Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 20995

 1                           Tuesday, 1 September 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 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.

13             Good morning to you, Mr. Jones, as well.  Perhaps unnecessary,

14     but I would like to remind you that you're still bound by the solemn

15     declaration you gave yesterday at the beginning of your testimony.

16                           WITNESS:  ANTHONY JONES [Resumed]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  And Mr. Waespi will now continue his

18     cross-examination.

19             Mr. Waespi, please proceed.

20             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  Good morning.

21             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you, Mr. President.

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

23        Q.   Good morning, General.

24        A.   Good morning.

25        Q.   You testified yesterday that the Croatian Army had never executed

Page 20996

 1     an offensive campaign prior to the series of operations involving

 2     Operation Storm, and that was at pages 2902, lines 23 to 25.

 3             Now, were you aware that there was an operation called Flash in

 4     early May 1995?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   That was an offensive operation, wasn't it?

 7        A.   Pardon?

 8        Q.   That was an offensive operation.

 9        A.   Yes.  What I talked about when I referred to offensive campaign,

10     I included from Summer 94 through Operation Storm and the continuing

11     campaign through -- to -- Operations Maestral and Southern Move.

12        Q.   But there was also an offensive campaign in 1993 called Operation

13     Medak Pocket; were you aware that?

14        A.   I was not.

15        Q.   And you haven't heard that there were war crimes with which the

16     commander was charged which resulted in convictions.  You are haven't

17     heard about that?

18        A.   In 1993?

19        Q.   Yes.

20        A.   No, it was not my focus for what I was asked to do.

21        Q.   But you would accept that there were operations of offensive

22     character prior to 1994?

23        A.   I'm not aware of it, but that's for you to, I think, to submit.

24     I don't know.  I did not look at that.

25        Q.   Yes, but you testified that there were no operations?

Page 20997

 1        A.   There was none of which I knew of that General Gotovina had led

 2     at this magnitude of this level of scope.

 3        Q.   Thank you, General.

 4             Let's move to the --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jones, just to understand your testimony.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, you say, "There was none of which I knew of

 8     that General Gotovina had led ..."

 9             Now was your testimony yesterday about offensive operations under

10     the leadership of General Gotovina; or was it about offensive operations?

11             THE WITNESS:  My testimony yesterday covered the leadership of

12     General Gotovina in the offensive campaign which he conducted.  However,

13     in my research of what I read, as they built their army since 1991/1992 I

14     did not see any significant offensive campaign which was similar in

15     complexity or magnitude of what they were undertaking at the time.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Waespi.

17             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you, Mr. President.

18        Q.   Let's move to paragraph 19 of your expert report, and this is

19     about the issue of command climate.  And you discussed that yesterday

20     already.  And you mentioned yesterday --

21             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, counsel.  I think we have the binder.  I

22     hate to interrupt you, I'm sorry.  If we could provide the witness with a

23     hard copy from yesterday.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that would be a good idea.

25             MR. KEHOE:  My apologies [Microphone not activated]

Page 20998

 1             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  Okay.

 2             MR. WAESPI:

 3        Q.   And yesterday you testified about the importance of a leader not

 4     just writing documents but, for instance, showing presence at decisive

 5     places.  That's at page 20926.  Let me develop this subject a little bit

 6     further.

 7             Now, let me start with this.  How important is discipline in an

 8     army, in any armed formation?

 9        A.   Well, I think it's extremely important as well as training.

10     Having people know what's right to do and what's wrong you get through

11     training, and it's through that training you teach them how to -- how to

12     operate, how to take care of their buddies and their teammates and how to

13     execute the mission.  It's when they don't know what right looks like

14     indiscipline, and when you don't have a trained force is when

15     indiscipline could be a factor.

16        Q.   And what happens if discipline breaks down?

17        A.   Well, normally when that happens and you don't have someone to

18     correct it fairly quickly, you don't achieve what you're set out to do

19     and what you are told to do.

20        Q.   So that goes to the core of any hierarchy if discipline breaks

21     down.  Would you agree with me?

22        A.   Yes, I think it's -- you see multiple examples in here, you know,

23     how that paramounts down through the command.  If you have an element

24     that's not following the orders, to include on the western flank when the

25     people, the units, there did not launch as they were supposed to at the

Page 20999

 1     time and get moving, that is a form of indiscipline when they failed to

 2     move when they were supposed to.

 3        Q.   And as I said, you know, if discipline isn't maintained, that is

 4     a disaster for any commander who wants to achieve a mission.

 5        A.   Well, that depends on the scope and level of the indiscipline,

 6     you know, if it is an isolated incident, it can be probably corrected and

 7     not impact the total mission; but it certainly reflects on the command,

 8     and -- and the perception how well the force is, how trained, if it is

 9     professional and so forth.

10        Q.   So a breach of discipline wouldn't just be a disappointment as

11     you put it yesterday.  It's more than a disappointment?

12        A.   Certainly any time that a commander's orders are not fulfilled,

13     he's disappointed with the execution of his subordinates as he trained

14     them to do.  However, it could be -- have other implications to the

15     success or lack of success of the mission.

16        Q.   Let me put a couple of propositions to you about this subject.

17             Do you agree that any commander by force of his personality,

18     leadership, command style, and general behaviour has considerable

19     influence on the morale, sense of direction, and performance of his staff

20     and subordinate commanders?

21        A.   I would say majority of commanders do.  I wouldn't say any

22     commander.  There's some commanders that have different -- use different

23     tactics of leadership.  But for the most part, a commander does influence

24     his staff and his subordinate commanders, those he has direct contact

25     with.

Page 21000

 1        Q.   And he does it for good or for evil, whatever his command style

 2     is?

 3        A.   Hopefully for good.  That's what he is charged with and that's

 4     his responsibility.

 5        Q.   So some commanders will be known for proper conduct and strict

 6     adherence to the rules and regulations of their armed forces and, indeed,

 7     laws of armed conflict?

 8        A.   Yes.  Generally some units take out -- take up the personality of

 9     their commander and their focus on the mission and success and how that

10     is needed.

11        Q.   And other commanders might be known for turning a blind eye to

12     indisciplined behaviour and even crimes?

13        A.   I would hope not.

14        Q.   Have you seen examples of that in your career?

15        A.   In my career?  The last time I think I had seen that, the

16     commander was relieved.

17        Q.   Now, in relation to orders issued by a commander, he has to make

18     sure that he gets information that the subordinates receive these orders

19     and implement them.  Do you agree with me?

20        A.   Sometimes he personally doesn't make sure, he should have a

21     system set up to make sure that the word gets to his subordinate

22     commanders, especially those in his direct line of supervision.  And so

23     there should be set up in the training and communications process a way

24     to either verbally give a command and then follow up with a documented

25     written order, but that should then have a system that permeates all the

Page 21001

 1     way down to the lowest level.  That would be expected.

 2        Q.   So it is up to the commander to set up that system either, you

 3     know, the addressee, his subordinates report back to him or he or his

 4     staff proactively get information about the implementation of these

 5     orders.

 6        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 7        Q.   Now, at the moment, a commander doesn't know what happens with

 8     his orders, he ceases to be a commander because can no longer function.

 9     Would you agree?

10        A.   Would you say that again?

11        Q.   Yes.  At the moment, a commander does not know what happens with

12     his orders, he ceased to be a commander because he can't function

13     properly anymore.

14        A.   Well, I think that's a hypothetical.  I don't know -- there's

15     ways of checking to see if his orders got to the people.  But to say that

16     once his order do not get down to his subordinates doesn't mean he is no

17     longer the commander.  Then he has to take another action if he sees

18     nothing is happening to make sure whatever his intent was or his orders

19     does get down to that appropriate section and/or commander he is

20     targeting.  But he would still be in charge.

21        Q.   And yes, I agree with you, at least de jure.

22             And if subordinate commanders or any addressee of an order

23     realises that he can get away with not complying with an order, that's

24     also the beginning of the end of a commander's authority.

25        A.   That -- that's what I would call insubordination and failure to

Page 21002

 1     follow orders.  That would not -- obviously if a commander -- you had a

 2     subordinate commander like that, then your trust and confidence of his

 3     ability to lead his troops and follow out the missions that you have been

 4     given by your country, would be seriously degraded.

 5        Q.   And these principles we just talked about, about giving orders,

 6     apply to all range of topics.  It's about logistic, it's about personnel

 7     issues, and it's about committing war crimes and trying to stop these

 8     crimes.

 9        A.   You know, remember, at the operational level you're going to be

10     given a mission, and you're going be given an orientation for the

11     manoeuvre units.  You are going to set the properties, and then it's the

12     orders developed from your subordinate commanders has the detail of how

13     to execute that.  But, yes, there should be a continuity of what you said

14     was your priorities to be executed down at the lowest level to move --

15     for logistics, for examples, to the right place at the right time.

16        Q.   And if a soldier or an officer is not disciplined for having

17     disobeyed orders or having committed crimes, it could well encourage him

18     to continue with his cause of action.  Do you agree with that?

19        A.   In some cases I would agree with that.  You know, there is

20     responsibilities at all levels for people to make sure that the orders

21     are carried out.

22        Q.   Now, there has been a decision here at the ICTY which you may be

23     familiar with.  The Strugar case, which involves the attack, shelling of

24     Dubrovnik.

25             Have you heard about that case?

Page 21003

 1        A.   No, I have not.

 2        Q.   Now the Appeals Chamber held that, and I quote --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

 4             MR. KEHOE:  I think getting into a particular legal issue is a

 5     matter that should be addressed to the Court.  If there is a particular

 6     aspect --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let's wait what the question is and then see

 8     whether we are seeking legal opinion from this witness or not, and then

 9     if you do so, Mr. Waespi, then, of course, we would have to address the

10     matter, whether this witness is a legal expert, yes or not.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I think it is more a

13     factual observation by the Court, but let's see.

14        Q.   The quote is:

15             "A superior's failure to punish a crime of which he has actual

16     knowledge is likely to be understood, at least as acceptance if not

17     encouragement of such conduct with the effect of increasing the risk of

18     new crimes being committed."

19             In line of what you responded to my earlier question, would you

20     agree with this?

21        A.   Well, I think what you're stating, if a commander knows that a

22     crime has been committed, and that he is taken actions to make sure that

23     it is investigated and, no kidding, there's a crime here.  He needs to

24     take action of some sort.  You know, I go back to you never walk by a

25     mistake so just by -- that's a way of instilling the discipline within

Page 21004

 1     your unit, your organisation.  If it comes within your scope to do that

 2     or to tell someone to do that, then you should take some action to make

 3     sure that it is not condoned.

 4        Q.   And how important is timing in this respect, if an order is

 5     issued and it's not being followed of -- or if undisciplined acts occur,

 6     how important is timing in relation to the response by the commander in

 7     addressing this failure?

 8        A.   I think it's relevant.  It would have to be with a seriousness of

 9     the -- of whatever incidents happened, first of all; and then second of

10     all, how that relates to what the commander's focus was at the time.  If,

11     in fact, there was something that happened and he became aware of it, he

12     started the process for someone to investigate it, he moves on to focus

13     on his mission at hand because he is in the fight or he is in, in this

14     case, the offensive operation, he's got to weigh that response to that

15     incident as well as protecting the lives of his soldiers and making sure

16     they're focussed on the mission and the fight.

17             So you have to weigh that, but you should come back to it at some

18     point in time and say, Okay what happened?  I told you to fix it.  Did

19     you fix it?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Waespi, I apologise for interrupting.

21             Page 2, line 2, a reference is to pages 2902.  That cannot be

22     correct for yesterday's transcript.

23             Do you have the full page number for me?

24             We are in the 20.000s, so therefore ... is it 20902 or is it ...

25             MR. WAESPI:  This is 20911 at lines 21, 22.

Page 21005

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Waespi.

 2             MR. WAESPI:

 3        Q.   Just a question to clarify.

 4             If the operational situation allows a commander to address

 5     disciplinary issues, you would agree with me that it's important that

 6     indisciplined behaviour needs to be addressed immediately; otherwise, you

 7     know, it sends out the message:  He doesn't really care.  He might come

 8     back to me in a few days or later.  So if the situation allows a

 9     commander to address it immediately, he has to do it immediately.

10        A.   If it's in the scope of his responsibility and authority, he

11     should do something with it.  If he has time to do that and if it's at

12     his level of execution.  For example, if something happened and he was

13     made aware of it through the reports, he would make sure that whoever is

14     responsible for oversight of that either call him and tell him and ask

15     him what they did about it.  If he had time to do it.  If it was his

16     direct responsibility and it was immediate in direct reports then he

17     should deal with it, you know.

18        Q.   You have seen the video with General Gotovina, I understand,

19     prior to testifying.  This is the 6th of August video which we saw

20     yesterday.

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Now do you agree with me that he is a very strong commander who

23     leaves clear foot prints about the command climate he wants to impress

24     upon his subordinates?

25        A.   I think you saw in that particular case, and I don't know what he

Page 21006

 1     had done in his pattern and how he commanded in the past or spoke with

 2     his subordinates, but he certainly had to get their attention during that

 3     meeting, because he probably sensed that a -- they were becoming

 4     complacent, they had thought they had reached the culminating point, and

 5     really they had another fight, and as I testified yesterday, they were

 6     very vulnerable at that point in time.

 7             I think he was also not only in the -- speaking of Knin, he was

 8     concerned --

 9        Q.   Yes, let me just go back to my question.

10        A.   Sure.

11        Q.   Just looking at the video, and I think you observed, as you

12     testified yesterday, the body language of the other --

13        A.   Subordinates.

14        Q.   -- people.  What kind of a commander was General Gotovina as it

15     came out during his address to his subordinate commanders?  Just describe

16     what you have seen:  A weak commander, a strong commander, somebody

17     people would listen to or not listen to.  Just give us your appreciation.

18        A.   I think you would say he was in charge.  I would think you would

19     say he was passionate about the mission and the role that he expected of

20     his commanders.  He outwardly talked about the lack of performance of the

21     subordinate leader and what his expectations were.  And so at that point

22     in time, he was telling his commanders they were not living up to his

23     expectations as professionals.  He subsequently then went to the next

24     video which talked about the next mission.

25             So I think that was a way a commander, the one who is in charge,

Page 21007

 1     reinforces that he is in charge and gets the subordinate commanders their

 2     heads back into the -- focussed on the mission and then leads them, as a

 3     teaching point, back into what he expected them to do next.

 4             That in itself was a form of disciplining his subordinates,

 5     telling them they are not executing to his expectations.

 6        Q.   Thank you, General.  Let's move to somewhat related but very

 7     important topic in your report and, in fact, in this case.

 8             Paragraph 21 of your report says that:

 9             "During offensive operations, the commander is focussed towards

10     the front and the main effort.  For the HV operating on their own

11     national territory, the responsibilities for the rear area of operations

12     were shared by the regular government, law enforcement forces, and local

13     authorities."

14             And then last sentence of this paragraph:

15             "As a result, it was not up to the HV operational commanders to

16     regulate the transition of responsibility for law and order in the rear

17     area."

18             Now, General, you used the term "rear area" a number of times,

19     many times in this report.  Can you define what you mean by that?  In

20     general but also specifically which territory it compasses and perhaps we

21     could prepare a series of maps you looked at yesterday, which is D728 on

22     electronic page 12.

23             MR. WAESPI:  I think he looked at this map yesterday.

24        Q.   So please tell the Trial Chamber how you define rear area.

25        A.   First of all, the rear area is the area behind the -- the combat

Page 21008

 1     forces and their immediate subordinate forces, their immediate trained

 2     [indiscernible] so they move through an area.  So in that case they would

 3     encompass, say, for a brigade, in the advance, his rear area may be up to

 4     six to ten kilometres, based on how his -- his re-enforcing and artillery

 5     were moving through the area with him.  Behind that, there would be a

 6     rear area which would be subordinated to another command for -- for

 7     greater general support of logistics.  That is -- that -- that line then

 8     is defined generally on boundaries through military graphics of what the

 9     boundaries would phase -- would move by phase as you move forward.

10             Now, in this particular case, I noted the order showed and the

11     responsibility showed that the military police would -- would follow the

12     offence and take responsibility immediately as the military forces moved

13     through.  To me it didn't delineate what that line was or how close they

14     would follow, so it is kind of hard to determine where the rear area

15     actually began.  I would say -- I would assume it began when the military

16     police got into the area, and in a lot of cases as they bypass different

17     cities, they would follow the military and then probably within that area

18     take charge of that city or that community of which was obviously

19     Croatian territory and re-established the rule of law.

20        Q.   So you just said, and this is on page 13, line [French on English

21     channel].

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I like the French language, but it comes as a

23     surprise on the English channel.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 21009

 1        Q.   You talked about his rear area.  This is the operational

 2     commander's rear area, I take it.

 3        A.   Well, within each -- each unit would have a rear area.  The 4th

 4     would have, the 7th would have a trailing area.  The logistics for each

 5     of those brigade would have a possibility of a rear area but then the

 6     larger operations group, when you had four operations group at one point

 7     in time and went to three, they would have a rear area of which those

 8     subordinate folks -- subordinate commands would then be responsible until

 9     the military police moved up through that area and then once those --

10     once you came to the culminating point of the intermediate objectives,

11     you would turn that area over for specifically re-establishing the rule

12     of law in those areas.  You still would have trains and logistics

13     movements through those areas to support your front, offensive forces.

14        Q.   So in line of what you just said, approximately looking at the

15     map in front of you on the screen, and can you take a pen actually to

16     mark it if you feel comfortable.  What's the rear area of

17     General Gotovina's forces that were operating in -- in Bosnia?

18        A.   Oh, okay.

19             This is on the 8th of August?

20        Q.   Yes, that's correct.

21        A.   Well, at this point in time, you had your four groups.  It would

22     be hard for me to mark, to define rear area.  However, it would be

23     something closer to where the -- the units are than what that dotted line

24     would be.

25        Q.   Yes.  There are a couple of -- a number of lines already, so I'm

Page 21010

 1     not sure whether you're marking something ...

 2        A.   I'm not.  It's got positions for the Storm.  Positions ...

 3        Q.   Just approximately, if you can.  I don't want to force you.  But

 4     if you can approximately define, with a circle or whatever structure you

 5     want to use, what you think is on the 8th August, 1995, the rear area of

 6     the forces under the command of General Gotovina.  And ...

 7        A.   Obviously ... I would say it would be something like this.  Until

 8     such time the military police move up and assume control of the former

 9     areas, recognised areas of the country of Croatia.

10        Q.   Can you put within this circle, almost, the letter A, please.

11        A.   The letter A?

12        Q.   Yes.  Just to identify that we all know which is your marking as

13     opposed to all the other markings.  You can pick another letter if you

14     feel more comfortable.

15        A.   I put a letter A.  Is that what you wanted?  Is that okay?

16        Q.   Yes, thanks.  Now, can you tell me what the rear area was on the

17     5th -- on the 6th of August?  Was it different or was it approximately

18     the same?

19        A.   No, it would have to be at the -- at the 6th, it would have to

20     be -- whether 4th or 6th, you know, depending on if it was mobile area,

21     would probably on the 6th be something like this, and on the 4th be

22     something like this.  So that line in that rear area would advance as the

23     responsibilities were assumed by the military police and the civilian

24     authorities following closely the offensive forces.  And that's just a

25     line on the map.  I'm not sure exactly where that was portrayed.

Page 21011

 1        Q.   Yes.  The second line -- can you mark that with letter B; and the

 2     third one with letter C.

 3        A.   Okay.  Okay.

 4        Q.   And, again, just for the sake of the record, the letter B would

 5     be the rear area on which date?

 6        A.   You said the 6th, and probably C would be where the rear area was

 7     on the 4th.

 8        Q.   Thank you, General.

 9             Now, if this --

10        A.   And I would imagine, as I look at it, these lines would probably

11     come more over this way.  You know, as it tapers over towards

12     Bosnia-Herzegovina, it probably wouldn't go down as far there.  Okay.

13        Q.   Thank you, General.

14             MR. WAESPI:  I would like to have this document admitted into

15     evidence, Mr. President.

16             MR. KEHOE:  No objection, Judge.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But before we decide on that, I have some

18     difficulties in clearly defining what has been marked.

19             For letter A, there is a red marking which consists of a line

20     between Obrovac and Grahovo, from Grahovo in south-easterly direction;

21     from Obrovac, also in south-easterly direction, although more to the

22     east, the lines meeting just under where, on the map we find FCP

23     Sajkovici.  That's for the 8th.

24             For the 6th, line B, although slightly corrected, is a line

25     correcting Benkovac to Drnis and then further in south-easterly

Page 21012

 1     direction; or line C, we find a line, starting between Benkovac and

 2     Biograd, going also in south-easterly direction.

 3             I am describing the lines, because they're not that clear on our

 4     screens at this moment.

 5             Mr. Registrar, this marked map would be ...

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P2617.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Exhibit P2617 is admitted into evidence.

 8             Please proceed.

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

10        Q.   Now, General, were you aware or made aware that there were

11     substantial Split Military District forces staying behind and operating

12     in the Knin area at the end of Operation Storm?

13        A.   What do you mean by sufficient forces?

14        Q.   Substantial forces.

15        A.   Substantial forces.

16        Q.   Units --

17        A.   Logistics units.  Were these not part of the military police.  I

18     think when -- on the evening of the 6th when the designated commander of

19     the rear area came in, he assumed responsibility for that area at 1700 on

20     the evening of the 6th?

21        Q.   And who was that commander that?

22        A.   Was Mr. Sernak [phoen].

23        Q.   General Cermak?

24        A.   General Cermak.

25        Q.   And what was his role?

Page 21013

 1        A.   His role was to take responsibility and to re-establish the civil

 2     authority in the rear area.  So at that point in time, that's why I

 3     adjusted that other line at 1700 on the 6th August, he came in and

 4     assumed responsibility of Knin and the forces thereof.

 5             Now there could be other forces in there doing -- as we went into

 6     the defence in that area doing some rest as they got ready and/or the

 7     following -- preparing for the counter-attack.

 8        Q.   And what's the basis for your testimony that General Cermak came

 9     and assumed responsibility of Knin and the forces thereof?

10        A.   I think that was in the comments made, even in the video, that

11     General Gotovina said that at -- effective that day, that at 1700, 1730,

12     he was going to arrive and assume control.  So I assumed by that that he

13     had -- by his presence, was there to take control of that sector.

14             Now, that, I think, would be -- with the significance of Knin

15     putting leadership at a point of which you have to show control, and

16     somebody in charge of that would be a good thing.  It also allowed

17     General Gotovina to focus back forward again and then turn that area back

18     over to the military police and the civilian police and whatever support

19     they needed.

20        Q.   And just a very quick word on military police.

21             This -- you know what the correct denomination of that unit was?

22     How was it called?

23        A.   The military police unit, the number of the unit?

24        Q.   Yes.

25        A.   No, I don't, not off the top of my head.

Page 21014

 1        Q.   Have you heard of the 72nd Military Police Battalion?

 2        A.   Yes, I have seen it in the task organisation.

 3        Q.   And to which unit did it belong?

 4        A.   Originally I think it belonged to General Gotovina, his task

 5     organisation.

 6        Q.   And why do you say originally did that change over time?

 7        A.   I think it was in his original task organisations.

 8        Q.   And did that change over time that he lost control over it?

 9        A.   It appeared to me that at subsequent -- in the meeting with the

10     ministers, it said that the military police and civilian police would

11     then work for -- under the minister of interior and subordinate to him.

12        Q.   Did you see any documents later during August that would indicate

13     that General Gotovina was no --

14        A.   No longer had control over the military police.  The only

15     documents I saw was the fact that related to the military police being

16     subordinated to the minister of the interior.  I did not see a further

17     task organisation that General Gotovina had that included the military

18     police.  So the absence of that meant they were probably working for

19     somebody else.

20        Q.   Do you remember the order for active defence --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Waespi, apparently you're moving to another

22     subject.

23             You started your question about the presence of Split Military

24     District forces staying behind, and then the witness answered by asking

25     you what you meant by substantial forces.

Page 21015

 1             Then the witness continued to say that responsibility for that

 2     area was taken over and, as he told us, under the command of

 3     General Cermak.

 4             We started with forces.  Then we moved to command over those

 5     forces.  Could you tell us approximately the forces General Cermak had

 6     under his command when he took over responsibility?

 7             THE WITNESS:  You asking me?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             THE WITNESS:  The -- I could not list them for you.  Obviously --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I didn't ask you to list them but to say how much

11     approximately.

12             THE WITNESS:  I would say that he had the military police and the

13     civilian police that would move through the area that were following the

14     operation.  My estimate that would be three to 500 people.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And they were under the command much General Cermak.

16             THE WITNESS:  They should have, as they -- and -- and the

17     responsibility was transferred to him.  They should have came under

18     his -- his leadership and his authority.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I used the word command.  Apparently you are

20     hesitant to use that same word.  Leadership, authority, which is not very

21     much a military --

22             THE WITNESS:  It should have came under his command and control.

23     I did not see him designate other than being a -- a colonel-general what

24     forces were designated to him for command and control.  I saw him given

25     responsibilities and authority for the area and being subordinate to

Page 21016

 1     civilian police and military police operating and to re-establish the

 2     communities and -- and the police stations and so forth, but I did not

 3     see his -- his exact task organisation for command and control.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, there are quite a lot of tasks you're

 5     referring to --

 6             THE WITNESS:  Right.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- which are, to some extent, of a civilian nature.

 8     At least that's how I understand them; whereas, another element seems to

 9     of a military nature.

10             Could you tell us what -- how do we have to understand the task

11     of General Cermak?  Was he -- was he a military man?  Was he in command

12     over troops, although, as you said, perhaps of a limited number of 3 to

13     500?  Could you explain a bit more about what your understanding was of

14     his role.

15             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

16             My understanding was, as I read the documents, that he was -- he

17     was -- had specific responsibility for re-establishing security and the

18     rule of law, the police authority within the rural areas; also designated

19     the court structure and re-establishing what was in the former area of

20     Croatia, the normalcy of the Croatian constitution, whether it be court,

21     laws, police stations and so forth.

22             So his perspective, or my perspective, of his responsibilities

23     was to re-establish that structure within the Croatian territory.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Setting up the court system, would that

25     include civilian courts and military courts.

Page 21017

 1             THE WITNESS:  It would only be civilian courts.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Only be civil courts.  Do you have any -- found any

 3     example of how General Cermak was establishing --

 4             THE WITNESS:  How he was going executed that?

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  How he did execute that.

 6             THE WITNESS:  No, I don't.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Where specifically did you find his responsibility

 8     for setting up the court system.

 9             THE WITNESS:  I think if you go back to original documents we

10     talked about yesterday, it talked about -- and I said court systems.  It

11     is re-establishing the constitution -- constitutional authority over the

12     liberated Croatian territory.  So to me, that meant rule of law, court

13     systems, legal authorities, police, and all those things which comprise

14     the normal situation within a community.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And that would then include the whole administrative

16     system as well because you're talking about constitutional --

17     constitutional authority which includes everything you find in the

18     constitution, isn't it?

19             THE WITNESS:  That's right.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  That is municipal government, everything.

21             THE WITNESS:  Yes, re-establishing the hierarchy within a

22     community of a -- you know, the mayors, the chief of police, those kind

23     of things which you need to also secure the area and/or to execute and --

24     civil authority over those areas.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, he held a military rank.  Could you tell

Page 21018

 1     us how the military authority would enable him to -- well, as you tell

 2     us, more or less take over responsibility for re-establishment of the

 3     whole constitutional order; whereas, normally a military person is

 4     limited in his authority.

 5             Could you explain to us how that worked?

 6             THE WITNESS:  Well, to be truthful, Your Honour, I'm not sure why

 7     he was given the position of colonel-general, unless President Tudjman

 8     saw that he needed that level of authority in recognition amongst his

 9     peers to operate in or amongst the total Croatian sector as he was

10     working together with other military commanders.

11             So that would have given him a level, comparable level of

12     authority, as he moved through that area as he re-established the

13     civilian authority.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you know what his official position was?

15             THE WITNESS:  No, sir, I don't know his title right off the top

16     of my head.  I would have to look it up.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you do that during the next break so that

18     we --

19             THE WITNESS:  Sure.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  So that we know what you find about this in the

21     papers.

22             Mr. Waespi, please proceed.

23             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you, Mr. President.

24        Q.   Let me tidy up the issue of the military police.

25             Let's go back to a document you have seen yesterday, I believe.

Page 21019

 1     D281.

 2             MR. WAESPI:  If that could be pulled up.  That's the order for

 3     active defence dated 9th of August, 1995, by General Gotovina.  Now, if

 4     we go to -- I think it's English page 10 on paragraph 5.11.

 5             And perhaps if Mr. Kehoe could assist me what tab number that is

 6     in the witness's binder.  D218.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  It's tab 15.

 8             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you, counsel.

 9        Q.   Now, here, we see on page 10, General -- but take your time to

10     sift through it.  It's paragraph 5.11.

11             You see in paragraph 5, he gives all kinds of orders to his

12     subordinate units, including the Croatian Guards or 5.9 that is the

13     2nd Battalion of the 9th Guards Brigade.

14             And then 5.11 he talks about the 72nd Military Police Battalion

15     "that shall protect and monitor the territory, and shall be responsible

16     for any other military and police tasks [sic] at hand."

17             And on the last page, you see that this order --

18             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Mr. President, I was noted something by my

19     colleague about the reading of that.  It notes that the 72nd Military

20     Police Battalion along with the MUP bodies.  That was left out by

21     counsel.

22             MR. WAESPI:  Yes, that is my omission; I apologise.

23        Q.   If you go to the last page of this document you see that the

24     72nd Military Police Battalion was also among the recipients of this

25     order.

Page 21020

 1             Now, does that indicate to you that, on the 9th of August, 1995,

 2     the military police battalion was still a general asset that could be

 3     ordered by General Gotovina?

 4        A.   I'll be right with you, counsellor.

 5        Q.   Just take your time.

 6        A.   Okay.  And your -- I get what you said.

 7             So you're telling me that -- your question is could the military

 8     police be ordered by -- by General Gotovina to do things?

 9        Q.   Yes.  The issue -- the reason I brought this document up is

10     because you said that at one time General Gotovina might have lost

11     command --

12        A.   [Overlapping speakers] ... military police.

13        Q.   -- over his genuine military police, and my question here is:  At

14     this point in time, 9th of August, 1995, is he still in charge of his own

15     military police or has he lost that ability?  That's my question.

16        A.   It appears by this -- I don't know if they were still attached or

17     detached with the effective date, but he could still provide them

18     direction.  And he did so in this order.

19        Q.   Thank you, General.  Let me move back and we can -- you can

20     return this document.

21             Let me move back to my original issue of the -- as I call them

22     substantial forces that were operating in the rear, whatever --

23        A.   Mm-hmm.

24        Q.    -- that's defined of the Split Military District.  And I wanted

25     to ask you now specifically were you aware that the Split Military

Page 21021

 1     District had, by order in this document that you just looked at, his

 2     forward command post in Knin.

 3             Were you aware of that?

 4        A.   No, I was not aware that the Split Military District moved a

 5     forward command post into Knin.

 6        Q.   Wouldn't that be an important piece of information for you to

 7     know when assessing the roles and the responsibility, presence of

 8     leadership as you indicated yesterday how important that was, wouldn't

 9     that be a key issue for you to know where the forward command post of the

10     commander is?

11        A.   It depends on who manned this command post.  I would -- I find it

12     interesting to find that a Military District command post versus an

13     operational command post would be forward.  If, in fact, this command

14     post was going to be utilised by General Cermak, well, then it makes

15     sense.  If it was going to be used by General Gotovina, I would say that

16     probably does not make sense and that's where I think he kept his command

17     post over in Bosnia-Herzegovina and then moved forward.

18        Q.   Looking at the first page --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Waespi, could I ask one clarifying question.

20             You gave two options; that is, it be used by General Gotovina, or

21     being used by General Cermak.

22             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Were these the realistic and the only realistic

24     options you would consider under the circumstances and in view of your

25     knowledge of the situation at the time?

Page 21022

 1             THE WITNESS:  Well, Your Honour, if you think about it, the

 2     former Split Military District is also back where they tried to establish

 3     the non-commissioned officer academy.  It was at district headquarters.

 4     It had the standard communications probably necessary to run a community

 5     and/or peacetime operation.

 6             An operational command headquarters, which had to be very mobile,

 7     had to be certainly protected and be able to move forward and command its

 8     other elements is not as fixed-based.

 9             So to move forward elements of the Split district out of Split,

10     the communications and so forth, to support General Cermak would make

11     sense.  But for General Gotovina, I would think he would find -- he would

12     have a command post much more mobile, much more focussed forward.

13             So I'm a little confused by moving the Split district up there,

14     and I did not -- I apologise, but I did not research the movement of

15     command post.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

17             MR. KEHOE:  Judge, maybe I should have interspersed with this

18     earlier as opposed to the article "the forward command post," as to the

19     article "a forward command post."

20             JUDGE ORIE:  You can deal with that in --

21             Mr. Waespi, at the same time, of course, it would be if you put

22     something to the witness if do you that as specific as possible, so that

23     including the source of the information to the extent possible.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. WAESPI:  Mr. President, that's a document we have in front of

Page 21023

 1     us.  That's D281, which is -- is issued from the Knin command post by

 2     General Gotovina --

 3             MR. KEHOE:  If I may, Mr. President, the documents are replete in

 4     this case, and I'm sure that the Prosecution is not going to debate this

 5     that there were multiple forward command post at this juncture.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's not discuss what happened in the presence of

 7     the witness.

 8             Mr. Waespi, under those circumstances, it would have been

 9     appropriate to draw attention of the witness to the fact what the heading

10     of this order was and to ask him how he would consider that.  Then he

11     could have told us what he knew about it.  But, apparently, and to that

12     extent, he wasn't aware of the forward command post being there at that

13     moment.  But that would also, perhaps, have been clue to who was actually

14     using the heading forward command post in a command position.

15             You understand what I mean?

16             MR. WAESPI:  Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  The witness said it could have been used by

18     General Gotovina, could have been used by General Cermak.

19             But it seems that the confusion becomes almost complete.  Let's

20     move on and see whether we can --

21             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, if I may help clarify that.  If you

22     look back at -- on page 16, it talks about the logistic base branch of

23     establishing Knin with the following elements.  So obviously this was

24     also a logistic base he was establishing and had to have some forward

25     supervision of those logistics elements.  So that to me that would make

Page 21024

 1     sense to get a command base in Knin to support the logistics hub that he

 2     was creating.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And earlier you said, could have been used by

 4     General Cermak or by General Gotovina.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Was General Cermak in any way involved in logistics?

 7             THE WITNESS:  No, not in support of the operation.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  So where you were talking about the forward command

 9     post used by General Cermak, that would then exclude for the logistical

10     aspects?

11             THE WITNESS:  It would probably be mutually supportive of which

12     he could use the communications to talk to his civil police and/or his

13     people in different communities and perform a hub of which he could then

14     direct and monitor their success or -- or their progress.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed.

16             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, if I can just -- with regard to this

17     document, and I'm sure counsel would agree with me, if we can turn to the

18     first page of this document which is the cover page, it clearly shows

19     that it is, in fact, Sajkovici the name and the date of Sajkovici which

20     is, of course, the forward command post that we have talked about

21     routinely in this case.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  What, of course, is or is not is still established.

23             Let's not discuss in the presence of the witness what it is.

24     First of all, it could have dealt with the matter in re-examination.

25     Apart from that, if there was any matter you could have agree on with

Page 21025

 1     Mr. Waespi, then I would expect you to seek such agreement not in the

 2     presence of the witness.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 5        Q.   Let's stick on -- on this issue and actually the document which

 6     is in tab 15, the one you're looking at.

 7             Please go to page 4 in the English, paragraph 2, the last

 8     sentence in -- on this page.  And in B/C/S should be around page 2 or 3.

 9             Now, it says here, and this is obviously an order for active

10     defence by General Gotovina:

11             "Split Military District forward command post shall be in Knin."

12             Now, does it indicate to you whether there are any other forward

13     command posts or is it just one, in your assessment?

14        A.   Well, the other command post or obviously the operational

15     groups -- and I'm not sure that -- I don't know the transition with

16     General Knin -- or General Gotovina has moved his command post which was

17     in Bosnia-Herzegovina over to Knin or he has retained it where it was.

18        Q.   Thank you for your answer.

19             Were you also aware that there were several reserve battalions

20     that were stationed in Knin from early September onwards?  Were you aware

21     of that?

22        A.   I know that there were several conscript organisations which were

23     logistic-oriented and move forward, yes.

24        Q.   Well, let's then go back to this document and look on page 9.  In

25     English paragraph 5.4, it talks about the 4th Guards Brigade.  And then

Page 21026

 1     that it shall be withdrawn from the front line.

 2             And then in the middle of that paragraph it says:  "The reserve

 3     battalion shall be stationed in the Knin Barracks," and gives some basic

 4     tasks.

 5             So that's the 4th Guards Brigade, no logistics units.  Do you

 6     agree?

 7        A.   That's the reserve of the 4th Guards Brigade, not a reserve units

 8     per se, as I read there.  So the 4th Guards Brigade probably kept a

 9     battalion in reserve to support their fight and that's the reserve

10     telling them to go to the barracks to get rest.

11        Q.   That's correct.  They are staying in Knin.

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And that's not the logistics units, because --

14        A.   No.

15        Q.    -- you said earlier --

16        A.   No.  But I think concurrently there is logistics units moving

17     forward because Knin has been established as a logistics hub to support

18     the fight.

19        Q.   Yes, this is correct.  That was my next question.  The 40th

20     Engineering Battalion command post was also in Knin.  Do you agree with

21     me?  This is paragraph 9.1.

22        A.   I think, yes, there were engineers up there.  Yes.

23        Q.   Thank you, General.  And going back to something you said

24     yesterday.  General Gotovina, of course, had to watch his rear, because,

25     as you pointed out he was vulnerable there?

Page 21027

 1        A.   Mm-hmm.

 2        Q.   And it's -- it's an issue of securing your back, he had to deal

 3     with.

 4        A.   Yes.  What I was referring to was when he made it an envelopment

 5     move and attacked Knin from the north-east.  He has exposed flank on

 6     right side which would have been the northern side.  Certainly this whole

 7     area was probably heavily laden with mines and other things, and that's

 8     another reason why you would move the engineer battalion forward.

 9             So not particularly the rear area watching your back but your

10     flanks and the area from which the enemy is, you had to be concerned with

11     whether, you know, when he turned, that expose would be to his rear.

12        Q.   Do you agree with me that for all these units and any other

13     Military District of Split units, irrespective of whether they were

14     participating in offences at the front, or whether there were reserve

15     units in -- in the back, or resting, or whatever, for all these units,

16     the commander of the Military District bears ultimate responsibility.

17             Would you agree with me?

18        A.   He -- he bears responsibility for those units that -- in his

19     previous hat, which he was charged and then those which were assigned to

20     him in a task organisation.  It goes back to my statement:  A commander

21     is responsible for -- for everything which is in his area of operations

22     and then that direct responsibility is sub-organised based on subordinate

23     commanders.

24             So he has a responsibility up until such time he -- he frees that

25     area and turns it over to General Cermak and the others to re-establish

Page 21028

 1     Croatian law.

 2        Q.   Thanks for your answer.  And just so I understand you, and I'm

 3     not that much talking about territory.  I'm talking about units or

 4     members.

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   General Gotovina retains command and responsibility over all the

 7     units and members of these units that are attached to the Military

 8     District at any given time, whether they are fighting offences or staying

 9     in the back being reserve or resting or whatever.

10             Do you agree?

11        A.   He would have some responsibility of those units, yes, that are

12     assigned to the Split Military District.

13        Q.   And what do you mean by some responsible?

14        A.   Well, you know, when you talk about those in the Military

15     District, they have to be assigned to him, and then by virtue of being

16     assigned to the Military District, then he has the authority over the

17     units, command and control and so forth.  As you mobilise some of the

18     conscript units for different purposes that may be in the Military

19     District, he may or may not have control over those.  They may be

20     assigned to somebody else.  So those of which he had assigned to him, he

21     should have responsible and oversight for.

22        Q.   Thank you, General.

23             Let's move on to a different subject, although they are all kind

24     of related.  Paragraph 22 in your report.

25             It says:

Page 21029

 1             "Also critical for the commander is where he places himself on

 2     the battlefield.  Normally this is a well-forward command post to ensure

 3     that he remains in communications with lead elements.  When the commander

 4     is well-forward in the battlefield, he must trust that his subordinate

 5     leaders are executing their responsibilities as planned and as designated

 6     in the written orders process."

 7             And you talked about this trust that has to develop between the

 8     commander and the subordinates yesterday.

 9             Now, you seem to place a lot of emphasise on the written process

10     of commanders, obviously higher echelon commanders.  But as we talked

11     about earlier this morning, at the end it's the commander's duty to

12     ensure that these written orders are implemented?

13             Do you agree with me?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And despite his trust in his subordinates, if a commander has

16     knowledge that his orders aren't implemented, that his trust, you know,

17     is not justified, he has to take action.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Let's move to paragraph 26.

20        A.   And, counsellor, of course, you're talking about commanders at

21     all levels?

22        Q.   Absolutely.  And I think that is also my main point.

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Paragraph 26, and I quote:

25             "The source of personnel that comprise units may impact at the

Page 21030

 1     level of discipline a unit -- in a unit in an unstructured environment if

 2     soldiers have not had the level of training and been subject to the

 3     discipline that is required in a very uncertain environment, then the

 4     potential for undisciplined behaviour is increased."

 5             Now, you mentioned yesterday at page 20907, lines 17 to 19, that

 6     General Gotovina knew that he had elements that he could count on but

 7     also elements he could not count on.

 8             So what's a commander's duty under these circumstances?  He has

 9     to pay specific attention to these units of whom he knows that they have

10     a problem with discipline.

11             Would you agree with me?

12        A.   He has to be very careful of the mission he assigns those units.

13     And what I was referring to back in this paragraph, he had units that

14     were formed very rapidly and not afforded the opportunity to establish

15     within their chain of command the training, the authority to discipline,

16     the training to show them what right looks like, and to instill in them

17     what a military organisation, professional military organisation, should

18     act like.  He that mix of units.  He also had some of his units at which

19     he had been able to spend more time with, and obviously through the

20     offensive campaign, to be able see firsthand their compatibilities.

21             So when have you have that as an operational commander, you must

22     weigh with that with who can -- you think -- are -- have achieved the

23     level of readiness to execute the mission you're going to give them.

24     And, therefore, the care you use is by assigning them, in some cases, a

25     limited objective which would be very -- or more simpler, that they may

Page 21031

 1     be able to achieve versus something to be more complex and something

 2     which would require more physical stamina and/or a better prepared unit

 3     to execute, such as going through the minefields and further achieving

 4     the objective.

 5             So that is where you weigh that as the operational commander and

 6     where you give guidance and priorities to who is in charge of those

 7     subordinate units and how you task organise them and make sure there is

 8     oversight down to the lowest level.

 9        Q.   But it's not just the operational requirement --

10        A.   Mm-hmm.

11        Q.    -- of putting them on the right task, in terms of your overall

12     objective.  An easy task for an undisciplined unit, key task for

13     disciplined unit.  It's not just that.  It's also the commander has to

14     watch undisciplined units, if he has knowledge about that, very

15     carefully, so that they don't become undisciplined again in the future.

16     And I'm talking about committing crimes.

17             Would you agree with that?

18        A.   I would agree -- I mean, no doubt you can't let undisciplined

19     behaviour continue.  Now, you need to do something about it.

20             However, you know, as I looked at this very -- what I would say

21     immature professional army, he didn't have a lot of sources of putting

22     people in charge of these units.  As you assimilated different units and

23     gave them a title and a mission, that's no way to create an army without

24     training them and showing them what was right.  So -- what I saw in a lot

25     of the indisciplined behaviour which happened when you did not have the

Page 21032

 1     strength of good supervision in those units probably not totally

 2     unpredictable.

 3        Q.   But the main issue is:  If a commander recognises there is a

 4     problem, he has to address it and he has to address it in an effective

 5     manner.

 6        A.   Yes, he must address it in the effected level -- level of

 7     effectiveness obviously must play out.  He may have to re-address it, if,

 8     in fact, it continues.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Waespi, let me try to get -- it's -- it's -- the

10     questions are much in an abstract, on an abstract level.

11             What, Mr. Jones, I think, Mr. Waespi, would like to hear is that

12     if you know that some units of have a reputation or are found to be

13     inclined to undisciplinary and even criminal conduct, would you use those

14     units in a normal way or would you pay specific attention on what tasks

15     you would assign to them?

16             THE WITNESS:  Obviously, Your Honour, the latter part, I would --

17     I'd -- based on the compatibility and the type of unit, I would pay

18     particular attention to what I assigned them to do, and then I would also

19     play close attention on who I put in charge of the units to execute my

20     intent, to make sure they had adequate supervision of qualified leaders,

21     to be able to ensure that, one, something -- undisciplined behaviour does

22     not continue; but, secondly, that they can executed the mission I gave

23     them.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now did you come across in your research any

25     such situation where units, perhaps in earlier operations, had shown

Page 21033

 1     unruly behaviour or members of those units showing unruly behaviour and

 2     that specific action was taken; or are we just talking in the abstract,

 3     what if -- I mean, did you find any such thing --

 4             THE WITNESS:  Well --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  -- in the documentation?

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour, I have been sitting here waiting

 7     for the counsel to ask me about the 4th and the 7th because I know those

 8     were discussed yesterday, the incidents of Grahovo and so forth and prior

 9     to Operation Storm, so why did General Gotovina continue to use them --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

11             THE WITNESS:  -- I thought that was the point we were getting at.

12     Well, obviously he only had some number of forces of which he knew could

13     executed the offensive mission.  And those were obviously part of the 4th

14     and 7th and [indiscernible] Battalion.  That was at a critical point in

15     time, and moving to the winter of 1994 to position those units was

16     absolutely critical and to replace them in the line would have been

17     probably a very risky manoeuvre.

18             So as you look that in the string of events starting about

19     30 July all the way up through 8th or 9th of August, he started

20     reiterating the importance of discipline and he also relieved the

21     OG North commander to reinforce the point that he expected discipline in

22     his ranks.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think we discussed this yesterday, whether

24     the replacement of the -- commander replacement where --

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

Page 21034

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  -- General Ademi was -- you consider that as a

 2     response to apparently unruly behaviour and that's one --

 3             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, I would think, sir, there is probably

 4     war-related things that were not evident.  Obviously some of the things

 5     that happened in Grahovo, and the defence minister noting that there was

 6     houses and looting and so forth and him walking into Knin probably did

 7     not help his opinion of his OG North commander.

 8             So there was a series of events which obviously led him to

 9     relieve that commander, because he was not effective with his subordinate

10     commanders in ensuring that their focus of the mission and discipline.

11             You know, also the thing he did was restrict movement,

12     involuntary movement, of the forces to get them away and out of the town

13     so that the police could execute their security mission and re-establish

14     the rule of law.  It appeared to me in his sector and these other units,

15     he had -- I would call it indiscipline, but he had people in these other

16     units moving throughout in their own vehicles or somebody else's vehicles

17     during the day, and he restricted movement with the units, that could

18     have helped significantly the others to do their job in the rear, and I

19     thought that was a pretty good thing to do.  If you keep units together,

20     you restrict their movement and you keep them focussed on the mission you

21     gave them, then you have a better chance of controlling them.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now we are back at a concrete level again.  I

23     now understand how you -- how you interpret these -- this documentary

24     evidence.  Part of your answer was that, apart from paying attention to

25     adequate supervision by qualified leaders; the other one was what tasks

Page 21035

 1     to be assigned.

 2             Could you give us - apart from that, they should not move around

 3     freely - any specific information about perhaps limits or special

 4     attention paid to the tasks that would be assigned to units which were

 5     known for prior unruly behaviour?

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I think would you see, first of all, in the

 7     scheme and knew of the big plan, of which obviously Operation Storm was

 8     objective in that plan.  He knew that the units on his left flank, or his

 9     south-western flank, did not have sufficient training and probably did

10     not have the discipline.  I know we used the word "discipline" very

11     loosely here, but in my perspective as a military person they were not

12     ready to prosecute the fight, because they didn't have the training and

13     they probably didn't have the control of their fires, they did not have

14     the leadership down through the non-commissioned officer corps to really

15     kick off, cross the line, and -- and, you know, in a controlled manner on

16     the axis of advance that he wanted to.

17             So he gave them what we call an economy of force mission, which

18     had limited objectives.  They want to do an advance to show the enemy

19     forces that they were also attacking, they were attack -- so they could

20     have been perceived of as an attack against all fronts.  However, he

21     probably knew because of the composition of that unit they were not

22     capable of achieving a larger objective.

23             So it was also during the course of events, I believe, that he --

24     he displaced -- as I talk about being at a point on the battlefield where

25     it makes a difference, he flew back there because, after Knin had fell,

Page 21036

 1     he saw that the movement of that line was not making any progress, and he

 2     went back there and talked to those commanders about picking up and

 3     executing the mission.  So that, in itself, is where he took risk, he saw

 4     the risk, and then he had to go and do something about it, even though

 5     those units were not probably very capable.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You said that he saw that the movement of that

 7     line was not making progress and went back and talked to those

 8     commanders.

 9             Could tell us when did he talk to those commanders?  Where did he

10     talk to those commanders?

11             THE WITNESS:  I think he flew back on the -- if I remember,

12     somewhere about the 5th.  You know, he was delayed going into Knin.

13     During that period, he displaced and went over there because his

14     assessment, not only of Knin as he looked at the total battlefield, was

15     how is the movement of my other units working.  And if they did not move

16     then, of course --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- I was asking you where and when he met.

18             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  The subject of the discussion, where do we find

20     that?

21             THE WITNESS:  I would -- where did I read that?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, perhaps you take your time in the -- during

23     the --

24             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I would have to find it and go back.  I don't

25     have the documents with me.  But he left and flew back --

Page 21037

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

 2             THE WITNESS:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  My question was where you found documented

 4     [Overlapping speakers] ... of the discussion.

 5             THE WITNESS:  I understand.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  If you can find it or if you have any recollection,

 7     I'd like to know.

 8             Mr. Waespi.

 9             Yes, Mr. Misetic.

10             MR. MISETIC:  If you wish, Mr. President, outside the presence of

11     the witness, we can give you a citation for that.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, because I have to combine all the information

13     and to verify where it comes from.

14             Mr. Waespi, then I take it, Mr. Misetic, that you would assist

15     Mr. Waespi as well, to trace that information.

16             MR. KEHOE:  We can go through that and show exactly where it is,

17     judge.  Well, we'll talk about it.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Waespi, we're close to 10.30.  I don't know

19     whether you want to -- we have to some questions to fill the next two

20     minutes.

21             MR. WAESPI:  I think it appropriate moment to take the break.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  To take a break.  Could you let me first -- we'll

23     have a break, Mr. Jones, and I will ask Madam Usher to escort you out of

24     the courtroom.  We will resume at approximately five minutes to 11.00.

25             THE WITNESS:  Can I take this?

Page 21038

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see, the witness asked whether he could take

 2     something.  What would you like to take, Mr. Jones?

 3             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry?

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  What would you like to take with you?

 5             THE WITNESS:  You asked me to find the --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  The binder.

 7             THE WITNESS:  -- position and title of General Cermak.  I don't

 8     have anything with me to look that up unless I take the book.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Can you take the book, if you want to.

10             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Thank you.

11                           [The witness stands down]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Waespi, could you give us an indication as to

13     how much time you would need?

14             MR. WAESPI:  I hope to finish within next session but perhaps it

15     spills a little bit over into the next one, the last one.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             Could I already inquire whether some of the questions would

18     trigger any need to further ...

19             MR. CAYLEY:  Yes, Your Honour, I will now have re-examination for

20     this witness, at least half an hour, I would estimate.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  In order to make matters clear, and

22     Mr. Cayley, some of the questions I put to the witness were not primarily

23     aiming at seeking additional information about matters which we have gone

24     over for quite some time.  But that I was also intending to see what

25     knowledge the witness had on certain matters.

Page 21039

 1             MR. CAYLEY:  I fully understand what you're saying to me,

 2     Your Honour.  But I do feel I have an obligation to go back in on some

 3     matters, and I'm obviously well aware you don't wanted me re-educating

 4     the witness before he goes home, but I really do need to find the basis

 5     for some of his conclusions because, like you, I think perhaps there may

 6     be a problem there.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  From your answer I take it that you have understood

 8     what, more or less, is of concern and what is not of any concern at this

 9     moment.

10             We will have a break and we resume at five minutes to 11.00.

11                           --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

12                           [The witness takes the stand]

13                           --- On resuming at 11.13 a.m.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber apologises to the parties and to you,

15     Mr. Jones, as well, for the late start.  We had an urgent matter to deal

16     with.  That's the reason why we have this late start.

17             Mr. Waespi, please proceed.

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

19        Q.   General, let me briefly go back to an issue we discussed just

20     prior to the break.

21             You testified that a commander should take care about the tasks

22     he assigns to undisciplined units, and you have acknowledged that the 4th

23     and 7th Guards Brigades demonstrated undisciplined behaviour in Grahovo.

24             Now, what's your explanation, then, for why General Gotovina was

25     justified to use these two units in taking Knin, which was, as you

Page 21040

 1     testified yesterday, the key effort of -- of Operation Storm?

 2        A.   Well, from my opinion, and obviously I can't speak for

 3     General Gotovina, but my opinion, these were the best forces he had in --

 4     in spite of the incidents that he had -- that had been reported to him

 5     that had taken place in the ranks.  And he needed them, he had trained

 6     them, he had infused what junior leadership that he had that had been

 7     trained in these two units, and he felt that they could execute the

 8     mission.  Replacing them on the front line at the time was probably too

 9     high risk to achieve his mission and his focus.

10        Q.   We have to make an occasional break between --

11        A.   Yes, sir.

12        Q.    -- us because we speak the same language.

13             Are you saying that the Guards Brigades were the -- these two

14     ones I named were the only units capable of taking Knin?

15        A.   I'm saying at the time to continue the operation and the focus of

16     his mission, they were -- I don't say they were the only two that could

17     execute the mission, but there are certainly ones which he knew because

18     he had witnessed their performance, irregardless of the isolated

19     incidents there in Grahovo and other places of some of the soldiers, but

20     he knew the leadership could execute what he intended to do in the next

21     phase of the operation, where, of course, he was focussed.

22        Q.   Do you call these isolate the incidents when the deputy

23     commander, Ademi, says that, you know, all units participated in these

24     acts except for just two?

25        A.   I don't know the scope of the incidents and the magnitude of

Page 21041

 1     them.  I know they happened, obviously they were reported.  Taking those

 2     into the context of 15, 18 months of operation, I think -- I don't have

 3     the answer to the question to you [sic] whether those were isolated or

 4     whether they were routine.  It appeared to be when they were reported,

 5     they did happen and now his next mission afoot was taking Knin and

 6     continue the offence and that had to be his focus, replacing the units on

 7     line at the time probably would have resulted in either delay of the

 8     operation or possibly even putting his -- the rest of his forces at risk,

 9     as he replaced them in line.

10        Q.   And that's an option a commander could have taken to ask that the

11     operation be postponed, from his perspective?

12        A.   He could have, yes.  Probably unlikely.

13        Q.   Unlikely that his superior, including Tudjman, President Tudjman,

14     would have accepted his proposition.

15        A.   Well, you got to understand, that even in Operation Storm, he was

16     given four days to complete the operation.  That obviously said that time

17     was of essence, and to move forward, the operation was -- was the intent

18     of President Tudjman, the Main Staff, and the minister of defence.

19             By the way, Your Honour, if I may, I could not find the official

20     title, Mr. Cermak in these documents, so if somebody could assist me that

21     would be fine.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well --

23             THE WITNESS:  Whether it's important to the case or not, I could

24     not find it in the excerpts I have.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber has some information about his official

Page 21042

 1     title and since, apparently, have you no knowledge of it, we'll not -- at

 2     least the Chamber will not pursue the matter at this moment any further.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Waespi.

 5             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6        Q.   And back to these incidents in Grahovo, you were aware that there

 7     were units that were present but did not participate in those activities,

 8     undisciplined behaviour.  You were aware of that?

 9        A.   You mean over units in Grahovo?

10        Q.   Yes.

11        A.   I would assume there was.

12        Q.   And they could have been used for the main effort to go to Knin.

13        A.   I'm not sure you had another regiment.  You had two regiments in

14     the sector, the 4th, and 7th.  Were you able to mobilise of create

15     another regiment of that size to do that operation, I'd have to look at

16     the composition of units to do determine that.

17                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

18             MR. WAESPI:

19        Q.   Do you know what other units were there, except for the 4th and

20     the 7th Guards Brigade?  And I'm talking about the operation around

21     Grahovo and Glamoc?

22        A.   I know had you a battalion there which was along those lines, and

23     further to the east you had HVO units.

24        Q.   And these --

25        A.   I don't know what the relationship with General Gotovina and

Page 21043

 1     their leadership was.

 2        Q.   But they could have been used for the attack on Knin, if they

 3     were under the command of General Gotovina.

 4        A.   They could have been used if he thought they could have executed

 5     the mission.

 6        Q.   Thank you, General.  Let's go to a couple of other topics.

 7             Paragraph 46 in your report talks about the leadership--

 8     General Gotovina that it was present at the decisive points of the

 9     operation, providing inspiration and support to the units and soldiers.

10             That's the second -- the third sentence in paragraph 46.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Now, what kind of presence are you talking about?

13        A.   I would, first of all, I cited several things.  First of all,

14     earlier on, when he was witnessing the training of his units, he was

15     present to the witnessed that training, look at the curriculum and see

16     how they were trained.  As he went through the operation, various

17     instances of him engaging with the commanders.  The video was obviously a

18     good reference where, not only was he talking to his commanders in the

19     way at the time at that point to show his displeasure with the success of

20     what he told them and the execution of his intents, but then carried on

21     with them and talked to them about the next mission and how he envision

22     they do that.  His flying back to those other units and talking to the

23     commanders is important.

24             I think his -- his basic operation from a forward command post

25     showed that he positioned himself so he could see the battlefield,

Page 21044

 1     communicate with commanders, and prepare them for any further change to

 2     the mission or change to the operation.

 3        Q.   Let me move to paragraph 48, which touches on a related,

 4     connected topic.  And you -- you say that General Gotovina's role has to

 5     be looked at in a wider context.  And you mentioned that approximately 30

 6     days after the conclusion of Operation Storm, General Gotovina had to

 7     lead another major operation in Bosnia.  And then I quote:

 8             "The time between Storm and Maestral was short, and

 9     General Gotovina's time and efforts would have been dominated by

10     preparations for this next offensive."

11             Now, I think earlier this morning you said you didn't really know

12     in any detail where Gotovina was, you know, during the period, except for

13     a couple of appearances like the video on the 6th of August; is that

14     correct?

15        A.   No, I knew that he was in his forward command post, and I knew

16     that he also flew back to -- to influence the units on the south-western

17     flank to get them moving.  I would have -- my assumption, as I said,

18     this -- was General Gotovina, as he was given the next mission, his

19     sector, his line he was responsible for, condensed from about 250

20     kilometres to 100 kilometres, but added in this next mission was the --

21     the poor -- the more complex issue now working with another army, the 5th

22     Bosnian Corps, and then continued HVO forces on his right flank and/or

23     Bosnian forces on the other side of them.  He now has had added

24     responsibility to coordinate his flanks, coordinate the movement with

25     another army in other sector.  So the complexity of the operation where

Page 21045

 1     he was fighting for his homeland with people that probably knew very

 2     accurately the terrain he is now moving in a 100-kilometre wide sector

 3     towards Banja Luka and/or objectives.

 4             So the complexity of the strategic and/or operational environment

 5     has changed.  What I'm referring to here, that period would have focussed

 6     him totally to do that coordination, to go talk with the commander of the

 7     5th Corps, the adjacent units to make sure, you know, each -- each unit

 8     and their rate of advance and ensure their communication with adjacent

 9     units with their fires, with the use of air power so they don't have any

10     fratricide.  All those things now have to be considered when you start

11     moving into another phase of your offensive campaign.  And still, what I

12     envision is very well time but that momentum they had already achieved

13     had to be sustained.

14        Q.   But you were aware that during this period of time between

15     Operation Storm and Maestral, he was often in Knin?

16        A.   I was not aware the days or how much time he spent in Knin.

17        Q.   And perhaps you're aware or made aware that one of the members of

18     his staff testify that he was actually on honeymoon following

19     Operation Storm, in August, were you aware after that?

20        A.   No I was not.

21        Q.   Pretty relaxed commander under these circumstances; would you

22     agree?

23        A.   I cannot speak for him why he did that, why he chose that time.

24     I would expect after fighting for 15 months or so he -- a couple of day

25     he probably was wanted, whether that as a honeymoon or not, I don't know.

Page 21046

 1        Q.   Let me continue in paragraph 48.  You say:

 2             "A noted above, the Croatian military leadership accomplished

 3     their mission by providing inspiration and support to their units ..."

 4             Now, what do you know about the support of the Croatian

 5     leadership?  What are you referring to here?

 6        A.   We're talking about all the way from the main support staff down.

 7     You know, they were obviously involved.  They had the resource to support

 8     the subordinate commanders.  They had to take into account the sectors

 9     they were given and who had responsibility and then resource those

10     accordingly.  It appeared to me that this was a total focus of the

11     country of Croatia to executed this mission.  Obviously the task that

12     they had chosen to do and their vision of the strategic impact of not

13     being successful in these fights, everybody knew that.  I think they took

14     a significant risk because of the status and readiness of their young

15     army, and they had to support that decision.

16        Q.   When you talk about Croatian military leadership, would you

17     include the Commander-in-Chief of the Croatian Army, President Tudjman.

18        A.   Well, I would -- I would say he is the Commander-in-Chief, yes,

19     in title.  He was more of a civil leadership, but I would also include

20     the minister of defence and the other ministers as part of the leadership

21     of the country.  Specifically military leadership obviously has to do

22     with each sector, so the Croatian Army -- and how they orchestrated all

23     the way from the -- from the east all the way down to the south.

24        Q.   Let me tell you what kind of inspiration came down from

25     President Tudjman --

Page 21047

 1             MR. KEHOE:  Objection to form, Mr. President.  It's not a

 2     question.  It's a speech.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  The question is still to come, I take it.

 4             MR. WAESPI:  I can rephrase, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please do.

 6             MR. WAESPI:

 7        Q.   Were you aware that there is evidence in this case that members

 8     of the Croatian leadership, expressis verbis, some publicly considered

 9     the Serbs a cancer in Croatia.  Were you aware of that?

10        A.   No, I was not.

11        Q.   Would there be the kind of support --

12        A.   Considered the Serbs in Croatia a cancer?

13        Q.   A cancer in the body of Croatia.  Were you aware of that?

14        A.   No, I was not.

15        Q.   What kind of inspiration would that be for the troops fighting,

16     according to these support and guidelines in your assessment?

17             MR. KEHOE:  Judge, first of all --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

19             MR. KEHOE:  -- this is an argumentative question concerning these

20     issues, I mean, if we want to put the full context of all these comments,

21     and I think if the Chamber has seen quite a bit of the contextualisation

22     of this and it's certainly not the context being put forth by the

23     counsel.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I do not know, Mr. Waespi, whether this expert

25     is better placed to tell us how inspiring certain comments are for

Page 21048

 1     troops.  Perhaps we would need a psychologist or a sociologist for that.

 2     Apart from some common sense, perhaps, might assist in what; but, of

 3     course, to give one quote.  At the same time, there's nothing wrong with

 4     asking what this expert knew at the time he formed his opinions, because

 5     this will give an opportunity for the Chamber and for the parties to

 6     assess what he has taken into account, what he has considered, when he

 7     drew his conclusions.

 8             So, therefore, there is nothing wrong with asking whether the

 9     witness knew this or knew that.  But to ask for the obvious, I must say,

10     a matter which was not uncommon in the whole of the testimony of this

11     witness might not be something to encourage.

12             Please proceed.

13             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you, Mr. President.

14             The reason I was asking is because the witness in his report

15     really ventures out and talks about inspiration and support by the

16     highest leadership, and I wanted to ask him whether he was aware of other

17     comments.  That's the reason.  And Mr. Kehoe can, in re-examination, put

18     that into a wider context.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

20             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, if in fact we're going contextualise the

21     comments by counsel, then read the question and answer of

22     Ambassador Zuzul that the Prosecution asked.  They asked that question

23     and Ambassador Zuzul answered that question, and if that's what we're

24     going to talk about concerning that evidence, let's give the full context

25     of it.

Page 21049

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I think, as a matter of fact, that would take

 2     us another three weeks from now to give the full context and just as the

 3     Defence -- if not, perhaps, in every respect give the full context to

 4     this witness, whereas the expert had limited material available to form

 5     his opinions on.  Mr. Waespi, Chamber will consider those matters, and

 6     most important is not the view of this witness on whether a certain

 7     public speech would be inspiring and what direction, but, rather, whether

 8     he knew that this speech was held.

 9             And that is a matter which you can certainly explore.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you, Mr. President.

12        Q.   Let me move on to the last topic, and this is paragraph 43.  In

13     paragraph 43, the beginning, you start by saying that:

14             "I cannot refute the fact that undisciplined behaviour occurred

15     in the area of operations," which is a fairly defensive way to put it.

16     You certainly accept that the HV members committed crimes in that area at

17     that time?

18             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, I object to the form.  I let it go till he

19     fished, "which is a fairly defensive way to put it," is the Prosecution's

20     characterisation, and I move to strike.  If there's a question, that's

21     fine.  I object to the speech.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Whether -- Mr. Waespi, whether matters are put in a

23     defensive way or not, is -- it's the way in which you use language.

24     Sometimes I say I cannot ignore, but I want to say I know fairly well.

25     That's a way of using language and let's not focus too much on the

Page 21050

 1     language and let's focus rather on the substance of what is behind this

 2     language.

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

 4        Q.   You accept that the HV committed crimes during the relevant

 5     period and the Krajina in 1995.  Do you accept that?

 6        A.   I accept the fact that there were crimes committed.  Some of them

 7     attributed to the HV, the others could have been attributed to either

 8     non-combatants, illegal crime, or displaced persons.

 9        Q.   Let's look at an exhibit.  This is P918.  It comes out of the

10     command staff of General Gotovina, Split Military District.

11             I want to ask you first whether have you seen this document

12     before.

13             It's dated 12th of August, 1995.  And it's written by the

14     assistant commander for political affairs, Captain Mario Tomasovic.

15             And I quote from the middle of the first paragraph:

16             "However, because of the irresponsibility of individual soldiers,

17     non-commissioned officers and officers who comprise the Croatian Army and

18     State through their inappropriate conduct and acts, this success has been

19     partly brought into question."

20             And then it goes on to say:

21             "It is necessary to immediately prevent the following.  The

22     continued torching and destruction of facilities and property throughout

23     the entire liberated territory.  The killing of live stock; the

24     confiscation of property; inappropriate conduct toward remaining

25     civilians and prisoners of war, and especially towards members and

Page 21051

 1     soldiers of the Peace Forces."

 2             Now, in your assessment --

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, again, I hate to bring up the

 4     contextualisation of something, but if we could read the full paragraph,

 5     I think that --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Waespi, any problem in reading the whole of the

 7     paragraph.

 8             MR. WAESPI:  Not at all.  Perhaps the witness is also comfortable

 9     to read the document himself.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

11             MR. KEHOE:  Seing as we have it on the record at this point, if

12     counsel can read the full paragraph so he can give that full paragraph,

13     so if anybody is looking at this record down the line, they will see

14     everything, as opposed to the excerpt.

15             MR. WAESPI:  I take it it's the second full paragraph starting

16     from, "for this reasons."

17             MR. KEHOE:  "For this reason and following the policy of the

18     Supreme Command commander, Dr. Franjo Tudjman."

19             MR. WAESPI:

20        Q.    "... as well as the instructions by the defence minister and the

21     political administration of the defence ministry of the Republic of

22     Croatia, it is necessary to immediately prevent the following ..."

23             And then we have the four orders.  Continues:

24             "In order to implement the above political workers bear special

25     responsibility and are required to inform the unit commanders of the

Page 21052

 1     above and take measures to prevent crimes.

 2              "In cooperation with the information and security service and

 3     the military police, take repressive measures and launch disciplinary

 4     procedures against those who do not abide by the instructions.

 5              "In conformity with the situation on the ground in your area of

 6     responsibility, you are required to follow the guidelines of this warning

 7     and, in the realm of political activity, to acquaint all unit members

 8     with it.

 9             "You're required to submit a report on what has been accomplished

10     by 18 August 1995."

11             And you see to whom all these -- to whom the order or the warning

12     has been addressed.

13             Now, if you were a commander of one of these subordinate units,

14     would you be concerned if you received such a warning?

15        A.   I -- I don't think this was a surprise to them.  I mean,

16     obviously if you would -- this is coming from the commander of political

17     affairs trying to paint the political picture, strategic picture, I would

18     think these commanders would be also concerned about the same thing.  If,

19     in fact, that they thought this was a issue in their area, basically the

20     political advisor to the government is saying, Don't let indisciplined

21     actions overcome the -- you know, the achievements of your units and the

22     reputation which may follow because of indisciplined action.  I think

23     that's a good heads up.  It is not unlike what the orders had been

24     camming [sic] out by General Gotovina, and, in fact, it re-enforces that.

25     As you see, it is sent directly to the three OPs groups and information

Page 21053

 1     sent to him.

 2             So I think it is a reiteration of the fact that, Hey, guys, pay

 3     attention, and this could have a long --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jones, let me stop you here.

 5             Why not answer the question?  I mean, you're telling us whether

 6     it came as a surprise; you're telling us about what you would do.  The

 7     question simply was:  If you were a commander of one of these subordinate

 8     units, would you be concerned if you received such a warning?

 9             Mr. Waespi clearly wants to know whether this is a worrying

10     message [Overlapping speakers] ...

11             THE WITNESS:  [Overlapping speakers] ... I don't do -- consider

12     this a warning.  I consider this a -- you know, a heads up that say, you

13     know, pay attention.  This is -- we're not -- it's not something as a

14     surprise to these commanders.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it's called a warning.  So you would say you

16     interpret this as an encouraging measure rather than an alarm.

17             THE WITNESS:  Right.  It is reinforcing the fact of the

18     importance of continuing to -- to -- to execute and not allow

19     indisciplined behaviour within your ranks caused outside international

20     perspective of the value of Croatian military.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  What Mr. Waespi apparently wants to know is whether

22     the situation, which, apparently, called for such a reinforcements,

23     whether that was a worrying situation, yes or no.  That's, I think, the

24     core of his question.

25             Mr. Waespi, please correct me when I'm wrong.

Page 21054

 1             MR. WAESPI:  Yes, that's correct.  And I believe on line 18, you

 2     did say, "I do not consider this a warning."

 3             Is that what you said?  Because you were overlapping.

 4        A.   I think it may be semantics.  I don't think it's a warning from

 5     to the commanders.  This is coming from a political advisor.  You know,

 6     he has -- is simply stating a fact.

 7        Q.   I think you testified yesterday that you were commanding units up

 8     to the brigade level?

 9        A.   I commanded that and I also commanded the Aviation Warfighting

10     Center at Fort Rucker, two-star level.

11        Q.   How many warnings like that you have received as a commander in

12     your command functions?

13        A.   Of course, we don't have a political advisor, political affairs.

14     A message would have come down through command channels reinforcing the

15     fact about the incidents we were talking about.  It would not have come

16     from a political advisor in the US Army.

17        Q.   So you have never received a warning or encouragement like that

18     addressing these topics here, that actions of your unit compromise the --

19     your army and your state through inappropriate conduct on acts.

20             Have you received a warning like that in your career?

21        A.   I personally have not.

22        Q.   By the way, is it the first time you see this document?

23        A.   Yeah, I have not seen this document before.

24        Q.   Let me move to a second example, and I think you have seen this

25     one.

Page 21055

 1             MR. WAESPI:  This is P1140.

 2        Q.   A document dated 19th August.  Let me quote it as full as I can.

 3     It's authored by Colonel Mladen Fuzul.

 4             MR. KEHOE:  Counsel, if I can be of assistance, it is in tab 17

 5     of the General's binder.

 6             MR. WAESPI:  I'm very grateful, counsel.

 7        Q.   It's a very short document.

 8        A.   Okay, I have it.

 9        Q.   Colonel Fuzul writes, and he is an OG commander:

10             "Due to the observed breakdown of order and discipline and for

11     the international reputation of the Republic of Croatia, I hereby order:

12     1, establish supervision in all units and immediately take measures

13     against the torching of buildings and the killing of animals.  2, take

14     disciplinary and criminal measures against irresponsible individuals.  3,

15     the commanders of OG West units are responsible to me for the

16     implementation of this order."

17             Now, how alarming for you as a commander is it to receive

18     information about a breakdown of order and discipline.  Do you see that

19     again as an encouragement?

20        A.   No.  I think this is what you see is a chain of events and this

21     is in Colonel Fuzul reinforcing some of the things you just showed and

22     emphasising as we come into a -- a -- a point in this operation that this

23     will not be tolerated.  I think this -- and he specifically as a

24     commander is giving this to his specific elements to make sure that they

25     understand that, so this is passing that information further down in a

Page 21056

 1     subsequent order to make sure they understand.

 2        Q.   Now, this order comes a week, seven days, after the warning from

 3     Colonel Tomasovic.  And it almost repeats the language of what happened,

 4     you know, the killing of animals, the torching of buildings.  Would you

 5     consider that the first order, or the first warning, 12th August, was

 6     ineffective, if a week later, just another order has to be issued?

 7             Would you agree with me?

 8        A.   I don't see this as a separate order.  I see it -- a

 9     reinforcements in the orders in the chain.  If you also go back to the

10     10th of August, General Gotovina also issued a similar order to his

11     subordinate units to stop indisciplined behaviour.  Then you had from the

12     political staff the issue of talking about the potential reputation of

13     the Croatian Army and that, and now you see at the brigade level this

14     commander coming out, albeit, I think, several days later, reiterating

15     the fact that it could be reputation but even more important take

16     disciplinary measures against -- I know what a criminal measure may be,

17     but take disciplinary measures about indiscipline and actions and events.

18     I think that is necessary to reinforce the chain of orders here to get

19     focus by these troops all the way down.

20             If you look at it in the big picture at this time what is

21     happening after Storm and you have had a lot of troop movements and now

22     you've got a lot of people moving on battlefield and probably the risk of

23     anything indisciplined happen was you -- these soldiers envisioned

24     freedom of movement is probably peaking at this time.

25        Q.   Look what we have.  We have the video --

Page 21057

 1        A.   Mm-hmm.

 2        Q.    -- of the 6th of August, of the commander turning to his

 3     subordinate commanders.  We have a couple of written orders.  We have a

 4     warning of a political person, who is also concerned about the reputation

 5     to the state, addresses the shortcomings.

 6        A.   Mm-hm.

 7        Q.   And we may have an order of the 10th of August.  And then on 19th

 8     of August, another order.  Apparently nothing happens.  The commanders

 9     don't discipline soldiers, activity continues.

10             Isn't that what we have to read from the sequence of these orders

11     and, indeed, this last document, P1140?

12        A.   I think you could interpret it that way, but I do not interpret

13     it that way.  I see a sequence of orders, and I think following this

14     particular date, you'll see an increase in the number of -- of -- of

15     arrests, investigations, and finding people culpable for all offences.

16     So I think this series, from approximately the 4th of August on, or,

17     actually, the 30th July on to this period, now is really getting the

18     commanders at all levels to focus and people in -- not only in the

19     forward forces but also in the rear areas, focussed on getting control of

20     indisciplined conduct.

21             Now, I can't tell you what the scope of all that is by reading

22     the documents here, but certainly there is things that -- happening that

23     need to re-establish law and order in the rear and re-establish the

24     country as was once known under the constitutional authority.

25             At the same time this was happening, obviously General Gotovina

Page 21058

 1     and some of his forces were also continuing the fight.  So this is a --

 2     a -- a point of emphasis to get control of indisciplined measures that

 3     simultaneously what was happening, his focus on the fight forward, and

 4     that agreement with Bosnia and so forth.  So you got dual focuses here.

 5     Here to get this under control but continue the fight.  And you see

 6     General Gotovina and his staff also kind of caught in the middle of this

 7     and his commanders.  So somebody has got to pick up and pay attention.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Waespi, could I seek one further specification.

 9             You said -- you'll see an increase in the number of addresses,

10     investigations, and finding people culpable and you said following this

11     particular date.

12             THE WITNESS:  Following this period of enforcing the need to take

13     disciplinary action.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And what's the source exactly of this

15     observation about --

16             THE WITNESS:  That is a report from military police commander

17     backed up, I believe, Mr. Lausic, stating the number of arrests, the

18     number of conviction, and what they have been able to accomplish based on

19     all the things that happened here to show control of the area and

20     reinforcement of the rule of law.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Any other sources or just this one, then we

22     can check it --

23             THE WITNESS:  That's the one I read.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the one you read.

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes, my question and obviously as how I saw that:

Page 21059

 1     How come the field commanders didn't see that same report because it went

 2     up through Mr. Lausic and minister of the interior's channels not through

 3     the commanders.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  As an officer of the court, Judge, I also have to

 6     tell you that we provided the General in our discussions with the

 7     substance of Mr. Theunens' testimony, and without reading that testimony

 8     I'll just give the reference points.  It's mainly on page --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but did you give the report to the witness or

10     did you -- you just --

11             MR. KEHOE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

12             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... read the -- what you

13     consider to be the relevant portions [Overlapping speakers].

14             MR. KEHOE:  Read these portions of the testimony, which I'll tell

15     Your Honour what the reading of it was.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             MR. KEHOE:  Which is --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I think as a matter of fact -- I think that it has

19     been expressed several times that transparency in sources and facts

20     assumed was of vital importance comes as a bit of a surprise that it's

21     nowhere said, I think here, that selection of -- selection made by

22     counsel was read to me and that -- but that's fine.

23             MR. KEHOE:  Frankly, Judge, this is cross-examination, of course,

24     I didn't bring out this number during the course of my direct examination

25     concerning what Mr. Theunens said concerning the increase in discipline.

Page 21060

 1     And I believe he says the page --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, we don't have to repeat it.  I asked the

 3     witness what his source was.

 4             MR. KEHOE:  And I'm just trying to be as transparent as possible.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  You want to more or less [Overlapping speakers] ...

 6             MR. KEHOE:  I'm telling you what I read by giving you the page

 7     without reading the information.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  So say the answer of the witness is not correct.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  No, I'm not saying it's incorrect at all.  I'm not

10     saying that it is incorrect at all.  All I'm saying in the spirit of

11     candor with the Chamber, the issue of the number of disciplinary

12     proceedings came up in the source of our discussion, and I will tell you

13     as an officer of the court I relayed to the witness during our

14     discussions what Mr. Theunens said about that increase, which is in the

15     transcript, which I will provide, Your Honour, without going into the

16     particular number.

17             Now, I did not elicit that during the course of my direct

18     examination.  But I will -- I will say over the course of the several

19     days that we were talking prior to Monday that subject did, in fact, come

20     up and he mentions that number on page 12576.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I --

22             Mr. Waespi, you may proceed.

23             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you, Mr. President.

24        Q.   So we have seen this document on the 19th of August, 1995.

25        A.   Yes, I have seen this one.

Page 21061

 1        Q.   Apparently, you know, the same situation after seven days,

 2     despite whatever efforts other people might have done on the ground,

 3     whether you were correctly informed or not.

 4             Let's go to another document, which is D654?

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, I would object to that comment going from

 6     "apparently" or to "you were correctly informed" or not as, again, a

 7     speech and not a question and move to strike.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  This objection is denied.

 9             Please proceed, Mr. Waespi.

10             THE WITNESS:  If could I say something -- one thing, Mr. Counsel,

11     this one order you are referring to only goes to a select number of units

12     not -- it's not an OG.  It's just a brigade and elements.

13             So to me that's why I saw it was reinforcing the importance of

14     the string of orders from the highest level now down to the brigade

15     level.

16             Thank you.

17             MR. WAESPI:

18        Q.   But it's -- I'm not sure I understand you.  But this is the OG

19     commander issuing an order to all -- appears to me of his subordinate

20     units, which includes the 112th Brigade, 113th Brigade, the 7th Home

21     Guard Regiment and a couple of other units.

22        A.   Yes.  Coming down now you see the OG is another subordinate of

23     the other elements.  I know that the -- the political advisor had advised

24     him, but also going back, he had also been told several times.  And so

25     now he is reiterating the fact in writing.  It doesn't say he had not

Page 21062

 1     already verbally told them to do this days earlier so now in the

 2     follow-up written order obviously you have a documented case where he has

 3     told his subordinates in writing to -- to correct the indisciplined

 4     behaviour.

 5        Q.   But why would he issue a written order on the 19th of August,

 6     1995, which is a serious one, if the situation, you know, doesn't warrant

 7     it anymore, because it's okay on the ground or because he has told his

 8     commanders already orally?  Why would he sit down and draft an order like

 9     that?

10        A.   I'm not sure.  I don't know what he was doing between the 12th

11     and the 10th and the 19th.  Or even if he was not even present and had

12     them to approve this, so I don't know what led up or why the lateness in

13     now publishing a written order on the 19th.  So I'm not sure I could

14     understand that either.

15        Q.   But the obvious reading of this document is there is a serious

16     issue happening which needs to be corrected on the 19th of August, 1995.

17        A.   You could interpret it that way.  You could also interpret that

18     the orders previously on 10th and 12th also stated the same thing and he

19     is just now following under his command getting the written directive

20     out.  So whatever delay that was, you know, you could interpret it

21     whether you see there is still a problem, but I see it in a course --

22     it's a delay in him publishing an order to his command.

23        Q.   Frankly that is an interesting interpretation.  Why do you choose

24     that over my interpretation?

25        A.   Because I don't know.  I wasn't there.  I don't know what delayed

Page 21063

 1     him, you know -- I have seen orders come out by subordinates a week later

 2     or so because they weren't there to approve the order.  His staff may

 3     have written the order, and it didn't get published by the 19th.  He may

 4     have verbally stated the order earlier but just now on the 19th it gets

 5     published.  I don't know.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jones, may I just try to understand your

 7     testimony.

 8             Mr. Waespi puts to you that the order had to be repeated because

 9     it was ineffective; that's apparently his position.

10             You say, No, I interpret it as being a delay in writing down the

11     order and further sending into the chain of command.  That's -- if I well

12     understood your different interpretations.

13             THE WITNESS:  I cannot solely --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no --

15             THE WITNESS:  Go ahead.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Now Mr. Waespi asks you, Why is your interpretation

17     better than mine?  And then you answer that question that you do not know

18     because you do not know what caused the delay.

19             Now what you say is, The reason why mine is better is because

20     it's mine.  Because if you say, I do not know what caused the delay, that

21     suggests, clearly, that it was a delayed putting on paper of the order

22     that it was not, as Mr. Waespi's position is, it wasn't a repeated order

23     because the earlier one to be ineffective.

24             So by invoking, not knowing the reasons for the delay, you

25     exclude for the possibility that it was anything else than a delay.

Page 21064

 1     Therefore, when you are explaining why your interpretation is better than

 2     Mr. Waespi's, you're invoking that your interpretation is the right one;

 3     it was a delay.

 4             I'm putting this to you because I want to find out exactly the

 5     methods, methodology of interpretation of these kind of things, and,

 6     therefore, I think it's fair that I put this to you so that can you

 7     respond and tell me why this is not, as I suggested to you, a logical

 8     flaw in your answer.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, let me give you this analogy.  If I'm

10     one your subordinate commanders and I published an order on the 10th of

11     August telling that you indisciplined behaviour must stop, on the 12th

12     and I have that in writing.  On 12th of August, I get the note from the

13     general council talking about reputational impact of indisciplined

14     behaviour, which reinforces the order I just got from my boss saying to

15     stop this.

16             For me to wait a week to take action by publishing a subsequent

17     order after you just told me that in writing or even not only a week,

18     nine days, would be irresponsible behaviour on my part.  That's why I --

19     I can't fathom why a person would wait to the 19th to publish an order

20     nor can I conclude that the -- that the indisciplined behaviour got worse

21     and that as the counsel had said that this says that the -- a conclusive

22     piece of evidence that we still had to do something else.  You've already

23     told me it's bad and fix it on 10th of August.  Now whatever I've done

24     between that date and publish an order to document I did something, I

25     don't know what that time, you know, because I wasn't there.  That was my

Page 21065

 1     logic but you, as my boss, I would have done something very quickly if

 2     you gave me a written order.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, carefully listening to your answer, your

 4     actual answer to Mr. Waespi's question was, therefore, I don't know why

 5     my interpretation is any better than yours.  However, your answer was

 6     explaining why your interpretation was better.

 7             THE WITNESS:  I understand.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm just trying to analyse carefully the way of

 9     thinking and the logic involved in the conclusions you draw.

10             Please proceed, Mr. Waespi.

11             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

12             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you, Mr. President.

13        Q.   Let's move to another order issue by, I believe, the same

14     commander.  This is D654.  And it dates the 31st of August, 1995.  And as

15     you -- yes, we see on the document --

16             MR. WAESPI:  If we can go to the English on the second page.

17        Q.   You will see that somebody signs for the OG West commander,

18     Colonel Fuzul.  But let's go to the contents again on page 1.

19             So here, on the 31st of August, we have the OG West commander,

20     again, issuing an order, and I quote:

21             "1, commanders of Split Military District units in their zones of

22     responsibility in newly liberated territory of the RH shall take all

23     necessary measures to ensure that all military infrastructure facilities

24     are placed under full supervision and protection.

25             "Stop all devastation, regardless of what the facility's purpose

Page 21066

 1     is (barracks, depot, training ground, residential building, and so

 2     forth)."

 3             Second paragraph:

 4             "Before putting into operation the new facilities in the newly

 5     liberated territory, conduct planned and organised explosives and

 6     demolition inspections, and use the skilled and authorised persons to the

 7     units [sic] to dispose of explosives."

 8             And for the sake of completion, paragraph 3:

 9             "The Split Military District Command has initiated a proposal to

10     the HV Main Staff for the handover of certain civilian facilities to the

11     owners for protection and guarding, such as the pontoon bridge, the

12     Obrovac hydroelectric power, the Muskovci water pumping station, and the

13     Promina radio and TV transmitter.

14             "The HV will continue to guard these facilities until this matter

15     is resolved at the level of the superior commander and with the relevant

16     state bodies."

17             Now --

18             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Counsel, if I may.  Insistent with

19     Mr. Waespi's comment on 123 [sic] in the spirit of completion if we could

20     read the preamble that sets forth the purpose of this order.

21             MR. WAESPI:  Certainly.

22        Q.   "Pursuant to the order of the Split Military District

23     commander," classification number, file number, "of 29 August 1995 and

24     for the purposes of protecting military property, I hereby order ..."

25             So now, again, over a week later to the previous document, we

Page 21067

 1     have the same person, or somebody signing for him, ordering his

 2     subordinate units, Stop all devastation.  And it goes on to say that it

 3     includes residential buildings.

 4             Again, the insubordination or indisciplined behaviour or the

 5     crimes or whatever you want to call it continues, despite issuing written

 6     orders or whatever actions might have taken place.

 7             Do you agree with the interpretation I put to you in relation to

 8     this document?

 9        A.   Can I see the document once again?

10        Q.   Certainly.

11        A.   Can you spin that up --

12        Q.   You can also have my copy, if you want.

13             MR. WAESPI:  My hard copy, I'm happy to provide it to the

14     witness.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Usher, can you put --

16             THE WITNESS:  Can you move down, I can't see the --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  The problem is that you can't look at two pages at

18     the same time.  Therefore, you're provided with the hard copy.

19             THE WITNESS:  And you asked me for my interpretation of this?

20             MR. WAESPI:

21        Q.   Whether my interpretation was correct, that all these efforts,

22     mainly the written efforts, as we see from these orders, were ineffective

23     because the indisciplined behaviour goes on, requiring the commander, at

24     the end of August, I believe, to issue a very, very strong order, Stop

25     all devastation.

Page 21068

 1             Do you agree with me?

 2        A.   I agree with you only in part.

 3        Q.   I -- can you elaborate?

 4        A.   I can.  No doubt, you know, when we talk about the liberated

 5     areas, now we've reached a phase which they must reclaim some of the

 6     structure to include military barracks, depots and so forth.  My

 7     interpretation of this looting and actions such as that continue in all

 8     the areas because the military had evacuated these or moved forward.  Now

 9     they must reclaim those facilities.

10             I -- I come to that conclusion because -- because before putting

11     in new facilities, as stated in paragraph 2, conduct planned and

12     organised explosives and demolition, so they must clear the buildings.

13     At some risk there may have been explosives in those buildings either

14     because of occupancy of someone else before -- you know, before they

15     moved throughout the area or now as they regained those, or somebody

16     else's indiscriminate use of -- so they've got to clear the building and

17     take precautions.  So that doesn't necessarily correspond to me that

18     military people are looting or doing those actions.  It could be a

19     combination of other people, but it's a matter of reclaiming those and

20     then protecting them so they would have the infrastructure to have a

21     military in the future.

22             So I think it is a pretty good order.  I think it's good thing to

23     do and probably comes at the right time.  It also says, in the end, some

24     of the facilities must be returned over, such as civilian facilities to

25     the rightful owners.

Page 21069

 1             That's my interpretation.

 2        Q.   So you would -- or do you agree with me that, until this point at

 3     least, devastation goes on?

 4        A.   I agree with you that there is indiscriminate or indisciplined

 5     behaviour, and probably looting continued in the rear areas at this time.

 6        Q.   And this is done by members of the HV?

 7        A.   I don't agree with that comment.

 8        Q.   So why would Colonel Fuzul tell his subordinates to stop all

 9     devastation, if it was done by somebody else?

10             MR. KEHOE:  Judge, I mean, I would like to address this outside

11     the presence of the witness, and it might -- my question goes to the good

12     faith basis for that question.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll ask the witness to leave the courtroom for a

14     second.  Since everyone speaks English, Mr. Jones, including you, we

15     can't just do with taking off your earphones.

16             THE WITNESS:  But, Your Honour, I'm not so sure I speak English.

17     I've been [indiscernible] through counsel a couple of times.

18             Yes, sir, I will be right back.

19                           [The witness stands down]

20             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, this order, and I was going to get into

21     this as opposed to on redirect examination, but I felt it incumbent to

22     bring this to the Court's attention outside of the presence of the

23     witness when we get into this.  This order, as can you see in D964, has a

24     line there that -- excuse me, D654, has a line that goes back to the

25     Split Military District commander order.

Page 21070

 1             If the Prosecution checked their own system, the Split Military

 2     District order is written in exactly verbatim the same fashion and it

 3     comes from an order from the HV Main Staff which is exactly the same as

 4     set forth in Colonel Fuzul's order.  So comes from Cervenko, verbatim

 5     it's given back out by Gotovina, and verbatim it's given back out by

 6     Fuzul.  That is what the chain of command is here.  As opposed to this

 7     line coming from a question, So why would Colonel Fuzul tell his

 8     subordinates to stop all the devastation?

 9             Colonel Fuzul is following orders coming down the chain of

10     command and I submit to Your Honour that this -- this information is in

11     the possession of the Prosecutor.  Ergo, the -- I challenge the good

12     faith basis for that question.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It seems to me there are several possible

14     explanations of how this happened, and, therefore, the Prosecution may

15     ask the witness why this was done this way.  I mean, if, over a certain

16     period of time the devastation would have stopped immediately, you would

17     have expected some other action rather than sipping through -- but let's

18     not -- let's not at this moment discuss the -- how we would evaluate and

19     interpret this evidence.  Let's focus exclusively on what is admissible

20     to ask to the witness and the question, as such, which -- and that may be

21     clear, Mr. Waespi, seems not to pay a lot of attention to the verbatim

22     repetition of words.  In whatever way we would have to interpret that,

23     there are many ways of interpreting that, is admissible, but I take it

24     that you're aware that if you ignore that element that it might come back

25     as a boomerang at a later stage.

Page 21071

 1             There is no -- no reason at this moment to --

 2             MR. KEHOE:  I just want to advise in the true spirit this order

 3     that comes from General Cervenko goes to the Military Districts in

 4     Zagreb, Karlovac, Bjelovar, Gospic, Split, the navy, the air force, and

 5     the air defence system, plus the archive.  It goes to everybody that is

 6     in the military system and filtered down, and the only thing that

 7     General Gotovina, I submit to Your Honour, is doing is ordering, giving

 8     an order out that Cervenko, General Cervenko, has given to everybody.

 9             Now, the question that I can object that I can object to this was

10     the contextualisation of that, as if this is an isolated the incident

11     that Colonel Fuzul is doing by himself, without providing the context to

12     the witness.  Now I know that you can't provide the context to

13     everything, Judge, or we would be here for a month.  I understand that.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, make it three months.

15             MR. KEHOE:  That's right.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Waespi, the intervention by Mr. Kehoe at least

17     puts you on notice and does not -- let me just ...

18             MR. WAESPI:  I can ask him a couple of questions actually along

19     the lines of what is suggested by Mr. Kehoe.

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I consulted with my colleagues, Mr. Waespi.  We'd

22     like to hear from you, if I use my own words, which -- why you risk the

23     boomerang.

24             What's your response to what Mr. Kehoe tells us?

25             MR. WAESPI:  I believe that the issue is whether a commander

Page 21072

 1     would issue an order if he knew that in his area of responsibility there

 2     was no issue about devastation, there was absolutely no issue.  Why would

 3     in order -- issue such a serious thing if he knows, you know, his area,

 4     his command is free from that.

 5             So he is certainly not -- not a puppet, not a machine.  Mr. Fuzul

 6     would certainly check first with his subordinate people.  He knows what

 7     is happening in his area, and if there is no issue in relation it that,

 8     I'm sure he would resist from issuing this order.

 9             So it's just repeating what is coming down to the bottom of the

10     hierarchy.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  You would say, verbatim or not, to further put an

12     order down the hierarchical lines if the situation on the ground would

13     not justify such an order to be further sent down the chain of command,

14     that you would expect a strong protest against an order to issue a

15     totally unjustified order for your area of responsibility.

16             Is that --

17             MR. WAESPI:  Of course, he has to be sure that there was no

18     devastation in his area.  Otherwise he has a problem.  Because then he

19     doesn't follow directions from his superior people.  But if he knows,

20     There is no devastation in my area, I'm sure a responsible commander

21     wouldn't issue an order like that.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber denies the objection.  Mr. Waespi is

24     allowed to proceed as he did.  At the same time, Mr. Waespi, it -- you're

25     now put on notice of what the concerns of Mr. Kehoe are.

Page 21073

 1             Could the witness be brought into the courtroom again.

 2                           [The witness takes the stand]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Waespi.

 4             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 5        Q.   General, to provide you with a larger background or context to

 6     this document which I had to take back, unfortunately -- actually, I can

 7     give it to you again.

 8             Apparently the reference to the order of the Split Military

 9     District, above the word "order," it says "pursuant to order," this

10     relates to an -- apparently an identical order which, in fact, was issued

11     a level above the Military District by the main commander,

12     Commander-in-Chief, General Cervenko, addressing, issuing this order to

13     all Military Districts who, in turn, then, you know, order their

14     subordinate units.

15             So take it in the context of this is a verbatim order from higher

16     commanders.

17             Now, under what circumstances would you issue this order to your

18     subordinate units, tell them to stop devastation?

19        A.   Well, obviously, that -- I would do this to -- to ensure that

20     whatever state at the time our facility are that we stop any further

21     degradation of those facilities by whatever is happening.  If in fact

22     barracks, depots, training areas and so forth had suffered some or

23     continued to suffer some deterioration, I'd like that stopped

24     immediately, to offset the cost of re-establishing those in the future.

25             So the point here being, stop all devastation.  Now you're asking

Page 21074

 1     your military units to stop that, not particularly to me implying that

 2     they are the ones doing it, but whoever is doing it to protect those

 3     facilities so that we can re-establish them in the future.  But as you

 4     take on and look at those facilities, make sure clear them of any

 5     ordnance that may be in there.

 6             So, you know, obviously throughout the country at this time there

 7     is a concern of any continued deterioration of government facilities.

 8             That's the way I understand it.

 9        Q.   Now when you say that the point here is to stop all devastation,

10     do you have any information that the military was authorised to

11     intervene, you know, if other people would -- would devastate these

12     buildings?

13        A.   Obviously they have by the virtue of this order, you know, this

14     is on government -- if they're talking about barracks, if they're talking

15     about training facilities, residential buildings that belong to the

16     military, they have the authority - that's federal property - to

17     intervene to protect those buildings.

18        Q.   It -- actually doesn't say for military purposes here, at least

19     not in -- in that sentence we look at; stop all devastation.  It just

20     talks about regardless of what the facility's purpose is, barracks,

21     depot, training ground, residential buildings, and so forth.

22             MR. WAESPI:  The context might be wider and can be explored in

23     re-examination, but --

24             MR. KEHOE:  Well, I object to the -- I object to the premise.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I try not to speak at the same time.  If others

Page 21075

 1     would do that as well.  Then at least the transcript could be complete.

 2             Mr. Kehoe, it was clear to you from my eye contact that once

 3     Mr. Waespi would have finished his question I would have allowed you to

 4     make an objection.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  My apologies, Mr. President, and to the court

 6     reporter.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  You, Mr. Waespi, you already ruled on an objection

 8     you expected before even the Chamber could hear it.

 9             Well, a lot was said today about undisciplinary behaviour.  It

10     was suggested that undisciplinary behaviour raises some concerns.  It

11     does.  Would you please finish your question.  Then Mr. Kehoe will have

12     an opportunity to object to it.  And then the proper authority to rule on

13     it will do so.

14             Please proceed.

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

16        Q.   My question to you, General, was that in that sentence I want you

17     to focus on, but you could look at it in a context, it only talks about

18     stopping all devastation, regardless of what the facility's purpose is,

19     barracks, depot, training ground, residential building, and so forth.

20             So when you interject that residential buildings are buildings

21     used or owned by the military, that's your interpretation.  Is that

22     correct?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

24             MR. KEHOE: [Microphone not activated] -- contextualisation again

25     is it goes back to the preamble.

Page 21076

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I -- I don't even --

 2             Mr. Waespi, paragraph 1 of this order refers to all military

 3     infrastructure facilities are placed under supervision and protection.

 4             Second paragraph orders to stop all devastation, regardless of

 5     what the facility's purpose is.

 6             Now, please tell me what the reference to facility in paragraph 2

 7     could be, other than a reference to the facilities mentioned in the order

 8     under number 1?

 9             If you want to spend a lot of time on it, we'll have to ask

10     Mr. Jones to leave the courtroom.  But --

11             MR. WAESPI:  I accept your point, Mr. President.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. WAESPI:

15        Q.   I have one last issue, and this is the Ademi appointment on the

16     3rd of August, 1995.

17             MR. WAESPI:  It will take about ten minutes, Mr. President.  I

18     don't know whether we want to have a break now.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  As a matter of fact, I would like to discuss

20     scheduling before we have the break, in view of the wish expressed by

21     Mr. Cayley to examine the witness also for 30 minutes.

22             If you can guarantee with the assistance of Mr. Kehoe that you

23     will need not more than ten minutes, we'll now finish your

24     cross-examination and then have a break.

25             MR. WAESPI:  Even with the assistance and perhaps because of the

Page 21077

 1     assistance of Mr. Kehoe, I cannot guarantee that.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, can you finish your -- in ten minutes?

 3             MR. WAESPI:  I'll try to do it, Mr. President.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             MR. WAESPI:  I'd like to call D793, please.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Counsel, would you like this back.

 7             MR. WAESPI:

 8        Q.   Yes, please.

 9             Thank you General.

10             Now, this is the -- now I think almost famous order of the

11     3rd of August which plays, apparently, a central role in your argument

12     that General Gotovina acted properly and reasonably.  And you remember,

13     it's the removal of Colonel Slaven Zdilar.

14             You certainly remember the document from yesterday?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Now, let's have a look at this document again.

17             Now, first of all, it's -- the first time you have seen this

18     document was on -- on Sunday, because I understand it's not quoted or

19     cited by you in your report.  Is that correct?  Footnote 47 is the key

20     footnote where this document that suggests you should have been quoted.

21        A.   47 in my report?

22        Q.   Yes.  I can tell you it's not quoted there.

23        A.   Okay.

24        Q.   Now, would you agree with me, and you have given your explanation

25     yesterday and I think today as well, that in this order replacing the

Page 21078

 1     commander of OG North there is no indication that it was done in response

 2     to undisciplined behaviour in -- in end of July.  There's no reference

 3     here to that effect.  I know you interpret the purpose of having a

 4     uniform command and control of the units in a certain way but there is no

 5     reference to -- to, you know, some indisciplined units.

 6             Do you agree with me?

 7        A.   I agree on the base document.  And could I expand on that, if you

 8     like, why I agree.

 9        Q.   Not at this moment.

10             Now, were you shown by the Defence, Mr. Kehoe and his colleagues,

11     any information why, more specific information than what is contained in

12     the document, of why Colonel Zdilar had to be removed?

13        A.   Only from the standpoint of my examination of the document in

14     discussing with them the series of events of which units underneath

15     OG North had -- had demonstrated indisciplined behaviour.

16        Q.   And you have no information that any disciplinary or other

17     proceedings were initiated against Colonel Zdilar for not having control

18     of his units?

19        A.   Not at this time.  At this time, on the eve of the

20     Operation Storm he was removed, and that in itself is a form of

21     disciplinary action from my perspective.

22        Q.   But he's, at the same time, appointed to a fairly senior staff

23     position as chief of infantry.  You accept that?

24        A.   I -- yeah, and that to me, from a military perspective, is moved

25     to the rear and into a support or an institutional job not an operational

Page 21079

 1     job.

 2        Q.   So are you saying General Gotovina doesn't trust this commander

 3     anymore?

 4        A.   My interpretation of this is he doesn't have the confidence that

 5     he can command and control his units or his subordinate units which put

 6     the operation at risk and the fact that there was probably a series of

 7     events leading up to this which caused him to take that action.

 8        Q.   Let's look at 65 ter 7389, an order by General Gotovina dated

 9     22nd September 1995.

10             And you see here that it's General Gotovina reappointing

11     Colonel Zdilar as an OG commander.  If you go down in the English to the

12     bottom, you see the OG West command is formed in the following structure,

13     OG West commander Slaven Zdilar, brigadier.

14             Number 1, General Gotovina reappoints a person he allegedly had

15     to remove because he couldn't control his units.  This person is even

16     promoted as a higher rank than before.  And, as you can see from (b),

17     just above the appointment, he now controls one OG which is a combination

18     of OG South and West, so clearly an important position.

19             Now --

20             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, I object to the last characterization of

21     important position.

22             MR. WAESPI:  I can take that back.  No problem with that.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, a position.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. WAESPI:

Page 21080

 1        Q.   Now, General, from the perspective of your report's key topics,

 2     command climate and condoning undisciplined behaviour of subordinates,

 3     what message would that send to his subordinates if, first,

 4     General Gotovina removes the commander because of disciplinary

 5     shortcomings, and then the next month he reappoints this commander, even

 6     in a promoted fashion, and installs him basically into the same function.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  I object to the -- I don't know if there's a --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, let's -- yes, briefly say what your

 9     objection is.

10             MR. KEHOE:  I'm not sure if -- if counsel is aware of what

11     happened in between or he's just left that out.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  We can explore that --

13             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  You can that at a later stage, if you think that the

15     matter is -- but, again, from my next question to the witness it may

16     appear that the reasons to explore that might be not that big.

17             First of all, Mr. Jones, from you aware of this appointment in

18     September of Mr. Zdilar.

19             THE WITNESS:  No, I was not.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  He was not.

21             Mr. Waespi.

22             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you.

23        Q.   Can you answer my question?  What message does that send to -- to

24     his subordinate troops, to remove somebody first, accepting your

25     explanation that it was done because he wasn't trusted anymore, couldn't

Page 21081

 1     do his job, and then to reappoint him, even in a promoted fashion?

 2        A.   Well, I'd -- obviously when he's cited for the unity of command

 3     and control, as the case may be at that time, my -- my interpretation of

 4     that was -- was that he had -- he did not see the -- the sequence of his

 5     orders and his intent being carried out in his subordinate commanders and

 6     he replaced him.

 7             Now for whatever reason he elected to give him another

 8     opportunity is stated here later on.  I would have to have the

 9     background.  I do not know.  I'm not sure it's a promotion.  I would have

10     to look back and see if he's at the same grade, but, however, this looks

11     like a reorganising, restructuring of the forces and giving him OG West

12     command once again, with a supporting structure of someone who has also

13     been an OG commander in Fuzul, it looks like.

14        Q.   I suggest to that you there are two options here.  Either the

15     first removal on the 3rd of August --

16        A.   Mm-hm.

17        Q.   -- had nothing to do with disciplinary issues.  And then your

18     central document, which is this D793, does not support your theory that

19     these disciplinary issues were correctly assessed by General Gotovina.

20     Or we have here General Gotovina rewarding undisciplined behaviour.

21             Do you agree that these are the two options we have?

22        A.   I -- the latter part about rewarding undisciplined behaviour, I

23     don't think is why he relieved him.  The undisciplined behaviour was the

24     insubordinate units, but the ability for him to carry out his orders and

25     his intent would be more in line why he would have been relieved.

Page 21082

 1             Now, the incidents of indisciplined behaviour in his unit were

 2     indicative of him being able to command and control his units.  Now -- so

 3     I don't know if I can correlate to rewarding undisciplined behaviour by

 4     doing this.  However, it's not uncommon, from my perspective, sometimes

 5     to see if someone did have a leadership flaw and you didn't have a lot of

 6     resources to draw from in the past, and you had to form another command

 7     to potentially giving that person another chance because he just, at the

 8     point in time, may have been mentally fatigued; and so you try to

 9     re-energise him, give him some supporting cast to make him successful.

10     We don't want to tear a leadership down forever, but if he warrants

11     another opportunity, maybe that's what happened.  I don't know.  I don't

12     know the circumstances.

13        Q.   You don't know the circumstances so you actually don't know what

14     the reasons were for relieving Colonel Zdilar in the first place?

15        A.   No, I was referring -- I don't why he gave him another command.

16        Q.   Yes.  But you also don't know why he was relieved in the first

17     place?

18        A.   Other than what he stated of an effective unity of command which

19     implies his ability to carry out his orders as either written or his

20     intent the commander had given him.

21        Q.   And that's your interpretation?

22        A.   Yes.

23             MR. WAESPI:  No further questions, Mr. President.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Waespi.

25             We will have a break but we will already invite to you be

Page 21083

 1     escorted out the courtroom, Mr. Jones.  I do understand that you have

 2     plans to travel tomorrow morning.  Is that correct?

 3             THE WITNESS:  That's correct.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  We -- we'll try to see whether matters can be

 5     scheduled in such a way that it would not prevent you from travelling

 6     tomorrow.

 7             How disastrous would it be if we would not be able to --

 8             THE WITNESS:  To depart tomorrow?

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             THE WITNESS:  Obviously I'm at your, you know, disposal.  I would

11     have to change some things back in the United States.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  But it's not -- you're missing the marriage of your

13     daughter or a reception by the president of the United States.

14             THE WITNESS:  No.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for this information.

16             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Usher, could you please ...

18             MR. WAESPI:  Mr. President, I omitted to tender 65 ter 7389.

19     That's the last document I have shown to the witness.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Reappointment document.

21             MR. KEHOE:  No objection, Judge.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2618.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

25             I'm looking at Mr. Cayley.  You said you would need 30 minutes.

Page 21084

 1     Would that be the best, Mr. Kehoe, that Mr. Cayley would go first in this

 2     respect as a kind of a delayed cross-examination.

 3             MR. CAYLEY:  We've actually agreed, Mr. President, that Mr. Kehoe

 4     is going to go first, because it may actually abbreviate what I have to

 5     do.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  It's good to hear that you have considered

 7     the practical consequences of the order in which you examine the witness.

 8             Mr. Kehoe, could you give us an indication as to how much time

 9     would you need.

10             MR. KEHOE:  I would say, Mr. President, about half an hour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Half an hour.

12             Mr. Cayley, would it still be half an hour?

13             MR. CAYLEY:  Can we see what Mr. Kehoe does and then I can

14     certainly let you know.  I'll do my best.  I understand the point you're

15     making.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, the Chamber may have questions as well.

17     I'm just considering at this moment what possibilities there are to have

18     an extended session and to continue this afternoon.  Now, half an hour

19     plus half an hour would bring us beyond a quarter to 2.00.  That's clear.

20     Let me ask the Registrar about the results of his inquiries.

21                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  The parties are, as always, invited to be as

23     efficient as possible in the use of their time.

24             We'll resume at ten minutes past 1.00.  Then we would have left

25     35 minutes, which would not cover the time requested.  There is not yet a

Page 21085

 1     definitive green light for a session this afternoon, a session which, I

 2     suggest, would start ...

 3                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  We now have green light for one session this

 5     afternoon, which means that after the break we'll see how far we come.

 6     We'll stop at a quarter to 2.00, have a one-hour lunch break and have one

 7     session on from a quarter to 3.00 onwards.

 8             The danger of having time available is that it will be used.

 9             We ...

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll resume at quarter past 1.00.

12                           --- Recess taken at 12.52 p.m.

13                           --- On resuming at 1.17 p.m.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jones, you will now be re-examined by Mr. Kehoe.

15             You may proceed Mr. Kehoe.

16                           Re-examination by Mr. Kehoe:

17        Q.   General, good afternoon.  I would like to -- I would like to go

18     through a series of topics, not everything that was covered on cross, but

19     I'd like to cross-examination -- I would like to discuss the last topic

20     first concerning Colonel Zdilar.

21             And we have on the screen, as can see is P2618, which is putting

22     now Brigadier Zdilar in as the commander in OG West on 22nd

23     September, 1995.

24             Now, you noted two things in your testimony yesterday.  Number

25     one, this is on page 20933, line 5 to 6, that General Gotovina didn't

Page 21086

 1     have a lot of resources to replace commanders with.

 2             And today, on page 85, on line 9 and 10, you said that:

 3             "We don't want to tear a leadership down forever and if he

 4     warrants another opportunity, maybe that's what happened."

 5             Now, General, bringing a person back by General Gotovina would

 6     be -- would it be an attempt by a commander to rehabilitate that person?

 7        A.   Yes, it could be.

 8        Q.   Let me show you a couple of documents that pre-date the

 9     appointment of Zdilar on 22 of September, and I want to show you two

10     documents that you have not seen before.

11             MR. KEHOE:  And one is 65 ter -- excuse me, 1D2945.

12        Q.   I'd like to show you these two documents, General, before we go

13     into this.

14             General, this is a document that is the 21st of August, 1995, and

15     it comes from General Gotovina.  Notes that:

16             "Due to the demonstrated need and for the continuity of command

17     and control of units in the Split Military District ... I hereby ... all

18     appointments to the position of commander of OG West are hereby

19     suspended; and 2, I hereby temporarily appoint the commander of the 113th

20     Infantry Brigade, Colonel Danijel Kotlar as acting commander of OG West."

21             It says the order takes effect the next day.

22             And before we go into the next document, I'd like to offer this

23     document into evidence.

24             MR. WAESPI:  No objections.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

Page 21087

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1636.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  If can we can put on the screen -- thank you,

 4     Mr. President.  If we can put on the screen 1D2946.

 5        Q.   Now, General, this is an order three days, again signed by

 6     General Gotovina on the 24th of August, 1995.  Talking about the

 7     temporary command of OG West:

 8             "Due to the demonstrated need to acquire insight, regulate the

 9     situation, and ensure continuity in commanding OG West, I hereby order,

10     the temporary command of OG West shall be formed with the following

11     composition.  Colonel Danijel Kotlar," the individual we looked at in

12     previous exhibit, "representative of the commander of OG West.  Brigadier

13     Slaven Zdilar as the Chief of Staff."

14             Now, General, if you were going to bring somebody back in to give

15     them a second chance, would you put them in a primary position or would

16     you put them in a Chief of Staff position to see how that person performs

17     when you do bring them back.

18        A.   Well, obviously you have the option to that.  You would want to

19     see if he can perform, but you also may be doing this to get his head

20     back into the game of the operation.  You wouldn't just want to put him

21     back in cold, so the Chief of Staff position is obviously one which he

22     would be able to -- to regain his knowledge of the operation, probably

23     the quickest.

24             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, at this time, we'd like to offer into

25     evidence 1D2946.

Page 21088

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Waespi.

 2             MR. WAESPI:  No objection.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1637.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 6             MR. KEHOE:

 7        Q.   Now, General, the order that we saw previously, the P2618 and

 8     that was the 22nd of September, 1995, which puts Brigadier Zdilar in

 9     command of OG West command and this is, of course, based on the testimony

10     you talked about previously as prior to Operation Southern Move.

11             As further trying to give this person a chance, sir, would you

12     put that person in a role that was not the most difficult role in the

13     world or would you throw him right in and put him in the most difficult

14     role possible?

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Waespi.

16             MR. WAESPI: [Indiscernible] ... all leading questions.  Could be

17     probably asked, What role would you give him?

18             MR. KEHOE:  The role -- that question, I believe, is in the

19     disjunctive.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  The objection is denied.  It is to some extent

21     leading, of course, the showing of the documents, of course, assists

22     greatly as well.  I have a bigger concern, that is, looking at the

23     document and asking whether you would expect this document to be

24     delivered on a sunny day or on a rainy day, well, of course, you would

25     look at whether the paper is wet and then conclude that it must have been

Page 21089

 1     a rainy day.  It is the speculative and that's true for the testimony

 2     itself, to some extent, to the questions put by Mr. Waespi, and your

 3     questions as well, Mr. Kehoe, is the level of -- of coming close to

 4     speculation is -- is worrying me a bit.

 5             Could you please keep that in mind when you proceed.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.

 7        Q.   General, I'd like to move to the actual order for the operation

 8     in Southern Move, and that would be 65 ter 5531.

 9             And it has a variety of pieces of information but if we can go to

10     page 9 in the English, and it's 9 in the B/C/S as well, I'm informed.

11             And I realise that you don't have a hard copy of this, General,

12     but if can you take a look at this document -- excuse me, it's page 4 in

13     the English, I'm informed.  I'm sorry.

14        A.   And you're referring to tasks for units?

15        Q.   Tasks for individual units.  It gives a task for the 7th Guards

16     Brigade on page 9.  And if we go to page 10, that continues on, these

17     being combat tasks.  I'm not going to read it because obviously you can

18     see there, combat tasks.

19             Page 11, paragraph 5.42, other information given to the

20     4th Guards Brigade.

21             And then there were a series of units that get combat activities.

22     And if we could turn to page 16 of the English, when we talk about the

23     tasks of Operative Group West over which Brigadier Zdilar is in command.

24             MR. KEHOE:  And that's in 7 in the -- page 7 in the B/C/S.

25        Q.   Now, General, you see the role given to Operative Group West for

Page 21090

 1     Operation Southern Move and this is the order signed by General Gotovina.

 2     And, actually, signed by General Ademi on behalf of General Gotovina.

 3             Would you consider this particular role, based on your knowledge

 4     of Operation Southern Move, a minor role for someone who was being

 5     brought back into -- to prove himself?

 6        A.   Well, at this point in time, if I remember, it was now three

 7     operational groups versus four?

 8        Q.   That's right sir.

 9        A.   So Operations Group North is leading the main effort; west is

10     obviously on the flank and going into a defensive assignment.  Of the

11     three areas where you've got east, which is doing a defence in zone and

12     obviously a passage of lines to introduce forces for the attack.  I

13     interpreted this:  You've had two OP groups forward and the north will

14     past through east and continue the attack.  So obviously the three

15     operational groups west has the lesser complexity of assignments, just my

16     interpretation of what I have seen.  So -- I looked at the previous order

17     and also the words in there about correcting the current situation of

18     assignments, to me that must have been something to the effect of

19     re-setting and reorganising the forces and task organisation under the

20     group.  That was ongoing when -- the General Zdilar, or Brigadier Zdilar

21     was appointed the Chief of Staff so he could orchestrate that and

22     formulate that plan, then he was appointed as commander.  So he had

23     become part of the plan and so forth.

24             Now, his experience previous -- probably earlier on, prior to his

25     relief, showed some -- some probably talent and capability of doing it,

Page 21091

 1     and that's probably why he got this command and that responsibility.  I

 2     don't know why the previous commander of Operation Group West was then

 3     delineated as the deputy.  That is my interpretation of this.

 4        Q.   Thank you, General.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, at this time, we'd like to offer

 6     65 ter 5531 into evidence.

 7             MR. WAESPI:  No objections.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1638.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

11             MR. KEHOE:

12        Q.   Now, General, I'm going shift topics, and I just want to ask you

13     a few comments about some of your testimony about General Cermak, and you

14     noted on page 46, lines 12 to 21, that you had no knowledge of

15     General Cermak's title.

16             Do you recall that, sir?

17        A.   That's correct.

18        Q.   And when we go to D1632, which is the tasking order that it was

19     given -- tasking letter that was given to you.

20             MR. KEHOE:  If we could put that up on the screen.  And if we can

21     go to the next -- looking that page and the next page.

22        Q.   In the tasking letter as well as the appendix with the facts,

23     there was no request of you to analyse the duties and responsibilities of

24     the role of General Cermak, was there?

25        A.   No.

Page 21092

 1        Q.   And you were not provided any orders or other documents signed

 2     and drafted by General Cermak, were you?

 3        A.   No, I was not.

 4        Q.   Now if we can go to your book and look at the tabs.  And we look

 5     at tab 3, 4, and 5.  And under tabs 3, 4, 5, we have the order by

 6     General -- D409, which is 2nd August 1995 order by General Lausic.  D269,

 7     the 3 August 1995 orders by Lausic, re the cooperation between the

 8     minister -- the military police and the Ministry of the Interior.  And

 9     lastly, D1634, which were the minutes of the closed session of the

10     Croatian government.

11             Would it be fair to say, General, those were the three documents

12     that you relied upon to take the position that you did in your -- in your

13     report where this law enforcement was going to be transited back to the

14     institutional order of the Republic of Croatia?

15             Is that right?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Which paragraph are we talking about, Mr. Kehoe?

17             MR. KEHOE:  I will give you the exact paragraph, Mr. President.

18     It is actually mentioned in several locations.  One is paragraph 8.

19     Another is -- excuse me, paragraph 21, where the -- the last sentence,

20     for instance, in paragraph 21 says:

21             "As a result, it was not up to the HV operational commanders to

22     regulate the transition of responsibility for law and order in that

23     area."

24             MR. WAESPI:  Yes, just --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Waespi.

Page 21093

 1             MR. WAESPI:  Yes, it is obvious what the purpose is, but I think

 2     it is an important, potentially important area if the witness could be

 3     asked, you know, what did you rely upon when you expressed those

 4     opinions, rather than pointing him to what, you know, he might have

 5     relied upon.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Well, I think --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, I think it would be apparently the issue

 8     of sources and factual basis is important, so to the extent you could

 9     refrain from leading --

10             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  -- it would be appreciated.

12             THE WITNESS:  To answer your question counsel, yes, these are

13     three -- but it seems to me there was one other document which specified

14     in the -- in the order from the Main Staff, re-emphasising the minister

15     of the interior and/or the ability to discuss the reestablishment of

16     civilian territories from, and I don't know exactly what, but that's --

17     this is the genesis of what that also said.

18        Q.   And would you be referring to, if we can turn to -- excuse me.

19     That would be tab 5, D1634, which on page 7 is General Jarnjak talking

20     about when the army enters the area, the military police follows, et

21     cetera.  Do you recall that?  It's about three lines --

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Is that what you are referring to?

24        A.   Yes.  It also shows by their -- the numbers of which were

25     available and which he discusses diverting to the south.

Page 21094

 1        Q.   General, to get a full assessment of General Cermak's duties and

 2     responsibilities, would you have to review a series of documents in which

 3     he was involved as well as all his orders in that regard?

 4        A.   Yes.  Plus his task organisation, how he planned to execute the

 5     responsibilities given to him which I didn't look at in this particular

 6     case.

 7        Q.   And you did not do any of those items in this case because were

 8     not asked to do so?

 9        A.   That's correct.

10        Q.   Now let me shift topics once again, and if I can go back and just

11     show you D654, which is the Fuzul order concerning the military property

12     dated 31 August 1995.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, you just took the witness to D1634.

14     Could you --

15             MR. KEHOE:  I'm sorry, 654.  I'm sorry.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no, no, the previous one I was talking about.

17             MR. KEHOE:  I believe that's 16 -- D1634, Mr. President --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And what page did you take him to, because it

19     goes over --

20             MR. KEHOE:  I took him to page -- if I may, Mr. President, it's

21     page 7 in English.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Page 7 in English.  Thank you.

23             MR. KEHOE:  The item that we've referenced is about four lines

24     from the top that begins mid sentence:  "But ..."

25             JUDGE ORIE:  So page 7.

Page 21095

 1             MR. KEHOE:  In the English.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

 3             MR. KEHOE:

 4        Q.   General, I'd just like to address you to this particular

 5     document, dated 31 August, by Colonel Fuzul, and refer to the preamble

 6     when it notes that:  "Pursuant to the order of the Split Military

 7     District commander" -- and it gives a number and a file number

 8     1080-01-95-74 of 29 August 1995.

 9        A.   Yes, I have that in front of me.  Are you waiting for me?

10        Q.   I'm just waiting for the translation, sir --

11        A.   I'm sorry.

12        Q.   -- to try and catch up.  I would like to refer you back to that

13     document with the 1080-01-94-174 document, which is 1D2947.  [Microphone

14     not activated] This is an order from the 29th of August --

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

16             MR. KEHOE:

17        Q.   29th of August.  And that document refers to another order from

18     the Chief of Staff.  And this is signed by General Gotovina.  As we can

19     see, this is a -- taking a look at that it is an exact copy of

20     Colonel Fuzul's order.

21             And then if we could go to the beginning order from the

22     Main Staff from the 25th -- excuse me, the 25th of August, 1995; that

23     would be 1D2948.  And note this is a -- the 25th of August, 1995, signed

24     by General Cervenko, I will note for you that this order, as we see in

25     the first paragraph, goes to the Military Districts, the navy, the air

Page 21096

 1     force, the air defence.  But as can you see, General, it is the number

 2     that is listed in General Gotovina's orders.

 3             Now, based on your military experience, General, is this the

 4     actual -- the chain of what were you talking about during your testimony

 5     earlier, that an order comes out at the Main Staff and goes down to a

 6     lower subordinate level and then goes down to a more subordinate level.

 7     Is that how it generally flows?

 8        A.   That's correct.  And it also goes -- as you see, it gets narrower

 9     in scope as it goes down, because this is a multi-service order effective

10     the 25th, and then obviously it goes on down as -- as you see, in -- in

11     the subsequent levels of command.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, at this time, we will offer 1D2948 into

13     evidence 1D2948 into evidence, which is General Cervenko's order of the

14     25th of August.  And then 1D2947, which is General Gotovina's order of

15     29th of August, 1995.

16             MR. WAESPI:  No objections.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 1D2947 becomes Exhibit D1639.  And

19     1D2948 becomes Exhibit D1640.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  D1639 and D1640 are admitted into evidence.

21             MR. KEHOE:

22        Q.   General, just one last question before the break.  You were shown

23     some documents by counsel during cross-examination and I have shown you

24     some as well that you hadn't seen previously.  Has anything happened

25     during cross-examination or since you took the stand here yesterday that

Page 21097

 1     caused you to change your opinions with respect to any of the actions

 2     taken by General Gotovina?

 3        A.   No.  But what I do see is -- on this issue of unity of command,

 4     these orders now, as we've gone through the course we see a maturing

 5     professional force and the effectiveness of the command.  Now you have

 6     got commands and orders that could come out very readily out of the main

 7     support staff and be disseminated all the way down to the lowest level.

 8     It appears that the level of normalcy within the military is starting to

 9     build, so that was -- that could be good news and the results of a lot of

10     hard work by a lot of people.

11        Q.   Thank you, General, I have no further questions.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  What is the news, what is good about the news?

14             THE WITNESS:  The good news is now you're starting to create

15     unity of command all the way -- because if you remember, Your Honour, we

16     started forming this army and we didn't even have doctrine back in 1992.

17     Now you see a maturation of the orders process of the command and control

18     and a doctrine develop and on how you operate as a professional force,

19     and that is probably, to me, evident in the ability now as they're

20     starting to take control of their own destiny, and it appears that the

21     orders process follows fairly smoothly.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  You consider the copying of orders, addressing them

23     to lower subordinates, as a major development during the month of

24     August 1995, which is an indication of maturing of the professional

25     organisation.

Page 21098

 1             Is that your testimony?

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  My interpretation is that the sequence of

 3     which this happened and the substance of these where each command at each

 4     level is re-emphasising and you've got unity of substance in each of

 5     these orders going down, I did not see the smooth flow when I first

 6     started looking at this.  And it seems like we had a little bit as -- as

 7     the army was maturing, a little bit of probably additional work to be

 8     done in a communications aspect with the unity of command and maturing of

 9     the doctrine of which now people understand how to -- how to disseminate

10     and to follow orders.  And this to me, if the results of what happened

11     right here reduced ineffective actions by the units, that's a good thing

12     for a military trying to go develop, and that was my point.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  This part of your answer, introducing quite a

14     lot of new elements in --

15             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  -- because what you were talking about was seeing

17     orders which almost verbatim are repeated lower down the line.

18             Now you earlier told us that you had received some 30 documents

19     to review for your expert opinion.  Now did you ever investigate, well,

20     let's say, mid-July or early August, whether similar production of almost

21     verbatim orders down the line happened or not?

22             THE WITNESS:  No, I didn't see any.  I saw the mission -- the

23     continuity of the mission, as you started the offensive OPs from main

24     support staff down to General Gotovina and his dissemination of that

25     order, you know, at least down to his commanders, that it was in the

Page 21099

 1     operational perspective.  Now see a different facet here of really a

 2     fairly smooth although, albeit a reiteration of the same words, that the

 3     flow of communications being very much a lot quicker and a lot more

 4     understood, that they understood what was going and they passed that

 5     information quite readily.  The test would be what happened after these

 6     orders were disseminated.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I think you earlier testified that the delay of

 8     seven days in passing an order through down the line was not what you

 9     considered to be a timely way of dealing with such a matter.  Now --

10             THE WITNESS:  That's correct.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  -- in your last answer, you expressed your -- your

12     views on professionality of what happened late August.  Now the delay you

13     earlier talked I think was mid-August, was 12th to 19th of August.

14             THE WITNESS:  Yes, th to 19th, yes, sir.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And how many documents did you study to analyse what

16     is at the basis of your conclusion?  Apart from the ones shown to you in

17     court, did you analyse any other series of issues which were dealt with

18     in orders which then passed down the line?

19             THE WITNESS:  I did not analyse the orders for time and

20     sequential type of analysis and how that communication flowed.  I

21     analysed the orders in the past of what they said, what the task

22     organisation and what the mission was given.  That was my focus as we got

23     ready to do the operational campaign.  I just noted, having watched this

24     sequence here, based on what the counsel have provided and, Your Honour,

25     you just brought up the delay of -- of 12 or one week before the

Page 21100

 1     subordinate commander reiterated the importance of protecting the

 2     equipment and so forth, and indisciplined behaviour.  Here is a case when

 3     in a matter of four days you have gone from the highest level of the

 4     Croatian authorities all the way down to the operations group very

 5     quickly.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And this demonstrates the growth in professionality

 7     in that one week time?  Is that --

 8             THE WITNESS:  I think it shows a growth and an understanding and

 9     an increase in the communications in the flow unity of command.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let me put to you an alternative

11     interpretation of this and see whether -- do the same exercise we have

12     done before.

13             Let's -- I'm not saying it is my assumption, but for argument's

14     sake, let's say that avoiding devastation of -- or burning and looting

15     was not of a primary concern and therefore everyone took its time;

16     whereas, saving military facilities for future use would be a high

17     priority, and therefore no one would take his time.

18             That is, well, a -- I'm not saying it is the explanation.  I

19     don't know.  But it is at least a potential explanation, that is, the

20     difference of subject between 12 to 19 August or between the 20th and the

21     30th of August.  Is there any method by which you could establish whether

22     your interpretation would be better than the one - perhaps one out of

23     many - would be -- that your interpretation would be the better one and

24     the more valid one?

25             I'm now thinking in terms of methods and logic of drawing

Page 21101

 1     conclusions.

 2             THE WITNESS:  I think you have to look at each of these incidents

 3     in a different way, because it's a little bit of apples and oranges.

 4     Your first instance where you want to take control and establish the

 5     authority into the re-captured free Croatian land, you want the civil

 6     authorities to step up and enforce the rule of law.

 7             Now, that goes through in the responsibilities to minister of the

 8     interior and Mr. -- and the civilian and military police.  Normally when

 9     things go through a civilian type of organisation, and no offence to

10     anyone here, it maybe here, they are not organised to disseminate and/or

11     do things that quickly.

12             Now, the other perspective that you saw in this order's process

13     is to make sure that when what was previously military infrastructure now

14     becomes cleared and secured for future use.  So it's a little bit

15     different where you talk about the control and authority throughout the

16     land and re-establishing that civil authority and this piece where he's

17     talking about protecting particularly the military infrastructure so you

18     can regain the use of it later.  It appears to me that -- that this

19     latter part is talking specifically on military infrastructure that had

20     been occupied by another force because they talk about in clearing the

21     area previously occupied, make sure you clear the area from mines, booby

22     traps or any demolition.  So that would also be -- that's one

23     paragraph in there, I think, is very important to catch because, if when

24     somebody vacated a military facility they would try to render it unusable

25     to future occupancy, it should be cleared.  So I --

Page 21102

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  May I ask you --

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes, go ahead.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Aren't you at this moment strongly supporting what I

 4     suggested as a possible explanation, that the subject matter may be an

 5     important element in how quickly orders were passed down the road?

 6             THE WITNESS:  Subject matter, yes, sir.  And level of importance.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So, therefore, the growth of professionalism

 8     which was your previous explanation for the difference between mid-August

 9     and end August might be competing with difference in subject matter as an

10     explanation.

11             THE WITNESS:  It could.  It could.  It's my observation.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, thank you.

13             Now we will have a break.  We managed to, Mr. Jones, to schedule

14     our hearings today in such a way that you will be able to travel, which

15     means that we'll have one other session which will start at 3.00.

16             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  And we'll adjourn until 3.00.

18                            --- Lunch break taken at 1.54 p.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 3.03 p.m.

20             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley, are you ready?

22             MR. CAYLEY:  Yes, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jones, you will now be examined by Mr. Cayley.

24     Mr. Cayley is counsel for Mr. Cermak.

25             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, just for planning purposes, I think I

Page 21103

 1     will be considerably less than 30 minutes.  I know Your Honours have

 2     questions for the witness too.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps, yes.

 4                           Cross-examination by Mr. Cayley:

 5        Q.   General Jones, I have a few questions for you and at the outset

 6     what I wanted to say to you is I'm not actually interested specifically

 7     in your opinions, I'm more interested in -- the information you based

 8     your opinions upon.

 9             Do you follow?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Now, I'm right in saying, just to reiterate where we left off at

12     the end of the last session, you were not asked by the Gotovina Defence

13     team to analyse Mr. Cermak's role in this case; correct?

14        A.   That's correct.

15        Q.   And you were not provided with any documents that were signed or

16     drafted by Mr. Cermak, were you?

17        A.   No, I was not.

18        Q.   And it would be right to say, to emphasise, I think, what you,

19     yourself said, you do you not know anything about the tasks that he

20     performed because you didn't see, I think, what you called his task

21     organisation; is that right?

22        A.   Yes.  I didn't see his -- what he was tasked with or his task

23     organisation.

24        Q.   And I'm also right in saying that have you not seen any documents

25     signed by Mr. Cermak addressed to HV units which, you know from your

Page 21104

 1     research, were under the command of General Gotovina within the Split

 2     Military District; correct?

 3        A.   Correct.  I don't remember any of those.

 4        Q.   Now you, yourself, said quite early on in your evidence, and this

 5     is actually at page 33, line 25, that a commander can only have

 6     responsibility and oversights for units assigned to him.

 7             Do you recall stating that?

 8        A.   That's correct.

 9        Q.   Now, I want to take you to a part of your evidence where you were

10     referring to the subordination of the military police and the civilian

11     police.  And I'll read it back carefully to you what you said.

12             And this is at page 19, lines 21 to 23.  And you said the

13     following:

14             "It appeared to me in the subsequent -- with the meeting with the

15     minister it is said that the military police and civilian police would

16     then work under the minister of the interior and subordinate to him."

17             Do you recall stating that?

18        A.   Yes, I think that's true.  I think the minister of the interior

19     is correct.  I may be wrong, but just the military and civilian police

20     would work subordinate to whoever was responsible for restoring the

21     constitutional authority of the country.

22        Q.   Let me just interrupt you there.

23             Now, I'm not going to produce exhibits because the Judges have

24     already seen them, but I can inform you, I don't think there is any

25     dispute about this fact in the case is that the military police -- there

Page 21105

 1     is no evidence at all to show that the military police were subordinated

 2     to the minister of the interior in this case.

 3             Do you accept that you could be wrong on that point?

 4        A.   To the minister of the interior, yes.

 5        Q.   That the military police --

 6        A.   I could be, yes.

 7        Q.   You accept that are you wrong on that point.  Do you know the

 8     name of the minister of the interior?

 9        A.   Mr. --

10        Q.   No matter.  It doesn't matter.

11             Now, on page 20 at lines 22 to 23, His Honour Judge Orie was

12     asking you a number of questions, and he said to you, "I did not ask you

13     to list them but to say how much approximately," and here he was talking

14     about units that were subordinated to Mr. Cermak.  Okay?  That's the

15     reference point.

16             Than's at again page 20, line -- lines 22 to 23.  And you said:

17             "I would say that he had the military police and the civilian

18     police that would move through the area that was following the operation.

19     My estimate is that there would be three to 500 people."

20             Now, first of all, in terms of the numbers, I'm right in saying

21     that you have seen absolutely no operational orders, reports, or other

22     documents showing that General Cermak had three to 500 people

23     subordinated to him, have you?

24        A.   No.  I was referring to Mr. Lausic.

25        Q.   Yes.

Page 21106

 1        A.   So --

 2        Q.   So that was incorrect, wasn't it, too?

 3        A.   Right.

 4        Q.   Now, I'm also right in saying that you have not seen any

 5     operational orders or documents or reports demonstrating that Mr. Cermak

 6     had operational command of the military police or civilian police.  You

 7     haven't seen any documents to that effect either, have you, General?

 8        A.   No.

 9             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, I don't have any further questions.

10     Thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jones, I would like to ask you a few questions,

14     again, on the genesis of your report.

15                           Questioned by the Court:

16             JUDGE ORIE:  You told us that you were approached by the Defence,

17     that you discussed whether you would be the right person for the job they

18     had in mind, whether you had the experience needed to do that job, and

19     then that you were assigned with the task to prepare the reports.

20             Now, you also told us that you received some documents from the

21     Gotovina Defence.  Can you tell us how did you receive them and when did

22     you receive them?

23        A.   If I may, Your Honour, the sequence went like this:  I was

24     contacted by them.  I had to work with my company to see that I did not

25     have a conflict of interest.  Subsequent to that, then I was given the

Page 21107

 1     letter, I think you saw, of May 20th.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3        A.   I then proposed to them an outline, what I thought that they

 4     wanted me to talk about.  And we agreed that the scope of the paper -- at

 5     that time then --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we take it step by step.

 7        A.   Sure.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  You did present an outline on the basis of the 20th

 9     of May letter or ...

10        A.   Yes.  What I did was handwrite an outline and ask them if this

11     is, in fact, the scope of what you were looking for, in terms of my

12     military experience.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And that outline, could you give us some more

14     details, how many pages approximately?

15        A.   It was approximately two pages handwritten.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And at that moment you had not yet received

17     the documents you were -- you would use for the report.

18        A.   No, that's correct.  I was trying to get the scope of the paper

19     and what exactly the areas they wanted me to address, as I understood

20     their tasking memo.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22        A.   Basically outlined the logic I would use to write the paper.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And you say -- when you received the 20th of

24     May letter, you had already the list of facts, attachment A to that

25     letter, on which -- on the basis of which you would work.

Page 21108

 1        A.   I'm sorry?  The lists that were attached to the letter?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  20th of May letter.

 3        A.   Yes, had the attachment with it.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, providing the facts.

 5        A.   Right.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  So you had that --

 7        A.   It was provided with it.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And you had no documents yet.

 9        A.   Not yet.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then what then happened next.

11        A.   I discussed with them the scope of the letter, then they provided

12     me documentation to review.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  So let's take it again step by step.

14             So you sent them the outline.

15        A.   Actually I met with them and discussed it with them.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  You discussed it with them.

17        A.   Yes, I showed it to them and how I was going to do this.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you remember how long that conversation took and

19     where it took place?

20        A.   Approximately an hour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And it was where?

22        A.   At that time we met in, I believe, Washington DC when I was there

23     for other business.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  So you discussed the outline with members of the

25     team.  One member, more members?

Page 21109

 1        A.   Actually, two members.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Two members.

 3             Now, then you -- at that moment, did you receive the

 4     documentation?

 5        A.   No.  Subsequent to that, they mailed them to me.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, had you asked for specific documents or was it

 7     their selection that they provided to you?

 8        A.   It was a combination of things which were germane to the case,

 9     the documentation and things additionally I asked for.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  But the first selection?

11        A.   The first selection was exactly that, it was a combination I

12     asked to make sure I had the orders, the task organisation, the

13     background, and they provided that for me.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So you asked for a specific type of document

15     and they provided you with those types of documents.

16        A.   Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18        A.   They also provided a few extra documents which supported the

19     outline I had given for me to read.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then you started drafting or did you first

21     ask for more documentation.

22        A.   No.  I -- the next thing I did was read and do the research, and

23     then I -- I re-wrote my outline, and then once I was satisfied with the

24     logic of which I was going to address the questions of the 20 May letter,

25     I sat down and wrote the document.

Page 21110

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  You said the next thing you did was to read and do

 2     the research.

 3        A.   Mm-hmm.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, the research went beyond reading the

 5     documentation that was given to you?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And what did you -- beyond what was provided to you?

 8        A.   The other thing I did was go back in my own documentation, the

 9     things I had from my military service and my time in Bosnia and look at

10     such things as the maps I had and exactly where things were.  I also went

11     back to my military documents and US doctrine on specific things and

12     looked at the concept of an operational commander and commander's

13     responsibilities.  Those were things I personally had.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, not knowing what you were actually

15     provided with, do we find all the sources you used in either the report

16     or the footnotes or is there material which cannot be traced on the basis

17     of your report and the footnotes?

18        A.   Everything that is footnoted was documents provided, or reference

19     out of documents provided.  Things that were my opinion and my assessment

20     were largely my experience.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But let's try to -- you make now a distinction

22     between documents provided to you and opinion and assessment.  Now there

23     seems to be a third category, that is documents not being provided to you

24     but in your possession or at least available to you.

25             Do we find anywhere in the report or in its footnotes those

Page 21111

 1     documents or that information which was not provided to you by the

 2     Gotovina Defence but which you had available, as you said, notes, maps,

 3     [Overlapping speakers] ...

 4        A.   No, there was not specific reference in my report to any of those

 5     documents.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  So we can't verify those sources.  Have you

 7     listed them anywhere for yourself?

 8        A.   No.  Because when I reviewed them like one was FM 3.0 US Army

 9     military doctrine or operations doctrine.  There was nothing specific

10     enough in there that I would use in my report after I went back and

11     reviewed it.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  So you read this material.  You did additional

13     research on the basis of what was available to you, of which we do not

14     know exactly what it is.  Then you said you started drafting.

15             Did you, at that point in time, or at an earlier point in time or

16     at a later point in time ask for additional documents to the Gotovina

17     Defence?

18        A.   At a later point in time, after I thought through, I -- what I

19     had written, I asked for additional information.  That's where it came

20     into being the issue on numbers of non-combatants in the area.  Those

21     kind of questions as I was trying to formulate in my mind exactly what

22     was happening.

23             I also was provided some of the additional testimonies as counsel

24     had spoken to about people who had already testified about non-combatants

25     in the area and how they controlled those, and I just looked at those.  I

Page 21112

 1     didn't use them in my report.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You said you asked for additional information

 3     when you thought through what you had written.  A draft report,

 4     therefore, was already in existence when you asked for this additional

 5     information?

 6        A.   Yes, I had the draft in my computer.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then this additional information, did you send

 8     a letter asking for it or how did that happen?

 9        A.   No, I verbally asked for it.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Verbally.  Was that in a meeting?

11        A.   It was on the phone.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  It was on the phone.  And then you received that

13     additional information how?

14        A.   They sent me the document and/or passed me -- or told me the

15     answer.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  The answer to what?

17        A.   The relative number of, for example, non-combatants that were in

18     the area.  Another question I asked was the law when -- Law of Land

19     Warfare synonymous with the rule of law, or principles of

20     Geneva Convention.  Those are some of the clarification questions I

21     asked.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll try to understand.  You said another question

23     you asked was the Law on Land Warfare synonymous with the rule of law, or

24     principles of the Geneva Convention.

25             It is not entirely clear to me what question you specifically

Page 21113

 1     asked.

 2        A.   Well, you asked me what questions I asked, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4        A.   That was a question I asked.  Because if you remember when they

 5     were trying to create their doctrine and their training base back in

 6     1992, 1993, 1994, period I saw where the Law of Land Warfare was referred

 7     to as being taught or at least criteria had been taught.

 8             So in my experiences, the rule of law, Geneva Convention, are

 9     very similar, and I wanted to know what that term was used synonymous

10     with the US doctrinal term.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Was it about how they used it or were you interested

12     in whether the Law on Land warfare was synonymous or was the same as

13     the --

14        A.   I wanted to know --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  The Law on Geneva Convention.

16        A.   Yes.  I wanted to understand basically if they attempted to treat

17     people how to take care of civilians and non-combatants when they were

18     structuring their training.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And you got an answer to that.

20        A.   Yes.  The answer was:  It is synonymous with what the US doctrine

21     considers handling non-combatants.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So you asked for some additional information.

23        A.   Yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  You got this information.  Then you finalised your

25     draft or what was the next step.

Page 21114

 1        A.   The next question I had for them was what was the format for the

 2     paper such that you could reference it quickly because I had provided a

 3     paper like this before and then they gave me an example of another paper

 4     submitted and so I followed that format.  I re-did my paper and then as I

 5     was waiting to review it once again for myself, then obviously it needed

 6     to be submitted.  And I provided it so they could get it to the Court in

 7     time.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and not any draft had been submitted at any

 9     earlier stage.  It was only the final draft that you submitted to the

10     Defence.

11        A.   No.  It was reiterated that the work would be mine, and I think

12     if you see my paper, I don't think that someone could have -- else could

13     have written that other than a person who had my experience.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  That's not exactly an answer.  I was not asking

15     whether someone else had written it.  But I asked you whether that was

16     the first time that a draft, apart from the outline of two pages you had

17     discussed with them at an earlier stage, whether there was any draft in

18     between through the two pages outlined and the final version you sent to

19     the Gotovina Defence which was sent to them or available to them.

20        A.   They had -- the answer to your question is:  I provided them the

21     final paper.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And no intermediate version of it.

23        A.   Other than discussing the format.  I did not provide him -- I

24     discussed a format with him.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now you said you were provided with testimony

Page 21115

 1     of other witnesses.  At what occasion was this done and how was it done?

 2        A.   I was provided the -- I was mailed the actual copy of the

 3     testimony, so I could review what that person had testified, for my

 4     information.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Do you remember testimony of how many

 6     witnesses you received?

 7        A.   Specifically, I think, two.  One was the British officer had

 8     experience in peacekeeping.  Another was the attache to Croatia at the

 9     time, I believe a lieutenant-colonel.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Were you provided with these testimonies in

11     their entirety or a selection of that?

12        A.   I was provided the court narrative, I believe, the document of

13     what was testified.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  That's what we call the transcript of --

15        A.   Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  -- what you see on your screen, if that is the

17     verbatim ...

18        A.   It wasn't quite in this format, but I'm sure it was pretty close.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it was a verbatim report of the testimony of

20     those --

21        A.   Yes, I believe so, yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Earlier you would have heard that Mr. Kehoe told us

23     that portions were read to you.

24             Do you remember that?

25        A.   Portions of the testimony?

Page 21116

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Of -- of other evidence --

 2        A.   Yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And -- from what I understood, Mr. Kehoe, whether I

 4     would have to check that you were referring to the transcript of

 5     testimony of Mr. Theunens.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  One of them was Theunens, Judge, and I just need to

 7     clarify with regard to some of the statistics that we were talking about.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  At this moment -- let me --

 9             MR. KEHOE:  They were also in the facts as given in Appendix A.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's ... you were referring to the transcript

11     of Theunens' testimony.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             So Mr. Kehoe told us that a selection of the transcript was read

15     to you, whereas you tell us that you received the testimony in transcript

16     format.  Now, I was -- I asked you when this was read to you, but you

17     have not confirmed that, Portions of this material were read to me.

18        A.   My understanding, sir, we're talking about two different

19     testimonies.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  What I'm talking about at this moment is what was,

21     as Mr. Kehoe told us, what was read to you --

22             Is that -- Mr. Kehoe.

23             MR. KEHOE:  During the course of the discussions last weekend,

24     and we got into the discipline, I went back to the transcript and said

25     that the Prosecutor's expert said 151 per cent and that's the page that I

Page 21117

 1     gave to you.  And that happened in our discussions over the weekend.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  He had the other letter at another time.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, then I would have expected the witness

 5     to tell us that the only time anything was read to him was last weekend.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Well, Judge, I said that earlier ... [Microphone not

 7     activated]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's --

 9             MR. KEHOE:  [Microphone not activated]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I will check the transcript in this respect.

11             One second.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Page 118, Judge, line 8.  During the course of the

13     discussions last weekend, and the transcript, I said to him that

14     151 per cent, and that -- I was giving you the reference thereafter.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I was referring to page 63, Mr. Kehoe, where you

16     told us that, for transparency purposes, you had read portions of the

17     testimony of Mr. Theunens.

18             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, I believe I referred to Mr. Misetic's question

19     and Mr. Theunens' answer in the context of the discussion of what kind of

20     disciplinary proceedings were going on, and that was just in the course

21     of a discussion over the weekend while we were going through this matter.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, it was not clear to me in what

23     circumstances any portion of the evidence was read to the witness.  I

24     asked him that.  That's the only thing I did.

25             MR. KEHOE:  Well, I understand, judge, well, I mean, you

Page 21118

 1     understand the circumstance of it at this juncture.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Because it was unclear at that moment whether

 3     it was when he was still preparing his report or whether it was at any

 4     other moment.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  I understand.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And it's clear to me now.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  Okay.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And --

 9             So you -- let me try to get back to where we were.

10             You had asked for additional documents.  Now, the total of

11     approximately 30 documents would that include the additional documents

12     you asked for or would they be in addition to that, and, if so, how many

13     there were, approximately?

14        A.   The 30 documents should -- should include everything to include

15     one document being the excerpts from the Balkans report the CIA had.  I

16     consider that one document although quite large.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then you drafted the report.  There was no

18     further feedback, and that's the report that we received.

19        A.   I drafted a report and submitted it.  And I told them I would

20     like to have a chance to elaborate further because obviously I thought I

21     could do more.  However, given the time, I said, That should answer the

22     questions you gave me.  Can you submit that, if that is satisfactory.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, apparently during briefing, additional

24     information was provided to you.  And for the Chamber, it's important to

25     know what information you exactly had.

Page 21119

 1             Could you briefly describe what additional information was given

 2     to you in whatever form, orally or in writing, at a later stage, after

 3     you had given the report?

 4        A.   The only additional documents I received was a series of three or

 5     four documents which were further clarifying orders of subordinates.  I

 6     can't reference -- they're in this book.  I have seen them.  And that was

 7     in the preparation I asked for.  I have never been here, and I asked for

 8     a session with the counsel, their representatives to tell me what goes on

 9     in the court, and they provided that information so I wouldn't be

10     surprised when I got here.

11             Now, subsequent to that, I did not bring documents with me,

12     obviously.  I did bring my paper and this weekend, we talked and that's

13     where the counsel was telling me -- he read me some things in answering

14     my questions.  That's the preparation I went through to -- there's

15     nothing I used as reference -- the information here that I don't think

16     that is not already admitted in the court.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for those answers.

18             A final topic I would briefly deal with.

19             Were you ever informed about discussions in which the political

20     leadership would take part?  I'm talking about the political leadership

21     of Croatia, in which the demographic situation, perhaps the desired

22     demographic situation, as far as the presence of Serbs in the Krajina

23     area was discussed?

24        A.   No.  The only information I have on that, Your Honour, is the

25     orders initially put out which was to re-claim the -- the internationally

Page 21120

 1     recognised territory of Croatia by defeating the RSK which was the enemy

 2     force considered at the time.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But what would be, apart from the military

 4     objectives, what may have been objectives or not objectives of some

 5     matters not to be desired is how many Croats, how many Serbs would

 6     finally populate that area was -- have you any knowledge about any such

 7     discussions in which the political leadership was involved?

 8        A.   No, I did not.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  May I, therefore, take it that awareness of

10     Mr. Gotovina of such discussions, or presence during such discussions,

11     that you have no information about that either?

12        A.   No, sir, I have not seen anything on that.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for those answers.

14             Mr. Jones, you may have noticed from my last question that I was

15     referring to Mr. Gotovina.  I addressed you as Mr. Jones during your

16     presence here in court.  This has got nothing to do with disrespect for

17     ranks or titles.  It is my habit to address whoever comes to this court,

18     unless there's a specific reason to do otherwise, just by mister.  I hope

19     you will understand that.

20             THE WITNESS:  No problem, sir, I can appreciate that.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I have no further questions.

23             Mr. Waespi, any further questions for the witness?  Have the

24     questions of the Bench triggered any need to put further questions to the

25     witness?

Page 21121

 1             Mr. Kehoe.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  If I can discuss a matter outside the presence of the

 3     witness given the fact that he speaks English, but I will tell --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If there is any matter which should be

 5     appropriately addressed in the absence of the witness, Mr. Jones, you are

 6     the victim, because it's easier to ask you to leave the courtroom than

 7     for all of us to leave the courtroom.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please follow the usher.

10                           [The witness stands down]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Again, Judge, when I answered this question and do it

13     by asking a question with going back, Judge, to the basis of

14     Your Honour's questions, in a sense of, was he privy to any conversation

15     or go through any conversation where the political leadership talked

16     about the level of Serbs.  I mean, is Your Honour talking about a

17     specific meeting?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, we -- first of all, this Chamber received

19     evidence and don't ask me to summarise all of it, but that matters were

20     discussed, for example, I remember that -- I think it was a discussion

21     that Mr. Galbraith said something about it, about whether or not one

22     wished Serbs who would have left to return, and I remember percentages

23     were used there.  I think as a matter of fact, but again I'm just seeking

24     information, I know there are some sources.  If my recollection is right,

25     that -- that it appeared in one way or another in the Brioni meeting as

Page 21122

 1     well.  But I hope you're not testing my accurate knowledge at this moment

 2     of where exactly to find it --

 3             MR. KEHOE:  [Overlapping speakers]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  But there is in the evidence, there are a few --

 5     there are a few instances where these matters do appear, and I just

 6     wanted to know whether this witness was, again, whether he was privy to

 7     any such information, whether right or wrong --

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- so that, at least we can assess whether such

10     information would have had any impact on forming an opinion about a lot

11     of matters, and I'm fully aware that the opinions are not primarily about

12     these kind of matters.  At the same time, the witness gave a rather broad

13     opinion about the performance of Mr. Gotovina, especially at the end of

14     his testimony in-chief, there was a rather broad appreciation of -- of

15     how Mr. Gotovina had performed.  And I was seeking to -- to find out what

16     kind - just as I did before on documentary evidence - what kind of

17     information may have played a role in forming an opinion because it may

18     not come as a surprise but portions of the sources he apparently has

19     consulted are in a grey area for the Chamber at this moment.

20             MR. KEHOE:  My question was actually more specific in trying to

21     be as responsive as I can to the Chamber and not on my client, but

22     primarily as an officer of the court is, you know, the question

23     concerning a political meeting or -- that General Gotovina was present

24     at, I mean, the frame of reference of what political leadership meeting

25     was General Gotovina at, and that's -- that's the source of my dilemma in

Page 21123

 1     -- and the reason why, in the main, I raise to my feet because I'm

 2     somewhat perplexed by that question by the Chamber.  Because I have no --

 3     no such political leadership meeting that my client attended.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I'm just asking the witness whether he knows

 5     anything about it, yes or no.  And since his sources are unclear, I put

 6     it in a very open way, and I was talking about awareness, for example, of

 7     such -- I put it would say specifically in a rather broad perspective and

 8     context.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Any reason to -- for further questions to the ...

11             MR. KEHOE:  No, Your Honour.  Then we could ask the witness to be

12     escorted into the courtroom again.

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jones, it appears that there are no further

15     questions for you, which means that we have concluded your -- concluded

16     hearing your evidence in this Court.  I would like to thank you very much

17     for coming to The Hague, and I wish you a safe trip home again, and I'm

18     glad that we were able to accommodate you as far as your travelling

19     schedule was concerned.

20             Thank you for coming.

21             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  I trust that I have helped.  Good look

22     to you.

23                           [The witness withdrew]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Since we had this additional session just to finish

25     the testimony of Mr. Jones, there's no reason, I think, to continue and

Page 21124

 1     ask whether the next witness is ready.  I take it that the next witness

 2     will be called tomorrow.

 3             There's one small procedural issue I would like to deal with;

 4     that is, a decision in relation to the statement of Mr. Sterc, the 92 ter

 5     statement of Mr. Sterc, and more specifically on the heading of

 6     paragraph 5 of his statement.

 7             The Chamber would like to correct on the record its ruling in

 8     relation to the 92 ter statement of Witness Sterc, which states on

 9     transcript pages 20343 to 20344 that the heading of paragraph 5 of his

10     statement was not admitted into evidence.  The Chamber noted that, in the

11     version of the statement that has now been uploaded in e-court, the

12     heading of paragraph 5 has remained, and the Chamber is of the view this

13     need not to be taken out.  The version of the statement as now uploaded

14     in e-court can thus remain unchanged and the heading of paragraph 5 is

15     admitted into evidence, as part of the portion of the statement that is

16     admitted into evidence.

17             And this concludes the Chamber's decision on this matter.

18             Is there any procedural issue to be raised at this moment?

19             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Mr. President.

20             With respect to the issue yesterday concerning the,

21     quote/unquote, 92 bis witnesses, Mr. Russo and I have communicated.  It's

22     my understanding that the Prosecution may go into other matters that are

23     not directly related to the immediate substance of the witness

24     statements.  So we would ask that we be allowed to proof for two reasons;

25     one is that, in essence, these are now 92 ter statements, and so I

Page 21125

 1     believe, and I'm sure the Chamber will correct me if I am wrong, that I

 2     will have to take the witnesses through the 92 ter attestations prior to

 3     admission of the statements into evidence so, to that extent, there may

 4     be -- there may be changes in the statements.  I don't know that unless I

 5     am able to communicate with them or corrections to the statements.

 6             Second is, again, I believe we're entitled to try and test the

 7     credibility of our own witnesses, and I will tell the Court that I have

 8     no intention of - and I've told Mr. Russo this - leading any evidence

 9     that is not already in the statement.  However, I would just like to

10     proof them just for my own knowledge concerning credibility.  But there

11     will be no additional testimony other than what's in the witness

12     statements themselves.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo.

14             MR. RUSSO:  Just one point, Mr. President.  I didn't mean to

15     communicate to Mr. Misetic that we would be going into matters not

16     directly covered by the witness statements.  That's not to say that we

17     may not present evidence or put questions to the witness in order to test

18     the credibility of the assertions they make in their witness statements.

19     So this is a bit of a border-line issue.  I'm not sure where the line is

20     to be drawn.  Of course, we don't take a position on whether or not the

21     Defence should be permitted to proof the witnesses.  That's for the

22     Chamber to determine.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, did you intend to go through the

25     statements or did you also intend to give an opportunity to the witness

Page 21126

 1     to read the statement of the witness which apparently contradicts the

 2     evidence?

 3             MR. MISETIC:  No.  I just wanted to meet the -- meet or

 4     communicate with them so they could review their own statements, make any

 5     corrections, changes, that needs to be made so that the 92 ter

 6     attestation can be made under oath.  If there are any changes, I will

 7     send a supplemental information sheet around, otherwise I will take them

 8     through the 92 ter process and then --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Your intention just is to ask them whether there are

10     any corrections to be made --

11             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, correct.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  --  and whether -- just to prepare the attestation

13     rather than to inform the witness about possible contradictions, et

14     cetera.

15             MR. MISETIC:  No.  No.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  That's --

17             Mr. Russo, under those circumstances, do you have any objections

18     if Mr. Misetic would be allowed, for this limited purposes, to proof the

19     witness.

20             MR. RUSSO:  Under those circumstances, Mr. President, we do have

21     no objection.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, within the limits you explained to the

25     Court, set out to us, you may proof the 92 bis/then 92 ter witnesses.

Page 21127

 1             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Any other procedural matter?

 3             If not, then we'll adjourn and we will resume tomorrow,

 4     Wednesday, the 2nd of September, quarter past 2.00 in Courtroom III.

 5                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.53 p.m.,

 6                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 2nd day of

 7                           September, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.