Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 19751

 1                           Friday, 3 July 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 7     courtroom.

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

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

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

11     Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.  The Chamber decided that

13     it would start this morning in the absence of the witness because we

14     ended up yesterday two parties fighting about what the document would be

15     or would not be, or what it would demonstrate or not demonstrate.

16             Now, Gotovina Defence apparently knows the document.

17             Ms. Mahindaratne it as well.

18             The witness authored it, apparently.  So he knows -- so everyone

19     knows and the battle starts and the Chamber has no idea yet what we are

20     talking about.

21             So we do it in a different way.  Let's have these documents on

22     the screen and then, Ms. Mahindaratne, you can tell us, first of all,

23     what the document is.  We can look at the date, we can look at the

24     time-frame, we can look at whatever.  And then tell us briefly what you

25     expect the witness could tell us about and what your views on the

Page 19752

 1     document are.

 2             Then if Mr. Kehoe disagrees, then he will certainly be on his

 3     feet and tell you that you're totally wrong, and then finally we'll know

 4     what the issues are and then we can ask the witness about the issues

 5     because he, apparently as the author, knows best.

 6             Could we get these documents we had yesterday, Mr. Registrar.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That would be 65 ter 7320, Mr. Registrar.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And ...

 9             Which is a document presented in an English version, five pages.

10     It is a -- the first page being a letter sent by the witness to the

11     Republic of Croatia state attorney's office in Zagreb, in which he says

12     that he attaches to this letter the requested data for the district state

13     attorney office in Zadar, the municipal state attorney's office in Zadar,

14     and the municipal state attorney's office in Benkovac.

15             That is dated the 30th of August, 2006.  That's --

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, if I may also draw Court's

17     attention to the subject heading; that is, "Documentation Regarding the

18     Criminal Acts in the Storm," it reads.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  "Documentation Regarding the Criminal Acts in

20     the Storm."  I take it -- I'll also have a look at the original.

21             So at least a major difference with the other documents we saw is

22     that they were all contemporaneous and this is a document created only

23     relatively recently.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That's correct Mr. President.  Apart from

25     which, Mr. President, this document contains details --

Page 19753

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll further go to the -- any further comments to

 2     be made in relation to the first page, Mr. Kehoe.  Did we miss anything

 3     which might turn out to be relevant?

 4             MR. KEHOE:  No, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we move to the next page, and I would have a

 6     look at the originals to start with.

 7             Ms. Mahindaratne, what now is -- first of all, let's have a look

 8     at what the columns are.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If I could just state, Mr. President.  This

10     particular chart on page 2, which is only on page 2, is a list of charges

11     filed against known perpetrators by the county state attorney's office in

12     Zadar, and there are seven entries there.  And --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me have a look.  What we have, we have a -- it

14     says chart 1.  We have the -- how it was reported, name of the --

15     personal data of the suspect, description of the offence, place and date

16     on which the offence allegedly was committed, whether there is any victim

17     and injured person, what and when was decided in relation to this, and

18     what finally the decision by the court has been.

19             So these are the columns we have here.

20             Now, Ms. Mahindaratne, you made a selection, apparently, to be

21     translated.

22             First of all, is there a -- the first page says the data you

23     requested in relation to Storm.  Now, is there any -- I noted yesterday

24     that I think I saw that, at least some of the crimes were committed

25     before Storm had started.

Page 19754

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That is correct, Mr. President.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Do we know -- is there any clue, have the parties

 3     any idea were these tables or these charts made at the time that the

 4     latter was created, or was it -- is there any agreement on that or not,

 5     because, otherwise, we'll ask the witness.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  I think that I can -- this particular document was

 7     made after the fact, and it was after the change in jurisdiction.  As the

 8     witness pointed out in his witness statement, there was in 1997 a change

 9     back in jurisdiction.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             MR. KEHOE:  He made these in -- excuse me, 2006, where --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So it was -- my simple question was, is there

13     any agreement on when the chart was made, was that at the time the letter

14     was created.  Apparently 2006 is when the letter was created so the

15     answer is, as far as you are concerned, Mr. Kehoe, that this document was

16     created in 2006.

17             MR. KEHOE:  That's my understanding.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That is my understanding, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Apparently there seems to be no disagreement on

21     that.

22             Now, Ms. Mahindaratne, on what basis -- I mean, we see table 1,

23     we see table 2, where the numbering starts again.  Do we have any idea on

24     the structure of this document?  Every page starts a new numbering

25     system.

Page 19755

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President.  I could explain, actually,

 2     the structure if I'm given just a moment.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, your understanding of the structure.

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yeah, as it is produced on the document,

 5     Mr. President, because when -- at the start of a new table there is a

 6     heading, and that's the basis on which we have translated.  And if I'm

 7     allowed, Mr. President, I could just quickly take you through and it will

 8     be clear then to the Court and the parties how --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  In order to avoid confusion, Ms. Mahindaratne is

10     invited to explain to us how she understands the document.  Whether

11     that's a proper understanding, we'll hear from you, and finally we'll

12     hear from the witness what it's all about.

13             MR. KEHOE:  And, Mr. President on that score, her understanding

14     of the document is irrelevant, and I think should be put to the witness.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but my problem is, Mr. Kehoe, and I hope you

16     understand, that finally we'll find out what the witness can tell us

17     about this document.  The problem is that we start a battle already on

18     matters where the Chamber has no clue whatsoever about what the issue is.

19             So, we're at this moment, the only thing we're doing is trying to

20     find out where there is an issue.  For that purpose, Ms. Mahindaratne is

21     invited --

22             MR. KEHOE:  I understand.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  -- to explain to the Chamber, what, in her

24     understanding, the document is about and how it is structured.

25             Ms. Mahindaratne.

Page 19756

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 2             And Mr. President if you go to page 3, that is the next page.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  3 original or 3 in English?

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  3 original, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  3, I am on the third page in the original, yes.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And, Mr. Registrar, that's the next page.

 7             Now, there, Mr. President that is a new chart, that is chart

 8     number 2 --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  -- which is a list of charges filed against

11     unknown perpetrators by the county state attorney's office in Zadar, and

12     there are 14 entries.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  Is that translated on page 3 of the

14     English as well?

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. -- it is translated on page 2 of the

16     English.  That is, the top chart, which is now on the screen.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  When we are talking about page 2, are you referring

18     to e-court pages or are you referring to --

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  It's on the screen, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But I'm -- yes, sometimes I'm using, okay.

21     That's page 3 in e-court, yes.  List of charges against unknown

22     perpetrators.  And that corresponds, as you said, with the --

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  With page 3 and 4 of the original version.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  3 and 4 of the original.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  There are 14 entries, Mr. President.

Page 19757

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's clear.

 2             So there we have a list of charges filed against unknown

 3     perpetrators.  Then we continue, Ms. Mahindaratne.

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.  On page 5 of the

 5     original.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  5 of the original.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And we remain on the same page as the -- on

 8     the English version.  There is a list of reported incidents to the county

 9     state attorney's office in Zadar.  It says: "KTR," "KR" and "DO."  There

10     are two entries there.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I see that.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  May I move on, Mr. President?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And at page 6, chart number 4 starts, and that

15     would be, Mr. Registrar, the next page on the English version.  There is

16     a translation.

17             That's the top chart there, Mr. President, which is a list of

18     reported incidents to the county state attorney's office and there -- I'm

19     sorry.  It's a list of charges filed against known perpetrators by the

20     municipal state attorney's office in Zadar.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And there are ten entries there.  This is page

23     6 of the original.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  There apparently are, yes.  And then the next.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Next one starts at page seven of the original.

Page 19758

 1     We remain on the same page as the English translation, which is a list of

 2     charges filed against unknown perpetrators by the municipal state

 3     attorney's office in Zadar.  There are 126 entries so this chart goes

 4     from page 7 to page 17 on the original.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So apparently the document tells us the charges

 6     brought by the -- by the various prosecutorial authorities against the

 7     known and unknown perpetrators, county and municipal, known and unknown.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That's correct, Mr. President.  There are also

 9     two more charts, if I could just point it out.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And the sixth chart starts at page 18 of the

12     original.

13             And, Mr. Registrar, if could you move to the next page on the

14     English translation.

15             And that's a list of charges filed against known perpetrators --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the same for Benkovac, known and unknown.

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.  And there you have the

18     sixth charge 277 entries going from page 18 to 35.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And then the last chart starts at page 36,

21     which is against unknown perpetrators, 9 entries, and that is just one

22     page there, the last page.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Do we agree until now what the document is

24     about?  That, at least, this is contained in the document, six portions.

25     Is there any problem with the incomplete translation at this moment?

Page 19759

 1             MR. KEHOE:  No, I --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Because it always lists the first and last one and

 3     we find in between, we find some matters perhaps we could not fully

 4     understand, such as the persons who reported sometimes.  It seems to be

 5     an office rather than a person.  But apart from that, and we have at

 6     least the word "indictment" and we have "judgement."  We might not in

 7     every respect be fully capable of reading all of the document, but the

 8     structure seems to be clear.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I agree that the -- we have read what

10     the document says.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             MR. KEHOE:  We do not agree on its completeness because this is

13     an incomplete document which is why the Gotovina Defence did not use it,

14     in that as the witness noted, his documents prosecuted by the Zadar

15     county attorney was sent to Sibenik in 1997.  When that was brought to

16     our attention, the information in this document -- since it was not

17     complete, we went back to the contemporaneous documents that we'd

18     admitted into evidence.

19             So ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So the question is, one of the issues may be

21     why, in 2006, are there any documents produced which -- well, let's say

22     do not give a complete picture, or do the other documents not give a

23     complete picture?

24             Ms. Mahindaratne, or is it overstated what we find in the

25     contemporaneous documents?  What's the issue.

Page 19760

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, in the contemporaneous

 2     documents, the figures are mere statistics which are not supported;

 3     whereas in this table, if this table was properly examined, one sees that

 4     there are crimes which do not relate to crimes which are committed in

 5     relation to Operation Storm included as such.  What the Prosecution wants

 6     to demonstrate to the Trial Chamber is that when this witness compiles

 7     data as -- and submits as prosecution's conducted by his office in

 8     relation to crimes committed in the aftermath of Operation Storm, he has

 9     included irrelevant cases, such as we saw yesterday, crimes relating to

10     falsifying public document, crimes committed before operation Storm.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  What you say, the activities as presented in the

12     statistical data are not presenting what they pretend to present, which,

13     of course, what we then need to do -- to see whether there is any merit

14     in such a statement, we have to go back to what data are gathered in the

15     one document and what data are gathered in the other document.

16             Now, from what I remember and all the other statistical data

17     where the crimes were set out, I never saw any reference to forgery of

18     documents.  However, the total number was always split up in known

19     offences; that is, 34, I think, it's -- well, so, therefore, then it

20     would not only be including documents but also a kind of a falsification

21     because they are attached to certain types of crimes.  Whereas, you say

22     in these, what we find here, we find different types of crimes.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That is correct, Mr. President.  And apart

24     from that, even where the type of crime comes within the -- the nature of

25     crimes that's relevant to the indictment, I would demonstrate that there

Page 19761

 1     are, for example, there are crimes that comes under Article 34, murder,

 2     which is listed here which in fact are killing incidents which is not

 3     within the scope of these proceedings, which are completely outside.  For

 4     example --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  How do we know that the factual data on which this

 6     report of 2006 is based, whether that is the same set of factual data

 7     which were used to produce the statistics in 1995, 1996,

 8     Ms. Mahindaratne?  How do we know?

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, firstly I wanted to in fact,

10     you know, ask the witness that now this document demonstrate that he, in

11     response to a request from the state attorney for data on crimes

12     prosecuted in relation to Operation Storm, he has sent in 2006 a whole

13     entire list, and if in 2006 his list which he claims to be prosecutions

14     conducted of crimes relating to Operation Storm includes irrelevant data,

15     it's an inference that Court could draw that the statistics provided in

16     1995, 1996, so on, in the absence of the underlying materials supporting

17     such statistics cannot be taken on the face of it.  It's not reliable.

18     That is the point that the Prosecution wants to demonstrate to Court,

19     because at the moment all the material that has been placed before the

20     Trial Chamber is just mere statistics.

21             There are no informations supporting such statistics as it has

22     been done in this table.  And we believe, Mr. President, that this is one

23     of the reasons that this table was not in fact tendered into evidence,

24     because --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  This is suggestion on bad intentions by the other

Page 19762

 1     party, that is to keep away from the Chamber certain information which

 2     may be relevant.  Let's just say that the Prosecution considers it's

 3     relevant to present this material as well, without talking about how bad

 4     the intentions are of the other party.  Maybe good, maybe bad.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  I can actually -- I'd like to --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber finally does not have to determine about

 7     the intentions of the parties, but to have them determine on the basis of

 8     the indictment.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  If I may respond -- [overlapping speakers].

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  One second, I don't know whether

11     Ms. Mahindaratne has already finished.

12             Ms. Mahindaratne.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If I may just point out, Mr. President.  What

14     I wanted to mainly place before the Trial Chamber is that the Defence has

15     not produced, or at least this witness has not produced, a table of this

16     nature supporting the statistics he has provided in the reports, and in

17     the absence of such information the Trial Chamber would not be able to

18     evaluate the relevance or for that matter to figure out if the statistics

19     given by him indeed are related to prosecutions of crimes which are

20     relevant to the indictment.

21             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, if I may, that claim is simply

22     outrageous, and I will say --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I --

24             MR. KEHOE:  I --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, I invited Ms. Mahindaratne to refrain

Page 19763

 1     from qualifications of bad intentions.  If you would say that you

 2     disagree --

 3             MR. KEHOE:  I disagree.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  You disagree.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Respectfully, and if I may add this.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  We have presented to this Chamber what this witness

 8     said is the most accurate contemporaneous assessment of statistics, which

 9     is the statistics from 1995 going into 1996.

10             Now, what he will say if the Prosecution asks is:  Are the

11     documents that you reviewed in 2006 complete, and do they include the

12     files that were shifted and part of the Sibenik district that you lost

13     jurisdiction over in 1997.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So what he will tell us, you expect that the

15     difference could be explained by the borders of jurisdiction had changed

16     and that therefore the data collected at a later stage would not include

17     all of the data, which were gathered in 1995/1996.

18             Ms. Mahindaratne.

19             MR. KEHOE:  And if I may, judge --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MR. KEHOE:  -- with regard to the other crimes that -- such as

22     forgery, et cetera, if Your Honour looked at D1554 as an example, on the

23     last page of that document, and I don't know if Your Honour wants to

24     bring it up, but --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I think if you --

Page 19764

 1             MR. KEHOE:  If I can just tell Your Honour what those other items

 2     are that we didn't go through, there are items such as Article 161, which

 3     is a traffic accident as well as 156.  There's forgery, which is 206.

 4     Article 196, theft of cultural artifacts, Article 344, a violation of the

 5     customs law.

 6             There are any numbers of those articles set forth in that last

 7     page of the exhibit that chronicles some of those items, which of course,

 8     the numbers Your Honours can look at pale in comparison to the theft and

 9     robbery and larceny charges that were detailed on the prior page.  So it

10     is not that this witness overlooked chronicling them, they certainly had

11     very little relevance herein.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, we're now talking about

13     municipal Benkovac, municipal Zadar, and county Zadar.

14             Mr. Kehoe, the contemporaneous reports sent to Mr. Lovric mainly,

15     they covered what exactly, the prosecutorial activities Zadar county and

16     --

17             MR. KEHOE:  And district courts.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  -- municipal.

19             MR. KEHOE:  Municipal courts, yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And municipal courts.  Was Benkovac included?

21             MR. KEHOE:  At that juncture, yes, it was, until 1997.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Benkovac was included.  And the -- yes.

23             Ms. Mahindaratne, this list you are now -- these tables, let me

24     just try to find the total number of charges.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  [Microphone not activated]

Page 19765

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I beg your pardon?

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I could give the total number of charges

 3     Mr. President.  It's, according to this table, it's 445 for all three

 4     offices.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Whereas in the old documents, we had --

 6     because we had already in November 1995, 705.  We have 987 in

 7     February 1996.  And, therefore, what we mainly have to do is to explore

 8     to what extent we're talking about the same set of data.  Because it

 9     would be -- well, to say so, it would be rather stupid to present or to

10     create something in 2006, a couple of hundred, in order to apparently

11     support or give further details, where, in an earlier stage, you already

12     had a number of a thousand people indicted.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, if I may, and perhaps I didn't

14     make myself clear.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  The purpose of this exercise is not to compare

17     that data with the date given in this table but to demonstrate to Court

18     the -- the methodology adopted by this witness in compiling data as

19     prosecutions conducted by his office and his municipal prosecutor's

20     offices.  I wanted to demonstrate, in fact, this table not only with

21     regard to those two entries that we dealt with yesterday but there are

22     several other entries included as prosecutions of crimes relating to

23     Operation Storm, which it meant, in fact, they're not.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  But that's -- okay.  You say the witness, when

25     authoring this document, was imprecise in including documents --

Page 19766

 1     indictments or at least cases not related to Storm.

 2             Now, whether or not a forgery is related to Storm, it depends, I

 3     would say.

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President.  Apart from that --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  -- based on our assessment, in fact, we have

 7     highlighted those entries which are not relevant to the indictment, or

 8     for that matter to Operation Storm, the figures come down by 50 per cent.

 9     That's what we want to demonstrate to Court, that in fact what may be

10     seen as 100 prosecutions, once one goes through with the -- entry by

11     entry, it transpired that in fact the numbers are much less, about 50

12     per cent of the reported numbers.  So given that, it would be -- it's not

13     safe to accept the testimony or the witness's mere statistics in the

14     absence of underlying material supporting those figures.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you say it's --

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  For example, Mr. President if I could just

17     have a minute.

18             There are in fact crimes listed here as those relating to

19     Operation Storm but in fact committed before Operation Storm.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I see your point.  You say that this document

21     created in 2006 raises a lot of questions.

22             Now, you say that -- let's put those questions to the witness,

23     and, because the inference should be, in your view, that, when, in 2006

24     he created tables which raise so many questions, why, and how could we

25     rely on what was created in 1995/1996, where we do not even have an

Page 19767

 1     opportunity to verify.

 2             Is that the issue?

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That is correct, Mr. President.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  That's at least I see what, in your view, the issue

 5     is.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  And as we conduct this examination, the Prosecution

 7     should say that we say, the Prosecution, there's a 50 per cent reduction

 8     in statistics.  Can you account for that 50 per cent reduction in

 9     statistics because those were crimes committed out of the Sibenik-Krajina

10     area and thereby were engulfed in those particular statistics.  Because

11     Your Honour is 100 per cent correct.  We're looking at a different set of

12     statistics as that that which came up in 1995 and that which the

13     Prosecutor wants to put in evidence.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, evidence for the unreliability of the work.

15             MR. KEHOE:  Absolutely.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  -- of the witness.  That's it, Ms. Mahindaratne?

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That's it, Mr. President.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Not more, not less.  Then ...

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber is delighted that it has the impression

21     that it has got now an idea of what we're talking about, which is always

22     good if a chamber also knows what we are talking about.

23             Could the witness be brought into the courtroom.

24             Ms. Mahindaratne, it might be that we -- that we take it step by

25     step.  For example, the first question being:  What data were you

Page 19768

 1     requested to send; perhaps also ask why, in 2006 such data were asked.  I

 2     might put a few questions to the witness first to start with, if you do

 3     not mind.  I'm so delighted that I know what we're talking about --

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Please, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  -- that I'd like to give it some follow-up.

 6                           [The witness takes the stand]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Galovic.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  First of all, our apologies that you had to wait for

10     a while.

11             THE WITNESS:  I understand.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Galovic, I would first like to remind you

13     that you are still bound by the solemn declaration that you gave at the

14     beginning of your testimony.

15             Mr. Galovic, yesterday we saw document, and that's how we

16     concluded yesterday, a document on the screen.

17             Could we have it on the screen again.

18             Can you see it on the screen.

19             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  You sent this letter to the state attorney's office

21     in 2006; is that correct?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you remember what request you received exactly,

24     in response to which you sent this letter and attachment?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is difficult for me to remember

Page 19769

 1     because I sent a great many such reports.  I can conclude from this

 2     document that I only wrote in one line a sentence to the effect that I am

 3     sending information on such and such crimes.

 4             When they sent letters from the ministry and the state attorney's

 5     office, and I'm quite sure that it was the state attorney's office

 6     general that sent on letters to lower level state attorney's offices,

 7     they rarely specified what exactly it was that they were after.  They

 8     said that they were interested in crimes related to Storm and that was

 9     it.

10             So what we could do was to look into the registers, find the

11     relevant information, and include it in our letters.  What I can tell you

12     with certainty is that all the data included in such letter is correct.

13             Now, what can be concluded or observed or gleaned from the data,

14     in my view, not much.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll take it step by step --

16             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  -- if you would not mind.

18             So you don't remember what exactly was requested when you sent

19     this, and you say this was quite common, that the requests for

20     information were not very specific.  Is that -- okay.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely so.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, nevertheless, specific or not, you sent this

23     set of data.

24             Now, we looked at other documents, contemporaneous reports you

25     sent at the time.  We have seen quite a number of them.  Looking at them,

Page 19770

 1     we see indictments brought after approximately half a year after

 2     Operation Storm already, a thousand; whereas, in this document, where the

 3     attachment covers apparently the prosecutorial activity of the county and

 4     municipal attorney's office in Zadar and the municipal state attorney's

 5     office in Benkovac, all together go, well, let's say, in the 400

 6     approximately.

 7             Could you explain to us why we find in this document a number

 8     which is -- apart from further details, but overall is less than half of

 9     what we find in the other documents?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can, and quite simply.  Knin is

11     not included here because it was transferred under the jurisdiction of

12     Sibenik, and Knin constituted or covered the highest number of such

13     incidents.  In other words, Sibenik, having got Knin under its

14     jurisdiction now, continued keeping records in relation to Knin.

15             If you included in this number the data related to Knin, you

16     would arrive at the figure I mentioned.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You say the territorial scope is different,

18     which explains for a difference in the total numbers.

19             Now, in the letter, it refers to criminal acts in Storm.

20             In the data, we find several offences listed which allegedly had

21     been committed prior to Operation Storm.  Could you explain the apparent

22     discrepancy between the title, the subject as mentioned in the letter,

23     and the appearance of crimes which are -- or offences which were

24     committed prior to Storm?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is evidently an error.  The

Page 19771

 1     error is either in the date of the commission of the crime or the error

 2     was committed by someone in the municipal state attorney's offices.

 3             One has to keep in mind the fact that the data was collected in a

 4     very short period of time, and due to the speed with which one had to

 5     proceed, errors could have inadvertently have been made, and that's the

 6     only explanation I can provide for it.

 7             Let me also add that this is largely due, also, to the fact that

 8     the request for data was highly imprecise.  I am still not quite clear on

 9     what offences related to Storm actually means.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for those answers.

11             Ms. Mahindaratne, I indicated that I would put a few questions

12     first.  It's your witness.  Please proceed.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Of course, it's not your witness.  But you are

15     examining -- cross-examining the witness at this moment.

16             Please proceed.

17                           WITNESS:  IVAN GALOVIC [Resumed]

18                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

19                           Cross-examination by Ms. Mahindaratne: [Continued]

20        Q.   Now, Mr. Galovic, when you compiled the statistics that were

21     reported in the documents that were submitted yesterday, did you prepare

22     a table such as this or some kind of work product which listed out the

23     cases, specific cases, which supported your statistics?

24        A.   There was no need for something of this sort.  We extracted all

25     the data from the registers, which are regularly kept.  All the data is

Page 19772

 1     verifiable.  You can check it today in the relevant registers.  Tables

 2     were produced as well, not of this kind.  It depended on what sort of

 3     information was requested.

 4             If you're asking me about what we looked at yesterday, I will

 5     tell you how it is that I interpret the data.  From the data you showed

 6     me yesterday, one cannot glean much.  You can see what sort of workload

 7     lay in the hands of prosecutor's offices.  The register -- or the record

 8     I kept for the purposes of the ministry is much better, because the

 9     individual charged with these matters in ministry had originally come

10     from a prosecutor's office, and he knew what sort of information is

11     helpful for specific -- in situations.

12             Let me illustrate this.  If you have data according to months,

13     then, in addition to the workload, you can also see what sort -- what

14     type of criminality was most frequent, what sort of criminality had to be

15     prevented the most, in this way you can also organise your work and know

16     where to focus, what to focus on.  Collecting data is only a mechanical

17     process.

18        Q.   Mr Galovic, I'm just trying to find out the manner in which you

19     compiled the statistics you reported.

20             Now here we have a table, a chart, you have prepared based on

21     which one can easily gather the numbers, figures.  Now, yesterday you

22     reported, you know, in different reports number of statistics.  Now,

23     surely in order to get those figures your office and your municipal

24     prosecutor's offices would have gone through a process in extracting the

25     information from the registers.  Now, can you explain to us how exactly

Page 19773

 1     were the information extracted and where was it recorded?  In what

 2     manner?  That's what I'm asking you.

 3        A.   I think I answered this question already but I will repeat it.

 4             As you say yourself, we had the information in our registers and

 5     the information was simply copied from the registers.  The clerks in the

 6     office did that job.  I would tell them what the period of time sought

 7     is, and what type of crime ought to be extracted.

 8             The next stage is that the information is collated.  The clerk

 9     makes another check of the accuracy of information, if necessary, and the

10     information is forwarded.

11        Q.   Now, you just said you, in fact, instructed the clerks about

12     the -- what -- what -- let me just say exactly what you said.  Extracted

13     information on this.  Now, you instructed them on the time.

14             Now what time-frame did you tell -- instruct the clerks to -- to

15     extract the information for?  What was the given time-frame?  Did you

16     say, Give me the -- the statistics of crimes prosecuted for this specific

17     time-frame?  What was the time-frame?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, we have seen many reports with all

19     of them their own time-frame.  Sometimes one month, sometimes anything

20     after Operation Storm.  So, unless -- I mean, I'm asking myself -- I take

21     it that if you are preparing for statistics on a specific month that you

22     instruct to collect the data for that month.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Very well Mr. President, I will specify --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And the other one sometime it was cumulative for a

25     longer period of time.

Page 19774

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 2        Q.   Now we'll take your first report, D1554.

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And before I move off this document,

 4     Mr. President, may I tender this document into evidence?

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President I have no objection of it in that --

 6     excuse me -- actually, the Croatian going in, of course, is not a full

 7     translation.  I don't know how Your Honour wants to handle that.  But in

 8     theory, we have no objection.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I think in view of the evidence given by this

10     witness, if the parties could live with an incomplete translation,

11     because it seems to me that what, in view of the evidence, seems to be

12     relevant of this document, is sufficiently accessible for

13     English-speaking persons.

14             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, you convinced me, so we have no

15     objection.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Same is true for the other Defence teams.

17             Mr. Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2568.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

20             Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

22             Mr. Registrar, if I could have D1554.

23        Q.   Now, Mr. Galovic, first of all, let's look at your report

24     compiled for October 1995.

25             Now, the figures given in this report --

Page 19775

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if you could go, Mr. Registrar, to the

 2     next page.

 3        Q.   If you take as an example, there's a record of criminal files

 4     being raised against 305 persons under Article 126.

 5             Now, this relates to what period?  When you instructed your

 6     clerks what did you tell them?  To give you statistics of crimes

 7     committed for which period?

 8        A.   The preamble specifies this.  It relates to a month.  I don't

 9     know which specific month it states here in the document.  But this is

10     what the document states in the preamble.

11        Q.   Now, when -- now, you today, in relation to the previous

12     document, you said even today you don't understand what it means by

13     crimes related to Operation Storm.

14             Now, what type of crime did you --

15             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Mr. President.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, could you refer to where it says

17     "related to Operation Storm."

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Because the testimony yesterday was, rather, in

20     terms of time --

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President I'm referring to testimony

22     today.  The witness just said this.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But that was about the 2006 documentation.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.  I hadn't finished my

25     question.

Page 19776

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes.  Please finish your question.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 3        Q.   Now, when you compiled these statistics, did you have an

 4     understanding as to what type of crimes you were supposed to look at?

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Are we talking about 1995?

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, 1995.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 9        Q.   In 1995 when you compiled these statistics, were you specifically

10     focussing on a type of crime as those related to Operation Storm?

11        A.   By all mean, yes.  However, the primary criterion was the

12     liberated territory; in other words, offences committed at the time in

13     the liberated territory and the time-period being that one month,

14     depending on which period was being queried.  And all the offences which

15     were -- to which the municipal courts in Benkovac, Knin, Donji Lapac,

16     Gracac, and the municipal court in Zadar were put on notice of, these are

17     the subject-matter jurisdiction courts.  You see, the courts at the time

18     had that subject-matter jurisdiction only for offences which carried a

19     sentence of maximum of five years.  But let me not tire you with this

20     information.

21             The criterion was the crimes committed in the liberated territory

22     and falling under the jurisdiction of these courts.  This was the request

23     we received.

24        Q.   Now, in saying "crimes," going by this document, we can see you

25     have focussed on crimes against property and crimes against persons.  Did

Page 19777

 1     you instruct your subordinate officers to focus on the type of -- for

 2     example, if you say crimes against property -- crimes against persons, if

 3     it's a killing incident, that the victims should be -- should be members

 4     of the Serb population, or did you take on board killing incidents in

 5     relation to all persons in that area of responsibility?

 6        A.   You have that information there.  Murder is listed first.

 7     Criminal offences against life and limb.  Every report started with that

 8     heading first.

 9        Q.   Mr. Galovic --

10        A.   I did not focus on crimes against property.

11             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, excuse me.  The witness has got to

12     complete the answer before he's being interrupted.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  But the witness was not answering my question.

15     That's why I tried to focus him to my question, Mr. President.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I got the impression that you had put this question

17     to him already yesterday.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And he didn't answer, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, let's -- [overlapping speakers].

20             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, enough with the commentary.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  What Ms. Mahindaratne would like to know,

22     apparently, is whether in reporting and presenting statistical data,

23     whether any distinction was made as to the ethnicity of the victims.

24     That appears to be the question.  Could you answer that question?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, not.  I don't understand

Page 19778

 1     the question.  I said so yesterday.  Of course, no attention was paid to

 2     that.  Murder is murder.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, irrespective of the ethnicity or the victim.

 4     And they were all reported and there was no distinction.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Irrespective of that.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 8        Q.   Now, in relation to the cases of theft that's reported, was there

 9     any distinction made as to what type of theft should be taken on board,

10     should be considered in compiling the data, or were all crimes of theft

11     prosecuted by your office and the municipal prosecutor's offices during

12     the period taken on board?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, could I perhaps make the question

14     a bit more precise.  You said whether all crimes of theft were

15     prosecuted.

16             Were all crimes of theft that were reported prosecuted without

17     any distinction?

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President.  That was not my question.

19     My question was, whether in providing the statistics.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Do the statistics include all crimes of thefts

22     which were prosecuted, without drawing a --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, okay.  Fine.  Now I understand your question.

24             In these statistics you presented in 1995, were all prosecutions

25     for all crimes of theft included?

Page 19779

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Now, if I could go back to the previous chart,

 3     Mr. Registrar - I did not note down the exhibit number - P2568.

 4             And if we could move to page 2, Mr. Registrar, of the -- the

 5     original version.

 6        Q.   Now, Mr. Galovic, I want to draw your attention to entry number 1

 7     there.  There is a killing incident reported there, in relation to one

 8     Milos Mrkic, who is the accused and the victim is reported as Sava Mrkic.

 9             Now we in fact -- now this is reported as a killing incident

10     prosecuted by your office in relation to Operation Storm, and this report

11     is in -- filed in 2006.

12             Now, we examined the corresponding crime file, and in fact this

13     is what we found --

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if we could bring up document

15     7325.

16        Q.    -- and there, there are the details of the accused in the first

17     paragraph there.  And the crime is reported in second paragraph, if I

18     would read to you.

19             "As 5th August 1995 at about 1800 hours in Karin Donji in a house

20     where, from the Maslenica operation, he lived with his wife Sava, who was

21     unable to move, after the Croatian military police forces having

22     liberated" -- you know, it goes on "... he set off a hand grenade with

23     the intention to kill himself and his wife Sava, who was lying on bed in

24     spite of her attempts to dissuade him."

25             Now, the killing incident you reported as a prosecution relating

Page 19780

 1     to Operation Storm there in that chart.  It's a killing incident, it's an

 2     attempted suicide, and it's the husband killing the wife.

 3             Now, this is what I tried to ask you:  In compiling your

 4     statistics, you said you did not differentiate, make a distinction on the

 5     basis of who the -- the victim was.  So in the absence of underlying

 6     material supporting your statistics, the Trial Chamber would not be able

 7     to evaluate the relevance of those statistics to this indictment.

 8             Are you able to provide the Trial Chamber --

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Mr. President, I object to the commentary

10     by counsel.  If counsel has a question, that's fine.  Commentary about

11     she believes is irrelevant.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President I can --

13             MR. KEHOE:  No, you can't.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  There are two basic rules, the one being,

15     Ms. Mahindaratne, that you do not include comments in your question.  You

16     may put a leading question in cross-examination, there's no problem with

17     that.  But you can't first give your comments.  And the second basic

18     rule, is that this Chamber decides on what can be done and what cannot be

19     done and not be objected.

20             MR. KEHOE:  My apologies, Mr. President, to the Chamber.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

23        Q.   Now, Mr. Galovic, first let me suggest to you that in the absence

24     of and the underlying material, your statistics cannot be evaluated as

25     being relevant to this indictment.  Now, are you able to?

Page 19781

 1             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Mr. President, that is -- I object to the

 2     commentary.

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Very well, Mr. President.  First let me

 4     just --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, you're doing exactly the same as

 6     you did before.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I apologise, Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And, well, at least Mr. Kehoe learned that the

 9     Chamber decides, so the second basic rule has now been observed.  The

10     first basic rule we expect you to observe in the question you'll put to

11     the witness.

12             Please proceed.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

14        Q.   Mr. Galovic, are you able to provided material or information

15     such as that you provided in your table here, that we've just gone

16     through, to the Trial Chamber so that we can evaluate your statistics?

17     Are you able to provide that material to the Trial Chamber?

18        A.   I can provide you with all the material.  All the material I have

19     I can send to The Hague.  I have done that several times already.  I

20     don't know what is in dispute.  I don't know which are the materials or

21     documents that are being challenged.  In connection with this case, I can

22     provide with you all the materials, either from the state attorney's

23     office or from the Court file that I can get again possession of.  If

24     that is the problem.

25             Am I understanding you properly?

Page 19782

 1        Q.   Mr. Galovic, the problem is we do in fact have the material and

 2     we tried to find corresponding materials supporting your statistics.  But

 3     what we have obtained so far from Croatia do not support your statistics.

 4     Do you have --

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, excuse me.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, this has caused more or less, as a matter of

 7     fact, Mr. Galovic, you -- apart from answering the question, you also

 8     asked yourself what the issue was and why what you had done until now was

 9     not sufficient, and then Ms. Mahindaratne responded to that, which is a

10     bit out of the scope of the examination of a witness.  So it's

11     understandable that Ms. Mahindaratne responded to what you said.  But

12     she'll now put her next question to you.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

14        Q.   Now, first and foremost, can you tell me what type of material

15     can you provide to support your statistics that you provided yesterday?

16     Are you able to provide crime files?

17        A.   In principle, yes.  It's an enormous undertaking because some of

18     those data are in Knin, some in Gospic and Gradacac, some in Benkovac,

19     some in Zadar, some even in Karlovac, but it is possible.  If the entries

20     are not sufficient, then I don't see that should be any problem for us to

21     collect all this information that you are requesting and provide you with

22     it.  There's no problem there.  I simply couldn't make up these figures

23     and data.  The data are as they are.  Whatever you wish, you can obtain,

24     but I must caution you - and I've already said that several times - that

25     they are dispersed, the data has been dispersed after the change of

Page 19783

 1     jurisdiction to several state attorney's offices.  That is why some

 2     things do not coincide.  But each of them individually are precise and

 3     correct, because there's the number of reports of the police.  There's a

 4     date, there's the name of the person, there is the act, there is the

 5     actual crime, and whichever data you request, I can provided you with

 6     within a reasonable period of time.

 7        Q.   Are you able to provide us with the work product or the tables

 8     that may have been produced in compiling the statistics?  For example, in

 9     extracting the data from the registers, your clerks may have surely made

10     a record.  Are you able to provide us with that record?

11             MR. KEHOE:  If I may get some clarity.  Are we talking about the

12     1995 statistics or 2006?

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

14        Q.   1995 statistics.

15        A.   It's quite a long time ago, but you will be surprised by my

16     answer.  Not much but some, yes.  The data written by hand which were

17     later included in this report, I do have them.  I have such data.

18        Q.   And --

19        A.   For these monthly reports sent to the ministry and tables that

20     accompanied them.

21        Q.   So you do have tables, such as the table that we saw a little

22     while ago, supporting your statistics which you could provide to the

23     Trial Chamber.  Is that what you're saying?

24        A.   In a sense, yes.  They're not identical tables.  The tables

25     differ, depending on what you wish to show by a table.  The table I'm

Page 19784

 1     referring to for this period you can see the quantity of files received

 2     and what happened later with those files, the process that was

 3     undertaken, the indictments issued and so on.  But I'm sorry, I don't

 4     understand.  If you have this report, is this checking the data?  Fine.

 5     I do have a part of that, and I can send them to you.  In fact, the part

 6     referring to these data could be sent to you in a short period of time.

 7     You will receive pages written by hand and how those data were extracted

 8     and transformed into this report.  This is the logical sequence of

 9     events.

10        Q.   And do those documents refer to the -- the crime files, the

11     corresponding crime files, so that we be able to undertake an evaluation

12     vis-a-vis your entries in the manner that you have done with your table

13     that was just produced.

14        A.   Let me see.  If you wish to do a complete check, then it would be

15     best for you to ask me whether I can provide the original files and they

16     contain everything.  Then I'll obtain the entire file, either from the

17     court, or my own, if I have it, and I will forward them to you.  Because

18     those files were formed after the state attorney's office in the court,

19     if there were -- there was an indictment.  And those documents must be

20     part of the file and there can be no dispute about that.

21        Q.   Very well, Mr. Galovic.  I --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, the Chamber wonders this is the

23     right time and the right place to explore further investigative

24     facilities that may exist where the Chamber expects you to cross-examine

25     the witness further.

Page 19785

 1             Could you please proceed.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.  Thank you.

 3        Q.   Now, Mr. Galovic, in your chart that we just saw, you note the

 4     source of your report, the body that has reported the incident to your

 5     office.  And that would be -- that's indicated in column 2, the column 1

 6     refers to numbers.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And, Mr. Registrar, if I could have P -- I

 8     give the 65 ter number.  7320.  That was exhibit number P2568.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  2568.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, counsel.

11             And if you could go to the next page, Mr. Registrar.

12        Q.   In column 1 -- I'm sorry, column 2, you record the -- the source

13     of the criminal report.  And we note that in most of the entries you

14     record the source as a police station, and you also indicate the KU

15     number.

16             Now, isn't it correct that when a police station initiates an

17     investigation, that matter is recorded in their own crime registers and a

18     KU number is assigned?

19        A.   That is so.  That is precisely this number that appears here.

20     Those are the KU numbers.

21        Q.   Likewise, if you, as a state prosecutor, request the police to

22     undertake an investigation, the police would then record that matter in

23     their own crime registers.  This is apart from registration in your own

24     books.  They would be recorded in the crime registers of the police

25     station which would be given a KU number; isn't that correct?

Page 19786

 1        A.   Partially.  Because the KU number is the number of the criminal

 2     report.  There are various numbers, because every processing doesn't end

 3     with a criminal report.

 4             I can't tell you exactly how the police numbers its documents,

 5     but if I asked the police to conduct an inquiry, then, certainly, that is

 6     recorded with a reference to my own number on the letter addressed to

 7     them, for them to be able to respond to that same request.

 8        Q.   So if the police conducts an investigation, that matter would be

 9     essentially registered in the police crime registers; isn't that correct?

10     Please, I'm saying in addition to records maintained by your office.

11        A.   Let me correct myself.  The police never conducts an

12     investigation.  Maybe there's an error in the translation.

13             The police either acts independently or upon instructions from

14     us, and they process the case.  They conduct inquiries, and when they

15     establish that there is ground to suspect that a criminal act has been

16     committed, and if the perpetrator is known, then a criminal report is

17     filed with this -- such a number.

18             If they establish that there was a crime committed and they

19     haven't discovered the perpetrator, then it figures under a different

20     number as a report against an unknown person.  All this is registered.

21     They have their own register and the state attorney's office has their

22     own register.  We have our own records and they have their own, referring

23     to the same problems, the same issues.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, we have a procedural matter to

25     be raised.  I note the time, so perhaps the witness --

Page 19787

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then perhaps we already ask Madam Usher to

 2     escort Mr. Galovic out of the courtroom.

 3             We'll have a break, Mr. Galovic.  We'd like to see you back after

 4     the break.

 5             Ms. Mahindaratne.  Oh, Mr. Hedaraly.

 6             MR. HEDARALY:  Good morning, Mr. President.  Thank you.

 7             The issue we'd like to put on the record is with respect to

 8     expert reports from the Defence.  I note the reference in the transcript

 9     at 17977 on 3 June where we were told we were going to receive the bulk

10     of expert reports within two weeks.  We've had discussion with counsel

11     about this on an ongoing basis.  Last week, we asked for -- to get all

12     the reports by 30 June.  As the Chamber knows so far, we have received

13     two expert reports:  The experts of Mr. Cross and the expert report of

14     Mr. Corn.  We have not received any other expert reports.

15             Given the Defence's announcement that they will close their case

16     in the first or second week of September, that reduces the time left for

17     us to prepare for any other experts.  Also the recess is coming so many

18     of our staff will be missing.  In all fairness to Mr. Kehoe, we have

19     discussed the matter with him several times.  He informed us - and he

20     will correct me if I'm wrong - there are two additional expert reports

21     that we may get but that he is waiting for an English translation.

22             Given the late nature now as the Defence case is essentially has

23     three weeks before the recess and two or three weeks after, we would

24     really need disclosure of these report if experts will be called right

25     after the break just so that we can prepare adequately.  For example,

Page 19788

 1     Mr. Corn's report we received like literally 30 days before he is

 2     supposed to testify, or 31 days, and part of this process of negotiating

 3     and asking in June and the agreement to give us in advance was the

 4     understanding that sometimes more time than 30 days is necessary for

 5     these reports.

 6             So if we can just put that on the record and have a date by which

 7     we can be certain we will get reports for any experts that will be called

 8     in the Defence case.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

10             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.  With regard to the report, I

11     think counsel misspoke.  That's not Mr. Corn's, that's General Cross'

12     report.  I think that that's just clarifying that last bit.

13             General Cross will testify before the break.  Any other expert

14     that we have, such as we provided Professor Corn's expert.  He is not

15     going to testify until September.

16             The other issue is General Jones.  He likewise will not testify

17     till after the break, but his report will be done imminently; and

18     imminently I have within the next few days, the early part of next week

19     the latest I believe.

20             The one problematic report that I talked to Mr. Hedaraly about

21     which he gracefully had mentioned was a report that I got from an expert

22     that literally is somewhere in the area of 60 to 70 pages in Croatian

23     we'll have with attachments, which we are vigorously trying to translate.

24     To be frank with you, Your Honour, I haven't been able to read it myself,

25     and we are, I will tell you, putting all hands on trying to get this

Page 19789

 1     translated so we can put it to some use.

 2             And I will tell you, Mr. President, that it will not be used

 3     prior to the break.  I mean, we will, of course, not put it in until --

 4     till the -- well, after the break.  I mean, we can gladly give it to them

 5     in Croatian now.  Out of respect of colleagues, I know they don't speak

 6     Croatian either, so that's we've been vigorously trying to get it

 7     translated.  But that's where we are with regard to that report and

 8     that's fueled from Mr. Pokaz.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  The Jones report.

10             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me?

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The Jones report.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Next week, Tuesday?  You said a couple of days.

14             MR. KEHOE:  If I may.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  It's Friday morning.

16                           [Defence counsel confer]

17             MR. KEHOE:  My problem, and I know this is not something that

18     is -- my problem right now is this the 4th of July weekend in the United

19     States and people are out and about, so if I can have till Thursday and I

20     will get it by then.

21             Again, he will not be testifying until after the break.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thursday, and no testimony before the recess.  Is

23     that?

24             MR. HEDARALY:  Well, it --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm just talking the Jones report.

Page 19790

 1             MR. HEDARALY:  It doesn't look like we have choice, Mr.

 2     President, in this matter.  I mean, we're told that the bulk of the

 3     reports we'll get by mid-June.  Now we're mid-July we've received two.  I

 4     mean, I understand there is some problems but that is what the Chamber

 5     told us, and we were instructed to raise the matter and we tried to

 6     discuss the matter over and over and we asked for 30 June, and we

 7     understand that there are obviously problems associated with it.  But, it

 8     is getting harder and harder to prepare.  I know it's after the recess,

 9     but during the recess a lot of our team will not be here either.  So

10     we're talking about, if we get it next week, two weeks before the recess,

11     and two weeks after the recess, gives us four weeks - maybe one or two in

12     the middle.  It's just -- and then if we get other expert reports that

13     got to get translated, then we will end up with three, four, five expert

14     reports, and we'll have a --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I was not inviting a re-start of the discussion

16     because it is clear what's bothering the Defence and I'm just ...

17             Mr. Kehoe you said the early part of next week.  That's Thursday

18     for you?

19             MR. KEHOE:  Well.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  That's a different approach of what a week is.

21             MR. KEHOE:  I forgot about the 4th of July weekend which

22     Mr. Cronin, my colleague reminded me of.  Mr. President, if I could

23     say -- but, I mean, and I'm trying to get this information to the

24     Prosecution as quickly as possible.  I mean, we did receive addendums to

25     two reports less than or for 30 days prior to.  For instance, Mr. Konings

Page 19791

 1     testified.  But that's neither here nor there.  I am trying to get this

 2     report to them as soon as possible.  I will tell the Chamber with regard

 3     to General Jones' report, we are talking about somewhere 12 to 14 pages

 4     tops.  This is not some magnum opus for the OTP to get their mind around,

 5     so I think that is -- it's going to be quite terse.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, you consider the specific circumstances

 8     that exist in the United States these days.  Let me then also pay

 9     attention to the time difference between the United States.  In the

10     United States they can work on it for the whole of the Wednesday, which

11     means that the time limit is set at Thursday morning, 9.00.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  For the Jones report.

14             Now the other one.  What's the size of the other report?  You

15     haven't read it, but you have weighed it, I take it.

16             MR. KEHOE:  I have weighed it, Mr. President, and it is --

17     frankly, it was -- in Croatian it was 60 to 70 pages.  I mean, it was

18     double-spaced, but it's still pretty lengthy.  I was -- we are feverishly

19     getting any number of people attempting to translate it.  And I will tell

20     in all candid --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  When did you receive it?

22             MR. KEHOE:  I think the early part of last week.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Early part and late part of weeks is --

24             MR. KEHOE:  I do believe I was told about last [overlapping

25     speakers].

Page 19792

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... Friday or?

 2             MR. KEHOE:  Well, I think I was told about a week of last Monday

 3     or Tuesday, one of those days.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  What portion has been translated.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  I'd have to check, Mr. President.  I can find that

 6     out at the break of how much has been translated.  If we can -- just my

 7     colleague can send an e-mail back to the Zagreb office and the people in

 8     Zagreb who are translating it and see how much we have.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Is the structure of the report such that you can

10     identify, well, let's say general conclusions or I have got no idea what

11     the report is, but sometimes you can start translating conclusions and

12     then go to the details later, or leave out the footnotes for the time

13     being so that you prepare, first of all, the body of the -- I'm trying to

14     find a way in which --

15             MR. KEHOE:  I do believe there are conclusions and we can refocus

16     and get conclusions on the various areas.  There is a structure.  Again,

17     this is what has been told me.  There are individual conclusions in that

18     structure, and we can provide those.  I just have to -- if can just send

19     an e-mail during the break, and hopefully by the next break we can have

20     more concrete information on that.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Of course, it's not a way out for the problem.

22     It's just a practical approach that if, for example, you tell us that it

23     would take you another ten or 14 days to have it translated, that we

24     would suggest to you, that already to, in the sequence translation, that

25     you might even gain some advantage by giving priority to certain parts of

Page 19793

 1     the report.  It's certainly not to offer you a way out that more time

 2     could be used for the translation.

 3             The Chamber would like to be informed about when you would expect

 4     to be able to provide a translation, and also what has been translated

 5     over the last ten days, because you apparently are in possession of this

 6     report now for ten days.  You were in an ongoing discussion with

 7     Mr. Hedaraly on timely production of a -- of an expert report.

 8     Therefore, the Chamber would like to know what has been done over the

 9     last ten days to -- and then we'll further deal with the matter.

10             Any other issue, Mr. Hedaraly?

11             MR. HEDARALY:  If I could just confirm that these are the only

12     additional reports we'll be getting; those two?

13             MR. KEHOE:  Just those two.  I do have one matter that

14     Mr. Hedaraly raised yesterday, and I'm glad that Mr. Hedaraly MFI'd those

15     two documents, because I honestly don't recall what they were, but we

16     have reviewed those documents and have no objection.  Whatever those two

17     documents were exactly --

18             MR. HEDARALY:  That's P2566 and P2567.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  And can you remind us what these documents are,

20     because they were bar tabled.

21             MR. HEDARALY:  They were bar tabled Mr. Waespi at the end, but

22     the testimony of witness Bilic, which were documents about the -- parts

23     of the documents of the whereabouts of the 15th Home Guard Regiment,

24     which the witness was part of.

25             MR. KEHOE:  That's correct.  And an order and the whereabouts;

Page 19794

 1     that's right.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Registrar, the -- P2566 and P2567 are

 3     admitted into evidence.

 4             We will have a break and resume at five minutes past 11.00.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 10.44 a.m.

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

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 9             Mr. Registrar, may I have document number 4460, please.  That's a

10     65 ter a number.

11        Q.   Mr. Galovic, isn't it correct that you met with delegates of the

12     Amnesty International during 1997, 1998?

13        A.   I did meet with them a great many times.  I don't remember

14     exactly when, but I did meet with representatives of various

15     international organisations.

16        Q.   And the principal purpose of those meetings were to discuss

17     prosecutions conducted by your offices in relation to crimes committed in

18     relation to Operation Storm; isn't that correct?

19        A.   No, not just that, but that was included.

20        Q.   And you discussed the statistics and prosecutions conducted by

21     you with -- with those delegates; isn't that correct?

22        A.   Probably, yes.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if you could move to the

24     English translation, page -- this is the English -- it's the original.

25     Page 23, and the Croatian translation page 24.

Page 19795

 1             And in the English I'm referring to the first paragraph, which is

 2     continuation from the previous page.

 3        Q.   Mr. Galovic, do you see that paragraph where it's recorded:

 4             "The prosecutors in many relevant courts were reluctant or

 5     refused to meet with Amnesty International delegates visiting Croatia in

 6     May 1998 without express permission of the Ministry of Justice.  However,

 7     the organisation was able to meet with the prosecutors handling most of

 8     the cases of killings committed in former Sector South, the Zadar and

 9     Sibenik county courts?"

10             And then it's footnoted, footnote number 12 reads:

11             "In late March 1998, changes to the borders of the Zadar and

12     Sibenik counties went into effect which transferred many municipalities

13     which had been in Zadar county to Sibenik county, including Knin and many

14     others in former Sector South.  As a result, ongoing criminal cases also

15     were transferred from the responsibility of the Zadar county prosecutor

16     and court to the Sibenik county prosecutor and court.  As a result, the

17     dust has been blown off several outstanding cases, which are now coming

18     to trial in the Sibenik court [sic]."

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if we could move to the next page, page

20     24.  And in the Croatian version, page 24.

21             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I'm advised that the witness can't see

22     the footnote or hadn't -- hadn't scrolled down on the B/C/S to see the

23     footnote.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

25        Q.   Do you see that footnote, Mr. Galovic?  It's right at the top?

Page 19796

 1        A.   Yes, I see it.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Were you able to follow what was -- what

 3     Ms. Mahindaratne was reading?

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if we move to the Croatian version, focus

 6     on the paragraph right at the bottom, page 24.  And in the English

 7     version, paragraph 2, in page 24.

 8        Q.   It reads:

 9             "Despite the Croatian authorities assurances that instructions

10     had been given to ... relevant courts to pursue prosecutions from

11     Operation Storm as a matter of priority ... Amnesty International can

12     find no indications that in fact this was the case.  Some cases where

13     indictments had been issued in 1995 or early 1996 were transferred to the

14     Sibenik county court without a trial date ever having been set.  The case

15     of two former soldiers accused of rape noted above being one such example

16     (the indictment was issued in December 1995).  Another example is a trial

17     for the killing of Andja and Draginja ... which began in Sibenik in

18     May 1998, although the indictment had been filed by the Zadar county

19     prosecutor in September 1996 - that would have been one of the two cases

20     for which the authorities supplied information that an individual was

21     under investigation in June 1996."

22             Mr. Galovic, this is a report about activities of your office.

23     Now, isn't this report accurate, your -- the indictments you filed in

24     fact were not taken out for trial until the cases were transferred to the

25     Sibenik prosecutor's office; isn't that correct?

Page 19797

 1             Did you hear me, sir?

 2        A.   Yes, yes, I understand.  You want me to tell you what is stated

 3     in the report of Amnesty International, for me to interpret it my own

 4     way.  Is that what you're asking me to do?

 5        Q.   No, my question was, isn't it correct that the indictments that

 6     you proffered were not in fact as it's reported here, taken out for trial

 7     in the -- until they were transferred to the Sibenik prosecutor's office.

 8     This is an accurate report, isn't that so?

 9        A.   No, you have misunderstood it.  Because a trial is not decided by

10     me.  I complete my duty once I issued the indictment.  So it says even

11     though the attorney sent the indictment to the court at such and such a

12     date, it's up to the court to continue the proceedings.  As a state

13     attorney, I have no influence over the decisions of the court.

14        Q.   Let me also take you to another portion of this report,

15     Mr. Galovic.

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if we could move to page 19 of the

17     English, the original, and the Croatian version, page 19, Mr. Registrar.

18     And in the Croatian version, it's focussing on the last paragraph.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, just for the record, when you're

20     referring to pages you are referring to e-court pages and not the paging

21     as we find it on the top of the -- each page of the document.

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That's correct, Mr. President.  Thank you.

23             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Excuse me, can I please have the 65 ter number

24     one more time.  It was not -- it was mistranscribed in the transcript.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  4460.

Page 19798

 1             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you.

 2        Q.   And if we could just scroll down to the bottom of the page and

 3     the -- do you note that paragraph, Mr. Galovic, which says:

 4             "The response is typical in so far as it is vaguely refers to an

 5     enormous number of criminal prosecutions with no indication of how, if at

 6     all, the specific concern fits into those numbers.  Depending on when the

 7     letters were issued and by whom, the statistics varied.  In

 8     correspondence with Amnesty International and in other international

 9     fora [phoen] the authorities clearly intended to convey that these

10     investigations and criminal proceedings was sufficient to address the

11     human rights violations and other acts of violence committed in the wake

12     of Operation Storm."

13             And if you could move to page 21, Mr. Registrar, on the English

14     version on e-court, and Croatian version it's page 21, paragraph 2.

15             It says:

16             "Of these 2.849 cases, which the authorities claim were before

17     the courts in June 1996, less than two per cent concerned cases of

18     killings for the criminal act of murder."

19             Then Article 34 of the Croatian Criminal Code:

20             "The authorities claimed that 22 individuals were under

21     investigation, the legal proceedings were under way against 30 people,

22     and that final decisions had been made against one person.  When Amnesty

23     International spoke to prosecutors in May 1998 and inquired about why,

24     when in some of the cases the perpetrators had been on active duty with

25     the military or police, they had not been charged with crimes against a

Page 19799

 1     civilian population" -- then the act is referred to "Article 120 of the

 2     Croatian Criminal Code and the criminal act under Croatian law with which

 3     soldiers who had been serving with the RSK army are normally charged if

 4     the act involves the killing of civilian.  The prosecutors were unable to

 5     provide a response.  Amnesty International fears that the reason may be

 6     political given the widely cited comment of Milan Vukovic, president of

 7     the supreme court of Croatia, to the effect that Croatians by definition

 8     cannot commit war crimes since they were defending the homeland."

 9             And on the same page, if you go to the last paragraph on the

10     English version, in the Croatian version also bottom of the page.  I'm

11     sorry, Croatian version page 22 on e-court.  I'm reading from the second

12     line from the bottom.

13             "And in fact during that meeting, while the justice minister did

14     provide Amnesty International with a breakdown of the statistics which

15     reflected the numbers of individuals charged with particular offences

16     before particular courts, the [indiscernible] of the Justice Ministry

17     noted that these statistics do not in fact solely relate to criminal acts

18     committed in 1995, but represents the criminal cases which are currently

19     before the courts in the relevant regions.  The Ministry of Justice

20     representatives confirms that there is no way to discern from the

21     statistics provided which cases were for acts committed in 1995 and which

22     are for acts committed in, for example, 1996 or 1997, nor is it possible

23     to conclude any information about who the victims or suspects might be."

24             Now, this is what we have been discussing, Mr. Galovic.  Isn't it

25     correct that today you're unable to just the same way, when you met the

Page 19800

 1     delegates of Amnesty International way back, you are unable to in fact

 2     accurately provide information to the Trial Chamber to establish that the

 3     statistics you provided are for crimes committed in 1995, specifically

 4     for August and September 1995; isn't that correct?

 5        A.   No, it is not correct.  Simply, it is not correct.  What you have

 6     read out doesn't relate it me.  It is the impression of Amnesty

 7     International linked to proceedings in the whole country.  Many comments

 8     referred to the work of the ministry.  I personally, for each and every

 9     criminal act, I'm ready to provide all data and to provide answers,

10     regardless of the question, be they factual or legal questions, for any

11     criminal act, and specifically for killings.  And specifically linked to

12     why an act was qualified as being this or that.  So for each individual

13     case I'm ready to provide answers.

14        Q.   Mr. Galovic, my question is not whether you are ready but you are

15     unable today in the course --

16             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, I object to the commentary by counsel.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me, I said that I am able to

18     do that.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

20        Q.   Mr. Galovic, my question is you're unable today, or in the course

21     of your testimony before this Trial Chamber, to provide this Trial

22     Chamber with the required information to support that the statistics you

23     have provided in fact relate to crimes committed in August and

24     September 1995; isn't that correct?  In the course of these proceedings.

25        A.   If you would want me to take out this pile of papers supporting

Page 19801

 1     the documentation, you are right.  What I am not able to do, really, is

 2     from where I'm sitting now to present to you the supporting material, the

 3     mound of material.  You are quite right in that.

 4             However, I am happy to provide with you any answers to any of the

 5     cases or any reports, be they from Amnesty International or anybody else

 6     who talked to me.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I move this document into

 8     evidence.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, in theory I have no objection.  If I

10     could just take a look at an appropriate time.  If we could get an MFI it

11     real quick.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

13             MS. HIGGINS:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I apologise.

15             MS. HIGGINS:  Can I register my concerns at this point on behalf

16     of the Defence team for Mr. Cermak.  The reality of this document is that

17     it's a 60-page Amnesty International report.  It's not being tendered

18     through an Amnesty witness or through someone who could speak to how it

19     has been prepared.  It is analogous to some of the reports that were

20     dealt with through, for example, Mr. Puhovski who could actually speak to

21     the report.  It cover a plethora of issues, including crimes that were

22     allegedly committed in the region.  And we have had no opportunity, of

23     course, to cross-examine the maker or preparer of this report.

24             So in our submission it falls into the category of case of an NGO

25     report, and it's not appropriate in the circumstances that we face today

Page 19802

 1     with this witness who can speak to merely portions, most of which, if not

 2     all, he doesn't accept.

 3             In my submission the more appropriate way of dealing with this

 4     would be to consider the admission of those portions that

 5     Ms. Mahindaratne has dealt with with the witness, to that I would have no

 6     objection.  But to the entirety of the report which actually also deals

 7     with key allegations in this case, including the allegation of Grubori,

 8     and I would object to the admission of the entire report, Your Honour.

 9             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

11             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I not only join in that objection, but for all

12     the discussion of the lack of underlying documentation, we have no

13     documentation for this what report.  What underlying documents Amnesty

14     International reviewed, what underlying information they had to base

15     their report on, so I think it's quite hypocritical to criticise this

16     particular witness on the issue of not having his documentation for which

17     his tables were the result of, and when we have bold accusations in this

18     Amnesty International report, without any way to verify, cross-examine,

19     review the underlying documentation ourselves for this particular report.

20             Thank you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I don't know whether the witness was criticised

22     or whether questions were put to him as to the availability immediately

23     at this moment on the supporting data.  But apart from that, the first

24     issue, Ms. Mahindaratne, apart from other concerns expressed by the

25     Cermak and Markac Defence, are you willing to limit the -- are you

Page 19803

 1     willing to limit the evidence to those portions of this document you

 2     dealt with, with the witness, leaving the others -- parts out?

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President for the reason there are

 4     other -- I don't know want to take the time of Court, but there are other

 5     portions that's relevant to this witness included in this report.

 6     Further, the Defence has in fact tendered, you know, for example Mr.

 7     Sekulic's book without calling him to testify and gone through several

 8     other, for example, the book by Mr. Marko Vrcelj, then there are other --

 9     this practice has been followed by the Defence in -- during the

10     Prosecution phase of the case, Mr. President.

11             My intention in tendering this is apart from the excerpts that I

12     just read out, there are other information which is relevant to this

13     witness's testimony with regard to the statistics and data.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but then, of course, we would at least need to

15     know which portions you are referring to, because I do understand that

16     again the Chamber has not seen the whole of the report, that if, for

17     example the Grubori incident is dealt with, which may or may not have to

18     do anything with statistics, that Mr. Kuzmanovic objects against at least

19     those portions.

20             So you can approach it from a negative way or from a positive way

21     that you have to identify positively the portions you'd like to seek --

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I could do that Mr. President -- not

23     immediately, but I could identify and then perhaps we could just tender

24     those excerpts in -- of the entire report if that is preferable.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, well if you -- if you have not done that yet,

Page 19804

 1     and to the extent the Defence would want to put questions to the witness

 2     in relation to those portions, then, of course, it could not be done

 3     after the witness has left The Hague.

 4             So if you would like to do something of the kind, it should be

 5     done at its latest during the next break.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'll do that, Mr. President.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we have it, then, for the time being marked for

 8     identification, Mr. Kehoe.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Awaiting a further selection of portions of the

11     document.

12             MR. KEHOE:  And I just on that score, Ms. Mahindaratne's comment

13     on page 50, line 6, if there in fact other portions of this report that

14     are relevant to Mr. Galovic under 90(H), the Prosecution has the

15     obligation to put that to the witness.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I think it -- if other portions are relevant it

17     should be verified with the witness whether -- I don't know what the

18     reports comment on what he said, whether he said certain things or not.

19     But you should, to start with, identify the relevant portions.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I will do that Mr. President.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And whether it should be put to the witness depends

22     on whether the testimony of the witness in any way contradicts the

23     Prosecution's case because that's the test under Rule 90(H).

24             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Not knowing what portions of the document are

Page 19805

 1     relevant, of course, it's impossible to say at this moment whether that

 2     is the case or not.

 3             Mr. Registrar.

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, if it could be assigned a

 5     number.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P2569, marked

 8     for identification.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

11        Q.   I will come -- come to that particular subject later on,

12     Mr. Galovic.

13             Just moving on to the case of Varivode and Gosici, which you

14     discussed yesterday with Mr. Kehoe.  And you are aware that the charges

15     in that case has been dropped; isn't that correct?

16        A.   No, not in my case.  Charges were dropped once the case was

17     transferred to Sibenik and after my appeal was upheld before the supreme

18     court and admitted that facts were erroneously established, remanded the

19     case to the court, which in this case was the court in Sibenik, where,

20     unfortunately, my colleague, my counterpart withdrew the charges.

21        Q.   That's what I meant.  I should have, you know, elaborated by

22     whom.

23             Now, in your statement at pages 6 to 10, you in fact address this

24     particular crime.

25             Now, isn't it correct that this judgement, the judgement

Page 19806

 1     provided --

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if I could have in the meanwhile, Mr.

 3     Registrar, P1076, please, the judgement itself.

 4        Q.   Mr. Galovic, the judgement will be on the screen in a moment and

 5     you will be very familiar with that since you appealed against it.

 6             Now, this judgement relates to a consolidated trial relating to

 7     four separate killing incidents; isn't that correct?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   All together eight persons were indicted in that consolidated

10     trial; is that correct?

11        A.   That's correct, yes.  It was consolidated by the court.  It is

12     only the court that can decide about consolidating, joining cases.

13        Q.   Now, in the indictments you proffered and, we have those

14     indictments if you want to look at them, but you're probably more

15     familiar about -- you're familiar with them.

16             You have described the -- all the eight accused as civilians.

17     In fact, you have -- addressing that issue in your statement at page 9

18     you have stated as follows.  You have been questioned about that and you

19     say:

20             "Reading the indictment for Gosici I realised that Ivica Petric,"

21     I'm sorry, I think that was corrected.  Pero Perkovic, yes?

22             MR. KEHOE:  If I may, the sentence was corrected.  Reading the

23     indictment of Gosici, I realised that the Visa Petric and Slatko Ladovic

24     were not members of the HV at the time the criminal offence was

25     perpetrated.  And the next sentence should be "Pero Perkovic" not "Ivica

Page 19807

 1     Petric."

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Okay.  Thank you, counsel.

 3        Q.   "Pero Perkovic and Nikola Rasic were members of the HV; however,

 4     they had days off.  But I'm certain that Ivica Petric and Nikola Rasic

 5     were only formally HV members and that this status was formally

 6     terminated at that point when the indictment was raised," which is why,

 7     according to Article 1 of the decree on amendment and supplement of the

 8     decree on the organisation, and you refer to the -- the law.

 9             You say:

10             "When the military status of the perpetrator of criminal offences

11     criminal" -- this is not correctly recorded.  I'm just reading verbatim.

12     "Criminal proceedings terminated before the charges were raised, the

13     trial shall be conducted before the municipal district court having

14     jurisdiction, and in this case the county court in Zadar had jurisdiction

15     for the trial."

16             Now, isn't it correct, Mr. Galovic, that seven out of eight of

17     these persons, and I would tell you exactly whom with the exception of

18     the sixth accused, all the other accused were in fact members of the HV

19     at the time the alleged offences relevant to this indictment were

20     committed?

21        A.   Is that a question?

22        Q.   Yes.

23        A.   I cannot agree with you.  And I can explain why.

24             Operation Storm ceased in my area on the 7th.  The situation in

25     the army was all but clear.  For the purposes of Storm people from the

Page 19808

 1     reserve force were mobilised, and following Operation Storm, it was down

 2     to the military administration and the pace of their work on which their

 3     mobilisation of these people depended.

 4             The military courts were provisional courts, and that is why soon

 5     thereafter they were abolished, did not have the necessary human and

 6     technical resources to keep up with the situation.  If the status of any

 7     individual was at any point in time questionable, actions have to be

 8     taken speedily.  Under our legislation, such swift investigations that

 9     have to be carried out can even be carried out by the court that does not

10     have jurisdiction simply to expedite proceedings because that's the

11     central matter.

12             However, the important matter is the following.  In every

13     situation, if the individuals concerned have been demobilised before the

14     indictment is issued, they fall under the jurisdiction of a civilian

15     court.  Therefore, in any case, they would have been tried before a

16     civilian court.

17             Now, the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction is something that

18     lies solely within the powers of the court.  I have no say in that.

19     Before the supreme court or before the county court, the subject-matter

20     jurisdiction was never called into question.  If I may only add this, two

21     out of the eight persons were accused of 16 crimes of aggravated murder,

22     murder each, in all 32 crimes of aggravated murder.

23             As for the rest, depending on the crimes they participated, in

24     they were charged with seven and nine crimes of aggravated murder

25     respectively.

Page 19809

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic.

 2             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Mr. President.  If we could check the word the

 3     witness used at page 54 line 19, that first word I believe would --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, could I.

 5             MR. MISETIC:  I believe --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Galovic, let me just find it.

 7             Yes.  You said it was down to the military administration, and

 8     the pace of their work on which their ... and then what did you say in

 9     relation it persons?  You said --

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that these persons were

11     certainly not members of the Croatian armed forces any longer.  They were

12     no longer soldiers.  That is my position.  And this proved true later on.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'm not re-stating the content the.

14             The transcript reads at this moment:  "It was down to the

15     military administration and the pace of their work on which their" -- as

16     it reads now, "mobilisation of these people depended," where logically

17     one would expect "demobilisation."

18             What did you say?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Demobilisation.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  The matter has been clarified.

21             Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

23        Q.   Mr. Galovic, that wasn't my question.  My question was at the

24     time the alleged crimes were committed, the accused, with the exception

25     of the sixth accused, all the others were members of the HV.  My question

Page 19810

 1     was at the time the offence were committed, the accused were members of

 2     the HV; isn't that correct?  You are aware of that, isn't it.

 3        A.   I am not, but I cannot say that they were not.  I don't know.  I

 4     took such activities as I was bound to take under the law, which included

 5     the request for the conduct of an investigation and the request for

 6     detention, which the court granted.  We did not have time to try and

 7     ascertain whether they were members of the army or not.  My position is,

 8     still today, that to all intents and purposes they never were members of

 9     the army.

10        Q.   Very well, Mr. Galovic.  Let me in fact point out that material.

11             You are aware that all eight accused testified before the court

12     in this trial; isn't it?

13        A.   I don't know that, but I have no reason to doubt that.

14             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, I think the witness is confusing the

15     actual trial in the Zadar court as opposed to here because the question

16     is it was testified that:

17             "You were aware that all eight accused testified before the court

18     in this trial?"

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm sorry, let me be specific.

20        Q.   Mr. Galovic, you're aware that the accused testified before the

21     Zadar county court in the trial which you conducted against them.  You

22     are aware of that, isn't it?

23        A.   This is what confused me.  They do not testify.  They were

24     accused.  They presented their Defence.  That's what confused me.  Under

25     our law, they present their Defence.

Page 19811

 1        Q.   Perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology vis-a-vis how you

 2     understand.

 3             Do you know that in fact one of those accused testified before

 4     this Trial Chamber; in fact, two days back.

 5        A.   I do.

 6        Q.   Now, let me first take you to, on this judgement.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if you could move to -- in

 8     English version page 9, and the Croatian version, page 11.  And if you

 9     could just focus on paragraph 2 of the Croatian version.

10        Q.   This is a statement by the first accused, Nikola Rasic.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm sorry, I think we're on the wrong page of

12     the English version.  Page 9.

13                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, that's correct.  Thank you.

15        Q.   And this is what Nikola Rasic said before the Zadar court about

16     his -- what he was doing at the time of the crime, Mr. Galovic.

17             He says:

18             "He took part in Operation Storm volunteering in Skradin after he

19     heard that it was being prepared.  There he was issued with an automatic

20     rifle and equipment.  In that operation, he took part in attacks on

21     Ljubicici and Tepsici, where his commander was accused Mijic.  During the

22     Operation Storm, he advanced in the direction of Kistanje."

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if we could move to -- in the Croatian

24     version it goes on to the next page.  And in the English version if we

25     could move to the next page, Mr. Registrar.  And if you could go up on

Page 19812

 1     the page.

 2        Q.   It says:

 3             "Upon the presentation of the incriminating evidence relating to

 4     the murder committed on 20th August, 1995, in Ocestovo near Knin," that's

 5     one of the crimes related to this consolidated indictment, "when the

 6     victim Savo Solaja was killed, he stated that it was true that he had

 7     been in Ocestovo that day because he was issued a command by Gojevic that

 8     morning to more towards Srb."

 9             Now this reflects that not only was the first accused a member of

10     the HV at the time of the offence, but he was in fact on duty, wasn't he,

11     quite contrary to what have you stated in --

12        A.   May I?

13        Q.   Yes, please.

14        A.   That is true, if you believe what he says.  He was an accused,

15     and, under our law, he was entitled to defend himself whatever way he

16     wanted, including by lying.  On the other hand, what else can you expect

17     from an individual who had been charged with 16 murders, but that he

18     would say that -- of course, he wouldn't say that he did that from -- for

19     the -- venting his base instincts to kill old women, et cetera.  Of

20     course, he said that it was his duty as a member of the Croatian Army.

21     That was his Defence which I would never accept without verifying it

22     first in detail.

23             In this particular case it was not relevant, because nobody

24     deployed him over there, if anybody did, to kill and loot.  Such Defences

25     that they devised subsequently I never trusted nor did my deputy who

Page 19813

 1     worked with me.  Somebody who killed nine individuals cannot be treated

 2     as a credible individual.  That's my view.

 3             In every word they utter, they will boast by saying that they

 4     were performing their military duty.  That is another way of enabling

 5     themselves to look at themselves in the mirror by saying that you were a

 6     patriot doing your duty rather than merely a robber killing people.

 7        Q.   Now, Mr. Galovic, what is the information that you were provided

 8     with which in fact indicated to you that these persons were not members

 9     of the HV at the time of the crime?

10        A.   I don't want to go back to the time of the commission of the

11     crime because I said that, at that point, all steps needed to be taken to

12     preserve evidence.

13        Q.   Mr. Galovic --

14        A.   In --

15        Q.   Could you please answer my question.  My question was:  What is

16     the information that was provided to you that, in fact, contradicted

17     this, that indicated to you that they were not in fact members of the HV

18     at the time the crime was committed?  What is the information that was

19     given to you that made -- renders this -- [indiscernible].

20        A.   From their overall conduct and their statements, from having

21     observed the entire group, it became clear that to say the at least their

22     status was questionable.  That was not, however, the time to deal with

23     their status.  We were supposed to address the crimes they committed.

24     That's what I saw as my duty.

25        Q.   Did you --

Page 19814

 1        A.   Had it subsequently turned out that they were members of the HV,

 2     then it would be down -- up to the court to decide who had jurisdiction

 3     over them.  It was not down to me to decide on the jurisdiction.  It was

 4     up to the court, if you will.  It was up to the court structure all the

 5     way to the supreme court to deal with their status.  I was interested in

 6     establishing if they committed the offence or not.  That was what I was

 7     dealing with at that point in time.

 8        Q.   Mr. Galovic, did you in fact in preparing to submit the

 9     indictment or conduct investigations call for information from the

10     military police or from the military to establish what their status was

11     on the date of the crime?

12        A.   The day that we learnt about it, it meant that a criminal report

13     should be filed and that simultaneously those persons are taken up by the

14     investigating judge, that the proceedings had to be initiated, because,

15     if we within the deadline of 24 hours you don't start proceedings they

16     are released.  Afterwards, all the questions you're putting to me were

17     within that competence of the court and not mine.  And, after all, no one

18     had any remarks or objections regarding this, afterwards.

19        Q.   Let me just quickly read out some other excerpts, Mr. Galovic,

20     and then I will ask you a question.  I don't want to go through the

21     reading the entire -- of all of the other accused, but for the record,

22     Mr. President, the second accused --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's try to --

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'll just give the page numbers,

25     Mr. President.

Page 19815

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  You want to put to the witness that the other

 2     accused also told the court that they were on active duty when these

 3     crimes were committed.  Is that --

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That is correct, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's keep matters rather simple.

 6             Are you aware, Mr. Galovic, that the other accused have given

 7     similar statements when defending themselves at trial?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Apparently the factual basis for, I take it, the

10     question --

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  -- is there.  Please proceed.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if you could just go to page 16

14     of the English version and in the Croatian version page 27.

15             I'm sorry, if you could go to page 18 of the English version.

16     And page 29 of the Croatian version.

17        Q.   Mr. Galovic, now, you studied this judgement in considering

18     appealing against it; isn't that correct?  This is what the seventh

19     accused stated in front of the Zadar county court.

20             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Mr. President, I think the witness was

21     asked to -- I think he was nodding yes and there is no response.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  It has now been confirmed that his body language was

23     affirmative.

24             Please proceed.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

Page 19816

 1        Q.   Now this is what he has stated.  He says:

 2             "Although the fact that he was in the area of Bosnia at the front

 3     from 3 to 11 October 1995 is not contentious, it is not clear to him why

 4     these criminal proceedings make it necessary to falsify the date of his

 5     demobilisation as being on 25th September and not as it should be on 17

 6     October 1995.  He connects this with threats from the police, but he will

 7     no longer be a Croatian soldier and this behaviour insulted him

 8     specifically.  He took part in Operation Storm from the very beginning."

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And, Mr. Registrar, if you could move to page

10     20 -- sorry, page 21 of the English version.  And the Croatian version,

11     page 31, focussing on paragraph 3.

12        Q.   This is what the eighth accused said before court.

13             "After the terrain near Drvar, he was given five or six days of

14     leave.  And on 1st October, 1995, he was to have headed towards Mrkonjic

15     Grad where they set off on 3rd October and were there until 13th October.

16     It is easily possible to check in the unit that he had returned from the

17     front on 13th October, and it is therefore improper that the police

18     forces falsified his demobilisation date in order to make it appear that

19     in the period the police is interested in, he was not a soldier."

20             Now, Mr. Galovic, when you saw those references, were you not

21     concerned that a formal military process may have in fact been abused to

22     cover up a crime or to make these accused appear as being civilians on

23     the date of the crime?  Were you not concerned when you read those

24     portions in the judgement?

25        A.   On condition that I did read them, certainly it is disturbing.

Page 19817

 1     But let me say, once again, that this fully confirms all that I have said

 2     in relation to what I considered to be relevant, whether, at the time of

 3     the indictment, they were civilians or not.  I'm not talking about the

 4     date of the perpetration of the act.  I said that even if they were

 5     soldiers, in the procedural sense, this doesn't change anything.  It was

 6     our duty to take the steps we took and after that, to continue the

 7     proceedings as we had started them before a civilian court because in the

 8     meantime they had been demobilised.  So it's quite irrelevant for the

 9     procedure whether this was in October or in September.

10             Now, as I personally was not in charge of the case, I cannot tell

11     you, but I can check if there is anything that can be checked with regard

12     to the records, because, after all, this is also part of Defence of the

13     accused.

14        Q.   Now, when I asked you whether Mr. Pero Perkovic had testified

15     here you said you knew about it.  How did you know about it?

16        A.   I watched it on the Internet, or part of it, most of his

17     testimony.

18        Q.   Thank you.  And in fact I would like to show you a document.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That would be 2556, Mr. Registrar, if could

20     you call that up on the -- I'm sorry, it's Exhibit P2556.

21        Q.   And this is in fact --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, you read from page 21 in English.

23     On page 20 of the judgement, I read:  "The eighth accused, Nedeljko

24     Mijic, defends him with ..." and what then follows is apparently what he

25     submit to the court.  You are talking about whether you are disturbed by

Page 19818

 1     reading this in a judgement, but is it a proper understanding of this

 2     part of the judgement that it reflects what the Defence of the accused

 3     was?

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Not any finding of the court.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.  My point was whether in

 7     fact the witness took note of it and acted upon it.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the witness has earlier given his views on the

 9     interest an accused may have in putting forward such a Defence.  You may

10     proceed.  I just wanted to be clear that there's no misunderstanding of

11     what was read to us.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President, because I pointed out that

13     these are confessions made by -- not confessions, the testimony of the

14     accused before the Zadar county court.  In fact, Your Honour, in fact,

15     with the -- the position to the witness that all the other --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes.

17             Please proceed.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

19        Q.   Now, if --

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If we could have, Mr. Registrar,

21     Exhibit P2556.

22        Q.   Now, in a moment, Mr. Galovic, you will see on the screen the

23     record of interrogation of the accused Pero Perkovic.  In fact, this is

24     one of the documents that you considered for -- in contemplating the

25     indictment; isn't that correct?

Page 19819

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Do you notice that in the section where the personal details of

 3     Mr. Perkovic is noted, about the ninth line it says:

 4             "He's a member of HV Croatian Army from July 1991 to 25th

 5     September 1995 with only two-month break, 113th Brigade."

 6             I don't know whether on the Croatian -- can you see it in the

 7     Croatian document?

 8        A.   Yes, I see it.

 9        Q.   So in fact the documentation that you considered in contemplating

10     the indictment itself records the accused as being members of the HV;

11     whereas, in this court, you indicated that you were not certain about the

12     status.

13        A.   May I answer now?

14        Q.   Yes.

15        A.   I'm sorry, but it says here clearly that he was a member until

16     the 25th of September, 1995, and the indictment was issued in

17     February 1996.  I have already said on several occasions that a person

18     who is demobilised, even if he was -- even if he had been a soldier when

19     the crime was committed, it is the civilian court who -- that has

20     jurisdiction over this person, and this confirms precisely what I have

21     been saying.  It says the 25th of September, 1995, and I accept this as

22     an accurate date.

23        Q.   Let me in fact call up a document right now.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If I can have P1007, Mr. Registrar.

25        Q.   Now, Mr. Galovic, your position is that if a soldier who has

Page 19820

 1     committed a crime is demobilised before the charges, he is considered as

 2     a civilian.  In fact, let me show you the code of military discipline of

 3     the HV.  In fact, the military itself does not endorse what you are

 4     saying.  And if we could move to Article --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, your line "... he is considered as

 6     a civilian," is a complex one.  What I heard the witness tell us is that

 7     prosecution and trial takes place before a civilian court, whether he is

 8     then considered as a civilian is a different matter, but for that

 9     purpose, that's what I heard the witness say.

10             I also heard the witness say that sometimes it was difficult to

11     establish whether, due to demobilisation, people were still or were not

12     anymore members of the HV, but I did not hear him say that if demobilised

13     before the charges were brought, that he was considered to be a civilian,

14     and especially since you do not refer us to -- refer to this status in

15     any time-frame.  I have some difficulties in fully understanding this

16     observation which apparently precedes your question.

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, let me just put two questions

18     before that thing and to make it clear and make the point as clear,

19     Mr. President.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

22        Q.   Now, in the indictment, Mr. Galovic, I'm not taking issue with

23     the fact that the accused were in fact tried in a civilian court.  But in

24     the indictments, you do not, in fact, mention the fact that the accused

25     were in fact members of the HV at the time the crime was committed.

Page 19821

 1     Their, in fact, civilian status is described.  In fact if we -- if you

 2     want to go back to the indictments, there is not a singular reference

 3     that they were members of the military at the time the crime was

 4     committed; isn't that correct?  If could you say yes or no.

 5        A.   Not fully.  If when looking at the judgement, which I did

 6     recently, there's no mention of their status, except in one case, in the

 7     case of Hrstic and Petric.

 8        Q.   Mr. Galovic, I'm not talking about the judgement.  In your

 9     indictments have you not mentioned any --

10        A.   The indictment, in the factual description -- the factual

11     description of the judgement is identical to the factual description in

12     the indictment, but if you wish I will speak about the indictment.

13             In relation to the murder of Canak, I think, my deputy said that

14     they were engaged in some kind of an action, and that is when they killed

15     Petric and Hrstic, so you can check that.

16        Q.   Mr. Galovic, please, my point is that --

17             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Mr. President, the witness is answering

18     her question.  She may not like it, but she [sic] is answering the

19     question.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne specifically asks --

21     Ms. Mahindaratne specifically asks whether membership of the HV was

22     mentioned in the indictment against the accused in this case.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In one case, it was.  What I have

24     just been saying, in relation to the killing of Djuradj Canak, for Petric

25     and Hrstic.  In other cases, no mention was made of their status, whether

Page 19822

 1     they were civilians or military personnel, but just the fact that they

 2     committed a crime.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 5        Q.   If you could now, I'm not in fact -- the issue is not about where

 6     they were tried, Mr. Galovic.  But the issue is that the indictments do

 7     not divulge the fact that they were members of the HV at the time the

 8     crime was committed and as such, isn't it correct, if one were to provide

 9     statistics of the crimes committed by military personnel, as opposed to

10     civilians, your documentation would in fact be misleading?

11             MR. KEHOE:  Well, Mr. President, first of all, I object to the

12     form of this question, because again counsel is giving a speech for the

13     first four lines.  If we can just limit this to a question as opposed to

14     the prefatory comments, I think that would be helpful.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, wouldn't it be true that -- I

16     think the witness explained to us that it's -- whether someone was

17     demobilised or not was a rather confusing matter in that point of time.

18     The witness also explained to us that accused had a certain interest in

19     presenting themselves as active military personnel.

20             Now, if you want to say that if wrongly someone was qualified as

21     a civilian or a military, that this might have had consequences for the

22     statistics, to the extent the statistics would pay attention to the

23     status of an accused, whether it's misleading or not depends on whether

24     it's wrong or not.  It misleads if it's wrong; it doesn't mislead if it's

25     right.

Page 19823

 1             I think we have spent quite some time on what the status of the

 2     persons was.  I think we have spent some time on -- on the basis of the

 3     knowledge of this witness, what decisions were taken at the time to bring

 4     them before the court.  These last questions do not really assist the

 5     Chamber in making the determinations.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Very well, Mr. President, I will move on.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If we could move to page 2, the English

 9     version, and Croatian version, page -- yeah, page 2 in the Croatian

10     version also.  And focus on Article 2.  I'm sorry, if could you move to

11     the next page, Mr. Registrar.

12        Q.   Now, you could see --

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If you could focus on Article 4, I think, on

14     the Croatian version, it's page two; that's right.

15        Q.   The Article reads as follows, Mr. Galovic, you can see:

16             "The following persons serving notice armed forces may be held

17     liable for violations of the Code of Military Discipline."

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne.  Yes, now we have the -- yes,

19     please proceed.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

21        Q.   "... violations of Code of Military Discipline:  1, servicemen;

22     2, civilians serving in the armed forces (herein after civilians serving

23     in the armed forces).

24             "Even after termination of services in the armed forces persons

25     under the paragraph 1 of this Article shall continue to be responsible

Page 19824

 1     for the violation of the Code of Military Discipline committed during

 2     their service as determined by this Code."

 3             So isn't it correct -- my question to you, Mr. Galovic, is in

 4     order for the military to be able to discipline a member of the HV, even

 5     those who have been demobilised, but if the crime had been committed when

 6     they were members of the HV, they would have to have information that a

 7     person has been convicted in a criminal process.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, we're dealing with military

 9     discipline.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, it is perfectly clear.

11             MR. KEHOE:  That's fine.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

14        Q.   So my question to you is:  Was there a process in which the

15     civilian courts, upon convicting members of the military who had

16     committed crimes but who had been demobilised before indictment, and

17     after a process in the civilian courts having convicted, was there a

18     process for the civilian courts of your office to inform the military in

19     order to -- so that they could take disciplinary measures under this

20     Article, Article 4.  How would the military know that in fact a member of

21     the HV who had committed a crime has been tried for a serious crime in a

22     civilian court, if in fact he had been demobilised before indictment but

23     after the crime?

24        A.   I would say, as a matter of principle, that the criminal

25     proceedings should include disciplinary proceedings.  This doesn't

Page 19825

 1     exclude a disciplinary proceedings but it's something quite different,

 2     and it has nothing in common with criminal proceedings and court

 3     proceedings, and the court has no obligation to initiate any such thing.

 4     This is initiated by the disciplinary judge within the army if

 5     interested.  He looks for information, because this is mostly known.  If

 6     he intends to start the disciplinary proceedings, then the disciplinary

 7     judge from the disciplinary court will look for the data that he needs if

 8     he needs such information.  However, in criminal proceedings that is

 9     never done, because a criminal proceeding should consume everything that

10     was part of a disciplinary procedure.

11        Q.   Let me just move on.

12             Now, are you a aware, Mr. Galovic, that in the Varivode/Gosici

13     trial all the accused claimed that they had in fact been threatened and

14     their confessions were obtained under duress?

15        A.   Of course I know.  But they claimed that this was done to them by

16     police.  However, what we based our indictment on were their Defences

17     before the investigating judge, because what is stated in the police,

18     according to our law to this day, is not evidence.  Statements made to

19     the police are just the material for starting proceedings.

20             After this statement to the police, they were taken to the

21     investigating judge, and then they said what they said in their Defence.

22     In two cases almost complete confession -- in two cases a complete

23     confession and in one a partial confession, and that is what we were

24     guided by.  This whole story about duress and threats started several

25     days later when one of the accused asked to be seen by the investigating

Page 19826

 1     judge again for him to tell him his story once again, and all I can say

 2     is that he had no other thing to resort to, because how else will you

 3     defend yourself, unless you say that you were threatened and forced to

 4     make a confession under duress.

 5        Q.   Now do you know, Mr. Galovic, that Mr. Perkovic in fact testified

 6     that he made the statement to the investigating judge, that this very --

 7     the same day that he was interrogated by the police.  Do you know that?

 8     He testified to that effect in -- before this Trial Chamber.

 9        A.   I don't know what the problem is, even if he didn't make the

10     statement on the same day.  They all made statements very shortly after

11     the statements to the police because the deadlines are short.  They first

12     made the statement to the investigating judge, and after that, he made a

13     decision to conduct an investigation and to hold them on -- in remand.

14     That is the procedure.  There could be no other.

15        Q.   Now, isn't that correct, Mr. Galovic, that the Trial Chamber in

16     Zadar - I'm just referring to the Zadar county court - acquitted the

17     accused on the basis that those confessions were considered unreliable

18     because they did not correspond to the material evidence in the case,

19     the -- the accounts given by the eye-witnesses and the other physical

20     observations on the ground.

21             Isn't that correct?  That was one of the basis on which the court

22     rejected those confessions?

23             Did you hear me?

24        A.   Yes.  That's correct, the court in the first instance acquitted

25     them.  However, on appeal the supreme court -- on our appeal the supreme

Page 19827

 1     court overturned the first instance decision and remanded the case for a

 2     re-trial.  And the supreme court referred, in fact, to the confessions by

 3     the accused as mentioned in the first instance judgement.  That was the

 4     basis for which the supreme court in fact upheld the convictions, in

 5     respect of Petric and Rasic in that case.  And, unfortunately --

 6        Q.   We'll --

 7        A.    -- on that same basis the supreme court rejected our appeals

 8     against sentences.

 9        Q.   We'll -- in fact, I will tender the supreme court judgement later

10     on, Mr. Galovic.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if I could have the judgement

12     again, P1076 on the screen.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, I'm also looking at the clock.

14     Would you give us an estimate on the time you would still need.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I may perhaps need about -- a

16     substantial amount of the next session.  Perhaps ...

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I inquire with the Defence teams.

19             MR. KEHOE:  Frankly, Mr. President, right now I'd be very brief.

20     I'd say, you know, five minutes or so, maybe a few minutes more, but not

21     much.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Higgins.

23             MS. HIGGINS:  I don't currently anticipate anything, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic.

25             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Likewise, Your Honour.

Page 19828

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, we'll first have a break.  It's

 3     approximately time for a break.  We want the testimony of this witness to

 4     be concluded today.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Which practically means that you have half an hour

 7     after the break.  And if it would be 35 minutes that would not bring us

 8     into great problems.  The Chamber would very much like to you continue

 9     your cross-examination in a focussed and organised way, in which

10     repetitions are avoided.

11             We'll have a break, and we'll resume at ten minutes to 1.00.

12                           --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

13                           --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16        Q.   Mr. Galovic, isn't it correct that in the Varivode/Gosici trial

17     process, the -- the ballistic analysis on the shell casings found at the

18     scene did not match the weapons seized from the accused?

19        A.   Yes, that's right.

20        Q.   Isn't it correct that the witnesses to the incident did not

21     identify the accused as having been at the scene of crime?

22        A.   That's correct.

23        Q.   You are aware that --

24        A.   Not that they were not not at the scene of crime.  They were

25     there and admitted to that, but nobody identified them, and that is much

Page 19829

 1     is true.

 2        Q.   That was my question.

 3             And isn't it correct that Mr. Zganjer, the Sibenik county

 4     prosecutor, upon getting the case back for re-trial, dropped the charges

 5     on the same grounds on which the Trial Chamber, in fact, rejected the

 6     confessions, as being unreliable?

 7        A.   That was Mr. Zganjer's decision, that's right.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, the documents in relation to

 9     this section shall be bar tabled later on, due to lack of time.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it that will are be no --

11             MR. KEHOE:  I don't know, Mr. President.  To the extent there are

12     matters in there that go to the Defence -- the -- the OTP's case, I mean,

13     they're still responsible to put those issues to the witness so ...

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But usually court-related materials.

15             MR. KEHOE:  I agree with Mr. President.  I don't know if that's

16     what we're talking about.  Are we simply talking about just court-related

17     material?

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That's it, Mr. President.  There is nothing

19     else.

20             MR. KEHOE:  Well, if -- if -- my next statement of that is if the

21     Prosecution at some point is going to argue things that Mr. Galovic did

22     or did not do that are contained in those documents, then they still have

23     the obligation to put it to Mr. Galovic now.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

Page 19830

 1        Q.   Now, Mr. Galovic, did you consider the discrepancies vis-a-vis --

 2     between the material evidence and the confessions of these accused in

 3     contemplating your charges?  Did you consider the fact that the ballistic

 4     analysis did not match the weapons seized from the accused, did you

 5     consider the fact that there were no identification of the accused, did

 6     you consider the fact that the versions provided by the witnesses did not

 7     correspond to the witnesses?

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Mr. President, I think that's three

 9     questions.  I object to the form.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, although this witness has shown to be perfectly

11     able to identify the several parts.

12             MR. KEHOE:  I withdraw the objection.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Galovic, could you please answer the questions.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I took all of this into

15     consideration.  On the issue of ballistic examination, I have to tell yo,

16     that there was among the bullet casings such material that could indicate

17     whether certain weapons were fired from or not.  However, the material

18     was quite damaged, and the examiner said that it was difficult to

19     determine if the weapons were fired from or not.  However, still, this

20     did not mean that the perpetrators could not be established.

21             Furthermore, there were so many weapons around that it was not

22     possible with precision to rule out that certain weapons were used, and

23     no specific findings were made in relation to that.  There is an number

24     of -- what we referred to as indirect evidence on the basis of which I

25     made rulings, and I stand by them.  What was among the findings of the

Page 19831

 1     ballistic expertise does not support the decision but does not exclude

 2     the decisions that were made in respect of the accused.  I wanted to

 3     follow up on that; however, this was no longer within my jurisdiction.

 4        Q.   Mr. Galovic, do you know that the Sibenik prosecutor, Mr. Zganjer

 5     - he, in fact, testified here - upon decision to drop the charges, he

 6     initiated a investigation to find out who the actual perpetrators were;

 7     and in the course of that investigation, he found that the military

 8     police company in Sibenik had suppressed the investigation, in order to

 9     protect the actual perpetrators.

10             Were you aware that?

11             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I object.  That is not what he said.

12     I mean, does he have a line in -- reference in his testimony where he

13     said exactly that.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Transcript reference:  T.11542 to T.11544.

15     Mr. President, T.11542 to 544.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  If you perhaps read to the witness what the

17     testimony was.  Let me just see ...

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Let me read it, Mr. President.

19        Q.   "Having taken over the case, I analysed the evidence and

20     established that there was no reliable evidence to proceed against those

21     accused who had been indicted in the case.  I discussed this with the

22     state attorney for Croatia and his deputies.  And received his approval

23     to dismiss the case against the five persons who had been indicted.  I'm

24     not aware of any other persons being tried for the crimes after that, I

25     believe if the military police officers Simic had been allowed to carry

Page 19832

 1     out the investigation including ballistic investigation in October 1995

 2     as planned, the real perpetrators of the crime could have been

 3     identified."

 4             Then it goes on to ...

 5             "Goran Vunic, as far as that case filed is concerned, and I

 6     stress the case file, was not mentioned as a person who would be under

 7     suspicion" --

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, where are you reading from counsel?

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  11543, line 21.

10        Q.   "... was not mentioned an as person who would be under suspicion

11     this way or the other.  When is it that the name of Goran Vunic

12     ultimately emerges?  When I decided to desist the criminal prosecution of

13     those suspects, the following question arose.  If -- as I was deeply

14     convinced those persons were not the perpetrators, who was it that killed

15     the 17 individuals.  At that point for a state attorney the proceedings

16     against those accused ended.  However" -- and it goes on.

17             "... [indiscernible] led me to learn in 2002 that for certain

18     reasons, the commander of the military police company in Sibenik Nenad

19     Mrkota had obstructed the activity of the military police of Damir Simic.

20     It was at that point that the suspicion arose, which made me believe that

21     Goran Vunic could be the possible perpetrator of the events in Gosici and

22     Varivode."

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, were you able to follow the portions of the

24     testimony that were read to you?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

Page 19833

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 2        Q.   Now, did you ever have that information, that --

 3        A.   No.  There was no reason why I should learn that.

 4             You asked me if I knew that Mr. Zganjer had established.  From

 5     what you've just read out, I did not observe him establish anything.  Had

 6     he established something, then it would have been only logical for that

 7     person to be prosecuted.

 8        Q.   Let me tell you, Mr. Galovic, in fact Mr. Damir Simic, the head

 9     of crime section of the Sibenik police testified in these proceedings,

10     and he confirmed and he in fact testified to --

11             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, can we have a page and reference.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, the tone as such, Do you have a page

13     reference.  If you can just --

14             MR. KEHOE:  Respectfully --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers].

16             MR. KEHOE:  I respectfully need page reference.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             Ms. Mahindaratne.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I will just direct counsel to

20     P971, which is in evidence, with the entire note is about the issue of

21     interference.

22        Q.   Now, in fact the head of crime section of the military police in

23     Sibenik testified that when he attempted to investigate a suspect, in

24     relation to the Gosici/Varivode killings, his company commander

25     interfered with that investigation and stopped him from proceeding.

Page 19834

 1             This in fact -- isn't that correct, Mr. Galovic, that -- that

 2     reflects that your -- the basis on which you indicted the suspects were

 3     not grounded on a complete investigation into the crime?

 4        A.   Absolutely not.  My position remains as it has always been, and

 5     there is Mr. Zganjer's position.

 6                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 8        Q.   Now isn't it correct, Mr. Galovic, moving on to another area,

 9     that when the police receives information of serious crime, particularly

10     in the case of killing incidents, they have to report the matter to the

11     investigative judge and yourself?

12        A.   In principle, yes.  That's correct.

13        Q.   That same rule applies to -- applies where a human corpse is

14     covered; isn't that correct?

15        A.   In principle, they would inform me of all such situations.

16             If the corpse belongs to a person who was killed, in that case,

17     yes.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  May I have document P -- Exhibit P1061,

19     please, Mr. Registrar.

20        Q.   Now, isn't it right, Mr. Galovic, that you never received a

21     report from the police regarding the killings in Grubori hamlet in the

22     Plavno area on 25th August 1995?

23        A.   That's right.  I never received it.

24        Q.   You have in fact confirmed that fact by this report to the state

25     attorney.

Page 19835

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Now, isn't it correct that during the time the Grubori incident

 3     was -- received publicity on TV and in the press?

 4        A.   What period of time are we talking about?

 5        Q.   In August 1995 just soon after the killings in Grubori.

 6        A.   Yes, I know.  But when did it receive publicity?

 7        Q.   In August 1995.

 8        A.   Publicity?  How?  When I didn't know of it.

 9        Q.   In fact this Trial Chamber has seen video footage of General

10     Cermak being interviewed by a journalist from HTV.

11             MS. HIGGINS:  Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13             MS. HIGGINS:  I'm sorry, I object to this line of questioning.

14     The witness was asked specifically whether he knew of publicity at the

15     time.  The witness gave an answer which clearly indicated that he didn't.

16     It's therefore wrong of Ms. Mahindarante to then try and again suborn the

17     witness by making reference to video footage in this manner, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  That objection is denied.  It was in the margin of

19     an answer that the witness said something about it, and Ms. Mahindaratne

20     is entitled to further explore the matter, although within certain

21     limits, Ms. Mahindaratne.

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

23        Q.   Now, did you see that interview on HTV where General Cermak was

24     interviewed about what happened in Grubori.  This Trial Chamber has

25     viewed it.  Did you see it?  It was two days after the incident that he

Page 19836

 1     was interviewed?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   Let me ask to show you, Mr. Galovic, a press clipping of the

 4     incident which was published in Slobodna Dalmacija, newspaper.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If I could have, Mr. Registrar, P1050 which is

 6     not -- which is marked but not admitted into evidence.

 7             MS. HIGGINS:  Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             MS. HIGGINS:  At this stage, could I ask that a foundation be

10     laid as to whether this witness at that particular time saw any media

11     articles relating to this incident?

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

13        Q.   Let me ask you --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, one second.

15             Ms. Mahindaratne may approach this evidentiary issue as she

16     wishes, against whether we go from the general to the specific or from

17     the specific to the general is up to her.

18             Please proceed.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  If I could have

20     that document on the screen, Mr. Registrar, P1050, marked but not

21     admitted.

22        Q.   Now, what you are seeing, Mr. Galovic, is a press article about

23     this incident which was published on 29th August in this newspaper.

24             Now, is it your position that you never saw any press reports of

25     this incident during the time?

Page 19837

 1        A.   That's right, I didn't.  I would dearly like to know what the

 2     article says.  I didn't see that.  I didn't see such an article.

 3        Q.   When did you first learn of the incident?

 4        A.   I think it had to do with the publication of information of the

 5     Helsinki Committee.  When they gathered and published their information,

 6     I came to know about the killings in Grubori.  I knew about Gosici and

 7     Varivode.  We discussed that.  But I didn't know about Grubori, no.

 8        Q.   And when was that?  When -- when did you read this --

 9        A.   When did I learn about it?

10        Q.   Yes.

11        A.   It was no longer within my competence.  It was within the

12     competence of Sibenik.

13        Q.   Mr. Galovic, you are not --

14        A.   I saw that the first document you showed me was from 2003.

15        Q.   You did not answer my question.  I said when -- give us a

16     time-frame when you learned of the incident in Grubori.  If you could

17     give us a year and a month, or even just a year.

18        A.   That's not how you put the question, and cannot give you the

19     exact year.  I don't know.  I tie it up with the report of the Helsinki

20     Committee.  I said that this happened definitely at a time when this no

21     longer fell within my competence.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Just to keep matters simple.  Do I understand that

23     it was only after some years that you learned about it for the first

24     time?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely so.

Page 19838

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

 2                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 4        Q.   Now, Mr. Galovic --

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I just -- Mr. President, just one document I

 7     could not show this witness which is necessary, under Rule 90(H).

 8              If could I have, Mr. Registrar, a document P1063.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, would it not be fair to the

10     witness to - but correct me when I'm wrong - that it is the position of

11     the Prosecution that it was the talk of town and of common knowledge at

12     the time that such a thing had happened; whereas, the witness testifies

13     that he learned about it only years after that.  That's apparently your

14     position, isn't it.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I thought in showing the

16     documents and referring to the HTV TV I did that.  But let me

17     specifically do that.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I think the witness has heard what I just said

19     and which you confirmed is the position of the Prosecution.

20             Mr. Galovic, this Chamber has received some evidence about who

21     paid attention at that time to what became known as the Grubori incident,

22     and it's the position of the Prosecution that it was common knowledge, it

23     was talk of the town, it was -- whereas, your testimony is that it was

24     only after a couple of years that you learned about it, and I think, in

25     all fairness, this should be put to you.

Page 19839

 1             Any comment?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course.  I have no comment

 3     except to repeat what I have already said, that I learned about it

 4     several years later.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 7        Q.   Now, do you recognise the document that's on the screen,

 8     Mr. Galovic?  That's a document issued by your office?

 9        A.   I do.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if you could move to the next page,

11     Mr. Registrar?

12        Q.   Do you recognise the signature of the person who has signed this

13     document?

14        A.   Yes, it is my deputy.

15        Q.   And the seal?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   So you identify this document as a document issued by your

18     office?

19        A.   Yes, correct.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             Moving on to --

22             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  There seems to be some unrest in the --

24             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.  This is improper what she's, in our position,

25     Ms. Mahindaratne has not provided [Overlapping speakers] ...

Page 19840

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I don't think this should be --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  What -- Ms. Mahindaratne, we do not interrupt each

 3     other.  I have the privilege of interrupting you, but Mr. Misetic was

 4     about to tell us why he thought it improper.

 5             Can that be done in the presence of the witness, Mr. Misetic, or

 6     should it...

 7             MR. MISETIC:  In light of the time I will try to be as vague as

 8     possible.  But I will ask to you look in e-court at Exhibit D918.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, this is what I wanted to point

10     out:  That it should be discussed in the absence of the witness.

11             MR. MISETIC:  No.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic says looking at Exhibit D918 would help

13     us out already.  So that's the first thing I'll do.

14             MR. MISETIC:  If I could compare number 1, I think it was

15     improper to ask this witness to authenticate, as Ms. Mahindaratne did.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.

17                           [Defence counsel confer]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, could you please, in the order you

19     choose, deal with the authenticity of this and/or similar documents in

20     full.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Very well, Mr. President.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If you could go to page 1 of this document,

24     Mr. Registrar.

25        Q.   Now, Mr. Galovic, there is a name in paragraph 1.  The name

Page 19841

 1     Vunic.

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And on top it is written Vunic, Goran.

 4             Do you see that?

 5        A.   I do.

 6        Q.   Does the fact that it's written in hand there render you to

 7     question the authenticity of this document?

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, at this point, it is incumbent upon

 9     Prosecution to show them the document that was received from the Republic

10     of Croatia, which is D918.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I allowed Ms. Mahindaratne, in the order she

12     chooses, to deal with all of it.  All the authenticity issues and whether

13     you would start with the one, which apparently what you prefer over the

14     other, that I left in the hands of Ms. Mahindaratne.  But I ensured that

15     we'll not just work on the basis of one or -- I take it that you would

16     have done it anyhow if --

17             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  -- Ms. Mahindaratne would have limited herself to

19     one.

20             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and the Chamber is not interested in hearing

22     evidence, which is based exclusively on a selective presentation of

23     documents to this witness.  But where we start and where we end, that, at

24     this moment, is left in the hands of Ms. Mahindaratne.

25             MR. HEDARALY:  And, Mr. President, in the manner that objection

Page 19842

 1     was placed before this witness was inappropriate by counsel.  I alerted

 2     you --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Let proceed in the next 20 minutes.  I noticed that

 4     from both sides inappropriateness is invoked.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 7        Q.   Do you have -- have -- how do you respond to my question?

 8        A.   I beg your pardon.  You asked me whether I confirm the

 9     authenticity of the signature.  Do I confirm the authenticity of the

10     stamp?  I do.  But not this as well because it was not done in my office.

11     It's out of the question that a document would come from my office

12     corrected by hand.  And there's a -- my original document where something

13     else is written.  It says Vunic, Boris, and not Vunic, Goran.  This

14     document went to the chief of police.  No one in the state attorney's

15     office would act in this way, least of all my deputy.

16             So I cannot confirm the authenticity of this.  The signature is

17     hers, the stamp is authentic, and the document came from our office but

18     not in this form.

19        Q.   Let me show you the other document, D918, please.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if you could go to the next page.

21        Q.   Now, Mr. Galovic, can you look at this document and tell Court

22     if, in fact, this is a document issued by your court -- issued by your

23     office?

24        A.   Judging by the signature, yes.

25        Q.   Is your seal there?

Page 19843

 1        A.   No, I don't see it.

 2        Q.   In the previous document, you identified your seal.  And in this

 3     document, you don't have a seal.  So what is it -- can you explain to the

 4     Court as to why -- how this document does not contain a seal whereas the

 5     previous document contains a seal?

 6        A.   It can only be attributed to error.  That's the only way I can

 7     explain it, because it's the same document, the same date.  Is it the

 8     same date?  I'm asking you.  Is it the same document with the same date

 9     and same contents?

10        Q.   Yes.

11        A.   And then I could explain.  I -- this document may have come from

12     my office, because a copy remains in the file in the state attorney's

13     office.  That copy doesn't have to be stamped.  But what is sent out has

14     to be -- bear a seal.  But it is the same document.

15        Q.   Moving on to another area, Mr. Galovic.

16             Now, yesterday you testified that -- actually questioned by the

17     Bench about what you seen in Kistanje.  You said that you could only

18     remember one house, and last time -- in order to prevent any objections

19     this is what you say:

20              "I'm trying to visualise what I saw at the time, and I'm unable

21     to -- it would be ridiculous to say that I didn't see anything of the

22     sort.  Unfortunately, I can't recall that scene in Kistanje, which would

23     leave the impression of total destruction, whereas I can do that in

24     respect of some other places."

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if could I have P203, please.

Page 19844

 1        Q.   There is, in fact, a document, I appreciate you may not have seen

 2     it from the head of security an information service going to the minister

 3     of defence.  And I'd like to point out, Mr. Galovic, paragraph 4 where it

 4     says:

 5             "In the liberated area of the hinterlands of Zadar and Sibenik,

 6     the establishment of the civilian authorities is not being carried out in

 7     a satisfactory pace.  More precisely, in the liberated settlements," and

 8     there are two places, "Djevrska and Kistanje.  The situation is rather

 9     chaotic.  Incidents of mass burning of houses, plundering of property" --

10     and there are so many activities being reported.

11             Now this is -- please take note, 8 August 1995.

12             Let me also show you two more documents, and I will ask you the

13     question.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if I could have P2349.

15        Q.   This is, in fact, a report of the Operation Group Sibenik, dated

16     11 August 1995.

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And, Mr. Registrar, if you could go to page 5

18     of the English version and page 4 of the Croatian.

19        Q.   There is under item 8, report:

20             "The conduct of the HV members while entering inhabited

21     settlements was correct.  However, once the settlements were occupied

22     (particularly places inhabited by Serbs), the commanders lost a -- lost

23     control over their soldiers, which resulted in a number of torched houses

24     and cases of robbery, particularly in the area of Djevrska and Kistanje,

25     and Drnis."

Page 19845

 1             And that's dated 11th August.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if I could have one more document, that's

 3     P830.

 4             I'm sorry P830 -- or maybe 880.  I may have ...

 5             If I could just have a minute, please.

 6                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That was correct, P830, Mr. Registrar.  It

 8     should be a report, not a statement.  That's correct.

 9        Q.   Now, this is a report dated 10th August by the -- reported by

10     monitors from ECMM.  And if you could go to page 2 of the English

11     version, as well as the Croatian version.

12             Under the heading, "Humanitarian and human rights matters" the

13     paragraph marked b, it is reported:

14             "Team Knin reported from their patrol today that the villages of

15     Raducic and Rudele were deserted and looted but without any burnt houses.

16     The village of Kistanje, on the other hand, is completely burned and

17     destroyed."

18             This is dated 11th August -- sorry, 10th August.

19             Now, Mr. Galovic, your testimony was that you visited Kistanje

20     twice in the period 10th to 15th August.  It seems implausible that --

21             MR. KEHOE:  Objection, Your Honour, the form.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it's the technical way in which you put it.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Very well, Mr. President.  I will rephrase it.

24     I will rephrase, Mr. President.

25        Q.   Can you explain to the Trial Chamber as to how it is that such

Page 19846

 1     widespread -- such destruction in relation to Kistanje has been reported

 2     on the 8th, 10th and 11th, but you, visiting the area between 10th and

 3     15th, twice, saw only one house, or could remember seeing only one burnt

 4     house?

 5        A.   I didn't say that I saw only one house.  But I told the

 6     Honourable President that I saw at least one.  I couldn't say how many.

 7     I spoke about my impression.  I didn't go to Kistanje, I passed through

 8     Kistanje on the way to Knin, and I'm talking about my impression.  My

 9     impression need not be right, but what I said, and I stand by it, is that

10     I didn't register it.  You pass through the main street, the settlement

11     is spread out on both sides of the street.  You pass through Kistanje and

12     that is the length of time I was there.  There was no reason for me to go

13     to Kistanje, because no one had ever reported to me anything linked to

14     Kistanje, and my job was to go to Knin, to set up a state attorney's

15     office in Knin.

16        Q.   And I --

17        A.    -- and that is what I said and that is what I stand by.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I have just one last question, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  It really will be your last question.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

21        Q.   Mr. Galovic, in responding to the Trial Chamber yesterday you

22     said: "Kistanje which would leave the impression of total destruction,

23     whereas I can do that in respect of some other places."

24             Now you told Court that you could describe other places which

25     were totally destroyed.  Can you please tell the Trial Chamber what the

Page 19847

 1     other places were that you could recall as being completely destroyed?

 2        A.   I was referring to Turanj, that is on the -- in the approaches to

 3     Karlovac, because I passed through Turanj frequently going to Zagreb.

 4     And this is something that cannot be described in words.  That is what I

 5     was referring to.

 6        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Galovic, for answering my questions.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, that concludes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Ms. Mahindaratne.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

11             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.

12             A couple of issues.  I will try to move through it as quickly as

13     I can.

14             If we can move to first P20, which is the statement of Mr. Flynn.

15                            Re-examination by Mr. Kehoe:

16        Q.   Mr. Flynn, Mr. Galovic, is a Human Rights Action Team member for

17     the UN.

18             MR. KEHOE:  If we can turn to page 21 in this document.

19        Q.   Going to line 5 into line 6 he notes:

20             "I mean, in Kistanje alone, we saw at least seven or eight

21     buildings that had been set on fire."

22             Now, on that particular observation, is that consistent, in your

23     view, of an impression, Mr. Galovic, that there had not been mass

24     destruction to Kistanje?

25        A.   In my view, yes.

Page 19848

 1        Q.   I'm going to shift to another topic that I would like you to

 2     discuss, and it has to do with the Amnesty International report, P2569,

 3     MFI.  And if I could turn to page 21 in the e-court.

 4             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I'm not sure which document you have.

 5     It's 18 in the hard copy but 21 in the e-court.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll see it on the screen.  I think there was a

 7     difference of three pages, usually.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  I believe that was correct.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

10             MR. KEHOE:  That's the paragraph; I appreciate that.  If we can

11     just bring that up in the B/C/S.

12             It's the paragraph -- if we could scroll down in the English.

13     That's the paragraph.

14                           [Defence counsel confer]

15             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. Registrar, if we could scroll down in the

16     English, please.  I'm looking at that paragraph beginning: "Of these 2849

17     cases..."  and it's page 21 in the B/C/S.  Thank you.

18        Q.   Mr. Galovic, I'm addressing myself to about midway in that

19     paragraph, and we're talking about Amnesty International when Amnesty

20     International spoke to prosecutors in May 1998 and inquired about why

21     when in some instances the perpetrators had been on active duty with the

22     military police --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Military or MS it says.

24             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, exactly right.  The military or police.

25     Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 19849

 1        Q.   They had not been charged with war crimes against the civilian

 2     population, referring to Article 120.  The prosecutors were unable to

 3     provide a response.

 4             Mr. Galovic did you have a discussion with Amnesty International

 5     about the -- your ability or inability to prosecute crimes as war crimes

 6     under Article 120 of the Croatian Criminal Code; if you recall?

 7        A.   No.  But I did speak to them frequently, as I said before, with

 8     representatives of various organisations.  I don't know whether we went

 9     that far in a discussion for them to suggest to me how I would prosecute

10     something.  After all, I can't see how they would know better than me

11     because I'm paid to do this job and I am responsible.

12             If we are talking about war crimes, according to criminal law a

13     war crime can be committed only during the time of an armed conflict.

14     Once an armed conflict stops, I can no longer qualify it as a war crime.

15     If I were to do that, I would putting myself in a position for the Court

16     to acquit the accused because of an incorrect legal qualification,

17     because in the practice of our court, especially the supreme court, in

18     some cases, when we are talking about the same criminal acts that come

19     under the same chapter, the sentence may be revised.  Otherwise, not.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the issue you raised became perfectly clear

21     even if not going through the details of the supreme court case law.

22             MR. KEHOE:  Actually, that was going to be my next case -- my

23     next question, and I will just hone it in.

24             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

Page 19850

 1             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Before Mr. Kehoe gets to that question, there

 2     was a qualifier on line 22 that was not translated.  Before the word

 3     "criminal law" it was described as a specific -- it was a qualifying

 4     adjective.  The word --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  After you said that you were paid to do the job and

 6     were responsible, you said: "War crime according to criminal law," any

 7     specific criminal law you had in mind?  Did you say according to criminal

 8     law?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The basic criminal law of the

10     Republic of Croatia which we acted on at the time.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

12             MR. KEHOE:

13        Q.   Now, Mr. Galovic, just talking about Operation Storm, and you're

14     talking about an armed conflict, can you tell me when, in basis of this

15     law, when the armed conflict began and ended?

16        A.   The armed conflict, in my view, started on the 4th of August and

17     ended on the 7th.  In that area, there was no need for any war operations

18     anymore nor were there any.

19        Q.   So after August the 7th if crimes had occurred, how would it be

20     dealt with under Croatian law?

21        A.   As aggravated murders, if we're talking about killings.  But

22     certainly not as a war crime.  That is my position, which I'm fully

23     capable of defending, I think.

24        Q.   Now, one last topic, and I would like --

25        A.   May I just add a few words?

Page 19851

 1        Q.   Certainly, you know more about this than I do.

 2        A.   The punishment for a war crime, according to the basic criminal

 3     law of the Republic of Croatia and for aggravated murder is identical.

 4     It is 20 years.  And I was guided by that, too.

 5             So the only difference is when it becomes outdated.

 6        Q.   Sir, I would just like to address one last subject concerning

 7     these letters, and I would like to bring up, if I may, D918.

 8             Now, D918, if we can go to the second page, you noted that there

 9     was no stamp.  I think you said that in the course of your testimony, if

10     it came from your office there would not be any stamp.  The files in your

11     office, if it came from the files in your office, there would be no

12     stamp; is that right?

13        A.   Yes, that's right, there wouldn't.

14        Q.   Let me show you a sequence, 1D60-0080, and let me take you

15     through this sequence.

16             Now, this is a letter from the Republic of Croatia for assistance

17     to the Gotovina Defence team by Mr. Markotic, referring to your 23

18     October 1995 letter, and it notes that we have received a response from

19     the county state attorney's office by which the authenticity of said

20     letter is confirmed.

21             Do you see that, sir?

22        A.   I do.

23        Q.   And the next letter, if we can, next document in this, and it

24     would be page 2.  Yes.

25             This is a Zadar county letter, if you can just look at that

Page 19852

 1     briefly.  And this package, once again referring to the same letter,

 2     where it notes:  "I have determined that the letter dated 23 October 1995

 3     sent to the Zadar Knin police administration requesting a continuation of

 4     operation [sic] and crime processing in this case is authentic."

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Let's go to the third page and fourth page.

 6        Q.   I will tell you by way of background, this is the letter from the

 7     Mr. Farcic in Zagreb requesting a letter, and then let me go to page 5

 8     and 6.

 9             Again, sir, this appears to be once again -- can we go to the

10     first page then the second page.

11             Does this appear to be the same working copy that came from your

12     office?  You have to say yes.

13        A.   That's it.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Or no.

15        A.   That's precisely so.

16             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, at this time, we'll into offer evidence

17     1D60-0080.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It your position at this moment that an

19     authentication by another person who has not testified is not available

20     for cross-examination is something that could be admitted into evidence?

21             MR. KEHOE:  Of course, Mr. President.  Just take it as the

22     weight.  Obviously, this witness said it came from, you know, his

23     particular file, and it didn't have a stamp because it was a working

24     copy, and then we're just working up the chain.  It was delivered to us

25     by the Republic of Croatia as we saw from the first letter as an

Page 19853

 1     authenticate copy coming from Mr. Galovic's office's files.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I thought that I -- let's not try to hurry this.  If

 3     there is any discussion about admission.

 4             Mr. Registrar, would you, for the time being, MFI these

 5     documents.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, that becomes Exhibit D1569 marked

 7     for identification.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 9        Q.   Now, Mr. Galovic --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, Ms. Mahindaratne took more time, but you

11     certainly took more time than the five minutes you said you needed as

12     matters stood at that time.

13             MR. KEHOE:  One last question.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  One last question.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. KEHOE:

17        Q.   Mr. Galovic, you noted in the course of your statement and during

18     this testimony -- you noted in your statement in the course of this

19     testimony that eight individuals were indicted for the Gosici/Varivode

20     killings.  If evidence had come to your attention of more than eight

21     individuals, would you have indicted them as well if the evidence

22     supported that charge?

23        A.   Of course, I would have.

24        Q.   Mr. Galovic, thank you very much.  I have no further questions.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.

Page 19854

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Galovic, this concludes your testimony in this

 4     court.  I'd like to thank you very much for coming a long way to

 5     The Hague and for having answered questions put to you by the parties and

 6     by the Bench, and I wish you a safe trip home again.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.  It was a honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn for the day, and we will resume on

 9     Tuesday, the 7th of July, 9.00, Courtroom I.

10                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.56 p.m.,

11                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 7th day of July,

12                           2009, at 9.00 a.m.