19        A.   That's page 1, the one I can see on the screen before me, where

20     it says current -- or rather former occupation.  In the English version

21     it says Croatian army Colonel General; whereas, in the English version,

22     it says the Croatian army Major-General.  That's the difference.

23             So the correct version is Major-General -- or Colonel General

24     depending on ...

25        Q.   Okay.  Well, I'm not sure if we have a translation dilemma

Page 15122

 1     because I have heard both versions for the cover page reference, both to

 2     Colonel General and Major-General.  And I'm not sure it's helpful if I

 3     repeat to the witness that the English says Colonel General.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the English version says Colonel General, and

 5     that's -- is that correct, or is it Major-General?  Should it be

 6     Major-General?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.  I am the retired

 8     Croatian army Colonel General.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  That's what the English version says.

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  So that seems to be correct then.

12             Please proceed.

13             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.

14        Q.   Mr. Lausic, if you could move through the statement and identify

15     any other corrections you wish to be made.

16        A.   Yes, please.

17             On page 2, paragraph 3.  Paragraph 3, line 4, the Croatian

18     translation of the English original states that on the 1st of February,

19     1971, I was admitted into the state Security Service in the city of

20     Zagreb, which is incorrect.  It is it correct that on that date, the 1st

21     of February, 1971, I was admitted into the public security service of the

22     city of Zagreb, and the difference is a crucial one.

23        Q.   Well --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll read the English to you.

25              "On the 1st of February, 1971, I was accepted to the secretariat

Page 15123

 1     of public security of the city of Zagreb, which was the name of the

 2     police in Zagreb at that time."

 3             Is that correct, or is that not correct?  Because it reads in

 4     English the public security.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.  Thank you, Your

 6     Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the next one, please.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Also on page 2, in paragraph 3, the

 9     text goes on to state that in September or October of 1971, I passed a

10     professional exam and became the authorised staff member, whereas I

11     became the authorised official of the public security service.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  "Staff member" is then corrected into official of

13     the public security service.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  That's on the record.

16             Please proceed, next one.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 3, paragraph 10, line 2, the

18     6th Department was charged with the security of protected persons and

19     structures.

20             The term "structure" is incorrect here.  What was referred to was

21     protected persons and buildings or facilities.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  That's on the record.

23             The next one, please.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Also on page 3, in paragraph 10,

25     line 8:

Page 15124

 1             "Since I became head of security of the President of the

 2     republic."

 3             The term in the B/C/S "nacelnik," head or chief is incorrect.  My

 4     correct term in Croatian was "sef."  Again, head or chief in English.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  It now then would read:

 6             "By becoming the sef of the security for the President of the

 7     republic."

 8             That's on the record.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Next one, please.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 4, paragraph 14, line 1.

12             "On the 1st of December, 1991, I took over the command of the

13     military police administration upon an oral order."  Instead of the word,

14     "I took over the command," what should be stated is, I took over the

15     position of the chief of the military police administration.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  That's on the record.

17             Please proceed.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 5, paragraph 15, line 4, the

19     criteria that the Brigade commanders had to apply when selecting military

20     policemen is being referred to, and the translation says:

21             "There were no criteria for the selection of men, so that only

22     the physical characteristics of men were taken into consideration, and

23     therefore the men had to be physically strong, two metres tall, 100

24     kilograms in weight in order to discipline a soldier, et cetera

25     et cetera."

Page 15125

 1             This is incorrect.  This was merely a rhetorical figure that I

 2     presented.  These were not the actual criteria the commanders applied.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Would it be correct to understand it that the

 4     criteria were that they should be tall and strong people, without any

 5     numbers?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  That's on the record.

 8             Then physically strong, tall and strong people, without any

 9     reference to specific length or specific weight.

10             Please proceed.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 6, the continuation of

12     paragraph 18 from page 5.  Line 3:  "But professionally speaking or on

13     the professional level, they became part of a company."

14             Instead of the words "professional level," what should be stated

15     is "establishment-wise."

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             We are in the English on the fourth line from the bottom, page 5.

18     They remained with that Brigade, but establishment-wise they became a

19     part of the company, and the company was within a battalion."

20             That's on the record.

21             Please, could you give us the next correction.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23             Further down the page, continuation of paragraph 18 from page 5,

24     line 4:  "That platoon had to submit reports to the company commander."

25             Instead of -- well, in the B/C/S prijavak, the term "izvjestaj"

Page 15126

 1     should be used.

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter notes is "report" in English.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  It now reads at the second line at the bottom of

 4     page 5:  "This platoon had to report to the commander of the company, and

 5     he reported to the commander of the battalion."

 6             Is that correct?  Then the English version seems to be correct,

 7     and it may be a problem in the B/C/S translation.

 8             Next one, please.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10             Again, at page 6, paragraph 22, second line from the bottom:

11             "The events in which Croatian army personnel participated either

12     as victims or as participants in combat and other events of interest."

13     Instead of "in combat," it should read:  "In incidents and other events

14     that were of interest from the security point of view."

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the word "incident" now reads "incidents and

16     other events that were of interest from the security point of view."

17             That's on the record.

18             The next one, please.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20             Mr. President, if I may be allowed to explain what my corrections

21     are based on.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, most important at this moment is that we have

23     the right version.  What was wrong in the earlier one is not something

24     that bothers us at this -- greatly.  But if that is different, if the

25     parties are interested in that, they will certainly ask you about it.

Page 15127

 1             Please with the next one.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

 3             Page 7, paragraph 24:

 4             "Again commanders of battalions of military police are

 5     responsible to the military police administration in accordance to the

 6     management and professional line."  This is how it should read.  Or

 7     expert and control line.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  So you would say, "based on the expert and control

 9     line," rather than the administrative and professional line.  Is that

10     correctly understood?

11             That's on the record.  Next one, please.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, the same page, 7,

13     paragraph 25, last line, it reads:  "It is submitted to the commander

14     about the task that was taken -- that was carried out, and it should

15     read:  "To the commander too ..."

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  To the commander as well,

17     t-o-o.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  So we would then have to read that they would go

19     back to the commander as well, and not the commander who had issued the

20     task.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  That's on the record.  Next one, please.

23             MR. TIEGER:  Your Honour, excuse me.  If we could return to the

24     previous correction.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please.

Page 15128

 1             MR. TIEGER:  I was just looking at the transcript; I thought I

 2     heard it that way.  The transcript read that the witness said based on

 3     the management and professional line or the expert and control line.  I

 4     wasn't -- I just wonder if there could be some -- whether he was

 5     indicating that either of those of terms would be used because it may be

 6     used later on as well so ...

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We can check that.  I understood your previous

 8     question, second line of paragraph 24, that where you said the

 9     "management and professional line;" whereas in English, at this moment,

10     it reads "administrative and professional line" that that should be

11     replaced by "expert and control line."  But if that is not the case,

12     please tell us what exactly you wanted to change.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise.  Now we're talking

14     about paragraph 24.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ... we go back to

16     your previous correction.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I entered my corrections on the

18     basis of the transcript of my interview, in which I had a status of a

19     suspect.  That was taken in May 2004.  I took the words that were in the

20     transcript, and I wanted to have them in the statement.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And could you please tell us then exactly what

22     words you would like to use instead of what words, as we find them at

23     this moment?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I want it to read:  Expert and

25     control.

Page 15129

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Instead of?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Administrative and professional.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That is how I understood your correction.

 4             Mr. Tieger, that sufficiently clarifies the matter?

 5             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we have gone through the last line of

 7     paragraph 25, where you said would go back to the commander as well.

 8     That's on the record.

 9             Then we move on to the next one.  That would be ...

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 7, paragraph 26, five

11     lines from the bottom, where it says:  "In order to receive

12     reinforcements from the 57th Military Police Battalion," it's a typo it

13     should read 67th Military Police Battalion.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  That's how it reads in English.  In reads:

15             "Because the commander of the 68th Battalion did not have enough

16     people, he then turned to the administration of the military police for

17     reinforcements from the 67th Battalion of the military police in Zagreb,"

18     and that is correct, from what I understand.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the next one, please.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 8, paragraph 29, line 3:

22     "Then disciplinary proceedings would be stood, and he would be handed

23     over to the commander of that platoon."  Or, rather, "that soldier."  It

24     should be -- it should read:  "Disciplinary report would be committed,

25     and he would be handed over to his commander.

Page 15130

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, so the word "charge" is now replaced by "they

 2     would write a disciplinary report and submit it to the soldier's

 3     commander."

 4             It's on the record.  Next one, please.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 8, paragraph 30, line 3

 6     from the bottom:  "The next 5 per cent had experience in police because

 7     they served their national service in the military police."  And it

 8     should read:  "In the military police of the former JNA."

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  That's how it reads in English.  So that's correct.

10             Now, I noted another difference, that is that another 5 per cent

11     had some military police knowledge, but you just spoke about experience.

12     Is knowledge or experience the right expression?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the course of their national

14     service in the Yugoslav people's army, in the course of the 18 months,

15     which was the usual length of the national service, these men were

16     military police officers; it was their specialty.  In the first six

17     months they undertook specialist training for the military police, and in

18     the next 12 months they actually worked as military police in the

19     Yugoslav people's army, so you can speak about ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  That sounds like experience which includes knowledge

21     gained during that experience and training.

22             That's on the record.  Next one, please.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 8, paragraph 32, line 4 from

24     the bottom:

25             "In other words had we checked the criminal records of all of the

Page 15131

 1     military police members that we caught or found in the Ministry of

 2     Interior," it should actually read:

 3             "Through the criminal records kept by the Ministry of Interior,

 4     we were able to run checks on all members of the military police whom we

 5     had found in military police units."

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you intend to say that -- that they are not

 7     necessarily caught but just found in the military police units?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the Croatian translation, it is

 9     very important, this distinction between catch or find.  As I gave my

10     statement, what I meant was that when we went out in the field and when

11     we were trying to see what the situation was in the military police at

12     that time, I came across -- I found people who claimed that they were

13     military police and they had that as -- in their files in the Croatian

14     army; whereas if you say catch, "hvatati" in Croatian, then this is the

15     term that you use when you catch a perpetrator of a crime and when this

16     person is then processed by the police.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So it now reads that:  "All members of the

18     military police that we found, we checked their criminal records,"

19     et cetera.

20             It's on the record.  The next one, please.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 9, paragraph 33, line 3 from

22     the bottom in the Croatian version:

23             "As a police officer I knew what crimes were dirty or more

24     serious and also what crimes were committed because people wanted to

25     profit from them."

Page 15132

 1             Instead of this term that "people wanted to profit," it should

 2     read that are committed out of base motives or greed.  This is it legal

 3     terminology that is used in the Croatian Criminal Code, base motives and

 4     greed.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Then 33 reads:

 6             "I also knew which ones were the dirty and most serious crimes

 7     and those crimes that were committed out of basic motives and greed."

 8             That's on the record.

 9             MR. TIEGER:  Your Honour, sorry, the distinction between basic

10     and base.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, base, yes.  Base motives and greed.  That's now

12     how we understand your statement.

13             Mr. Lausic, the next one, please.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, at page 9, paragraph 34,

15     line 7:  "You can create a good military officer from such a man."  It

16     should read:  "It is possible to create a good military police officer

17     from such a man."

18             JUDGE ORIE:  It now reads:  "From these it is possible that you

19     create a good military police officer."

20             Next one, please.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 9, last line in

22     paragraph 34:  "If the units wanted to accept him, return to their

23     military units."  It should read:  "To other units of the Croatian army."

24             JUDGE ORIE:  That's on the record, "other units of the Croatian

25     army" instead of "their military units."

Page 15133

 1             Next one, please.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 10, paragraph 38:  "The first

 3     rank that I received was the rank of a brigadier colonel."  The word

 4     "brigadier" which is there in the Croatian army should be deleted from

 5     the Croatian version, because the first rank that I received was one of

 6     colonel.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  In English it reads:  "The first rank that I

 8     got was the rank of a colonel, lieutenant-colonel ..."

 9             Is that correct?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The English version is correct.

12             Could you take us to the next one.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 10, paragraph 38, line

14     4:  "Since I had a rank of superintendent in the police," it should read

15     "chief superintendent."

16             JUDGE ORIE:  That's how it reads in English.  So that's correct

17     in the English version.

18             Please proceed, Mr. Lausic.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, paragraph 38 at page 10,

20     line 4 from the bottom.  "At that time we did not have those ranks

21     brigadni [phoen] general, brigade general, or stozani [phoen] brigadier,

22     which is -- which would be staff brigadier.  What should actually be

23     there is the rank of brigadier general or staff general.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, in English it reads:  "We didn't have brigadier

25     general," the rank of brigadier general or staff brigadier, and now you

Page 15134

 1     say that should be -- should be staff general?  I read it again in

 2     English and, please, correct me -- if it's right we leave it as it is.

 3     Please correct me in detail when it is wrong.

 4             It now reads in English:  "I must inform you that at the time we

 5     didn't have brigadier general, the rank of brigadier general, or staff

 6     brigadier."

 7             Is that --

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.  That's correct.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the English version stays as it is.

10             Could you take us to the next one.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again at page 10, third line in

12     paragraph 39:  "The Main Staff of the Croatian army published general

13     rules of the armed forces."  Instead of what it says in the Croatian

14     version which is "would publish," it should read just "publish."

15             JUDGE ORIE:  In English it reads "issued" which has the same

16     meaning, from what I understand.  "Published" is even a bit more, but I

17     would say generals of the armed forces that are issued apparently were

18     published.

19             That's on the record.  Please proceed.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, at page 10, paragraph 40,

21     line 4, "perhaps even for those who served as conscripts."  The word

22     "perhaps" should be deleted.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's on the record.

24             Next one, please.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 10, paragraph 41, line

Page 15135

 1     5:

 2             "Every citizen of the Republic of Croatia was duty-bound to

 3     report a crime.  On the 7th of December 1991, the President of the

 4     Republic issued an instruction published in the Official Gazette number

 5     67/91."  It should read:  "The President of the Republic issued a decree

 6     about the organisation, work and scope of the judiciary in a state of

 7     war," et cetera, et cetera.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  The word "instructions" is replaced by a more

 9     precise reference, a decree about the organisation, work, and scope of

10     the judiciary, and that's not the full title, from what I understand.

11             Please proceed, next one.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 11, paragraph 42:

13             "A military court applies to everyone.  There is no special code

14     for the military or -- and for civilians.  It applies to everyone."

15             Instead of the words "there is no special code for the military

16     and for the civilians," it should read:  "The Criminal Code applies to

17     everyone, both to civilians and to the members of the Croatian army."

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The correction about the applicability of the

19     Criminal Code applying to everyone, whether military or civilian, is on

20     the record.

21             Could you take us to your next one.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 11, paragraph 45, line 2:

23             "Once military courts and military prosecutor's offices were set

24     up within the military police, there was a need to set up a special

25     military crime police sector."  It should read:  "Separate speciality,"

Page 15136

 1     which would be the criminal military police, instead of the word

 2     "sector," it should be speciality.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  What do you mean exactly there by speciality?  A

 4     special unit, or is that what you refer to?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me be very specific here.  The

 6     military police had three specialities.  It was the basic military

 7     police, general duty military police, traffic military police, and

 8     criminal military police.  And those were the specialities within the

 9     military police, as an arm within the Croatian army.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  If we would say, To set up a special branch of

11     criminal military police, would that ...

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, that would perhaps be

13     the closest approximation.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  The word "area" is replaced by "branch."

15             Next one, Please.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 11, paragraph 46, line

17     2:  "And Ante Gugic from the Zagreb police became a member of the

18     military police administration."

19             It should read:  "Became the chief of the criminal police section

20     or department."

21             JUDGE ORIE:  That is on the record.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, at page 11, paragraph 46,

23     line 5:

24             "The minister appointed Ante Gugic, the chief of the criminal

25     police odsjek in the military police administration."  It should read

Page 15137

 1     "odjel department," because odjel is a higher -- in the hierarchy.  It

 2     can have several odsjek, so he was appointed the chief of the odjel

 3     department, not of odsjek or section.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  It now reads at this moment in English that the

 5     minister had appointed Ante Gugic as a chief of the criminal police

 6     department.

 7             Is that ...

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in the military police

 9     administration.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I think that the English text is correct.

11             Please proceed.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again at page 11, the same

13     paragraph, 46.  It's line three from the bottom:  "Markica Rebic was

14     appointed the assistant defence minister for security."

15             That post did it not exist.  This is how it should read:  "He was

16     appointed the assistant -- the deputy assistant defence minister for

17     security."

18             At that time, the assistant defence minister was

19     Mr. Josip Perkovic, and Mr. Markica Rebic was appointed his deputy.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It reads in English:  "Markica Rebic was

21     appointed deputy assistant for the minister for security."  And then

22     between brackets:  "This post did not previously exist."

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, Mr. President.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the English is correct.

25             Please proceed.

Page 15138

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 12, paragraph 50, last line:

 2     "There was no cordon sanitaire for the soldiers."  It should actually

 3     read:  "There was no sterilisation zone for soldiers for mines, shells,

 4     explosives, and rounds."  In this sense the term "sterilisation" is a

 5     technical term.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, sterilisation here refers to mines, shells, and

 7     explosives and rounds.  You would say, it is directly related to ...

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Primarily of weapons too.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's -- this clarification is on the record.

10             Please proceed.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 13, paragraph 56, the third

12     line from the bottom, there is an obvious typographical error:  "The

13     military police cannot arrest a member of the Croatian army."  Instead of

14     "military police" it should say "civilian police."

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I see a reference in this paragraph to the

16     civilian police and a few lines further down to the MUP, which seems to

17     refer to the same.

18             I think the English version is correct.

19             Please proceed.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 14, paragraph 57.  I'm going

21     to read all of it, all of paragraph 57, because this is not my statement.

22     These are the words of the investigator, Mr. Foster.  And it is obvious

23     from the transcript.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Your statement is that he said something.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.  All of paragraph 57

Page 15139

 1     does not really show my words.  These are Mr. Foster's words, the

 2     investigator's words.  It is quite obvious if you look at the transcript

 3     of the interview I had with him in April 2004.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  In paragraph 57 in English it starts by

 5     saying:  "You say ..."  which mean that the person interviewed, that's

 6     you, refer to what the interviewer is telling the interviewed person and

 7     apparently serves as introduction that may follow.

 8             Please proceed.

 9             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, I don't know if the witness is saying that

10     was not his words and shouldn't be part of this statement.  That's how I

11     was understanding him to be raising his objection to Mr. Foster's

12     statements being included within his witness statement.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now I see this is a technique which is used in

14     some systems to make clear that someone else says something.

15             But, Mr. Lausic, you say you didn't even put on the record what

16     someone else said.  You refrained from saying anything about that.  Is

17     that -- did you repeat the words, or is it just that --

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer is contained in

19     paragraph 58.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's then be -- let's try to resolve it.

21             What you read in paragraph 57, is that what the investigator

22     said, what he told you; or is it not?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Exactly.  Those were the words that

24     he used when he addressed me before he put his specific question.  When

25     he said that he had talked to civilian policemen, and he did talk to

Page 15140

 1     them, and he said that they had said that they did not have authority

 2     over the military, over military personnel.

 3             Since this is a witness statement, it is my understanding that

 4     paragraph 57 should be part of my very own statement, but that is it not

 5     the case.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it's clear in 57 that what is in there.  Other

 7     words not of the interviewed person, but you now tell us that the

 8     interviewer spoke those words.  That's clear and on the record.

 9             Please proceed.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 14, paragraph 58, the second

11     line from the top:  "The first stage is reporting a certain incident."

12     Instead of "reporting," it should read "registering a certain incident."

13             JUDGE ORIE:  That's how it reads in English.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Next one, please.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 14, also paragraph 58, line 6

17     from the bottom:  "The civilian police can complete criminal processing

18     there, arrest that person, and take that person to the police station,"

19     et cetera.

20             It would be right to say "the military police can complete

21     criminal processing there," and so on and so forth.  The rest is correct.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just verify whether I understood you

23     correctly.

24             Yes, the -- you say and that -- the criminal military policemen

25     begins with the criminal investigation, and that one can end in two ways

Page 15141

 1     to have these criminal proceedings completed there by the military

 2     police.  He arrests the person.

 3             Is that your correction?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President, correct.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Then please take us to your next correction.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 14, paragraph 61, we

 7     have the same situation like with paragraph 57.  Since everything

 8     contained in paragraph 61 is actually what the investigator stated,

 9     Mr. Brian Foster, and that can be established by looking at the

10     transcript.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's clear.

12             Now that is not the words you spoke; but reading it now, is that

13     what he said to you?  Were these words spoken by the person that

14     interviewed you?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  So even if you may not have put the words of that

17     other person on the record at that time, you now confirm that this is

18     what he said?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Indicates]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

21             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, may I raise -- I'm slightly concerned

22     because the witness statement we're looking at should be the evidence and

23     testimony of this witness.  The words of Mr. Foster or whatever he may

24     have said are not to be the words of this witness within this witness

25     statement, and accordingly, the issue should be whether he agrees with

Page 15142

 1     what was said or disagrees for it to exist within the statement.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but if he just -- Mr. Kay, if Mr. Lausic now

 3     tell us that that is what Mr. Foster said at that time, that I find

 4     nothing else then that those apparently were words spoken by -- whether

 5     he agrees or not what was said is, at least from this paragraph, does not

 6     appear.

 7             So it's just a factually establishing what Mr. Foster said during

 8     the interview, nothing more, nothing less.

 9             MR. KAY:  Yes, I --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And that appears now from the testimony given by

11     Mr. Lausic at this moment and not from paragraph 61, because he says, I

12     did not speak those words.  It was Mr. Foster who said it.  It is

13     presented as if he more or less repeated the words of Mr. Foster.  That

14     is not confirmed at this moment that he spoke those words during the

15     interview, repeating the words of Mr. Foster.

16             The only thing we know now is that the testimony, at this moment

17     is, that those were words spoken by Mr. Foster, whether he agrees,

18     disagrees, and whether it is relevant, or whether we could do without, it

19     may shed some light as to how the question was introduced to which we may

20     find answers at a later stage.  It's not an answer by this witness.

21             MR. KAY:  What I was looking at, Your Honour, whether it should

22     be excised totally from the document because it is not the statement of

23     the witness, which would be, in my view, the appropriate way of having

24     his witness statement before the Court.  To have it in this form means

25     that we are introducing something in a different form than this witness's

Page 15143

 1     witness statement.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I do see that it is more or less a foreign

 3     element in the witness statement.

 4             MR. KAY:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  At the same time you're asking for quite an exercise

 6     with the same result, perhaps not technically, but those words

 7     apparently, and that's what we hear from the witness now, apparently were

 8     spoken by the -- Mr. Foster, and they are not part of the statement he

 9     gave at the time.  So whether we take them out and then have it

10     reconstructed on the transcript of today is, of course, a technical

11     matter rather than anything else.

12             MR. KAY:  Yes.  I notice Your Honours making corrections on Your

13     Honours' statements, as I guess we are all doing as well, in the same

14     way.  We've put a line through it as not being his testimony, his

15     evidence.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's -- at least there is no

17     misunderstanding about that.

18             MR. KAY:  Yes.  Thank you.

19             MR. TIEGER:  Well --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger.

21             MR. TIEGER:  Let's be slightly clearer on that.  In the previous

22     example the witness refers back to what was said, and it is necessary

23     contextually.  Sometimes it may [Overlapping speakers] ...

24             JUDGE ORIE:  But the technical issue is whether we put on the

25     record that the witness testifies today what was said to him at the time

Page 15144

 1     or that we understand the statement in such a way that paragraph 61 does

 2     not refer to what the witness repeated as the words of Mr. Foster.

 3             MR. TIEGER:  Completely clear, Your Honour, and I think it is it

 4     clear on the record.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic.

 6             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  This is just purely an objection

 7     for the record in terms of this overall.

 8             I have a problem with, just in terms of these statements and in

 9     this instances in particular, with the fact that an investigator in the

10     course of an interview of a witness is putting suggestions to the witness

11     about what other people have already said.  And I think -- just for the

12     record I think it is it an improper technique then in terms of what the

13     answer -- the answer here may not be problematic but overall to conduct

14     witness interviews with someone and say everyone or many people are

15     saying this, you know, how do you respond to that?  Instead of just

16     saying, Could the civilian police take action against soldiers without

17     having to say, Other people have said otherwise?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  It's a way of leading the witness.  At the same time

19     to have it on the record at least makes it transparent what was

20     apparently used as an introduction to answers to which he then responded.

21             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  I think the reason that the

22     Defence has a problem with this conceptually is that since it's 92 ter

23     and suppose to be, This is how the witness would testify on direct if the

24     questions were posed to him, this type of question could never be -- not

25     never, but in most often couldn't be posed to him like this.

Page 15145

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I think most important is that we have a complete

 2     and correct understanding of what these paragraphs tell us.  57, 61, do

 3     not tell us what the witness said, whether or not repeating the words of

 4     Mr. Foster, but here Mr. Foster, apparently that's a technique used in

 5     some systems, puts into the mouth of the witness what he actually said

 6     himself by introducing as, You tell me, or, You say.  And that's clear.

 7     At the same time the witness now confirms that this is what, actually,

 8     Mr. Foster said at the time.

 9             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, by way of reference, I've looked at 57.

10     Unlike Mr. Tieger's proposition that it is adopted by the witness, it is

11     it not.

12             MR. TIEGER:  Your Honour, did not say it was adopted.  I simply

13     said it was referred to and is contextual.  I wasn't saying he adopted or

14     disagreed with it.  The text will tell that.  So I certainly wasn't

15     trying to reinterpret what was said there, only that it is contextual.

16             MR. KAY:  Therefore, it shows there is lack of clarity in my view

17     and --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I think I explained earlier, quite clearly that as

19     we read it here, it just refers to what Mr. Foster apparently said.  We

20     now heard from the witness that he did not use those words during the

21     interview, but he confirms that those words were spoken by Mr. Foster,

22     and I think I said already one page ago that this does not include any

23     confirmation of the correctness or anything.  It just reflects what

24     Mr. Foster apparently had said.

25             MR. KAY:  Very well, Your Honour.

Page 15146

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Nothing more, nothing less.

 2             Please proceed, Mr. Lausic.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. President.

 4             Page 15, paragraph 62, the last line:

 5             "The other reason is that the civilian police had had negative

 6     experience in clashes with members of the Croatian army, some of whom

 7     behaved in an opportunistic manner."

 8             It should read as follows:  "So the civilian police behaved in an

 9     opportunistic manner in some cases."

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I formulate it again so as to verify whether I

11     understood you well.

12             "The second reason was that the civilian police had negative

13     experience in conflicts with the members of the Croatian army and so the

14     civilian police behaved in an opportunistic way."

15             MR. TIEGER:  Your Honour, in fairness to what the witness said,

16     he said in some cases.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, in some cases.

18             So in some cases, the civilian police based in an opportunistic

19     way.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.  Thank you, Mr. President.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you take us to the next one.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 16, paragraph 65 as continued

23     from the previous page, page 15.  The third line from the bottom.  "They

24     had military experience."

25             Instead of saying "they had military experience," what should be

Page 15147

 1     stated is "they had had some military training," as the transcript

 2     correctly states.  Experience and training, or education, is quite

 3     different in the Croatian language, terminologically.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  In English it reads they had a military

 5     background which is rather vague.  Yes.  We change that they had some

 6     military training.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Next one, please.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 16, paragraph 69,

10     line 1:  "In the second subgroup there were professors."  The word

11     "professors" should be under quotation marks because the word was used by

12     way of an illustration of their work and the attitude of the officers.  I

13     tried to use this word rhetorically when I called them professors.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  People with a rather theoretical background.

15     Is that how I have to understand "professors" between brackets or ...

16             THE WITNESS:  No, I shall take the liberty of correcting you.

17     What I meant was the attitude they had towards their soldiers.  They

18     treated them as a professor would.  They would explain that something

19     that they were doing was not nice or was wrong, but they did not act in a

20     military soldierly fashion issuing strict orders, a softer approach as it

21     were.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  They were teaching rather than commanding.  Is that

23     more or less ...

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it could be put that way.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please take us to the next correction.  And

Page 15148

 1     "professors" is now explained and put between quotation marks.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 18, paragraph 79, line 1.

 3     "For example, let us say that there is a case of the crime of poisoning.

 4             I did not find the word "poisoning" in the transcript, and I

 5     cannot really put it into any context related to my statement.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  In English it reads:  "For example, let's say

 7     we have a crime of arson or a crime of murder."

 8             That's how it reads in English.  Is that correct?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, correct.  Arson, yes.

10     Poisoning and arson are not the same thing.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Arson is right.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please take us to the next one.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The same page, paragraph 80, line 5

15     from the top:  "From day one, from 1991 onwards, that was the rule."

16     Obviously it was a typo.  It should have read "from 1992 onwards."

17             JUDGE ORIE:  That's put on the record.

18             Next one, please.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The same page, number 18,

20     paragraph 81, the last line:  "As far as I know, we stored all criminal

21     records in the administration of the military police."

22             The word "used" should be on a permanent basis:  "We stored them

23     there on a permanent basis."

24             JUDGE ORIE:  It reads in English:

25             "As long as I was in the police, the records in the civilian

Page 15149

 1     police administration were to be kept for" --

 2             Let me just -- were you referring to the last sentence in the

 3     military police?  Is it about in the military police administration?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  "We, as far as I know, we have kept permanently all

 6     crime files."

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.  That would be the right

 8     way to put it.  Permanent, Your Honour.  "Permanent basis" is missing.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I was a bit confused by the first line where the

10     word "permanently" appears.  But your correction is in relation to the

11     last sentence of paragraph 81.  The word "permanently" is added.

12             Please proceed.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 19, paragraph 82, line 8 from

14     the top:  "And he gave me the fax number with code 048."

15             It should read:  "049."  It's an obvious typo.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  It's on the record.

17             Next one please.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Same page, number 19, the same

19     paragraph, 82, line 11:  "And I was told that on the 8th of

20     September 1993 a company of the 71st Battalion in Gospic."

21             Without the word "a" in the sense of one, because there was just

22     this one company, so there is no need to specify that it's one because

23     that was the only one.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And it now reads:  "And I was told that the company

25     of the 71st battalion in Gospic."

Page 15150

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.  Thank you, Mr. President.

 2             The same page, paragraph 83, line 2:  "The battalion of the

 3     military police was not stationed only in one position."

 4             Instead of the word "one position," what should read should be

 5     "one location or locality."  Position and locality or location are

 6     different terms in Croatian.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  "Position" is replaced by "location."

 8             Next one, please.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 20, paragraph 85, line 3:

10     "They would have to send preliminary reports;" whereas, it should read

11     "they should send extraordinary reports," because the two words meaning

12     is completely different in Croatian.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I take it that you're referring -- well, in

14     English, I see that -- and I read it in its context.

15             "For example, attacks even against members of the military

16     police, the use of force, would they have to send an extraordinary report

17     to the military police administration?"

18             Is that ... is that the portion you wanted to correct?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.  Instead of the word

20     "provisional report" the word "extraordinary" or "interim report" should

21     be used, as stated in the transcript.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The English text reads "interim report," and

23     now use the word "extraordinary report."  I do understand this to be a

24     report not in the regular sequence of reporting, but in between a special

25     report an interim report would have to be sent.

Page 15151

 1             THE WITNESS:  [In English] That's true.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  That's understood.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm looking at the clock at this moment.  And,

 5     Mr. Lausic, the Chamber appreciates very much the precision with which

 6     you reviewed your statement.  We're now at page 19.  We have 52 pages

 7     which would take us through the whole morning.

 8             Would there be any way -- of course, we could not ask the

 9     Prosecution to go through the statement with the witness, but if the

10     parties -- because it seems that most of the changes are rather

11     uncontested.  Is there any way of using time in between as well by the

12     two parties with the witness to see whether we can more speedily move on,

13     because otherwise we are -- it takes us the whole day.

14             I'm aware that I'm asking you to sacrifice weekends -- breaks

15     after -- and also I'm asking the witness to sacrifice where there was

16     already complaint about taking the time on the weekends, but ...

17             MR. MISETIC:  I was going to use the break to recover from the

18     forced labour over the weekend, Your Honour, but ...

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes.  I was already alluding it that in my --

20     in my observation.

21             MR. TIEGER:  Your Honour, despite my earlier complaints, my

22     concern is not about either the Prosecution's efforts or -- or even that

23     of the Defence.  But I do wonder whether it is fair.  That would mean the

24     witness was basically working -- if we work through the break and then we

25     work through the next session, he is working for three and a half hours

Page 15152

 1     straight, I think that's a bit much.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps I should have relied on the wisdom of my

 4     colleagues before I even suggested this.

 5             Enjoy your break, Mr. Lausic, and for the parties as well.

 6             We'll resume at 11.00.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, could I just inquire with the --

10     the Markac Defence why the Chamber has not yet received the Turkalj, or

11     at least I do understand Mr. Kuzmanovic said the Turkalj translation

12     issues have not been communicated yet.  Is that correct or not?

13             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes, that's me, Your Honour.  I will get to that

14     forthwith.  I had two witnesses last week, so that delayed me, so I will

15     get it as soon as I can.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes.

17             Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

18             MR. TIEGER:  Your Honour, you were doing just fine in directing

19     the witness to his corrections, so I won't interfere with that --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it's not --

21             MR. TIEGER:  I'm happy to say the same things, but ...

22             JUDGE ORIE:  It's -- well, if you take over the next session.

23     And perhaps I might intervene now and then to have things on the record.

24     And sometimes, of course, the Chamber's understanding of the corrections

25     made might be of importance.

Page 15153

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MR. TIEGER:

 3        Q.   Mr. Lausic, if we could proceed with the corrections to the

 4     statement.  If you could turn to the next one in order, please.

 5        A.   Thank you very much, Mr. President.

 6             Page 20, paragraphs 86, 87, 88, and 89.  I don't have any

 7     comments to make in relation to the substance of these paragraphs.  What

 8     I would like to note, however, is that the statements contained in these

 9     paragraphs cannot be found in the transcript of the interview I had with

10     investigators in May 2004.  Rather, these are statements that I made

11     which were not taped either on the audio or the videotape back in

12     August 2004 when certain documents were shown to me.  In other words, I

13     have no way of comparing the text of the statements contained in

14     paragraphs 86 through 89 with a transcript.  I read the paragraphs, I did

15     not observe anything that would not appear to be my statement, but since

16     I don't have the corresponding tapes or transcripts, I cannot compare

17     these statements with my answers given to the questions put to me in

18     August 2004.

19        Q.   Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Lausic.  If you can proceed.

20        A.   Page 21, paragraph 91, line 2 from the bottom:  "So that only

21     after a conversation with General Krpina ..."  It should read instead

22     "Brigadier Krpina" because he had the rank of brigadier and not general.

23             MR. MISETIC:  I apologise to Mr. Tieger.  If I could just get a

24     clarification to the witness's penultimate answer.  He seems to indicate

25     now that there was -- there are statements in the statement that were not

Page 15154

 1     videotaped.  I don't know if that's the position of the Office of the

 2     Prosecutor as well.  Because it is my understanding that this statement

 3     is based on what he said in May of 2004.

 4             MR. TIEGER:  I will let the witness speak for himself.  My

 5     understanding of the previous answer was that in August, the witness

 6     reviewed the statement, made some additional comments or corrections, and

 7     was also shown some documents about which he commented.  And one or both

 8     of those factors is reflected in the paragraphs he just referred to.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that he -- they were not included in his

10     May statement, and for that reason, there is no audio, because in August

11     no audio was made, and that, therefore, he was unable to compare on an

12     audio basis, what he said in August.  But he recognises this as his

13     answers.

14             And he is nodding yes now, so I take that as a confirmation

15     of ...

16             MR. MISETIC:  I'm just -- if that's the case, then there would be

17     just for the purpose of the record in August, then, was he still a

18     suspect under Rule 42, 43, and 44, which would require that these matters

19     be taped?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  It was my understanding, but please correct me if

21     I'm wrong, that when the witness was interviewed in August that he was

22     not considered to be a suspect anymore; whereas, he was in May.  Is that

23     correctly understood?

24             MR. TIEGER:  Well, based on the -- based on the -- well, he

25     certainly wasn't warned again pursuant to Rule 42 again.  That's clear.

Page 15155

 1             MR. MISETIC:  The question was, was he a suspect in August of

 2     2004?

 3             MR. TIEGER:  Or was he consider a suspect?  I haven't inquired,

 4     Your Honour, to determine whether or not this procedure was followed

 5     because he was no considered a suspect, or because it was a follow-up of

 6     the -- of the prior proceedings.  If you wish to make that confirmation

 7     one way or another, I can.  But what is clear is that the witness was not

 8     warned under Rule 42.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, if we could get just a clarification

11     for that in the next break, and, then, depending on the answer, outside

12     the presence of the witness, I would just like it put something on the

13     record on this point.

14             Thank you, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then you were taking the witness back to his

16     previous answer, whereas -- let me just get back to the relevant portion

17     of the transcript.

18             Yes, Mr. Tieger, I was expecting you to say at the moment to say

19     that what the witness said is reflected in the English; last answer he

20     gave, the brigadier.

21             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Your Honour, that's correct.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The last correction you made appears in the

23     accurate way in the English version, Mr. Lausic, so, therefore, that's

24     clear on the record.

25             Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

Page 15156

 1             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you.

 2        Q.   Mr. Lausic, if you could continue to the next correction, please.

 3        A.   Page 22, paragraph 97, line 5 from the top:  "... then issued

 4     weapons and started applying stricter security for commands and

 5     commanders."

 6             It should in fact read as follows:  "First -- firstly the

 7     preparation of the operation where they would take charge of certain

 8     camps, locations where people who are mobilized would come, where weapons

 9     would be issued, and stricter security applied in respect of commands and

10     commanders."

11             Without this correction, the Croatian version of this could be

12     construed to mean that the Croatian army issued them with weapons.  What

13     is correct is that the military police provided security for mobilisation

14     assembly points where people were called up would be -- would come and

15     where they would be issued with weapons.  So it wasn't the military

16     police that issued them with weapons.  Rather, the military police

17     provided security for such places.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  That's on the record.  Now you made -- there's one

19     small difference.  You said "stricter security for the commands and the

20     commander," in English, in the singular; whereas, you spoke about

21     "commanders," the plural.  Is that -- is it plural or singular?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Commands, i.e., headquarters, where

23     the commander and his staff would be housed, and the commander

24     personally.  That's normally how security is organised.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

Page 15157

 1             MR. TIEGER:

 2        Q.   And, Mr. Lausic, your next correction, please.

 3        A.   Page 25, paragraph 112, as continued from page 24, the second

 4     line from the bottom:  "And that all eight of them had previously -- had

 5     criminal reports."  "Criminal records."

 6             What should be said is that:  "All eight of them were members of

 7     the enemy side and that they were in combat," as was, in fact, correctly

 8     stated for the transcript.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  That appears clearly.  I think they were members of

10     the enemy of forces, that they were engaged in combat.  And these eight

11     persons had criminal reports, as it reads here, submitted against them.

12     You want to change that in "criminal records," or would "criminal

13     reports" be fine?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Criminal reports had been filed

15     against them.  That would be correct.  Because if they were to say that

16     they had criminal records, that would mean that they were already

17     registered somewhere either with the police or courts.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Then it seems that the English text is in every

19     respect correct.

20             Please proceed.

21             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, one matter arises from two previous

22     paragraphs, 107 and 108, which I raise at this stage because it might be

23     appropriate, more appropriate, to deal with it now.

24             In 107 it begins:  "You suggest that this particular order from

25     Ademi and 108 you ask ..."

Page 15158

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, similar issue as 57 and 61.

 2             MR. KAY:  Exactly, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's check that.

 4             Mr. Lausic, could you have a look at paragraphs 107 and 108.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's absolutely correct,

 6     Mr. President.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Although halfway paragraph 107 it moves from

 8     what apparently the interviewer had told you to your comments on it.  Can

 9     we then go the first portion, You suggest that, is that what Mr. Foster

10     told you at the time, apart from whether you repeated that?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.  All the

12     words and sentences up until the start of the following sentence:

13             "I can say that this order is not according to military

14     principles in terms of a military vertical structure, but I would not

15     like to draw other's conclusions for this."

16             And save for this sentence, all the other words were uttered by

17     the investigator.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And would that same be true for the whole of

19     paragraph 108; that is, all words spoken by the investigator?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies, Mr. President.

21     Without looking at the transcript, I could not say -- state that with any

22     certainty.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it your recollection that the interviewer said

24     words of this kind, as you find them in paragraph 108?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will be very careful and allow

Page 15159

 1     for the possibility that one part of the paragraph constitutes a question

 2     and the other my answer.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  In 108 I see no answer.  I see that in 107 what

 4     appears to a question, and then the last two sentences to be your answer.

 5     However, in 108, I only see a reference to the words apparently spoken by

 6     Mr. Foster, when then paragraph 109 starts saying, "My response is ..."

 7     which suggests that 108 reflects the question.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise, but I cannot be

 9     certain.  In the Croatian language, it starts as follows:

10             "You ask if the commander of the military police should report

11     the commander of his battalion of something that was done, and to say

12     that an order was given to him to do something that he should not."

13             In fact, this entire portion would be me asking the investigator

14     if I understood his question correctly.  Because in paragraph 109, I

15     carry on by saying, "My answer, my response is that in any case ..."

16             So paragraph 108 would be me asking the investigator if my

17     understanding of his question was correct.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, whether we should understand it in that way is

19     another matter.

20             But what I'd like it know is, do you recognise in the text of

21     paragraph 108 the question as it was put to you at the time?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Then that resolves the matter.

24             Then let me just take you back where we were.  Without soliciting

25     to it, I get the transcript of another case on my screen as well, and

Page 15160

 1     I'll just ignore that.  But I have to get back to the ...

 2                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lausic, we have dealt with your correction you

 4     made at the end of paragraph 112.  Could you please move to your next

 5     correction.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 7             Page 25, paragraph 114, line 4 from the bottom.  Again it reads

 8     that:  "Major Ante Gugic was the chief of section," et cetera.

 9             The correction would be "chief of the department of the criminal

10     investigation police."

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's how it reads in English, "the criminal

12     department within the military police administration."

13             Could you move to the next one, please.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 26, paragraph 116, same as

15     above, line 3 from the bottom.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  My apologies.  Yes, I'm sorry, I had to deal with

17     some technical matters on my screen, where ...

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 26, paragraph 117, same as

19     above.  "The then chief of the criminal investigation section," which

20     should, in fact, read "the criminal investigation department."

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We've seen that we find that 116, reflected in

22     a correct way.  In 117, it also reads in English, "department."

23             I give Mr. Tieger the lead again.

24             Mr. Tieger.

25             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 15161

 1        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Lausic.  If you could direct your attention to the

 2     next correction you wish to make.

 3        A.   Page 27, paragraph 120, line 10 from the top:  "All the

 4     entry/exit wounds were inflicted from the same distance."

 5             The correction version should be:  "All the entry/exit wounds

 6     were inflicted from a distance."

 7        Q.   That is essentially what the English now says, but I suppose the

 8     witness's correction offers a tiny bit of additional clarity.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I do understand that entry/exit wounds

10     inflicted from a distance does not mean that they were all inflicted from

11     the same distance.  That is, it could be 100 metres, 120 metres, 80

12     metres which is not the same distance but all from a distance rather

13     compared to nearby.  Is that ...

14             MR. TIEGER:  I agree, Your Honour, except the English as I -- if

15     I'm directing my attention to the proper portion, it didn't read the same

16     distance; it said from "some distance."

17             JUDGE ORIE:  "Some distance," yes, you're right.  I misread

18     "some" and "same."

19             MR. TIEGER:  Nevertheless --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it's clear now.

21             MR. TIEGER:  Yeah.

22        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Lausic.  Next correction, please.

23        A.   The same page and the same paragraph, 120, one line further down:

24     "Only one corpse had a entry/exit wound inflicted from a very close or

25     contact range."

Page 15162

 1             The term that I used was from absolute range, point-blank range

 2     in other words, which means that the barrel rested against the tissue.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  So the option that it could have been from a couple

 4     of centimetres is excluded.  You say it was contact range, that is,

 5     contact between the weapon and the body.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely, yes.

 7             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  The word "close" is taken out.

 9             MR. TIEGER:

10        Q.   The correction is noted, and if you could turn to the next

11     correction, please.

12        A.   Thank you.  Page 23, paragraph -- page 32, paragraph 151:

13             "Susak went on to say that a meeting was held with the BiH army

14     and the Croatian Defence counsel and that they were heading towards

15     Donji Vakuf and Kulen-Vakuf."

16             The correct version should read:

17             "And that they were moving towards Donji Vakuf" -- "they are

18     moving towards Donji Vakuf and Kulen-Vakuf."  In other words present

19     tense, not past tense.

20        Q.   So "are" for "were" in that sentence?

21             JUDGE ORIE:  At least I do not know whether they were would mean

22     necessarily a different thing, but if we make it "are," then it certainly

23     avoids whatever confusion.

24             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you.

25        Q.   Mr. Lausic, next correction, please.

Page 15163

 1        A.   The same page, 33, paragraph 151, this sentence continues as

 2     follows:  "The military police has to act more energetically and prevent

 3     all offences."

 4             Correction:  "The military police should be more energetic in its

 5     action or activity."

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not certain whether this is reflected in the

 7     English.

 8             I will read you to what the English text says.  It reads:  "The

 9     military police must be more vigorous in handling and preventing all

10     offences."

11             I see you're nodding yes, which I understand to be a confirmation

12     of the correctness of the -- the accuracy of the English text.

13             Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

14             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15        Q.   Mr. Lausic, you were about to continue with --

16        A.   Again page 33, again paragraph 151, Minister Susak's statement

17     continues.  That is line 5 from the bottom.  And in the sentence:

18             "We have to prevent the possibility that heros of the homeland

19     war be put before a court with his gestures and grimaces, and so on and

20     so forth."

21             It should read as follows:  "We must prevent the heros from the

22     homeland war from being put before a court."

23             Mr. President, if you allow me, without this correction, without

24     this terminological correction, this sentence of Mr. Susak's could be

25     interpreted in the following way, it could be understood in the following

Page 15164

 1     way:  That commanders could prevent the possibility of bringing heros

 2     before a court of law; that is to say, something that his sentence did

 3     not mean.  The point was of his sentence that commanders should realize

 4     that some things should not be done so that heros of the homeland war as

 5     perpetrators would not be brought before a court.

 6             So that's why I repeat what the correction version would be, and

 7     that's in line with the transcript:  "We must prevent the heros of the

 8     homeland war from being brought before a court."

 9             MR. TIEGER:

10        Q.   Thank you for that correction, Mr. Lausic.  If could you move on

11     in your next correction, please.

12        A.   Again, page 33, paragraph 151.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the parties check very careful this last

14     portion because it appears on the transcript whether it's transcribed

15     correctly.  Because the correction the witness made does not deprive the

16     text as he then read it out from all of its ambiguity.  Because whether

17     we're talking about possibility or just about preventing someone to come

18     before a court, there still appears to be a possible interpretation that

19     preventing someone to appear before a court could mean, Don't do anything

20     that could bring you before a court, or let's do everything to ensure

21     that you will not be brought before a court, whatever you have done.

22             So, therefore, I'd like to invite the parties to carefully check

23     the original text in this respect.

24             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, the two previous sentences, in my view,

25     put in context what the witness is saying if you read those because they

Page 15165

 1     were quite clearly instructions that the military police must be more

 2     vigorous in handling and preventing offences, commanders must pass on a

 3     ban on excessive behaviour and crimes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I see the context.  I'm not blind for that.

 5     But, at the same time, the witness refers to the language that appears on

 6     the transcript in this specific line, and I would like to have that

 7     verified so that there is no doubt about that.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  I'm sure if you're asking him to verify what he

 9     said in May 2004 or verify what is in his notebook from the 2nd of

10     August.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  I think he --

12             You referred to your transcript of the interview.  Is that --

13     have I understood that correctly?

14             Then I'd like to -- one doesn't exclude the other.

15             MR. MISETIC:  Actually, that's -- the sentence appears in the --

16     as an entry in the notebook or in the diary of the 2nd of August.

17     General Lausic, I believe, was then attempting to explain what that

18     sentence means in his suspect interview, and so if there is any ambiguity

19     about the sentence in the 2nd of August diary, it should be put to him

20     now.  Because I think that's exactly the point.  He was trying to remove

21     any ambiguity about --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  At this moment he asked for a correction to be made

23     on the basis of the transcript of his interview.  At this stage.  We are

24     there and not any further.

25             First of all, we should know exactly what his statement reflects,

Page 15166

 1     transcript, the notebook, and then, of course, later on we go to the

 2     substance of it.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  Well, just rather than -- in the interests,

 4     actually, of economy, Judge, it is not only as I understand the Rule 92

 5     ter process that he is asked, Is this what you said, but would you say

 6     this again if these questions were posed to you on direct examination.

 7             So there is two prongs here, and if there is anything unclear

 8     about -- even if he said something in the May 2004 transcript that is in

 9     any way ambiguous, it should be put to him now if he wishes.  And I

10     believe General Lausic indicated he wanted to remove ambiguity.  As part

11     of the 92 ter process, he should remove that ambiguity right now.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  then perhaps you could

13     ask him right away.

14             Mr. Lausic, what you said during your interview, what you find as

15     a text in your notebook, does that reflect that the way to prevent that

16     heros of the homeland war would be put before a court was aiming at

17     preventing that any behaviour would take place that could bring someone

18     before a court.

19             Is that how you intended ...

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely correct.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed --

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

24             MR. TIEGER:

25        Q.   Mr. Lausic, if you could move on to your next correction, please.

Page 15167

 1        A.   Same page and the same paragraph, 151.  Again, it has to do with

 2     what Mr. Susak said at the briefing.  I'm referring to the second line

 3     from the bottom:  "Officials of political activity also must carry out

 4     their task by correctly briefing the members of the HV."

 5             Correction:  "The officials of political activity also must carry

 6     out their task by correctly briefing [sic] the members of the HV."

 7             In Croatian "briefing" and "referiranje" do not mean the same

 8     thing, briefing and referiranje.  So if I look at the translation, if I

 9     look at the Croatian version of my statement, it would seem that

10     officials of political activity were supposed to report to soldiers but

11     the meaning of the statement is -- by your leave, Mr. President, I'm

12     going to convey things exactly as they stand in my diary; namely,

13     Mr. Susak's words.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  The English reads "briefing" which is, as I

15     understand, correct, in your view.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then I have no objections.

17             MR. TIEGER:

18        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Lausic.  Next correction, please.

19        A.   Page 34, paragraph 157, line 4 from the bottom:  "As far as I was

20     concerned, traffic would go via the Maselinca Bridge and the way via Pag

21     is free ..."

22             In the transcript there is it no reference to "me," so as far as

23     I'm concerned cannot be put in the context of this statement.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Does that mean we should take out "as far as I'm

25     concerned," just --

Page 15168

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  It's on the record.

 3             MR. TIEGER:

 4        Q.   I'm sorry, I thought you were looking for the next correction.

 5     My apologies.

 6             Mr. Lausic, if you could turn your attention to the next

 7     correction, please.

 8        A.   Page 35, paragraph 158, line three from the bottom:  "The

 9     headquarters will be situated in the Ministry of the Interior and

10     Mladen Laskovic ..."

11             The wrong word was used or, rather, his last name was misspelled.

12     It should be spelled L-a-c-k-o-v-i-c, not L-a-s-k-o-v-i-c.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  That's on the record.  Please move to the next one,

14     Mr. Lausic.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

16             Page 35, paragraph 161, line 2 from the bottom:

17             "There was a discrepancy between the orders passed at the working

18     meetings that were held and the way that these orders were implemented in

19     the field."

20             Correct.  It would be correct in the following way:  "The orders

21     passed at the working meetings that had been held."

22             In Croatian that would mean meetings that had been held, that had

23     finished.  They were held and then they were done; whereas the way it's

24     been put here means that the meetings went on over a longer period of

25     time, in continuity as it were.  So the transcript has a correct

Page 15169

 1     reference.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  As far as my knowledge of the English language

 3     permits me to interpret this, that what the witness just said is

 4     reflected in the English text.

 5             Please proceed, next one.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7             MR. TIEGER:  I'm sorry, if I could -- I'm sorry, Your Honour, and

 8     if you asked for the English language.  I think in fairness, and I don't

 9     know how important this is, that the meetings that were held could in

10     fact refer to an ongoing process, the kinds of meetings that were held on

11     a regular -- so I think that the correction that the witness made that is

12     that meetings that had been held may offer a degree of precision that --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand that --

14             What do you consider what reflects better what you said the

15     meetings that were held or that had been held?  I understood you to say

16     that the meetings that were held in a continuity that that's what you

17     wanted to say.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise.  The meetings were

19     held and then orders were issued afterwards.  Then, in the later period a

20     discrepancy was observed in terms of what had been agreed upon at the

21     meetings, what had been written into the orders, and then, ultimately,

22     what was done in the field.  So the meetings had been held.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So the meetings having been concluded, then

24     what you saw in the field not in line, not fully in line, and there was

25     some discrepancy.  Then I misunderstood you.  Thank you for correcting

Page 15170

 1     me.

 2             Mr. Tieger.

 3             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             Mr. Lausic, I think you were moving on to your next correction.

 6        A.   Page 35, paragraph 162, line 7:  "That the military police was

 7     not energetic enough in its actions and that we have to be more

 8     economical with the use of our resources and our equipment."

 9             Instead of the word "economical," the transcript refers to

10     economising, that we have to economise with the use of our forces and

11     equipment.  In the Croatian meaning the word "economical" is different

12     from the word "economising."  Economising means good husbandry or,

13     rather, taking care of a particular resource that you have in the right

14     way.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And which of the two now is ... is the correct

16     version?  Is that the part of what you just said is not yet on the

17     transcript.  I have some difficulties in repeating it.

18             Is it -- "economical" I understand is in accordance with the

19     economic laws, that is.  And "economising" I do understand is to best

20     deal with the available means and to use them in the -- I would say best

21     way.

22             Now, which is it?  Is it "economizing" which is the right

23     expression; or is it "economical?"

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Economizing would be right.  Thank

25     you, Mr. President.

Page 15171

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  That means using them as a good house rather.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 4             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you.

 5        Q.   And if you could continue, Mr. Lausic.

 6        A.   Again, page 35, paragraph 162, line 6 from the bottom:

 7             "During Flash, I used my eyes and ears.  When I went out into the

 8     field, I saw that some things," et cetera et cetera.

 9             The correct version would be:  "During Flash, I was missing eyes

10     and ears in the field."

11             Again, this is a rhetorical figure of speech.  What I meant was

12     that ... on the basis of the reports that I received, and later on, as I

13     went out into the field, I observed many incorrect things.  So what I

14     missed were eyes and ears in the field.  This is a rhetorical figure of

15     speech.  It is not that I used eyes and ears in the field, as this text

16     states.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The English reads:  "I was missing my ears an

18     eyes on the ground," which I do understand is that you had no direct

19     accurate information on what happened on the ground, until when you went

20     there.

21             Please proceed.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

23             Page 37, paragraph 168 continues from page 36, line 5 from the

24     bottom:  "Units of the military police were fully subordinated to the

25     commanders of the operative groups of the military districts or

Page 15172

 1     commanders of the operative groups, so -- or the highest commander."

 2             That's wrong.  It should say the top commander.  Well, the word

 3     that they meant was -- or, rather, what is written here has the

 4     connotation of supreme, whereas it should say the highest because it is

 5     the President of the Republic that is the Supreme Commander.  That is the

 6     connotation.

 7             MR. TIEGER:  As I read it, Your Honour, in the portion, it does

 8     say highest instead of supreme.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Although, the context there were a few matters

10     which may require proper attention.

11             I will read to you slowly what it now says in English.  It reads:

12             "The units of the military police were in its entirety

13     subordinated to the commanders of the Military Districts or the

14     commanders of the Operative Groups or to the highest commander of the

15     Croatian army, which was in accordance with the rules on the organisation

16     and the work of the military police, which was issued in 1994."

17             Is that correct?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.  Thank you,

19     Mr. President.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Next one, please.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no other

22     corrections that I noted.  However, due to the brevity of time that I had

23     for studying this witness statement, well, I would like to remind you

24     that I received all the documents on the 17th of December last year, so

25     perhaps during the remaining part of my testimony, I may be able to

Page 15173

 1     indicate some other inaccuracies that may crop up.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Have you read the statement in its entirety, since

 3     the 17th of December?  I'm --

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, correct.  I have read it, but

 5     then my concentration went down too, because of the volume of the

 6     material that was submitted to me and also the fact that very little time

 7     was made available to me.  I had to compare everything to the transcript,

 8     and this is rather a strenuous work.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Is your major concern about the comparison with the

10     transcript?  Is that where your hesitation lies?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely, precisely.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Because if that is it the problem, if you come back

13     at a later stage and point at some matter where you have doubts as

14     whether it is transcribed properly, if it refers to the May interviews,

15     of course, we'll have an opportunity to verify on the basis of the audio

16     recording whether your present statement reflects what is you said.

17             So if you have any problem in that respect in the near future,

18     where you have some doubts, then there certainly will be a possibility to

19     verify that.

20             Do you have any other concerns, apart from the comparison with

21     the audio recording and the transcript?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for your question.  No, I

23     have no problems.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

25             Then I suggest to the parties that if at a later stage anything

Page 15174

 1     would come up which is related to transcript and original language used,

 2     that this will be verified on the basis of the underlying material.

 3             Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

 4             MR. TIEGER:

 5        Q.   I think this was implicit, Mr. Lausic, but I'll ask for purposes

 6     of the record.  Was the information that you provided, and to the extent

 7     it may have been corrected today, during your interview and in your

 8     statement true and correct?

 9        A.   Absolutely.

10        Q.   And if asked about the same matters in court, would your answers

11     be the same?

12        A.   I believe that that is the case.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             MR. TIEGER:  Your Honour, I would move it into evidence.

15     Mr. Misetic had a question about the interview, the August interview

16     process that he wanted me to address after the break.  I can do that

17     before the break.  And I don't know if it was supposed to be addressed

18     outside the presence of the witness or not.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that's what Mr. Misetic suggested.

20             MR. MISETIC:  I think it's a procedural matter that can be

21     addressed with -- just before the break.  I think we can handle it, so we

22     don't interrupt --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps also for similar future situations,

24     Mr. Lausic, do you speak and understand English?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not to an extent to which that I

Page 15175

 1     could follow a conversation in English that employs expert terminology

 2     like it does before this Court.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  So you have some basic knowledge of the English

 4     language.  That is for all of us to know.

 5             Mr. Tieger, it is a procedural matter.  I don't think that --

 6     well, let me not speculate on anything.  Would you like to raise the

 7     matter, and do you think it could be done in the presence of your

 8     witness.

 9             MR. TIEGER:  Well based on what I -- I mean, it's difficult to

10     know where this might go, and so I'm --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Then perhaps it would be wiser --

12             Mr. Lausic, there is a procedural matter we'd like to discuss,

13     and since we do know where the discussion go, could I invite you to leave

14     the courtroom for a short while.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16             MR. MISETIC:  I don't know if I was sufficiently clear.  What I

17     meant was at 12.25, if you wish.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Let now continue.  We have set in action everything,

19     so let's --

20             MR. TIEGER:  Sorry, I got a little bit out of sequence, and I

21     apologise for my role in that.

22             But in any event the question was Mr. Lausic's status at the time

23     that he was -- the interview was taken, and I'm advised that he was

24     regarded at that time as a witness, not a suspect.

25             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, I'm -- I don't know how to handle this

Page 15176

 1     and how to raise it, but in terms of the bases for the witness being

 2     changed from witness to suspect, and suspect to witness, and suspects

 3     again, this witness is a named identified member of the alleged JCE.

 4     That is public knowledge.

 5             MR. TIEGER:  Excuse me.

 6             MR. MISETIC:  It's a public filing.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger.

 8             MR. TIEGER:  My apologies for interrupting, Mr. Misetic.  I think

 9     he is correct.  There is no basis for do so.

10             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, will --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  You say it's a mistake, or is it --

12             MR. MISETIC:  I can address it, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I don't whether you address whether Mr. Tieger

14     made a mistake, but let's -- I will listen to you.

15             MR. MISETIC:  Okay.  What happened was initially it was filed

16     confidentially.  The clarification identifying named individuals of the

17     alleged JCE subsequently pursuant to a motion filed by Gotovina Defence

18     and joined by the Markac Defence, the Trial Chamber ordered that that

19     filing be made public.  It, in fact, was publicly filed, so there nothing

20     improper about discussing this publicly.

21             Mr. Lausic is a named member of the alleged JCE in a filing by

22     the Office of the Prosecutor.  If he was a suspect in May of 2004 and he

23     is he an identified member of the alleged JCE in, I believe, May of 2007,

24     then what is the evidentiary basis for having changed him to a witness

25     and removing the suspect classification, and then subsequently something

Page 15177

 1     must have arisen between August 2004 and May 2007, some additional

 2     evidentiary basis to make him a suspect again.

 3             I think that the matter needs further clarification because it

 4     may have a relevance to our cross-examination of this witness in terms

 5     what the Prosecution is alleging in terms of the role of the military

 6     police in this, the role of the witness in all of this, and I would like

 7     to put those matters to the witness in cross-examination.

 8             Thank you, Mr. President.

 9             MR. TIEGER:  I don't believe it presents any problem, Your

10     Honour.  I believe the filing indicated -- the clarification addressed

11     those persons who may have been members of the JCE or may have been tools

12     of the JCE.  There were many matters that transpired between 2004 and the

13     time of the filing, not the least of which was a clarification of the law

14     with respect to tools and, no doubt, further exploration of the

15     evidential material that might be relevant to those considerations.  So I

16     think as matters stand, the Defence is perfectly placed to make a

17     determination about how to cross-examine the witness, and I can't imagine

18     any further clarification would be of assistance.

19             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, it is my understanding that as

20     recently as last week, and this is my understanding from Mr. Waespi, that

21     in fact this witness was again advised of his rights under Rule 42 as a

22     suspect.  So if he's as late as last week -- as recently as last week

23     being given his rights as a suspect under Rule 42, it is not simply a

24     matter of he is a tool of the JCE but not his -- his witness status has

25     remained intact since August of 2004.

Page 15178

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, first the facts, I do -- it's put to the

 2     Chamber that.

 3             MR. TIEGER:  Sorry, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continued]... the witness was

 5     advised of his rights under Rule 42 as a suspect last week.  Is that

 6     correct?

 7             MR. TIEGER:  No, it is not correct.  In fact we didn't meet with

 8     the -- I think the communication was should we meet with the witness, we

 9     would do so.  And it is correct that had we met with the witness to

10     inquire about the statement, out of an abundance of caution, we would

11     have advised the witness pursuant to Rule 42, but we did not.

12             So, I mean, that distinction for purposes of this discussion may

13     not be particularly pertinent.  However, I have some considerable

14     difficulty seeing the relevance to the issue before the Court.  There's

15     no question -- I mean, the Court has the information before it, knows

16     when we filed the clarification, knows the status at the time.  Our

17     determination at this point to advise the witness under the broad, broad

18     terms in the Rules that provide such advisement of rights to witnesses

19     seems, to me, not to bear on issues related to cross-examination or any

20     other relevant issues before the Court.  Seems perfectly consistent with

21     where we found ourselves.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's try to focus on one of the first questions.

23     That is, what exactly the relevance for this information is.  When

24     cross-examining the witness what would it change?  Because that's what

25     Mr. Misetic raises, and that's what is contradicted by Mr. Tieger.

Page 15179

 1             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, I have been given the floor but my learned

 2     friends on this matter.

 3             It is it classically important someone who is a suspect or a

 4     suspected accomplice or member of the criminal conspiracy or joint

 5     criminal enterprise is classically someone to whom the Court has to treat

 6     their evidence with caution.  That is because their evidence may be

 7     self-serving, seek to put the blame on other people to avoid criminal

 8     liability themselves.  And it is imperative that those listening to the

 9     evidence are able to bear that in mind when considering questions asked

10     and the answers given of the witness.

11             This is of great importance to those cross-examining because the

12     manner of those questions should entitle the questioner to be able to

13     reflect that position within the questions.

14             Furthermore, certainly from the jurisdiction I come to and --

15     come from, and most other jurisdictions that I am aware of, this is a

16     matter that the Prosecution should bear in mind when investigating and

17     handling a witness in legal proceedings.  They have a duty to fairness in

18     the proceedings, and if a witness is not treated in the appropriate

19     fashion of witnesses who come into this category of suspect or

20     co-conspirator or accomplice, whatever, then they may be misled or

21     mislead the Tribunal, and by that I mean courts, generally, into the

22     nature of the evidence that is coming before it.  Very important

23     principle.  It exists in many other jurisdictions and, we believe, of

24     great importance to this witness, who was originally named within the

25     proceedings as having been a member of the JCE.

Page 15180

 1             In my submission, it is not transparent to have a statement that

 2     the witness doesn't fall into that category, but a wider category.  A

 3     tool of the JCE was another phrase used, and in my submission, that is

 4     being less than transparent with the position that the Court must

 5     appreciate in dealing with this witness.

 6             MR. MISETIC:  If I can just respond, and then I'll let Mr. Tieger

 7     respond to both.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Misetic.

 9             MR. MISETIC:  I join in my colleague's position.  Let me also add

10     that I believe that it is clearly relevant in assessing the credibility

11     of the witness that the Chamber know whether the witness has -- was told

12     last week that he had rights under Rule 42 because it also goes directly

13     to the motivation of any witness or -- who becomes a suspect given that

14     answers to questions provided in his proceeding, he may perceive as

15     putting him in jeopardy.  And if that's the case, it's clearly a relevant

16     factor for the Chamber in assessing credibility of answers and the

17     credibility of the witness, and, therefore, I belive as part of

18     cross-examination it is clearly a relevant factor to consider.

19             Thank you, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic.

21             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  If I could just add something

22     to that discussion of my learned friends.

23             In our jurisdiction, I mean in Croatian jurisdiction where I come

24     from, if one was interviewed in a capacity of suspect and then the status

25     has been changed during the process and the suspects suddenly became a

Page 15181

 1     witness, then the interview in the capacity of suspect should not be

 2     entered into the evidence into the case file.  So this is a principle of

 3     Croatian jurisdiction, and I believe this is the principle that the

 4     witness is simply used for because it's a common knowledge in Croatian

 5     judicial system.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             Mr. Tieger.

 8             MR. TIEGER:  Two quick points, Your Honour.  Of course, the

 9     Prosecution maintains its previous position.

10             Number one, in response to -- one of the points Mr. Kay made, I

11     fail to see how there is it any lack of transparency in merely reciting

12     the terms of the clarification which is all that I did.  If the Defence

13     wants to argue on its own that the witness is or should be regarded as a

14     member of the JCE rather than a tool, he is it free to do so.  But all I

15     did was recite the terms of the clarification to the best of my

16     recollection.

17             Number two, in terms of Mr. Misetic's inquiry, again, in the

18     interest of full transparency, the witness was advised that if the -- if

19     a further interview or proofing or further contact of that type was to go

20     forward, he would be advised of his rights under Rule 42.

21             Now I believe the Defence has all the information including the

22     timing of the interviews, the timing of the filing of the clarification,

23     and now we now the accuracy of the witness evidence.  We also know what

24     the Defence intends to argue, and they are free to do in terms of witness

25     credibility or any other factors.  But I don't -- I don't see any other

Page 15182

 1     issue to create a problem in going forward at this stage.

 2             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, if I may, the issue for us is the

 3     witness may have been told himself that he was a witness in 2004.  I

 4     myself am now not exactly sure, given Mr. Tieger' comments, whether in

 5     fact OTP says he is a suspect or he is not a suspect.  He seems to have

 6     been advised of his rights -- of the rights of a suspect last week, but

 7     there is a stopping short of saying he in fact is a suspect.  It clearly

 8     goes to what was the witness told last week?  What is the position of the

 9     Office of the Prosecutor, specifically on that point?  And is it in the

10     knowledge of this witness that he has that status?

11             Let me clarify for the record what we have decided to argue, at

12     least speaking for the Gotovina's Defence, in response to Mr. Tieger's

13     comment is, has clearly not been decided and, of course, depends on what

14     answers are to the questions.  So I don't wish to in any way suggest that

15     we have taken a position about what our position is going to be.  That,

16     of course, is it subject to hearing the testimony.

17             Thank you, Mr. President.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps first, a very factual question.  And what

19     was said to the witness last week, I did understand from Mr. Tieger that

20     there had been no conversation.  That he just expressed what he would

21     have told him if there would have been a conversation or --

22             MR. TIEGER:  Your Honour, there was an attempt to set up a

23     meeting for the purpose of going over possible corrections and so forth.

24     The witness was advised that if we met, he would be advised of his rights

25     under Rule 42.  That was the conversation.

Page 15183

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's -- now I better understand what

 2     happened and what did not happen.

 3             Mr. Kay, it must be something serious when are you holding your

 4     laptop in your hands.  That must be really something ...

 5             MR. KAY:  It's called first-aid where I come from.

 6             If I go back to the clarification filing by the Prosecution

 7     referred to by Mr. Tieger.  And I will read out paragraph 1.

 8             "The Trial Chamber previously ordered the Prosecution to 'widen

 9     the circle' of named participants to include key military or political

10     figures to the extent that they are known by the Prosecution.  Although

11     this was in the context of a JCE that embraced all persons whose conduct

12     led to the commission of crimes, the Prosecution hereby complies with the

13     order in the context of the proposed indictment by providing additional

14     particulars concerning key military or political figures among the many

15     persons who were members of the JCE.  Alternatively, these persons were

16     used by or cooperated with JCE members and their conduct is thereby

17     imputable to the members of the JCE.  These additional key military or

18     political figures include the following people identified by reference to

19     their position at the time of the events.  This witness is thereafter

20     named amongst others."

21             Let us be frank, Your Honour.  This is a witness who comes from

22     an important position within the events that took place concerning the

23     subject matter of this indictment.  We all know that.  This witness has

24     made a statement and become a witness for the Prosecution.  The Defence,

25     it is it obvious, put this on the basis that he has made a self-serving

Page 15184

 1     statement.  He has sought to cooperate with the Prosecution to avoid

 2     prosecution himself, and that his evidence is unreliable for those

 3     reasons.

 4             It is of paramount importance that the Court be absolutely clear

 5     as to the nature of this witness that appears before it, and that the

 6     usual safeguards that can happen in all cases are available to the

 7     Defence in relation to this witness.

 8             It is something we would be seeking.  His statement has now been

 9     through the 92 process, put into -- sought to be put into evidence before

10     the Court, and in those circumstances at that stage when we have this

11     title of evidence, we are entitled to know and the Court to be informed

12     of the exact position with this witness.  It is it utterly wrong for

13     there to be a clouding of the issue; could be a tool, or is a member

14     supported, contributed to the JCE, because that, in our submission, is an

15     attempt to play fast and loose with the usual norms of save guards in

16     relation to evidence from a particular category of witness.  It serves

17     the Prosecution interest, but it does no service to the Defence, and, in

18     our submission, also the Court, because the Court has to direct itself

19     appropriately in relation to the reliability of witnesses.  And one can

20     see every reason why a suspect cautioned gives a self-serving interview,

21     is then ushered through a process whereby he becomes a witness because he

22     is extended the hand that he will not be prosecuted, if he cooperates.

23     And we have to be absolutely clear about matters such as these because

24     they involve evidence that is very fundamental to the charges against all

25     the accused.

Page 15185

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic.

 2             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Very briefly.

 3             It also raises the implication for the witness under the

 4     circumstances as to his potential to be able to seek counsel.  He is,

 5     under the circumstances, potentially liable to be prosecuted in Croatia,

 6     and he, for the witnesses basis, is entitled to know what his particular

 7     rights are under the circumstances.  And I don't know if that has been

 8     communicated to the witness.

 9             Thank you.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's be very practical.  A question is put to the

11     Prosecution:  Is this witness considered by the Prosecution to be a

12     suspect member of the joint criminal enterprise; or is he considered to

13     be a tool, I think that's the -- you wanted clarity on that.

14             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.  And, Your Honour, there is it one additional

15     point that I failed to make, and I'm reminded of by Mr. Kehoe.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes, but I'm now putting a few questions, and

17     if there's anything you'd like to add, I will certainly give you an

18     opportunity.  But let's not --

19             MR. MISETIC:  Well --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Apart from what Mr. Kehoe --

21             MR. MISETIC:  It's actually important, Mr. President because --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'll let you continue in one or two sentences

23     to make clear how important it is.

24             MR. MISETIC:  The issue is in the change of status from suspect

25     to witness, what was the discussion, if any, that may have been relayed

Page 15186

 1     to the witness about a change in status?  Because to the extent --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We can ask Mr. Tieger.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  So one of the questions, Mr. Tieger, you're invited

 5     to respond, is whether you consider Mr. Lausic to be a participant in a

 6     joint criminal enterprise, at least as it was clarified, whether you

 7     consider him to a potential member of the joint criminal enterprise, or a

 8     potential instrument, a tool.

 9             MR. TIEGER:  And, Your Honour, I'm not going to deviate, and I

10     don't think it would be appropriate to at this point, from the

11     clarification that the Court at that time asked us to file and which we

12     did file and which Mr. Kay just recited.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  You say he is either a participant --

14             MR. TIEGER:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  and we filed a formal

15     pleading.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And now, therefore, you disagree with Mr. Kay

17     in being in a position at this moment to -- to provide further clarity in

18     this respect.  You say he is either one of the two, and that's what the

19     Prosecution is able to say, was willing to say.

20             MR. TIEGER:  That's precisely what we said in -- in the

21     clarification, and it hasn't been changed since.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, let me then very practically ask the

23     Defence, you have expectations of what the Chamber should do.

24             But let me first address the other matter raised by Mr. Misetic

25     which -- because I had forgotten.  Was Mr. Lausic informed about a change

Page 15187

 1     of in status when he was interviewed in August?

 2             MR. TIEGER:  In August 2004, Your Honour, you know where I was at

 3     the time.  I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that his -- I'm

 4     advised that his counsel was present.  That's about the -- that's about

 5     the most information I can provide at this moment.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  In 2004 counsel was present, you say.  Le me

 7     just ...

 8             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, I'm looking at the cover page.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Would that be Nika Pinter, or ...

10             MR. MISETIC:  That is it his counsel.  However, I'm a bit

11     confused, and I think that may be confused as well.  Because as we know

12     the substance of the statement is from the May 2004 suspect interview, in

13     most respects.  There may be additions that took place in August.  But

14     the statement itself indicates that the interview was taken on three days

15     in August and makes no reference to the questioning in May, so I'm

16     wondering whether the indication that Ms. Pinta was present refers to

17     potentially the fact that she was present for the suspect interview in

18     may, and whether or not she was present in August is unclear it me at

19     this point.

20             Thank you.

21             MR. TIEGER:  Well, I think can I clarify that confusion.  I'm

22     advised that it's both.  That's what I was -- that's what I was advised.

23     I can double check that, but I'm ...

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Indeed, there's a strong suggestion that if

25     the dates of the interview are the 9th, the 10th, and the 11th of August,

Page 15188

 1     and names of all persons present during interviews that that would relate

 2     to the interviews mentioned here.  But Mr. Tieger will verify that, I

 3     take it, and that we even could each ask the witness.

 4             What exactly would the Defence like the Court to do in very

 5     practical terms apart from giving the traditional guarantees?  Just what

 6     would you invite us to do?  To explain to the witness what the situation

 7     is; that is, that he was once interviewed as a suspect, that at a later

 8     stage he was -- and we could ask him how he experienced this position.

 9     The presence of the counsel was interviewed, but primarily as a witness,

10     and then to tell him that the -- perhaps the objective grounds for -- or

11     at least that -- that the grounds for considering him a suspect at the

12     time might not have disappeared in the their entirety so that we are

13     still in a position where, of course, it also depends on the answers he

14     may give.  Someone -- if you'd say, My evidentiary basis to consider him

15     a suspect are insufficient.  But, of course, he can change that himself

16     and, therefore, to say that is he not -- if there would be any answer, he

17     would have fear to incriminate himself that he is not under an obligation

18     to answer that question.  He might come up with totally new information

19     as a follow-up of the -- of -- in response to the questions put to him.

20             What exactly, what kind of action -- and I'm not saying that the

21     Chamber will follow your suggestions.  But what would you expect the

22     Chamber to do?

23             MR. MISETIC:  I will let Mr. Kuzmanovic deal with the second

24     portion of it.

25             The first question, Your Honour -- and I still don't -- I mean,

Page 15189

 1     we got into a discussion about JCE, a member or a tool.  The issue from

 2     my perspective is very simple.  Does the OTP consider him a suspect or

 3     not?  I mean, it's --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  But then -- we have at least a couple of concepts of

 5     a suspect is.  For example, is someone still a suspect if not every basis

 6     for a suspicion doesn't exist anymore, but where there is a firm and

 7     irreversible decision not to further pursue the matter and not to

 8     prosecute him.  Would he still be a suspect?  That is one of the

 9     questions.

10             MR. MISETIC:  We litigated that issue in January of 2008.  The

11     position of the Office of the Prosecutor at that time was, Yes, indeed,

12     he is a suspect.

13             I would say Your Honour that suspect is strictly defined in the

14     Rules of Procedure and Evidence.  And the ultimate question is, is this a

15     person concerning whom the Prosecutor possesses reliable information

16     which tends to show that the person may have committed a crime over which

17     the Tribunal has jurisdiction?

18             It's not an assertion that the person should be accused.  It's

19     may have.

20             Now --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  No, should be accused.  If he cannot be accused

22     anymore.

23             MR. MISETIC:  You will recall that that's the position that we

24     took in January, and the Office of the Prosecutor fought us tooth and

25     nail on that position, and we had to come up with a comprise to resolve

Page 15190

 1     that matter.  But as far as I understand, the Office of the Prosecutor

 2     made submissions to the Chamber that despite the fact that the OTP can no

 3     longer indict the person, the person remains a suspect because they could

 4     face jeopardy in the states of the Former Yugoslavia.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So therefore, if we're talking about suspect and if

 6     you're referring to the Rules, of course, you're refer to what -- and I

 7     heard that before.  You're referring to a mechanism what is usually

 8     called an intrastate or a intra-institutional mechanism, and that

 9     sometimes, although the rationale for protecting someone from

10     self-incrimination which may not any further apply in one institution,

11     does not exclude for once and forever the possibility that treating him

12     not as a suspect could create a risk that unaware of possible

13     prosecutions in other jurisdictions that this would be not appropriate to

14     do.  So then we have someone for which perhaps an objective test would

15     still qualify -- he would still qualify as a suspect here, although there

16     is no way of any following prosecution and that there's no way of any

17     further investigation against that person, wherever he may be, at some

18     risk, and I would like to know from you whether ever any investigation

19     has been conducted against Mr. Lausic in view of possible prosecution in

20     Croatia.

21             MR. MISETIC:  Well, I obviously wouldn't have access to that

22     information.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, you can ask whether you are aware of such --

24     either you -- you would know would, of course, not be an absolute answer

25     whether there ever has been an investigation, but you could tell us

Page 15191

 1     whether you are aware of any such investigation that was ever conducted

 2     or you're not aware of it.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  I'm not aware of it, Your Honour.  But let me say

 4     this, just so that I'm clear and I don't get accuse of taking two sides

 5     on the same issue.

 6             What I'm relaying to you is what I understand the Office of the

 7     Prosecutors's position to have been in January 2008.  That is to say, we

 8     were the ones, you will recall to you, who raised the issue of these --

 9     when they were trying to do suspect interviews with persons in the Split

10     Military District chain of command, we said that, in fact, the use of

11     suspect status as a means of coercing and pressuring people.  The Office

12     of the Prosecutor came back and said they're still faced jeopardy in the

13     countries of the former Yugoslavia.  There are still, as I understand it,

14     and Mr. Tieger will know more about it, cooperation between Office of the

15     Prosecutor and local prosecutors in terms of exchange of evidence and

16     those type of matters, and that for that reason, these persons were been

17     given suspect status.

18             It's relevant for a number of reasons because the witness should

19     know either if is he a suspect from the perspective of the Office of the

20     Prosecutor, that has certain implications on his testimony.  If the

21     Prosecution is going to come forward and say, Mr. Lausic, the Prosecution

22     no longer considers you a suspect, that may actually be relevant to the

23     witness in terms of the answers he will provide in light of the fact that

24     the statement that is now before you is, in fact, given at a time when he

25     was a suspect, at least major -- the majority of it was.  Which portions

Page 15192

 1     came in August is not clear from the face of the statement.

 2             But either way, the issue has relevance here, and we -- you know,

 3     to me, it seems rather simple to say, Given that the Prosecution has

 4     already said that the fact that someone can no longer be indicted here

 5     doesn't have an impact on the definition of suspect under the Rules of

 6     Procedure, whether Mr. Lausic fits that definition in the Rules of

 7     Procedure and Evidence.

 8             Thank you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, last round.

10             MR. TIEGER:  Certainly, Your Honour.

11             The Prosecution is not a proponent of what the rules say.  The

12     Prosecution was doing its best in the circumstance that Mr. Misetic

13     described as we related to the Defence to abide by the Rules as best it

14     could interpret them, and we offered that interpretation which seemed to

15     be consistent with what we understood.

16             I have already indicated in this particular context that we

17     indicated to the witness that should we meet for the purpose of going

18     over the statement, that we would advise him of his rights pursuant to

19     Rule 42.  I think the Court has had all the information it needs to

20     proceed for quite some time now.  I would be happy to answer any explicit

21     questions the Court might have.  But it seems to me that much of the --

22     much of the last few minutes has been taken up with various possibilities

23     that will be addressed during the course of cross-examination.  And all

24     the relevant factors are now before the Court, and that is the basis on

25     which all of this has been argued.

Page 15193

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I tried one again.

 2             Mr. Kuzmanovic.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.

 4             I guess the bottom line really is, what is the status of this

 5     particular witness?  The Chamber is entitled to know, we're entitled to

 6     know.  What incentives, if any, has this witness be given to testify

 7     under the circumstances?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That is clear, and it was already clear from

 9     the foregoing.

10             One minute for practical suggestions because I asked that before.

11     What do you expect the Chamber to do?

12             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, we would be grateful if you could,

13     after the break, ask the witness -- either first instruct the witness, as

14     I understand Mr. Tieger's position, that he is considered a suspect.

15     That's point one, and that's why he was advised of his rights under

16     Rule 42, unless I'm wrong, but that's how I understood the answer.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I understood it a bit differently.

18             MR. MISETIC:  Well --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm now asking for the practical suggestion and not

20     reopening the debate.

21             To instruct the witness, to at least to tell what the situation

22     is.

23             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.  The fact is that if the three parties in this

24     proceeding:  The Trial Chamber, the Prosecution, and the Defence cannot

25     determine whether or not the person is a suspect, I can imagine that the

Page 15194

 1     witness, himself, is having system difficulty coming to that conclusion.

 2     And I would urge all of us to come to a -- a resolution of that issue and

 3     to advise the witness of it.  Because in addition to what Mr. Kuzmanovic

 4     said that the witness has certain rights under the Rules if indeed he is

 5     a suspect, there is also the issue of the witness's -- the assessment of

 6     his credibility that the Chamber will have to make.

 7             The second thing is I would be grateful if the chamber would

 8     inquire of the witness simply if he has any or had any communications

 9     considering his status and what was told to him about, again, if

10     anything, about changes of status from suspect to witness and if anything

11     was expected of him as a result of that change in status.  Was he advised

12     that he would become a witness in the case against the three accused

13     here?  Did he, under whatever circumstances, perhaps under his own

14     conclusions that may not have been put him by the Prosecution, come to

15     the understanding that there was some quid pro quo in exchange for the

16     change in status and that doesn't -- again, let me be clear that I'm not

17     asserting that anything was done like that by the Prosecution, but given

18     the circumstances, did the witness come to that conclusion as a result of

19     the change in -- in status that occurred apparently over -- somewhere

20     within a four-month period?

21             Thank you.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay.

23             MR. KAY:  An order from the Court to the Prosecution directing

24     them to inform the Court when Mr. Lausic moved from the status of being a

25     suspect to becoming a witness, an order from the Court to the Prosecution

Page 15195

 1     to declare any statements they have made to the witness about him

 2     becoming a witness.

 3             My submission is that from what Mr. Tieger has said, he is a

 4     suspect.  That is why it was in the Prosecution's mind to caution him.

 5     In those circumstances, I submit that his 92 ter submission through the

 6     Prosecution should no longer be accepted.  He should be taken as a viva

 7     voce witness.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  What in this respect changes your position in

 9     relation to the earlier --

10             MR. KAY:  My position is this:  That I'm highly concerned about

11     the unsatisfactory nature of the status of this witness, and the more

12     that has been discussed, the more the alarm bells have rung in my head as

13     counsel for one of the accused about the nature of this witness and the

14     type of testimony that has been obtained from him at this stage.

15             In my submission, there is it every incentive for that statement

16     to have been self-serving.  I think the revelation that he was going to

17     be cautioned this week before being spoken to --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, I asked you what we should do, and we're

19     now more or less ending up in repeating some of the arguments that were

20     raised.

21             And that is not what I have invited you to do at this very

22     moment.

23             MR. KAY:  Sorry.  I thought Your Honour wanted me to explain my

24     change in position.  I have.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  if you would say it's on

Page 15196

 1     the basis of the discussions we had today, then that is clear enough.

 2             MR. KAY:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic, very short question.  Because we

 4     have to take a break.  What specifically are at this moment the rights

 5     for this witness different from any other witness?

 6             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  In this particular case if is he a suspect, Your

 7     Honour, I think he is entitled to know that he has the right to counsel

 8     and to have that counsel present --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Where do we find the right of counsel for a suspect

10     who appears as witness in court?

11             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I don't think we knew that before the witness

12     testified, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  But I'm asking you where to find that in the

14     Rules.  That the witness testifies under ...

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I would think under the practical circumstances

16     given the fact that he is subject to prosecution in Croatia, he would be

17     entitled to that.  Ans I can't cite a specific rule in our rules right

18     now, Your Honour, but I think under the circumstances, he would be

19     entitled to that.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Anything else?

21             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  No, Your Honour.  Thank you.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  The right to be informed that if any answer would

23     incriminate himself --

24             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes, of course, Your Honour.

25             MR. MISETIC:  I was going to direct you to Rule 90(E), Mr.

Page 15197

 1     President.  The witness would clearly have rights to object and that he

 2     would be given use immunity by the Chamber in that event.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I am aware of those Rules.

 4             We have to take a break now later than we intended to do.

 5             Could the witness be informed that we would like to see him back

 6     after the break, and we'll resume at five minutes past 1.00.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 12.43 p.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 1.11 p.m.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be brought into the courtroom.

10             The Chamber will put a few questions to the witness before we

11     proceed.

12                           [The witness entered court]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lausic, before we continue, I would like to put

14     a few -- before we continue, I'd like to put a few procedural questions

15     to you.

16             A statement was taken, I do understand, in May 2004, a statement

17     which has been video-recorded, and you referred to the recording several

18     times.  You were then assisted by counsel, isn't it?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And then you were informed that this was an

21     interview where you were a suspect.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, you were interviewed again in August 2004.  We

24     see on the cover page that same counsel was present.  Was she present

25     both in May and in August?

Page 15198

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, in August, was -- was explained whether you

 3     still were a suspect or that you would -- were interviewed as a witness.

 4     Has this been explained to you in August?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some time towards the end -- well,

 6     I'm speaking from memory now.  Towards the end of July 2004, I was

 7     contacted by telephone, by my lady lawyer, and she conveyed a message to

 8     me from the OTP from The Hague, that I had been taken off the list of

 9     suspects, and that the Prosecutors were asking for another meeting with

10     me, and they were asking what the right time for that would be, but in a

11     different status, as a witness.

12             At that interview, the transcript that -- the transcript of the

13     interview that I gave as a suspect would be transformed into a witness

14     statement.  I agreed to that.  The time was set, and the investigators

15     came to Zagreb on the mentioned date, and, at the Office of The Hague

16     Tribunal in The Hague in the presence of my lawyer, Mrs. Nika Pinter, I

17     gave a witness statement.

18             This was done in the following way:  The investigators read the

19     transcript in the English version with the assistance of an interpreter.

20     They repeated what was said during my interview, and then, at the end of

21     these two or three days, if I'm not mistaken, of this interview, an

22     English witness statement was compiled, and I signed every page.

23             After August 2004, I had no further contacts with The Hague

24     Tribunal, with the OTP, or with anyone else, all the way up to

25     December --

Page 15199

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll come to December, I take it December 2008.

 2             You just told us that you -- a message was revealed to you that

 3     you were taken off the list of suspects and that was without any

 4     conditions, then, I do understand.  It was not, You have to give a

 5     statement, and then we'll take you off the list of suspects; or was it

 6     just revealed to as a message, You are taken off the list of suspects,

 7     and you're invited to have another meeting.  Were you under any

 8     obligation at the time to have another meeting, or were you, just as I

 9     just said, invited for that other meeting?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, my understanding was that

11     this was my moral obligation, if I can put that way, to come to that

12     meeting.  I did not even put that question to myself as to whether I had

13     to come or whether I didn't have to come.  I simply accepted this as a

14     fact, and I was ready to respond to.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So you were invited, and you responded in the

16     positive.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it from your previous answers that you

19     were not offered anything in return for cooperating or at least meeting

20     again with the investigators?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely correct.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Now we come to December 2008.  I take it, then you

23     were -- could you briefly explain what happened then.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some time after the 10th of

25     December - I don't have the exact date recorded - I received a call

Page 15200

 1     through the interpreter at The Hague OTP, and I was asked to come, on the

 2     17th of December, to the Office of The Hague Tribunal in Zagreb.

 3             Mr. Foster, an investigator, would then hand me over the Croatian

 4     translations of the transcript of the meeting that I had in May 2004 as a

 5     suspect, and a Croatian translation of my witness statement from

 6     August 2004.

 7             At the agreed time, at exactly 1600 hours, I was at the Office of

 8     The Hague Tribunal.  Mr. Foster came, accompanied by a Prosecutor whose

 9     first name was Stefan; I can't remember his last name.  He took this

10     binder out of his bag.  He handed it over to me.  He handed over two CDs

11     as well with the video and audio recordings from May 2004.  He warned me

12     that we could not discuss the case at all.  He said that this was simply

13     a technical hand-over of the documents concerned and the two CDs.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Were you then invited to meet again with them,

15     or was it just that the material was given to you for review?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The material was given to me for a

17     review.  And then last week -- I can't be very specific because I don't

18     have my notes here with me.  Last week I received a telephone call from

19     The Hague OTP, and it was agreed that on the 21st of January, 2009,

20     Mr. Foster accompanied by Prosecutor Tieger would come to Zagreb and then

21     they would go through my witness statement together with me.  I agreed to

22     that.  However, on the 20th of January, a day before they were due to

23     arrive, I was contacted yet again by the OTP.  Again, everything I'm

24     saying takes place through an interpreter, and I was cautioned that this

25     meeting that had been agreed upon for the 21st of January would be

Page 15201

 1     recorded.  There would be an audio and video recording.  I was cautioned

 2     that this was compulsory for The Hague OTP on the basis of Article 42 of

 3     the Rules of Procedure of The Hague Tribunal.

 4             I was told that I have the right to have an attorney present.  I

 5     asked for an opportunity to consult my attorney.  I did indeed consult my

 6     attorney over the telephone, and he cautioned me that Article 42 pertains

 7     to suspects -- suspect interviews, and that this is by no means a form

 8     that was applied in the form of witness interviews.

 9             When I talked to The Hague Tribunal again, I said I that agreed

10     to an interview but without any audio or video recording, and that I do

11     not see any need for my lawyer to be present.

12             After my response to that effect.

13             MR. MISETIC:  Oh, sorry, there it goes.  Thank you.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

15             THE WITNESS:  After my response that effect, again through an

16     interpreter, I was asked to give the telephone number of my lawyer so

17     that the Prosecutions from The Hague would explain to my lawyer why this

18     was necessary.  I said that there was no need for them to establish any

19     contact with my lawyer.  I said that I was sufficiently well versed from

20     a legal point of view with the work and the Rules involved, and that they

21     could explain to me why it was necessary for the lawyer to be there and

22     for a video and audio recording.

23             I was told that there was a possibility of a necessity on the

24     part of the Croatian judiciary for an audio an video recording of this

25     interview of ours where I would be shown some new documents that I would

Page 15202

 1     state my views on.

 2             I refused that kind of interview.  And after that, the gentleman

 3     from The Hague OTP said that there was no need for them to come to Zagreb

 4     and that we would be seeing each other in Court today.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.

 6             Could I ask you, your interview was about -- and your statements

 7     are about what happened in a period before Operation Storm but also about

 8     the time when Operation Storm took place, what functions you had, what

 9     meetings you attended, et cetera.  So it covers the Operation Storm and

10     the pre-Operation Storm period.

11             Was this ever investigated in Croatia, as far as you were aware

12     of, in view of establishing whether you would be a suspect under Croatian

13     law for whatever offence committed in this context?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, before the Croatian

15     judiciary, I was not given any sort of status of suspect in respect of

16     any of the events in Croatia save for one case that was conducted in

17     Croatia against Generals Ademi and Norac, where I appeared as a witness.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  But you were never informed or you never concluded

19     from any circumstance that you would be investigated as a suspect, in

20     relation to these matters; that is, your involvement in your professional

21     capacity in Operation Storm and what preceded that operation.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

24             Mr. Lausic, are you aware that no new indictments can be brought

25     against persons anymore before this Tribunal, apart from -- I have to be

Page 15203

 1     more precise.  No further indictments in cases relating to, well, the

 2     1990s to say so.  So I'm not talking about perjury cases or contempt

 3     cases.  But are you aware that no indictments can be brought anymore

 4     before this tribunal?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.  I am aware

 6     of that.  I have to add to what I said concerning my contacts with

 7     representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor which transpired last

 8     week in respect of their intention to come to Zagreb.  When I opposed the

 9     audio an video recording and the presence of lawyer, they warned me and

10     told me that they could not and would not be issuing an indictment

11     against me.  However, that they had obligations toward the Croatian

12     judiciary in the sense that where certain proceedings would be initiated

13     against me, they would have to have that sort of recording of an

14     interview conducted with me.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you have any concern about investigations or

16     proceedings brought against you in Croatia?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not have any concerns in that

18     respect.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you, when interviewed in 2004, in May,

20     later in August, were your answers ever influenced by any concern you may

21     have had at that time to be prosecuted before this Tribunal or to be

22     prosecuted in Croatia?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To hold the status of a suspect is

24     psychologically speaking, of course, a more difficult position than that

25     of a witness.  By the same token, the degree of concern and preparedness

Page 15204

 1     before giving a statement is different to the situation where one give a

 2     statement as a witness.

 3             I have to say that as a police officer of a long-standing, I

 4     interpreted it as a tactical move on the part of the OTP where in that

 5     first contact with me, they gave me the status of a suspect.  However,

 6     with the same degree of conscientiousness and seriousness were the

 7     answers that I have regardless of whether my status was that of a suspect

 8     or a witness.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So when you testified this morning when we had

10     gone through the August 2004 statement when you said, I gave the answers

11     to the best of my abilities in accordance with the truth, that is valid

12     -- was valid at the time and is valid today.  Is that well understood?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Then having gone through all these details,

15     Mr. Lausic, whatever we discussed, whether you can still be indicted,

16     which is not the case, before this Tribunal, and whether you have any

17     concerns about what might be investigated in Croatia.  You told us that

18     you had no concerns.  But, nevertheless, I inform you that, under the

19     Rules of this Tribunal, that if a question would be put to you and if an

20     answer to that question, a truthful answer to that question, might tend

21     to incriminate you, that you may object against answering that question.

22     That should be clear to you.  I take it that as a policeman you know what

23     I'm saying, that this is the reflection of -- of your right to be

24     protected against forced self-incrimination.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 15205

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  If that is it clear, then, Mr. Tieger, you may

 2     proceed.  We have not much time left, but ...

 3             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4             I should probably begin by tendering 65 ter 7032 into evidence.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the 92 ter statement August 2004.

 6             MR. TIEGER:  Correct.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections.

 8             No objections.

 9             Then Mr. Registrar that would be number?

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P2159, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  P2159 is admitted into evidence.

12             MR. TIEGER:  And similarly for the accompanying --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  May I take it are they put on a list already,

14     and there's, of course, seven documents were added to -- at least you

15     seek them to be added to your 65 ter list.

16             Is there any objection against the seven documents not yet on the

17     65 ter list?

18             Then leave is granted to add any document appearing in your

19     application to add it to the 65 ter list.

20             Then, finally, was there any objections exceeding the word limit

21     as we found it in the motion of the Prosecution?  If not, then permission

22     is granted to that.

23             Is there any objection against admission of any of the documents

24     appearing on -- attached -- appearing in the motion, the 92 ter motion?

25             Then we can prepare the list, and they are admitted into

Page 15206

 1     evidence.  But numbers, of course, still have to be assigned to them.

 2             Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

 3             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4        Q.   Mr. Lausic, P2159, which is the August 1994 [sic] statement

 5     refers at paragraph 19 to the creation of temporary instructions for the

 6     work of the military police units and then again at various paragraphs to

 7     the establishment of the rules on the organisation and work of the

 8     military armed forces.

 9             MR. TIEGER:  I'd like to turn to that document.  That's

10     Exhibit 880 [sic], and if that can be presented to the witness.

11        Q.   Mr. Lausic, you should see the rules governing the structure and

12     operation of the military police of the armed forces of Croatia on the

13     screen right now.  That's P1880.  And I'd like to turn first to

14     Article 9.

15             Now, Article 9 states that:

16             "While performing their regular military police tasks, military

17     police units are subordinate to the commander of the Military District.

18     The commander of the HRM, the Croatian navy; the commander of the HRZ,

19     the Croatian air force; or to the highest HV commander by function in the

20     military police units of operations."

21             And if I can direct your attention to paragraph 28 of the

22     statement.  That is, paragraph 28 of P2159, it states that at item 9 of

23     these rules:

24             "The commanders of the military police units are subordinated in

25     their daily operative command to the commanders of the

Page 15207

 1     Military Districts, to the air force commanders, the navy, or to the

 2     highest commander in their area of responsibility."

 3             Mr. Lausic, I wanted to ask you when you used the term "daily

 4     operative command" in your statement at paragraph 28, did that mean

 5     anything different from the language in Article 9 --

 6             MR. KAY:  Probably best not lead the witness on to the

 7     interpretation of the statement but to ask him what he meant.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  [Microphone not activated].

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm inclined here that -- well, we could start with

10     that, Mr. Tieger, and then later come to any linguistic issues.

11             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13             MR. MISETIC:  If I may make my objection again.

14             The tactic of putting things to a witness and then drawing his

15     attention to something else is in and of itself leading.  I will object

16     now and to the extent that practice is going to continue to be used, it

17     is leading.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  A question without any direction isn't a question

19     anymore.

20             Please proceed, Mr. Tieger, and please keep in mind that you

21     perhaps first ask the witness for an explanation of what he meant, and if

22     there is any need then to further address the linguistic issue, then you

23     are you free to do so.

24             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

25        Q.   Mr. Lausic, referring to paragraph 28 of your statement, what did

Page 15208

 1     you mean when you stated that the commanders of the military police units

 2     are subordinated in their daily operative command to the commanders of

 3     the Military Districts?

 4             Can you clarify and explain that to the Court, please.

 5        A.   Article 9 of the Rules governing the organisation and work of the

 6     military police which is the full title of the rules dating from 1994 --

 7     or, rather, Article 8 states that all units of the military police are

 8     subordinated to the military police administration under the command and

 9     control of the chief of the military police administration.

10             This is implied in Article 8 and that something that was in the

11     course of 1992 and subsequently explained in various instructions, it

12     implies that the administration of the Military Police which is part of

13     the Ministry of Defence in organisational terms and is found in the

14     sector of the security intelligence affairs of the MOD headed by the

15     minister of security in the first instance, and by the minister, himself,

16     in the second instance, was not part of the Main Staff of the armed force

17     of the Republic of Croatia.

18             Article 8 implies that the military police administration shall

19     determine the basis of development of the military police through various

20     specialities and subspecialities, that it shall follow the implementation

21     of any such development, that it shall advance the organisation and

22     structure of the military police, that the military police administration

23     shall develop educational curricula for the training of the military

24     police, that the military police administration shall determine the

25     criteria for the selection of common policemen, non-commissioned and

Page 15209

 1     commissioned officers.  In other words it shall be in charge of the

 2     personnel matters within the administration, that through the personnel

 3     administration of the Ministry of Defence, it shall appoint and relieve

 4     of duty the command cadre, that it shall enforce the control and monitor

 5     the work of the military police, that it shall issue the military police

 6     with the necessary orders and instructions on the tactics aimed at

 7     implying -- at implementing various tasks.  In other words, to command

 8     the units of the military police at a strategic level, with the objective

 9     of achieving a uniform tactics of work and uniform application or

10     implementation of military police powers.

11             Article 9, which reads that while performing regular military

12     police tasks, military police units shall be subordinate to the commander

13     of the Military District, the commander of the Croatian navy, the

14     commander of the Croatian air force, or to the highest Croatian army

15     commander by function in the military police units area of operations

16     means that all these bodies listed in Article 9 within which area of

17     responsibility given military police units are deployed, be it a

18     battalion, company, or a platoon, shall have the power to issue daily

19     operational orders to carry out all the military police tasks falling

20     within the purview of the military police.

21             The subsequent Articles of the rules list the relevant tasks and

22     powers of the military police.

23        Q.   Mr. Lausic, your timing is impeccable.  It is it precisely 1345,

24     the time that Court likes to close.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lausic, we'll adjourn for the day.  I'd like to

Page 15210

 1     instruct you that you should not speak or communicate in any way with

 2     anyone about the testimony, testimony whether given already today or

 3     testimony still to be given in the days to come, and we'd like to see you

 4     back tomorrow, when we're sitting in the afternoon.

 5             We adjourn, and we resume on Tuesday, the 27th of January,

 6     quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, in Courtroom I.

 7                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

 8                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 27th day of

 9                           January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.