Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 22045

 1                           Friday, 25 September 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

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

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

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

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

 8     everyone in the courtroom.

 9             This is case number IT-06-90-T, the Prosecutor versus

10     Ante Gotovina et al.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12             Mr. Russo, the Chamber was informed you would like to address the

13     Chamber in the absence of the witness.

14             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, thank you, Mr. President, and good morning.

15             Two issues.  Number one, I have two documents that I intend to

16     use with the witness, which we've just put together this morning.  I've

17     provided hard copies to the Trial Chamber and to Defence counsel.  We're

18     attempting to put those into e-court right now.  If not, we may use them

19     via Sanction.  However, I do also have hard copies for the witness, but I

20     didn't want there to be any confusion when I started using these

21     documents.

22             The second issue relates to the CD of The Blue Book that we

23     received yesterday.  I'm not sure if this is an oversight, but the CD we

24     received does not contain the organigrams which are found within the

25     book.  The organigrams are actually fold-out pages in the physical book,

Page 22046

 1     itself, but those organigrams are not contained on the CD that we

 2     received.  I don't know if we can receive those separately or what the

 3     issue is there, but I wanted to advise the Court.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, the blue books -- The Blue Book comes

 5     from the Markac Defence.

 6             Mr. Mikulicic, any comment on --

 7             MR. MIKULICIC:  Well, to be honest, Your Honour, I'm not aware of

 8     what is on CD or what is not on CD.  We just copied the CD that we

 9     received with The Blue Book.  So the organigrams that my learned

10     colleague is talking about is composed within The Blue Book, so there's

11     the opportunity to scan them and then to make a copy of it.  So that's

12     all I can say.  I have no explanation whether they are included in the CD

13     or they are not included.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I see it that can be scanned.  However, another

15     issue arose, more or less, in relation to these organigrams, these

16     diagrams.

17             Mr. Russo, Mr. Mikulicic gave you what he received.

18             MR. RUSSO:  That's fine, Mr. President, if that's -- I just

19     wasn't sure if they are not included by accident.  But if that's the form

20     in which he received them, we don't have any issue.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

22             The other matter is the use of certain documents which are

23     provided in hard copy to the Chamber, apparently do not raise any further

24     need for submissions.

25             Since the witness is not in, I'd briefly like to deal with

Page 22047

 1     another matter.  In relation to the statement of Witness AG-10, which is

 2     a 92 bis statement, some time was left to the Gotovina Defence to ask for

 3     protective measures.  We have not received any request until now.

 4     Mr. Misetic, does that mean that there will be no request?

 5             MR. MISETIC:  No, Mr. President.  As I understand it -- just one

 6     moment.

 7                           [Defence counsel confer]

 8             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, as I understand it, we will make the

 9     formal motion because the witness, in his 92 bis declaration, asked for

10     them.  I have not been in contact with the witness to ask for his

11     reasons, but there is a request from the witness, himself, for these

12     measures.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but that, of course, has to be formalised in

14     one way or the other.  We can't go to the witness and ask him what the

15     reasons were.  How much time would you need for that, because the matter

16     is pending already -- no, it's pending since 16th of September.  The

17     decision was filed in which the statement was admitted into evidence, and

18     in that same decision we have invited the Gotovina Defence to request

19     protective measures within seven days, and that was 23rd or the day

20     before yesterday.

21             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Mr. President, I apologise for that.  I hope

22     to get you an answer today.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could we at least -- whatever the outcome is

24     here, not any later than the 28th.  That is next Monday.

25             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.  Thank you.

Page 22048

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Then we can ask Mr. Usher to escort the

 2     witness into the courtroom.

 3                           [The witness entered court]

 4                           WITNESS:  PERO KOVACEVIC [Resumed]

 5                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Kovacevic.  First of all, our

 7     apologies for inviting you into the courtroom --

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and then to ask you to leave again.  Our

10     apologies for that.

11             I would like to remind you that the solemn declaration you gave

12     yesterday, at the beginning of your testimony, still binds you.  And

13     Mr. Misetic will now continue his cross-examination.

14             Mr. Misetic.

15                           Cross-examination by Mr. Misetic:  [Continued]

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

17        Q.   Good morning, again, Mr. Kovacevic.

18        A.   Good morning.

19        Q.   Turning your attention back to paragraph 5.1.7 of your report,

20     and we left off on this topic yesterday, I wanted to get a more specific

21     explanation from you.

22             Back when the 1994 rules were promulgated, was there a concern

23     about the military police conducting investigations of the army while

24     under the command of HV commanders?

25        A.   That was one of the reasons why the military police was withdrawn

Page 22049

 1     from the system of the military forces and the subordination of the

 2     military forces.  Any punishable act which constituted a crime would have

 3     been processed, and we know that a commander can influence the military

 4     police if that military police is under that commander, when it comes to

 5     prosecuting certain acts.

 6             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you very much, Mr. Kovacevic.

 7             I have no further questions, Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Misetic.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, are you ready to cross-examine

11     Mr. Kovacevic?

12             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, Mr. President, thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kovacevic, you'll now be cross-examined by

14     Mr. Russo.  Mr. Russo is counsel for the Prosecution.

15             Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

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

17                           Cross-examination by Mr. Russo:

18        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Kovacevic.

19        A.   Good morning.

20        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, in section 0.2.1 of your report, you indicate that

21     your main objective is to present your report in a neutral and objective

22     manner.  Now, you've made a number of public statements regarding this

23     case which I would like to take a look at, at this moment, and which I'm

24     going to suggest to you demonstrate that, in fact, you're neither neutral

25     nor objective with respect to this case.

Page 22050

 1             If we could begin, please, with 65 ter 7414.

 2             Mr. Kovacevic, the article which is now on the screen is an

 3     article which purports to be written by you concerning the Croatian

 4     government's response to the indictments in this case.  It's published on

 5     the 12th of April, 2007.  Do you recall this article?

 6        A.   I did not write the article.  It must have been a journalist.

 7     And my report is professional and doesn't contain either political or my

 8     personal views.  At that time, I was an MP in the Croatian Parliament,

 9     which means that I was also a politician.  However, it is true that I

10     urged the government to establish the Croatian Memorial Centre as a body

11     that would collect documents from the homeland war and provide it to

12     anybody who might be interested in it, which means that you also would

13     have had an easier job if this had been done earlier.

14             MR. RUSSO:  If we can move to the last page of this document,

15     please.

16        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, you can see, at the end of the article, it's, in

17     fact, attributed as being signed by you.  Is it your position that you

18     did not write this article?

19        A.   Just a moment.  Please bear with me.  I'd like to look at the

20     first part of the article.

21             I don't know if this is the column that I published or whether

22     this is an article written by a journalist, because I also at one point

23     wrote columns for newspapers.

24             MR. RUSSO:  Perhaps we can move back to the first page of the

25     document and we'll have you just take a look at it.

Page 22051

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, if you could.  Thank you.

 2             Yes, this is a column that I wrote.

 3             MR. RUSSO:

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Now, in the second paragraph of the article, if we

 5     could focus on that, you write:

 6             "The indictments are not only directed against the generals, but

 7     also against Croatia."

 8             Now, Mr. Kovacevic, I will put it to you that you drafted the

 9     expert report that you submitted not for the purpose of providing a

10     neutral and objective opinion, but, in fact, to undermine the indictments

11     which you perceived to be an attack upon Croatia, itself.  Is that an

12     accurate statement?

13        A.   No, that's not correct.  I'm a professional.  These are political

14     statements which supported my political struggle in the Parliament.  And

15     as my report goes, I drafted it as a professional, familiar with the

16     regulations, and I always make a distinction between my political and

17     personal views and my professional views.  When I write a report, I base

18     the report on my professional views, which you can easily conclude,

19     yourself, when you read the report.

20        Q.   In the first paragraph of the article, the second sentence, you

21     write:

22             "The Croatian Party of Rights (HSP) has issued warnings and drawn

23     the government's attention to the commitment to take a series of legal,

24     political, and diplomatic measures to bring down the monstrous Hague

25     indictments."

Page 22052

 1             Now, the Croatian Party of Rights, the HSPs, is your political

 2     party; correct?

 3        A.   Former -- that's my former political party.  Since 2008, I have

 4     not been a member of that party because I did not agree with the

 5     non-democratic decision-making process in the party.

 6        Q.   Thank you, and my apologies for that.  And I'll suggest to you,

 7     Mr. Kovacevic, that your report and your testimony here today are, in

 8     fact, a continuation of these legal, political, and diplomatic measures

 9     to bring down the indictments.  How do you respond to that?

10        A.   My report is a professional report based on the regulations that

11     I drafted, and in my professional report there is not a single political

12     statement.  It doesn't contain any of my personal views vis-a-vis

13     anything.  As I've already told you, I am a professional when it comes to

14     drafting such reports.

15        Q.   Looking at the third paragraph, Mr. Kovacevic, you write:

16             "We expressed this viewpoint several times, both in our written

17     initiatives and during Parliament debates, the purpose of which was to

18     commit the government to take legal, diplomatic, political, and other

19     measures.  Does the public know that the archive and registry material

20     created in the homeland war has not been put in order to this day, for

21     the purpose of promoting the truth about the homeland war, what all the

22     obstacles are that were put before the indicted generals before they

23     could get the documents they sought, and that the generals were forced to

24     buy the necessary documents for their defence on the black market."

25             Mr. Kovacevic, I want to talk about the generals purchasing

Page 22053

 1     documents for their defence on the black market.  Now, first, can you

 2     tell us what exactly this black market is and how it works.

 3        A.   I have never operated on the black market.  I'm a lawyer.

 4     However, as an MP in the Croatian Parliament, I learned that

 5     General Praljak, for example, was forced to buy the document that he was

 6     missing on the black market because the state had not established a

 7     documentation centre, it had not put in order all the documents, which

 8     every state is obliged to do under the law on archives.  Every state has

 9     to have documentation in place.  And I am only happy that I finally

10     succeeded in my initiative.

11             You know that every state works in the same way.  They have

12     political and legal measures in place, and the legal thing that I asked

13     for was for Croatia to become the friend of The Hague Tribunal, and that

14     is helping the Tribunal, the government, and the fact that the Government

15     of Croatia is the amicus of the Tribunal.  The government puts in place

16     political and legal measures, and the opposition is the one that

17     pin-points all the government's shortcomings and omissions in order to

18     gain popularity with the general public.  Every opposition in every

19     corner of the world acts the same.

20        Q.   I appreciate your answer, Mr. Kovacevic, but I'd like to focus,

21     in particular, about the black market.  Now, you state --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, I had some difficulties in understanding

23     at least one line of that last answer.

24             You said:

25             "They have political and legal measures in place, and the legal

Page 22054

 1     thing that I asked for was for Croatia to become the friend of The Hague

 2     Tribunal, and that is helping the Tribunal, the government, and the fact

 3     that the Government of Croatia is the amicus of the Tribunal."

 4             Now, what's -- you said "the legal thing."  What's exactly "the

 5     legal thing," and does that mean that you positively appreciate the

 6     cooperation by the Croatian Government with this Tribunal?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When it comes to the cooperation,

 8     it can be evaluated by the Tribunal, itself.  On several occasions, this

 9     cooperation has been evaluated positively.  And as far as legal measures

10     are concerned, the measure in question is the one according to which a

11     state may be asked for the status of an amicus of the Tribunal.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but I asked whether you positively appreciated

13     that, because that seems, although not very clear to me, part --

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, of course I see it as a

15     positive development.  This cooperation is in keeping with the

16     constitutional law, and it is a positive development, yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Nevertheless, in the article you write:

18             "... a clumsy and forced attempt to obtain the status of the

19     Tribunal's friend."

20             That doesn't sound very much positive, as far as your

21     appreciation is concerned, but correct me when I understand this wrong.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I'm saying here is that the

23     legal measures that the government put in place was not something that

24     was done in due course and in keeping with the Rules of the work of the

25     Tribunal, its Statute, and other documents.  It was a belated attempt.

Page 22055

 1     The council that was supposed to deal with the matters and Croatia

 2     becoming a friend of the Tribunal, was established rather late, and

 3     Croatia failed in putting things in place on time.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And from what I understand from the article - but

 5     please, again, correct me when I'm reading it wrongly - at the expense of

 6     the defence of accused persons?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If there is no documentation and

 8     archives in order, in different collections, obviously this is at the

 9     expense of the Defence, because the Defence teams cannot obtain documents

10     that they need and that they deem necessary for their case, and the state

11     is the one that is to blame for that.  The archives are still being put

12     in order.  It was only in 2005 when the documentation centre was formally

13     established.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

15             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, we're going to come back to the issue of

17     cooperation with the Tribunal, but I want to concentrate for the moment

18     on the black market.

19             Now, you indicated that you had heard that General Praljak had to

20     obtain documents on the black market.  Now, I'd like to learn, first of

21     all, how you came by that information and the full content of the

22     information you came upon regarding this black market.

23        A.   One could come across such information in the media.  I don't

24     know by which channels I actually received that.  Maybe there was a

25     letter of someone who wrote things like that.  In any case, I simply used

Page 22056

 1     that to further my argument to show that there is yet another reason to

 2     establish the documentation memorial centre that I was insisting upon.

 3        Q.   Did you come across any information that either

 4     Generals Gotovina, Cermak, or Markac have received documents from the

 5     black market?

 6        A.   No, I have no knowledge in that regard.

 7        Q.   Are you in a position to positively confirm that any of the

 8     documentation you reviewed in your analysis was not obtained off this

 9     black market?

10        A.   All of the documents I reviewed bear either the stamp of the

11     Prosecution, or they have already been made exhibits, or they can be

12     found on the Defence list of General Cermak for tendering.

13             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.

14             Mr. President, I move for the admission of 65 ter 7414.

15             MR. KAY:  No objection, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2635.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  P2635 is admitted into evidence.

19             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

20             If we could now please have 65 ter 7412.

21        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, what you see on your screen is an article in the

22     same publication, dated 1 October 2007, regarding efforts by you and your

23     political party to bring a referendum on discontinuing cooperation with

24     the ICTY.  Are you familiar with this article?

25        A.   This is an article about the initiative to launch a referendum on

Page 22057

 1     any further cooperation with The Hague Tribunal.  This was part of my

 2     political activities as an MP and, at the time, member of the HSP Party.

 3     This was a result of the great dissatisfaction across Croatia concerning

 4     the judgement that was pronounced to the Vukovar Three.  This is nothing

 5     to do with my expert report.  My expert report is a professional piece of

 6     work which does not contain any of my personal or political views.

 7        Q.   The article begins:

 8             "Today we will surpass the number of 100.000 signatures for the

 9     petition to hold a referendum about the further cooperation with

10     The Hague.  But to make the petition legally binding, we need 400.000,

11     says HSP representative Pero Kovacevic.

12             "After the verdict against the war criminals

13     Veselin Sljivancanin, Miroslav Radic, and Mile Mrksic, the cessation of

14     cooperation with The Hague and the return of the Croatian generals in

15     order to be tried in Croatia is the only option left after years of

16     Croatia's 'servile strategy' toward the Court in The Hague, claims

17     Kovacevic in an interview for Index."

18             Now, Mr. Kovacevic, can you explain why you believed terminating

19     cooperation between Croatia and this Tribunal, and trying the generals in

20     Croatia, is an appropriate response to a verdict in an unrelated case?

21        A.   First of all, this was undertaken by my former party in 2007, in

22     October, during the election campaign for the Parliament in Croatia.

23     These are purely political activities by the party, and I was a member of

24     that party at the time.  I participated in those political activities.

25     But this has absolutely nothing to do with the expert report I produced.

Page 22058

 1     This is in the sphere of my political activity alone.

 2        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, the truth is that you wanted to end cooperation

 3     between Croatia and this Tribunal so that Croatia would not have to hand

 4     over evidence which could establish the allegations in this indictment;

 5     isn't that correct?

 6        A.   No, it is not.  This is a political statement.  Croatia is a

 7     member state of the UN.  This Tribunal was created by virtue of a

 8     UN Security Council resolution.  Croatia is a full member.  On behalf of

 9     the Croatian government, I did actually participate in the drafting of a

10     letter putting forth the initiative to establish this Court in the first

11     place.

12        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, I'm going to suggest to you that contrary to the

13     distinction you are attempting to draw between your political -- or your

14     actions as a politician and your work as an expert in this case, that, in

15     fact, your failed attempts to dissolve official cooperation between the

16     Government of Croatia and this Tribunal, and indeed the report and the

17     testimony you're giving here today, are simply part of the legal,

18     political, diplomatic, and other measures which you say your party has

19     pursued, and I'm suggesting to you that those are pursued to undermine

20     the indictment in this case.

21        A.   First of all, that is incorrect.  As I have already said, I am no

22     longer a member of the Croatian Party of Rights.  Everyone within the

23     domain of his or her profession should distinguish between his or her

24     political and professional activities.  This expert report is

25     professional.  If a baker says something that you find politically

Page 22059

 1     incorrect, you're not going to say that his bread is bad.

 2             MR. RUSSO:  Fair enough, Mr. Kovacevic.

 3             Mr. President, I'd move for the admission of 65 ter 7412.

 4             MR. KAY:  No objection, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P2636.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  P2636 is admitted into evidence.

 8             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 9             If we could have a look at one more article.  That is 65 ter

10     7413.

11        Q.   And before we move to this, let me just ask you a separate

12     question, Mr. Kovacevic.  As a former member of Parliament, can you

13     explain to this Trial Chamber what happens if a parliamentary member lies

14     to the Parliament?  Are there official sanctions for that?  Tell us what

15     happens in that event.

16        A.   For everything uttered in the Parliament, such an MP enjoys

17     immunity, according to the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia and

18     the Rules of Procedure of the Croatian Parliament.  A parliament is a

19     political forum.  That's a clear thing.  It goes without saying.  Any

20     opposition parliamentary party is striving to point out the shortcomings

21     and use any possible opportunity to attack those currently in power.

22     Congressmen and senators are politicians, much as parliamentarians, but

23     one, as I said, should always distinguish between one's professional and

24     political activity, and in such situations, it cannot happen that one

25     mixes up the two things, the political and professional sphere.  You also

Page 22060

 1     know that there were statements of Sir Geoffrey Nice and the former

 2     spokeswoman of the Prosecution, and the Prosecutor, herself, and such

 3     statements frequently contained political points.  This is simply a

 4     matter of policy.  But a legal domain is one, the professional another.

 5        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Kovacevic.  Looking at the article on the screen,

 6     this is an article dated 26 February 2008.

 7             I'm sorry, if we could actually move to the next page in both

 8     B/C/S and English.

 9             This article is dated the 26th of February, 2008, regarding the

10     indictment in this case.  If we could actually move to page 3 in the

11     English and stay on page 2 in the B/C/S, and focus on the bottom on the

12     page of B/C/S.  And towards the bottom of the page in English, where it

13     begins:  "Kovacevic ..."

14             Mr. Kovacevic, the following is attributed to you in this

15     article:

16             "Pero Kovacevic of HSPs -- HSP's Croatian Party of Rights,

17     emphasizes that so far the indictment has been generalised, so the OTP is

18     tidying it up now.  However, he considers this way a half-crazy attempt

19     of the OTP to justify itself.  They want to accuse Markac, Cermak, and

20     Gotovina of absolutely everything."

21             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I can't find this on the screen.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I have it on my screen, but --

23             MR. RUSSO:  I'm sorry.  If we can move up a bit in the English.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'm using my e-court screen rather than the --

25             MR. RUSSO:  My apologies.  I directed the Registrar to the wrong

Page 22061

 1     portion of the page.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             MR. RUSSO:  "They want to accuse Markac, Cermak, and Gotovina of

 4     absolutely everything.  Even of something that does not exist in the

 5     national legislature.  You cannot accuse the three of them of something

 6     for which some civilians or servicemen should be responsible, emphasizes

 7     Kovacevic."

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. --

 9             MR. MISETIC:  For the benefit of our clients, if we could turn

10     the page in the B/C/S.

11             MR. RUSSO:  And my apologies.

12             "The Defence, given that it is the real one, Kovacevic believes,

13     does not have a hard task because the defendants cannot be proven 'the

14     interference in someone else's work.'

15             "In a part of the investigation, none of these three men has

16     anything to do with anything.  They could not do the job of military and

17     civil police.  Only if they had done that, only then they would have done

18     something illegal, emphasizes Kovacevic."

19        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, do you recall making these statements at the time?

20        A.   This is not an authorised statement.  Perhaps if I received a

21     phone call, I don't know whether I said so word for word.  I never

22     verified it.  Secondly, this is yet another political statement.  I have

23     already told you that I frequently gave political statements as a

24     Croatian MP.

25        Q.   And just to be clear, although you indicate that it's not an

Page 22062

 1     authorised statement, do these statements which are attributed to you

 2     accurately reflect your beliefs at the time?

 3        A.   No, you're asking me one thing, and I'm talking about the

 4     statements which are of political nature.  I hope you understand.  We are

 5     here today to discuss my report, which is a professional one.  This is

 6     all the difference.  There is an important difference between you, as a

 7     person, giving a political statement and you, as a professional,

 8     producing an expert report.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kovacevic, may I invite you to answer the

10     questions, even though you consider that we are limited to discussing

11     your report.  The Prosecution is entitled to draw the attention of the

12     Chamber to public statements you made earlier.  So the last question,

13     which you have not answered yet, is whether this publication reflects,

14     although as you said, political views you held at the time it was

15     published or whether it does not reflect your views at the time.  Again,

16     I do understand political views, or at least views expressed in a

17     political environment, in a political context.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was the policy of my former

19     party.  And as a party official, I was tasked with stating those.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But if you disagreed with that, would you have

21     asked your party to ask someone else to express some things you disagreed

22     with?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It just so happened that I left the

24     party after that.  It wasn't just this situation, but there was several.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but you said, That was the view of my party.

Page 22063

 1     Did you disagree with it?  You disagreed with what you were asked to tell

 2     the public on behalf of the party; is that how I have to understand your

 3     answer?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you should understand it that

 5     way.  As a lawyer, supporting the rule of law, I was in favour with the

 6     constitutional law on cooperation between Croatia and the ICTY.  The

 7     government needs to abide by that law.  We are also bound by the

 8     Security Council resolution as a UN member.  We have obligations that we

 9     have to implement as a state.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but these last statements are not about

11     cooperation, are they?  They are about whether the indictment -- let me

12     just check again.  There's nothing about cooperation in the last portion

13     that was put to you.  It's just about your criticism on the indictment

14     and that it could never be proven, which is -- has got nothing to do with

15     a duty to cooperate, does it?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'd say yes and no, depending on

17     your angle, but it's a simple matter, really.  This is a political

18     statement, and the indictment was being amended at the time, and I'm not

19     even sure it's final yet.  If something is being amended in the process,

20     it must mean that there was something missing.  In any case, this is a

21     political statement.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but let's try to get an answer to the questions

23     that are put to you.

24             You say, I disagree with what I was supposed to say on behalf of

25     the party.  And then you explained that you left the party and that you,

Page 22064

 1     as a lawyer, couldn't support anything else than cooperation, which is a

 2     duty for the state of Croatia.  Now, none of these statements, at least

 3     this one, deals with cooperation.  It deals with your assessments of

 4     whether the indictment can be proven, whether it's a good or a bad

 5     indictment, whether these three men has anything to do with anything.  It

 6     is a statement which has got nothing to do with the duty of Croatia to

 7     cooperate with the Tribunal.  It's just your personal assessment of

 8     whether this indictment is a good one, whether it can be proven or not,

 9     and whether the accused have anything to do with what is found in the

10     indictment, and who would be responsible.  That's -- for me, it's

11     difficult to understand why you say, I disagree with that because I find

12     that we have to cooperate, as a state, with the Tribunal.  So, therefore,

13     could you try to explain to me how I have to understand your last

14     answers.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the part concerning the

16     indictment, this was a political statement of mine at the time, based on

17     what was being broached in the Croatian media as to the way the

18     indictment was put together.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, let me then stop you there.  You said, This is

20     what I had to say on behalf of the party.  I asked you whether you

21     disagreed or not, whether this was your, though, political view at the

22     time.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My political view of the indictment

24     was the way I stated here.  It was widely believed that it was

25     incomplete.  I could not address the legal side of it because I did not

Page 22065

 1     have all the required information.  I could only comment on what one

 2     could come across in the headings.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, in one of your earlier answers, you said

 4     you disagreed, and you explained why.  And now, two or three questions

 5     later, you say, No, that was my political view at the time.  I'm a bit

 6     confused about hearing one answer at one moment.  And I'm referring the

 7     parties to page 19 -- my question starting on page 18, line 25, and the

 8     answer starting on page 19, line 4, and the answer you just gave.  If you

 9     want to further explain, please do so, and otherwise I'll ask Mr. Russo

10     to proceed.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely, we misunderstand each

12     other.  The first part of the answer had to do with the suspension of

13     cooperation with The Hague Tribunal in relation to the petition and

14     referendum.  As a lawyer, I said that it was a clear thing that Croatia

15     needs to fulfill its obligations which it had undertaken.  The latter

16     part concerns the Croatian media of -- and their reports of the

17     indictment and its process of amending.  These were two separate things,

18     and I don't think they contradict each other.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

20             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

21        Q.   Now, Mr. Kovacevic, you draw a distinction between the statements

22     you made in this article and the opinions expressed in your report.

23     However, the last part of this article which I read, which is -- I'll

24     quote again:

25             "In a part of the investigation, none of these three men has

Page 22066

 1     anything to do with anything, they could not do the job of military and

 2     civil police.  Only if they had done that, only then they would have done

 3     something illegal ..."

 4             Now, aren't these the same opinions that are expressed in your

 5     report, specifically that addressing crime was not the responsibility of

 6     the HV commanders; that it was the responsibility of the military and

 7     civil police?  Aren't those the same opinions?

 8        A.   In that part, I said something that belonged in the professional

 9     domain, since I drafted the Law on Defence, the Law on the Service in the

10     Armed Forces, as well as different regulations about the structure of the

11     military police and the police.  I spoke in legal terms, in terms of

12     subordination and the duties of superiors, as well as the obligations

13     that the two types of police had under the Croatian legislation.

14        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, you made these statements and expressed those

15     opinions in February of 2008, which is before the trial in this matter

16     began, before the Prosecution had presented any evidence in support of

17     its indictment.  And I'll suggest to you that your statements here

18     indicate that you formed your opinions well before taking a neutral and

19     objective look at the evidence which has been provided.  How do you

20     respond to that?

21        A.   My answer is no.  Political activity is one thing, a professional

22     report is another thing; and there's always a difference there, a very

23     important difference.

24             MR. RUSSO:  Mr. President, I move for the admission of 65 ter

25     7413.

Page 22067

 1             MR. KAY:  No objection, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P2637.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 5             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, are you familiar with Mr. Franjo Feldi?

 7        A.   Yes, I've known him since 1991, when he joined the Croatian Army

 8     sometime in the month of July.

 9        Q.   And are you aware of Mr. Feldi's position on the Cermak Defence

10     team?

11        A.   No.

12        Q.   Did you follow the testimony of Mr. Feldi over the course of the

13     last few days?

14        A.   I watched some short parts of it on Tuesday, on the first day,

15     and after that I didn't watch the testimony.

16        Q.   Did you otherwise learn of the general substance of the

17     testimony, other than what you watched on Tuesday?

18        A.   I followed some reports on the internet conveyed by the

19     HINA agency regarding the military police which was also part of the

20     testimony.  It was a very short report by the Croatian news agency.

21        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, did you work at all with Mr. Feldi in the

22     preparation of your expert report?

23        A.   No.  My expert report was done independently, I did it on my own.

24     Mr. Kay gave me instructions as to what content I should deal with and

25     how many pages I should produce.  I was given a brief as to what to do.

Page 22068

 1        Q.   Just to be clear, did you and Mr. Feldi assist each other in any

 2     way in the preparation of your respective reports?

 3        A.   No.  My report is a legal expert -- expertise, and General Feldi

 4     is a soldier, and there is a significant difference in the way the two of

 5     us may have approached an expert report.

 6        Q.   Mr. Feldi -- I'm sorry.  Mr. Kovacevic, I'd like to show you a

 7     comparison of some documents in your report and in Mr. Feldi's report.

 8             Mr. President, we'd like to do this via Sanction.  We're going to

 9     show the comparison chart which has been provided to the Chamber and the

10     parties.  This is 65 ter 7415.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, one second, please.

12             I said one moment.  Mr. Russo, you saw that the Chamber was --

13     that the Judges were consulting.

14             The Chamber would prefer you first to explore how portions were

15     produced by Mr. Kovacevic before we start comparing.

16             MR. RUSSO:  I'll do that, Mr. President.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So the material should be returned to

18     Mr. Russo.

19             MR. RUSSO:  My apologies for that, Mr. President.

20        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, there are a number of organigrams in your expert

21     report.  I'd like to know where you got those.

22        A.   Let me tell you this:  As I was drafting my report, and as I went

23     through the chapters, I left some room in the first draft of the report,

24     after I'd spoken with Mr. Kay, I left some room for the schematic

25     illustrations of what I dealt with in the chapter.  I took the

Page 22069

 1     regulations, and you know how schematic illustrations are done.  It's

 2     very easy.  And then Mr. Kay told me that those already existed, that

 3     they had already been produced and exist as evidence before this

 4     Trial Chamber.  They represented the military police, the organisation of

 5     the Police Administration of Knin District, the Police Administration of

 6     Zadar and Knin, and a few others.  I believe that whatever I proposed to

 7     do, Mr. Kay told me that there is no need because they already existed,

 8     they were in evidence before the Court, and he told me that his support

 9     team would provide me with all the necessary graphic illustrations for my

10     report.

11             I believe that the schematic regarding the organisation of the

12     MUP and the map did not exist.  I wanted to include the map to show what

13     was covered by the Police Administration of Knin District and what was

14     covered by the Knin Military District.  I wanted to have a clear

15     illustration of that.

16             I made most of my schematics by hand.  I drew them and showed

17     them to Mr. Kay, who then told me that most of them already exist and

18     have already been put in evidence before this Court.

19             We can go through the schematics one by one and explain each of

20     them in turn.  But I can come up with any sort of schematic you want me

21     to.  Just give me the parameters, and I will produce one immediately here

22     for you.

23        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, I was under the impression that your report was

24     drafted entirely independently by you.  Are you telling me that you

25     received specific documentation from Mr. Kay to include in your report;

Page 22070

 1     is that correct?

 2        A.   I said it very loud and clear.  I hand-drew the schematics that I

 3     needed, the Police Administration of Knin District, the

 4     Police Administration of Zadar and Knin, the organisation of the military

 5     police.  I drafted those, and they had to be perfected.  And when I told

 6     Mr. Kay what would be inserted in the blank spaces, I wanted to show that

 7     Knin belonged to the Police Administration of Zadar and Knin, for

 8     example, he told me, There is no need, the schematics already exist, they

 9     were already drawn by professionals, and they have been tendered into

10     evidence.  There's no difference whatsoever with what I proposed, as

11     drawn by my own hand, and what Mr. Kay's team had prepared for this case.

12     There is no difference in the content of the schematics.  If there were

13     any differences, then we could be talking about me copying somebody

14     else's work.  But there is no difference because the schematics of the

15     MUP are all based on the work of the MUP since February 1995.

16             It is very simple to produce a schematic of any kind.  You take a

17     piece of regulation, you look at the organisation, and you transform it

18     into a schematic, and a schematic is a good way to illustrate things

19     which can make even your life easier, if you want to understand what is

20     going on, and especially when it comes to the penal part of the police

21     work, because the police of the Knin District did not have jurisdiction

22     over crime investigation matters.  That was part of the administration of

23     Zadar and Knin police.

24        Q.   Okay, Mr. Kovacevic.  My time is a bit limited, so I didn't ask

25     you about the substance of any particular relationship.  I'm trying to

Page 22071

 1     understand the process by which these organigrams ended up in your

 2     report, and I want to be clear.

 3             You're telling me that you drew schematics on your own, showed

 4     them to Mr. Kay, Mr. Kay told you that the exact content of these

 5     schematics had already been introduced into evidence; is that correct?

 6        A.   Absolutely correct.  My schematics were drawn by hand, the boxes

 7     were all drawn by hand, and what he proposed to produce was something

 8     that had already been admitted into evidence.  And he told me, I am going

 9     to give you those to save you the trouble of having to draw the

10     schematics in an electronic form, because my schematics, what I proposed

11     to Mr. Kay, had been drawn by my own hand.  It had not been done on a

12     laptop, like the text was.  My schematics were on pieces of paper,

13     hand-drawn by me.  I showed them to Mr. Kay, who then told me, We already

14     have those, they have already been admitted into evidence in this case.

15        Q.   How exactly did this happen?  I want to be clear about this.  You

16     handed to Mr. Kay hand-drawn schematics.  Did he have with him already

17     the organigrams to compare it with to say that they were identical, or

18     did he know immediately, by looking at them, that they were identical?

19        A.   Let me tell you how the conversation went.  He read the chapters

20     that I drafted professionally, and then I told him, Here, where you see a

21     blank space, I propose to include a schematic that I already have

22     hand-drawn.  Mr. Kay asked me what the schematic is going to illustrate.

23     My draft was in Croatian.  It took time for everything to be translated

24     into English.  When we spoke, we had an interpreter with us, and I told

25     him, This is where I'm going to include the schematic --

Page 22072

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please slow down.  It's

 2     impossible to follow.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kovacevic, the interpreters cannot follow you

 4     because you're speaking too quickly.  Could you please try to --

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  -- slow down, and perhaps you resume your answer

 7     just a couple of lines ago.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was very simple.

 9             Mr. Kay and I were talking.  We went through a certain chapter in

10     my expert report, and then I told Mr. Kay, This is where I want to add

11     the schematic of the organisation of the Police Administration of Knin.

12     I had it hand-drawn, based on the regulation on the internal organisation

13     and the professional work of the Ministry of Defence.  This is a decree

14     that was adopted by the Government of the Republic of Croatia in February

15     1995.  Mr. Kay looked at the part that I read out to him, and then he

16     looked at my proposed schematic and told me, We already have that.  This

17     has already been admitted into evidence in the courtroom.  There is no

18     need for you to go into the trouble of producing the schematic.  It is

19     already there.  We have it in an electronic form.  And it, indeed, would

20     have been very difficult for me to produce all the schematics in

21     electronic form.  It was as simple as that, and it applied to all the

22     schematics.  And when it comes to the central schematic of the MUP, since

23     they had all the necessary support, I asked them to transform my proposal

24     into an electronic form, which was easier for them to do than it would

25     have been to me.

Page 22073

 1             And I apologise, Your Honours, for speeding up.

 2             MR. RUSSO:

 3        Q.   I want to take this meeting between you and Mr. Kay piece by

 4     piece.

 5             First of all, this meeting at which you and Mr. Kay are going

 6     through your report, and at which you're indicating to him you want to

 7     insert schematics, when exactly did this conversation take place, and

 8     where?

 9        A.   There were several such conversations sometime in February or

10     March.  I really don't know exactly.  I started working on my report in

11     early February and finished.  It's as simple as that.  I can actually

12     give you a practical demonstration of how things developed.

13        Q.   You indicated February or March.  Is that February or March of

14     this year?

15        A.   Yes, this year, 2009.  It was after I stopped being a politician.

16        Q.   And when you showed your schematics to Mr. Kay, and he looked at

17     them and indicated that they'd already been admitted into evidence, at

18     that time did he have -- the schematics which were admitted into

19     evidence, did he have those with him to show you that they were

20     identical?

21        A.   After a while, those schematics were downloaded from the

22     database.  As soon as he heard me describe my schematics, he was almost

23     certain that we were talking about the same thing, because in the part

24     that I gave to Mr. Kay there was a text and then there was the schematics

25     of the Police Administration of Knin, and that schematic was hand-drawn

Page 22074

 1     by me.  And when I spoke to Mr. Kay, Mr. Kay told me, The schematics

 2     already exist, they have already been tendered into evidence, and that's

 3     why we concluded that I should not have to go into the trouble of

 4     producing my schematics in the electronic form, since they already

 5     existed and had already been admitted into evidence.  So we decided to

 6     adopt those.  And Mr. Kay actually wanted to be absolutely sure and

 7     double-check whether the schematics that are already in evidence contain

 8     any mistakes, so we looked at them, and I was convinced that there were

 9     no mistakes, that they look exactly as they should, and that I could

10     easily subscribe to them.

11        Q.   Now, how many such meetings did you have with Mr. Kay, where you

12     went through the substance of your report and discussed what should or

13     shouldn't be in there?

14        A.   Four, five at the most; not many.

15        Q.   And at each of these meetings, did you have a draft of your

16     report with you to show Mr. Kay, or had you provided him with a draft of

17     your report at that time prior to each of the meetings?

18        A.   First, I handed my report, and subsequently we had our meetings.

19     How could we have had meetings without Mr. Kay being privy to the

20     materials that I had produced?

21        Q.   When was the first time you handed your report to Mr. Kay?

22        A.   Sometime in February.  I'm not very good with dates.  First we

23     discussed the contents.  Then I told him what documents I was using to

24     prepare my expert report.  Then I drafted a certain number of chapters.

25     And that's how our cooperation proceeded until the whole report was

Page 22075

 1     finalised.  I don't have my notes on me, so I can't consult anything to

 2     be able to tell you the exact dates.

 3        Q.   What I'm trying to determine, Mr. Kovacevic, is the extent to

 4     which you had meetings with Mr. Kay during the entire process of the

 5     drafting.  In other words, you didn't, did you, hand a final report to

 6     Mr. Kay, and then have four or five meetings with him, and your report is

 7     exactly the same as the first time you handed it to him?  That's not the

 8     case; correct?

 9        A.   There is no major difference between my draft report and my final

10     report.  Mr. Kay wanted me to reduce the number of pages to bring it down

11     to anything between 80 to 200 [as interpreted], not more.  That's why I

12     shortened some chapters concerning the presidential system in Croatia,

13     the legal hierarchy of legal regulations, the jurisdiction over their

14     passing, the role of some officials of the UN.  Those things have not

15     made it to the final version of my report.  The only thing that happened

16     was that the number of pages has been reduced in my final report.  The

17     essence of the report has not changed, however.

18        Q.   How many drafts, exactly, did you give to Mr. Kay before

19     achieving the final result?

20        A.   The first, the second, and the third.  The first was very

21     extensive, and then Mr. Kay asked me to reduce the report to something

22     between 80 and 100 pages, which would suffice.  The second was a

23     curtailed version, and then the third and final version was translated

24     into English.  And the two of us, together, checked and double-checked

25     the translation, collated the translation with the original, in order to

Page 22076

 1     be as certain about the use of professional and technical terms.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, I'm looking at the clock.  Mr. Misetic

 3     asked for two or three minutes in the absence of the witness.  Could you

 4     find, within the next two or three minutes, a suitable moment to have a

 5     break.

 6             MR. RUSSO:  Mr. President, I'm not done with this topic, so this

 7     is just as good a time as any.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you'd say you need any -- way more than two or

 9     three minutes.

10             Then, Mr. Kovacevic, we'll have a break.  We have first to deal

11     with a procedural matter.  I'm not yet aware of what it is, but we're not

12     going to bother you with that.  We'd like to see you back in close to

13     half an hour from now.

14                           [The witness stands down]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, a matter we can deal with in open

16     session?

17             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Mr. President.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Kehoe and I just wanted to address the Chamber

20     on this issue that was raised in cross-examination about documents being

21     purchased on a black market.  I understand Mr. Russo wasn't making an

22     allegation and was exploring what was stated in the article, but we did

23     want to be expressly clear that, on behalf of the Gotovina Defence, we

24     have never purchased any documents from anyone, and no documents tendered

25     in this Chamber by the Gotovina Defence have ever been purchased or

Page 22077

 1     obtained on a black market or any such thing, just as officers of the

 2     Court, so that that is on the record.

 3             Thank you, Mr. President.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think Mr. Russo at least did not further

 5     pursue the matter once the witness had said how he obtained documents

 6     from the Defence.  You add to this that whatever documents you obtained

 7     were not bought at the black market.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  That's correct, but I actually wanted it to be

 9     stated as fact on the record, that no such thing has taken place with the

10     Gotovina Defence.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, well, it's on the record, so that --

12     Mr. Mikulicic.

13             MR. MIKULICIC:  For the record --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Nothing bought on your black market, either, or --

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  Nothing bought on the black market, and just for

16     the record, the same thing applies to the Markac Defence as well as my

17     learned friend told before.

18             MR. KAY:  And the same for me.  And I didn't even buy

19     Mr. Mikulicic a cup of coffee yesterday to get The Blue Book.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, just for me, since you make it an issue, I do

21     understand that your statement says, We never paid for any document which

22     we obtained from sources not in the government.  That's what I understand

23     by "black market," because I don't understand the government to be part

24     of a black market.

25             MR. MISETIC:  Well, I also wish to be clear about this, so

Page 22078

 1     there's no confusion.  We've never paid the government for any documents,

 2     either.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  There was no suggestion of that kind in my

 4     observation, which does not mean that all the documents you ever obtained

 5     always were obtained from the government.  I take it that whenever an

 6     individual was in possession of a document you considered to be useful,

 7     that you would obtain it from that individual, but you would not pay for

 8     it, and never you, I take it, you encountered a situation in which you

 9     were invited to pay for it.

10             MR. MISETIC:  That is absolutely correct, Mr. President.  The

11     situation would be, again, Mr. Lausic's diary, it's a relevant piece of

12     evidence in the private possession of the person.  We would obtain a

13     copy, and it's for our own use.  Other examples would be media reports,

14     et cetera, that --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, I just want -- if you make a statement

16     about the black market, where Mr. Russo asked about the black market and

17     where the witness was not able to tell us anything about it, to have a

18     proper understanding of what your clear statement, the statement of the

19     Gotovina Defence, comes down to.  And I take it, Mr. Mikulicic and

20     Mr. Kay, that --

21             MR. KAY:  Absolutely.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  -- it should be -- your statement should be

23     understood in the same way.  Then we'll have a break, and we'll resume

24     at --

25             Mr. Russo, you paid for something?

Page 22079

 1             MR. RUSSO:  I'm about to pay for a cup of coffee, Mr. President,

 2     but --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  All three Defence teams, I take it.

 4             MR. RUSSO:  I can't promise that.  I do intend to -- well, I had

 5     originally intended to put the chart to the witness.  However, the

 6     testimony he's just given, I'd just like to ask him whether he knows the

 7     relationship between the ones in his report and Mr. Feldi's report, and I

 8     would like to bar table the comparison charts.  I just thought I would

 9     give everyone a little notice of that.  That's how I intend to proceed.

10     So if there are any problems, I guess we can address them when we come

11     back from the break.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Would it be of any use to, if we are comparing

13     documents anyhow in view of the testimony of the witness, to compare what

14     has been earlier tendered and was admitted into evidence with the dates,

15     because now we have quite a lot of diagrams for which we have, well,

16     various explanations as to how they were produced, by whom in

17     handwriting, what was then done with it, for what purposes.  And then now

18     we have, as additional element, that simply documents that were already

19     admitted into evidence were provided to the witness because they were

20     apparently of the same contents as what the witness had produced, so that

21     we have a full overview.

22             MR. RUSSO:  I understand, Mr. President, and we can certainly put

23     something like that together.

24             MR. KAY:  Yes, and can I make a statement, because it looks to me

25     as though I'm prime suspect in all this.

Page 22080

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  You're not a suspect, Mr. Kay.

 2             MR. KAY:  We have used organigrams in the course of our

 3     cross-examination, as the Court knows, and in preparing this Defence case

 4     and having to learn a totally alien political and governmental structure,

 5     I have had organigrams produced for me so that I can see the picture and

 6     understand it, and it's a route that I have taken when introducing

 7     evidence at various points to help Your Honours in explaining it to you,

 8     the basis and nature of the structures that we are concerned with, as it

 9     occurred to me that during the presentation of this case that was

10     lacking.  And in my submission, it was done with all good intention to

11     assist the parties.  In the interim, a number of organigrams were

12     obviously developed because the people I work with know this system,

13     they're of it.  Here's the man giving evidence who drafted the legal

14     legislation.  We've previously had General Feldi, who drafted the service

15     regulations.  They are people from the system, and any organigram that

16     was produced would have been something that they would have seen and, if

17     it was wrong or defective, would have not been in their report.

18             I took the view that it was helpful as well, in their reports, to

19     have organigrams in the text rather than as an annex, because it was

20     easier to read and see, so it was an idea I had, in the preparation of

21     the defence, to make sure that pictorially there was a representation for

22     the Court and for others to see what was being said, rather than some

23     exhibit footnote annex which you can't immediately relate to the text.

24     So just to let Your Honours know that if an explanation is required, I am

25     the person who thought organigrams would be a good idea.

Page 22081

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, I think there's no issue about organigrams

 2     or diagrams being useful.  I think there were no objections to have them

 3     admitted into evidence.  We have seen quite some of them.  I think the

 4     issue that arose now is a bit of a different one; that is:  Who is the

 5     intellectual author of the diagrams and organigrams we find in the expert

 6     reports?  And that's -- we have now heard from this witness that he

 7     drafted his own ones, but then was provided with already existing ones

 8     already in evidence, whereas Mr. Feldi testified differently.  He didn't

 9     say, Mine were, at the suggestion of the team, replaced by those already

10     in existence; but he said, Mine were scanned, and then in its scanned

11     version, they were introduced in my expert report.  And then, of course,

12     looking at the different -- the testimony about who authored what,

13     exactly, then it may be interesting to compare the versions that were

14     already in evidence, the versions that appear in one report, the versions

15     that appear in another report, and versions that appear, as we know by

16     now, in The Blue Book.  And I think that's the matter we are exploring at

17     this moment.  And I did not gain any impression that the use of diagrams

18     and preparing them would not be useful either for the case or for this

19     Court.

20             MR. KAY:  Yes.

21             And, Your Honour, on another matter as well with General Feldi, I

22     am -- have always been conscious in cases like these that the Prosecution

23     use expert witnesses, I could not possibly deal with the expert report of

24     Mr. Theunens on my own.  I have had General Feldi as someone -- an expert

25     to whom I could consult, and that was his purpose in coming and joining

Page 22082

 1     and working with my team.  And I could not understand this system from

 2     the materials supplied in either the Prosecution pre-trial brief,

 3     indictment, or, indeed, the witness statements, and General Feldi has

 4     been a source of instruction to me.  Any credit from my

 5     cross-examination, in a sense, is from those who I have to consult to

 6     understand these issues.  And I just want to make that entirely clear and

 7     that there's nothing here that, in my eyes, is unusual in any litigation

 8     that I have ever conducted.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  No, Mr. Kay, I don't think -- the issue there may be

10     that if an expert appears before this Court who is employed by the

11     Prosecution, that's usually known to the other parties and to the Bench.

12     It appears in their CV that they were employed, when they were employed,

13     which allows for questions such as, What subject matter did you deal with

14     when you were employed?  Whereas for Mr. Feldi, and I don't know to what

15     extent it will be an issue to be raised by the Prosecution, but at least

16     from his CV, it was not clear that he worked for the Cermak Defence team

17     in the role as you just described, in addition to having been asked to

18     prepare an expert report.  That's, I think, what may have caused some

19     questions to be put to him.

20             MR. KAY:  Yes.  I used him as an expert.  Then I asked him to

21     produce an expert report after Mr. Theunens had given evidence, and that

22     is the sequence of events.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

24             Mr. Russo, anything to be raised at this moment?

25             MR. RUSSO:  Nothing to be raised.  I just wanted to advise the

Page 22083

 1     Trial Chamber that I'm aware I've only estimated two sessions.  However,

 2     the pace of the cross-examination is not proceeding as I had hoped, and I

 3     think I may go more than two sessions.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Try to be as efficient as possible in this

 5     respect.

 6             We'll have a break, and we'll resume at five minutes past 11.00.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, you may proceed.

11             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

12             If we could have 65 ter 7415, and my apologies.  If I could also

13     have the assistance of the Court Usher, I do have something to pass to

14     the witness.  This is the hard copy of the comparison chart of

15     organigrams, with the Court's leave.

16        Q.   Now, Mr. Kovacevic, I want to take a look at just a few of the

17     organigrams in your report and compare them to those in Mr. Feldi's

18     report.  If we could start with the first one, that is -- if we could

19     move to the second page here in e-court.  Actually, I believe it would be

20     the third page.  Yeah, the third page, please.

21             And this is an organigram found at page 73 of your expert report.

22     That's the B/C/S version.  And if you take a look in your hard copy

23     there, the document which appears next, if we could move to the next page

24     in e-court, is the organigram which appears at page 20 of Mr. Feldi's

25     report.  And I've compared these two, and they appear to be identical.

Page 22084

 1             Now, I'd like you to explain to me, is this one of the

 2     organigrams which you had handwritten on your own and were told was

 3     already in the possession of the Defence?

 4        A.   I think it is.  There could be no differences between my diagram

 5     and Mr. Feldi's, because we used the same source.  The source is the

 6     structure of the military police as prescribed by the minister of

 7     defence.  The diagrams cannot differ if they are based on the same

 8     source.

 9        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, did you get a look at Mr. Feldi's report before

10     completing your own report?

11        A.   No, I did not.  I did not look at his report whatsoever, not

12     before, not now, nor ever.

13        Q.   And to be clear, you don't know, do you, exactly what the genesis

14     of the organigrams that Mr. Feldi's included in his report were?  You

15     don't know where Mr. Feldi got those particular organigrams, do you?

16        A.   I don't.  Perhaps Mr. Kay could tell you, or someone else.  Once

17     I had made the handwritten diagram, Mr. Kay said he had it.  I used the

18     source, which was the Ministry of Defence.  Therefore, there could have

19     been no differences.

20             MR. RUSSO:  Mr. President, I would offer 65 ter 7415 across the

21     Bar table, and I will supplement with a submission regarding the use of

22     similar organigrams in previous testimony, as the Court suggested.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that is --

24             MR. KAY:  No objection, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

Page 22085

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2638.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 3             Proceed, Mr. Russo.

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

 5        Q.   Moving on, I'd like to talk about some of the substance of your

 6     report, Mr. Kovacevic.  If we could move to section 5.4.6 of your report.

 7             And for the benefit of the Court and counsel, this appears at

 8     page 97 in the English version and B/C/S page 89.

 9             In section 5.4.6, Mr. Kovacevic, you address the issue of

10     military police subordination to HV commanders under Article 9 of the

11     rules governing the structure and operation of the military police.  And

12     there you refer to several specific orders issued by General Lausic in

13     August of 1995, orders in which he expressly subordinates military police

14     to the highest HV commander in the area.  And in particular, you state:

15             "Finally, in neither of these two orders, orders dated 5 and

16     14 August 1995, did he explicitly and by himself specify the

17     subordination of the Knin Military Police Company, since if that were the

18     case, he would have used the expression 'I hereby subordinate,' instead

19     of the word 'subordinate.'"

20        A.   Correct.  There is a marked difference, "I hereby subordinate"

21     and "to subordinate."

22        Q.   My apologies, Mr. Kovacevic.  Just waiting for the translation to

23     catch up.

24             Now, Mr. Kovacevic, are you attempting, in this section, to

25     suggest to the Trial Chamber that there is some significance in the

Page 22086

 1     semantic distinction you're drawing here?

 2        A.   There is a significant difference.  When one says "I hereby

 3     subordinate," it should be stipulated to whom.  When it is stated "to

 4     subordinate," then we leave it up to someone else to do it.  This is in

 5     the military jargon as well as in regular language.  "I hereby

 6     subordinate" is something which takes effect immediately, and "to

 7     subordinate" denotes a lasting action.  "To subordinate" is not as

 8     precise.  It basically states that it is left to another person to do so.

 9     When I say "I hereby subordinate you to ...," that takes effect

10     immediately.  But when I say "to subordinate," that action has not taken

11     place yet.

12        Q.   I want to be clear.  Is it your opinion that if General Lausic

13     had used the phrase "I hereby subordinate," then that would have been a

14     legally-effective subordination of the military police to the HV?  Is

15     that your opinion?

16        A.   If you have read paragraph 5.4.5, you would have noticed several

17     mistakes in his order.  First of all, he used the term "in daily

18     operational command."  We don't find that term in Article 9 of the rules.

19     It is simply not there.

20             Secondly, the newly-formed platoons and companies which are to be

21     subordinated to the most senior commander, he doesn't say to which

22     commander and that they have been subordinated.  Had he said,

23     specifically, "Subordinate this and that company to the Knin commander,"

24     that would have been clearly -- clear and sufficient.  Orders need to be

25     clear, self-sufficient, and must be able to be implemented.

Page 22087

 1        Q.   Well, before deciding on what expression General Lausic would

 2     have used, did you actually review the evidence, that is, the witness

 3     statements and the testimony of General Lausic, regarding subordination

 4     of the military police to HV commanders?

 5        A.   I have read his statements.  As far as you can see, yourself, in

 6     this part I analyse it in legal terms.  I analyse each component of his

 7     order, and I pointed out the mistakes he had made.  That was my role, as

 8     the expert.  I listened to that part of his testimony, and it is clear

 9     that he doesn't make a distinction between the various bylaws.

10     Specifically, in this case, the organisational order for garrisons, in

11     terms of the bylaws by the Ministry of Defence, which has to do with the

12     basic mobilisation plan, one cannot use the Rules of Service for the

13     Military Police to make a different decision.  This is the legal

14     hierarchy of the various regulations, and I realised from his testimony

15     that he is not aware of that distinction.  He tried to defend a position

16     which, legally speaking, could not be.

17        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, you do not address Mr. Lausic's witness

18     statements, nor any of the testimony he provided in court, in your expert

19     report, and I'm going to suggest to you that you didn't do so because the

20     evidence he provided, in fact, contradicts your theory about the

21     applicability of Article 9.  And I want to point you to some particular

22     pieces of evidence that General Lausic provided.  Specifically, at

23     transcript page 15346, this is lines 15 to 17, General Lausic stated:

24             "Article 9," and that's Article 9 of the rules, "envisaged the

25     right to implement daily operational tasks in everyday activities to the

Page 22088

 1     various commanders of the armed forces in Croatia."

 2             If you'll bear with me, I'm going to read you a couple of other

 3     portions.  At transcript page 15 --

 4        A.   What he said is not foreseen by Article 9.  If you actually read

 5     Article 9, you'll see that the terminology is different.

 6             MR. KAY:  I think it's helpful, if the witness can answer a

 7     proposition.  We saw yesterday a wrapped-up ten or more quotes from the

 8     Prosecution which, in my submission, was unhelpful, and if the expert

 9     witness can respond as he wants to, to the proposition being put, I don't

10     think that that's an unreasonable request on his behalf, nor unhelpful to

11     the Court.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, the witness did, as a matter of fact,

13     and I did not have the impression that Mr. Russo was about to stop him on

14     this matter.

15             Mr. Kovacevic, Mr. Russo will put several --

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was stopped.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Then that does not appear on the transcript, at

18     least.

19             Mr. Russo, if -- there is a dilemma here, which is the following:

20     Sometimes it is useful to respond to every single quote.  Sometimes it is

21     to be preferred to have them taken together.

22             Now, Mr. Kovacevic, I would suggest the following:  If you think

23     that in that specific quote there is something that needs to be

24     specifically addressed, and from what I understand, you have reviewed the

25     testimony, and which is unrelated to other portions, then you can

Page 22089

 1     immediately respond.  If, however, it is a matter which relates to other

 2     portions of the evidence which you have reviewed already, then I would

 3     suggest you wait until you have heard all of it and then respond to the

 4     quotes in their entirety.

 5             Mr. Russo, this dilemma might not be easily resolved, and be

 6     relied, to some extent, on the expert here as well.

 7             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8             All of the pieces of evidence that I'm going to be referring to

 9     all deal with the exact same issue, so I think it's --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it's the same issue, but not necessarily, I

11     take it, all exactly the same testimony.  To the extent you think you can

12     deal with it altogether, Mr. Kovacevic, you're invited to wait until

13     you've heard all of it.  If you want to, at a later stage, want to be

14     reminded of a specific portion, you can ask for that, say -- if you would

15     say, I'd like to respond to the third quote you gave me, then we'll read

16     that again to you, and then it may refresh your memory before you

17     respond.

18             Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

19             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

20        Q.   Now, at transcript page 15353, this is lines 19 to 25,

21     General Lausic testified:

22             "HV unit commanders or garrison commanders within whose area of

23     responsibility the specific MP unit is, command MP units to execute all

24     military policing tasks in keeping the authority and powers of work of

25     the military police.  They're also tasked with daily monitoring of the

Page 22090

 1     work of the MP and notify the MP Administration with the proposal of

 2     measures to be undertaken by the Administration so as to ensure efficient

 3     functioning of the MP unit."

 4             Now, before I move on to the other portions that I'm going to

 5     discuss, I'll give you an opportunity to respond to the first two quotes

 6     I've given.

 7        A.   One needs to say this:  It is important that in all these

 8     situations, one needs to bear in mind the provisions of Article 9 and 10

 9     of the Rules on the Structure and Work of the Armed Forces of the

10     Republic of Croatia.  Article 10 is essential, because it sets out tasks.

11     Article 10 is a combination of a corresponding article from the Law on

12     Internal Affairs.  These are the tasks of the basic police, crime police,

13     and special police.  So when Lausic speaks in such general terms, it is

14     not correct.  One needs to specify which tasks are to be assigned to the

15     commanders of the military districts if any authority is given to them to

16     command the military police.  But the military police, as such, is

17     outside the armed forces structure.  It is under the Ministry of Defence,

18     and he was the sole commander of the military police.  The problem arises

19     from what he is saying, which does not correspond to the legal reality.

20     He cannot assign MP tasks to anyone else, and this includes the crime

21     military police.  He has to be very specific in terms of what regular,

22     daily policing tasks are assigned to this and that particular military

23     unit, say the battalion, and which tasks are assigned to the military

24     district commander precisely.  This is a legal regulation, and an order

25     needs to be based on that.  It has to be short, implementable, and clear.

Page 22091

 1     Otherwise, one might conclude that he had nothing to do with the military

 2     police and that it handed -- he handed over all of his authority to the

 3     military district commanders.  Legally speaking, it is incorrect.

 4        Q.   Well, first of all, I'll suggest to you, Mr. Kovacevic, that with

 5     respect to what tasks he is referring to as the HV commanders being able

 6     to direct the military police units with respect to, he indicates, as in

 7     the quote I read, all military policing tasks in keeping the authority

 8     and powers of the work of the military police.  So to the extent that you

 9     indicate that he didn't specify, I suggest to you that, in fact, he did

10     specify, and he specified all.

11             But beyond that, I'd like you to point specifically -- if you can

12     refer the Court to the language in either the rules or anything which

13     actually says that the chief of the military police is required to

14     specify X, Y, and Z in implementing orders.  Can you point to a provision

15     which says that?

16        A.   It's very simple.  Articles in question are on number 8, where it

17     says that the chief of the administration commands the military police.

18     Number 9 says that in the policing duties, HV units are subordinated to

19     the head of the military district, which means that the legal provisions

20     do not result in direct legal effects.  What is necessary is a concrete

21     military order which would specify the task.  It says in Article 10 that

22     there are three types of tasks: tasks of the basic police -- let's make,

23     if you will allow me, let's make a distinction here.  The military police

24     does the same thing as the military police do -- as the civilian police

25     do, but the military police is in charge of the armed forces.  In any

Page 22092

 1     case, the tasks are the same.  The tasks are the same, and there are also

 2     different tasks.  And then an order should be issued where it will say, I

 3     hereby subordinate the military police to the military district

 4     commander, in terms of regular policing duties with regard to the

 5     military traffic, patrols, but it has to specify exactly what.  This is

 6     the essence of the law, the essence of the order.  And I wasted three

 7     months with them until I was able to draft the regulation to read

 8     properly.  There is no "the most senior" that Lausic refers to.  That

 9     term does not exist in the Croatian legislation, that term does not

10     exist.  He made it up.  It's an invented term, invented by him.

11             MR. KAY:  Just an observation.  Could the witness be reminded by

12     Your Honour, rather than me, to speak more slowly.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I tried already, with my hands, to ask him.

14             Mr. Kovacevic, in return, I got your gestures.  If I use my

15     hands, that is to remind you that you should slow down.

16             Please proceed.

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

18        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, the Trial Chamber has heard quite a lot of

19     evidence regarding applicability of Articles 8, 9, and 10.  But to

20     shortcut this section, would you simply agree with me that there is no

21     particular language in the rules which states that Article 9 does not

22     have a legal effect unless an implementing order is given?  Would you

23     agree with me that there is no language to be found which says that?

24        A.   First of all, we have to talk about legal rules and provisions,

25     what provisions means and when they can have direct effects and when not.

Page 22093

 1     I'm saying that in Article 9, the provisions are drafted in such a way

 2     that they don't result in direct legal effects.  They call for the

 3     passing of very specific orders.  In other words, the provisions of

 4     Article 9 --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  You're repeating your earlier testimony, explaining

 6     Article 9.  The only thing Mr. Russo, at this point in time, asked you is

 7     whether you would agree that there is no particular language in the rules

 8     which states that Article 9 does not have a legal effect unless an

 9     implementing order is given.  Now, whatever conclusions would that lead

10     to, but if you say there is such language, clear language, please tell

11     us.  If not, we'll proceed.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, you're not right,

13     Your Honours.  I am talking about legal positions and legal practice in

14     the Croatian legislation system.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  You're asked whether you can point at any legal

16     text, not how you interpret texts, because we have heard about that quite

17     a bit, and it's clear what your position is.  But Mr. Russo asked whether

18     there is a specific rule which requires that Article 9 does not have a

19     legal effect unless an implementing order is given, a specific

20     implementing order.  Now, if you can point to such a text, please do so.

21     If not, it's fully clear what your position is, and then we can move to

22     the next question.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What Mr. Russo is asking me is part

24     of the Anglo-Saxon law, which doesn't exist in the Croatian legislation.

25     There is no article of the same kind.  And there is an important

Page 22094

 1     difference between the Continental Law and the Anglo-Saxon Law.  The

 2     Continental Law stems from the Austro-Hungarian Law in Anglo-Saxon Law.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Your answer, therefore, is that there is no such

 4     language to be found in the rules.

 5             Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

 6             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 7        Q.   And I notice, Mr. Kovacevic, that you don't treat Article 8 in

 8     the same fashion.  Your opinion is that Article 8 is self-executing, as

 9     opposed to Article 9, which you claim is not self-executing.  I wonder

10     why you draw a distinction between those two situations.

11        A.   Because Article 8 says that all units of the military police are

12     subordinated to the Administration of the Military Police under the

13     command of the chief of the military police; isn't that so?  It's as

14     clear as can be.  General Lausic was the commander of the military

15     police.  And in Article 9, it says that in performing regular policing

16     duties, units are subordinated to the commander of the military district.

17     There is a major distinction there.  One should specify tasks provided

18     for in Article 10, what are the regular policing duties for which units

19     are subordinated.  I think it can't be any clearer than that.

20        Q.   Thank you.  I'd like to refer back to some of the evidence of

21     General Lausic.  In his witness statement, that is P2159, paragraphs 194

22     to 195, General Lausic indicates that the 72nd Military -- 72nd Battalion

23     Military Police Company based in Knin was subordinated to the highest

24     military commander in its area of responsibility, which he defined as the

25     town of Knin and its surrounding areas, and he stated that the

Page 22095

 1     highest-ranking Croatian Army commander in Knin at the time was

 2     General Cermak.

 3             Further on in that statement, at paragraph 249 General Lausic

 4     indicated that the Knin MP Company was under Cermak's command for its

 5     day-to-day activities and that if a crime was committed within Cermak's

 6     area of responsibility, it would have been his responsibility to direct

 7     the military police.

 8             Now, on cross-examination - this appears at transcript

 9     page 15662, lines 16 to 23 - Mr. Kay suggested to General Lausic that

10     there was no document which established that the Knin MP Company was

11     under the day-to-day command of General Cermak, but General Lausic

12     disagreed with him and referred to Exhibit D47, which subordinates the MP

13     company commander to the highest HV commander in the area.

14             Now, what I'd like to know is -- or what I'm going to suggest to

15     you is that you did not address this evidence in particular because it,

16     in fact, contradicts your theory that this could not have been the case

17     under Article 9.  Isn't that right?

18        A.   If you have carefully read what I wrote in paragraph 549 and

19     further on, I didn't find it anywhere in the case, in all the documents

20     that I've perused, an order which would subordinate the company of the

21     military police in Knin to anybody.  There are just two Lausic's orders

22     which say that somebody will have to do it, but he didn't specify who.

23     If that was the nature of the order, if it was not conclusive, it should

24     have been the battalion commander who had to do that, but he was never

25     authorised.  He had to authorise him by his order.  In formal and legal

Page 22096

 1     terms... he could not, to General Cermak, as the commander of the

 2     garrison, because according to paragraph 2 of the order on organisation,

 3     the commander, or rather the command of the garrison does not have an

 4     operational function and the right to command

 5     over the armed forces.  If he were to do so, he would violate the

 6     regulation issued by the Ministry -- or, rather, the Ministry of Defence

 7     about the organisation.

 8             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, it's a mistranslation we're quite familiar

 9     with now.  It was military garrison, not military district at 51, 12.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that seems --

11             MR. CAYLEY:  He could not "subordinate" instead of "order."

12             JUDGE ORIE:  That part of the translation will be verified, and I

13     don't think that there's any unclarity as to the -- what the substance of

14     the answer of the witness is.

15             MR. KAY:  Well, I just had to correct it in case anyone was

16     misled by the transcript.  Sorry.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

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

19        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, are you familiar with an analysis put together by

20     members and former members of the Main Staff regarding Operation Storm,

21     an analysis which is commonly referred to as The Blue Book?

22        A.   I heard about it, but I never saw the book, itself.

23        Q.   When did you hear about it?

24        A.   I believe that I heard about it from my colleagues in the

25     Main Staff.  I was with the Ministry of Defence until the year 2000.  I

Page 22097

 1     heard that they were putting together a book about Operation Storm.  I

 2     don't know when that materialised, whether it was in 2005, or 2006, or

 3     2007, but I knew that the publishing section of the Main Staff was doing

 4     something to that effect.  I never saw the book.  I only heard that its

 5     name -- its title was either "The White Book" or "The Blue Book."  I

 6     really don't know what the title is, actually.

 7        Q.   Can you provide us with the names of the individuals who you

 8     heard were working on this book?

 9        A.   I was never told any names, and it's very difficult for me to

10     remember anything.  I didn't see the book; I didn't read the book; I

11     didn't know whether it's blue or red, so I can't really be of much use to

12     you in that respect, I'm afraid.

13             MR. RUSSO:  If we could have 65 ter 7416.  And for the benefit of

14     the Trial Chamber, this is a -- these are several pages which are

15     excerpts from the CD version of The Blue Book which we received

16     yesterday.  And if we could focus on the -- just on the footnote at the

17     bottom of this page and enlarge that.

18        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, would you please do me a favour and read that

19     footnote into the record.

20        A.   "Complete command as a military responsibility of a superior

21     officer to issue orders to his subordinates.  It covers all the aspects

22     of military operations and administration."

23             It's a very strange footnote.  There should be a definition of

24     "complete command" as opposed to "incomplete command."

25             MR. RUSSO:  If we could move to the next page, please, and focus

Page 22098

 1     on the very first footnote on this page.

 2        Q.   Now, could you read into the record the portion which defines

 3     "Operativno zapovijedanje"?

 4        A.   Are you using me as a speaker here now?

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please read slowly.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kovacevic, if you read slowly.  The problem is

 7     that this document has not yet been translated, and you are right that we

 8     are using, or one could even say, abusing you as a native-speaking

 9     person.  But if you would adopt approximately the speed of speech as I

10     now demonstrate, then the interpreters and transcribers will be able to

11     follow you.

12             So could you please slowly read which, Mr. Russo, seems to be

13     still a part of footnote 517 which starts at the previous page.  Yes,

14     could you please slowly read.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will do so:

16             "Operational command as an authority vested in a commander,

17     allowing him to assign missions or tasks to subordinated commanders, to

18     deploy units, or re-subordinate forces, and to maintain or delegate

19     operational and/or tactical control as needed.  This does not include

20     responsibility for administration or logistic.  It can also be used to

21     mark the forces assigned to the commander."

22             Shall I go on reading?

23             MR. RUSSO:  No, thank you.

24             One last portion to read, if we could go to the next page.  I

25     promise this is the last abuse I will make of you in this regard,

Page 22099

 1     Mr. Kovacevic.  But if we could focus on footnote 537.  It's the very

 2     last footnote on the page.  And if you could read the entire footnote

 3     slowly, please.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Pursuant to the provisions of the

 5     rules on the organisation work of the military police of the Armed Forces

 6     of the Republic of Croatia stipulated in Article 8, all," and this is a

 7     quote, "'All military police units are subordinated to the Administration

 8     of the Military Police of the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of

 9     Croatia under the administration and the command of the chief of the

10     Administration of the Military Police.'  Daily operational command is

11     defined by Article 9 of the same regulation," and I quote, "'In

12     performing regular military policing duties, military police units are

13     subordinated to the commander of the military district, the commander of

14     the Croatian Navy, the commander of the Croatian Air Force, or to the

15     highest-ranking commander of the Croatian Army in the territory where the

16     military police are active.  Thus, the Administration of the Military

17     Police of the Ministry of Defence had full command authority over the

18     units of the military police, whereas the commanders of the military

19     districts had the authority of operational command for -- over the

20     military police units assigned to them in the performance of daily tasks

21     and duties."

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay.

23             MR. KAY:  I'm sorry, but it is important.  The word

24     "po duznosti," the third line from bottom, was read out but not

25     translated.  That means "by function," so I'm told.

Page 22100

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I am asking the -- well, let's first -- I don't

 2     remember what was exactly read.  I did not follow it.  Any disagreement,

 3     Mr. Russo, that a word may have been missing and that we should --

 4     perhaps we could ask the witness to read that word again.  Is it

 5     possible --

 6             MR. KAY:  Page 54, line 23 to 24.

 7             MR. RUSSO:  Perhaps we could just ask the witness to read the --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  That portion again.

 9             MR. RUSSO:  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             Could you -- apparently, Mr. Kovacevic, there was one word

12     missing in what you read, or it was not heard by the -- could you

13     please -- I think it's the last sentence, Mr. Kay, if -- yes.  Could you

14     please read again, slowly, the last sentence of footnote 537.

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the counsel, please.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Microphone, please.

17             MR. KAY:  Frustrating.  The third-to-last line of the extract, if

18     that line, which starts beginning with "Navisem po duznosti ..." I won't

19     try anymore to murder a language that I struggle with, but if that could

20     be read out and the translation given.  I think it can be taken from us

21     that we would only be objecting on this for good cause.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand that, but at the same time we

23     have a procedure to have on the record not what, although for good

24     reasons has been suggested by counsel, but what was read and what was

25     translated, interpreted for us.

Page 22101

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm reading.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  Could you -- could you start reading at

 3     the line Mr. Kay suggested, and read it slowly.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "The most senior commander of the

 5     HV by function in the territory where the MP unit is active."

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, does this --

 7             MR. KAY:  Yes, and it's been a live issue in the case, as

 8     Your Honour knows.  That's why I've --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm aware of it.

10             MR. KAY:  -- raised it.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

13             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

14        Q.   Now, Mr. Kovacevic, do you agree with what's been stated in

15     footnote 537 that you've read out?

16             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic.

18             MR. MISETIC:  I'm going to note one objection, and that is that

19     the actual sentence from the main text, which is where the footnote then

20     comes, which is if we go into the main text on page 1, it says this

21     terminology is taken from NATO publications and that the authors are

22     using this terminology simply for the benefit of the reader.  This

23     terminology, at least from this text, is not terminology used in the

24     Croatian Army.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  This is comment rather than anything else.  You

Page 22102

 1     could have sought to clarify this, isn't it?

 2             MR. MISETIC:  No, because it's misleading, both first to the

 3     Court, since we don't have an English translation as to what this

 4     terminology is about, and do you agree with what?

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  With the text as written here.  A text was read, and

 6     now Mr. Russo asks whether the witness agrees with what is written here.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, and my --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And whether that is NATO or whether it is Australian

 9     or whether it's Colombian, this is --

10             MR. MISETIC:  The question is, does he agree that that is what

11     the term means where?  Recall that we started -- he started having him

12     read on the first page.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- we'll ask whether the witness agrees with

14     what's written, and we could ask him what his understanding is of what is

15     presented in this text.

16             Mr. Russo, at the same time you've heard the objection raised by

17     Mr. Misetic.  If you would rephrase your question in light of that, and

18     then, of course, you're invited to do so.  This, of course, is to some

19     extent a result of not having a translation of this text yet available.

20     We have to deal with the shortcomings of the situation.  At the same

21     time, it could not lead to everyone explaining why this portion is read.

22     We can ask the witness what he understands this to be and whether he

23     agrees with it.

24             Mr. Russo.

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

Page 22103

 1        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, irrespective of whose interpretation this may be

 2     or in what context it may apply, the language that you read in

 3     footnote 537, do you agree with it?

 4        A.   First of all, of course I agree with the quotes taken from

 5     Articles 8 and 9.  However, I would like to add something to the last

 6     sentence or, rather, to the last part of that sentence which reads:

 7     "Over the MP units assigned to them in the performance of their daily

 8     tasks," it should read, "in the performance of regular policing duties,

 9     as stipulated in Article 9."  I wouldn't know what "daily tasks" would

10     be, because they have not been specified.  The regulation is more precise

11     in that respect.  What I'm saying is that they are shortening,

12     summarising, and making a mistake, because they are transforming regular

13     policing tasks and duties into daily tasks and duties, which compounds

14     the matter even further.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, Mr. Russo, could we invite the witness to read

16     the main text preceding footnote 537 and to complete reading that

17     sentence, and ask him whether having read this would cause him to in any

18     way supplement or change his answer.  Therefore, we have to move on a

19     little bit higher to see where the sentence starts and then to give an

20     opportunity to the witness.  Apparently, it starts with "Postrojbe."  And

21     could an opportunity be given to the witness as well to read the

22     remaining part of this sentence on the next page.

23             MR. RUSSO:  The problem is, Mr. President, there is no next page.

24     I don't know what it says.  I'm happy to get it from the CD and have it

25     brought in, but that was not part of the excerpt which I brought in.  So

Page 22104

 1     there is no next page to turn to.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  But, of course, I've listened to Mr. Misetic's

 3     objection, and I want to -- on the one hand, to avoid that we are telling

 4     the witness what is relevant in understanding the text.  At the same

 5     time, I would like that, if there is some concern, to give a fair

 6     opportunity to look at the main text in order to better understand the

 7     context in which the footnote was created.

 8             Now, Mr. Mikulicic, you are offering us the next page?

 9             MR. MIKULICIC:  No, I am offering an assistance, if Your Honour

10     pleases.

11             The relevant main text is under the footnote 517, which is on

12     first page of this extract that Mr. Russo provide us, so maybe --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I suggest that during the next break you will assist

14     Mr. Russo in finding the context in which you consider relevant and which

15     would shed perhaps a different light on texts and footnotes and try to

16     agree with him on the basis of the text, that it -- what would be fair to

17     put to the witness.  We are struggling with the absence of a translation.

18             Mr. Misetic.

19             MR. MISETIC:  We'll do that, if the Chamber desires.  However, I

20     do want to note that I have a general objection to the use of this

21     document at all, because I don't -- I was going to wait until Mr. Russo

22     tried to tender it, but I don't think this document is admissible into

23     evidence to begin with.  And if you wish to hear it now, I'd be happy to

24     state my position.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  If you briefly, because an objection to an admission

Page 22105

 1     into evidence of a document which has not yet been tendered --

 2             MR. MISETIC:  Well, just to see if we need to do all this work

 3     during the break, et cetera, on a document that may not ultimately be

 4     admitted.

 5             I think the parties are in agreement and the Prosecution

 6     cross-examined General Feldi yesterday on the principle that The Blue

 7     Book was prepared at the request of the Markac Defence for purposes of

 8     this proceeding.  As such, this Blue Book falls either under Rule 92 bis

 9     or 92 ter, if it's not an expert report.  If it's an expert report, it

10     falls under Rule 94 bis.  But either way, it's prepared for purposes of

11     this proceeding.  It's just like a witness statement taken by the

12     Prosecution and disclosed to the Defence, which the Defence tried to

13     tender Prosecution statements in its case in-chief and the Chamber denied

14     it.  So I would argue that this report is -- was prepared, at least from

15     the evidence we have, for no other reason than these proceedings, and as

16     such, unless there's some way for the Prosecution to fulfill the

17     requirements of Rules 92 or 94 bis, it's inadmissible.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll consider that once the document has been

19     tendered.  At this moment, we're just reading a quote from a document

20     which, apart from providing information, also played a role in the

21     activities of Expert Witness Feldi when preparing his report.

22             MR. MISETIC:  I would draw the distinction there, Mr. President,

23     which is why I didn't object yesterday, to -- if it goes to issues of

24     credibility, then the matter is not being submitted for the truth or the

25     substance of the matters in the report.  My impression is that Mr. Russo

Page 22106

 1     intends to tender this for the substance of the report now, which changes

 2     the calculus, in my view.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, he invites the witness to give his views on

 4     what is written somewhere.

 5             Let's proceed at this moment, Mr. Russo.

 6             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 7        Q.   Now, Mr. Kovacevic, I want to try to cut things a little short.

 8     And I just want to make it clear to you, if it's not clear already, what

 9     the Prosecution's position is with respect to military police

10     subordination.

11             It is the Prosecution's position that the military police were

12     under the command of General Cermak in the area of Knin and also under

13     General Gotovina in the Split Military District.  Now, first of all, are

14     you aware that that's the Prosecution's position?

15        A.   You have just said so, but it is incorrect regarding

16     General Cermak and General Gotovina.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  The question, to start with, was whether you are

18     aware that it is the position of the Prosecution.  You are not invited to

19     tell us whether you agree or disagree, but whether you were aware that

20     this is the position of the Prosecution.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You put it to me.  Now I am.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

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

24        Q.   And specifically with respect to the evidence of Basko Dzolic,

25     which I understand from your expert report you reviewed in conducting

Page 22107

 1     your analysis, I'll put to you that the evidence provided by Mr. Dzolic

 2     taken in, you know, its context, supports the Prosecution's position and

 3     also supports the testimony of General Lausic that the Knin MP Company

 4     was subordinated to General Cermak.  Now, having reviewed all of the

 5     testimony --

 6             MR. KAY:  Excuse me, sorry.

 7             MR. RUSSO:  I'm sorry.  Can I finish my question, please?

 8             MR. KAY:  Well, there's been a misrepresentation of the evidence

 9     in the case.  I had to sit quietly yesterday while it happened, but I am

10     very, very concerned about evidence being taken that misrepresents the

11     evidence in the trial.  I feel that if the Defence had done that during

12     the Prosecution case, we would have been corrected, Your Honour.  And so

13     before Your Honour interjects, I want to show that this is an objection

14     we have which is fundamental, because if you put something to a witness,

15     saying, Someone else says this, and it's incorrect --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  But let's try and keep matters simple.

17             I do understand that the witness reviewed this evidence.  Why

18     characterising it then?  And then, Mr. Russo, why don't you ask, Having

19     reviewed the evidence given by Mr. Dzolic and by Mr. -- who else was

20     it --

21             MR. RUSSO:  Lausic.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Lausic.  Whether the witness could elaborate on why

23     he disagrees with certain portions of it, rather than to say, This is in

24     support of, or this demonstrates this or that?  Just keep it in rather

25     neutral terms.  Then we avoid whatever problem of misrepresenting,

Page 22108

 1     whether it supports or does not support.  Let's hear what the witness's

 2     comment is on this evidence, compared to his report.

 3             MR. RUSSO:  Well, I have to say, Mr. President, I think there is

 4     a problem with my not being permitted to put my position on the evidence

 5     to the witness.  I believe it's part of my obligation to indicate to the

 6     witness what I believe the evidence to indicate, and if he disagrees with

 7     me, he can indicate to me why he disagrees with me.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  First of all, you're not required to put every

 9     piece of evidence, and if you want to put the evidence to the witness,

10     there's -- Mr. Kay has no problem with that.  The problem is that you are

11     telling that this is in support, which means that you already give your

12     appreciation of the evidence.  Whether it supports or not, of course, I

13     take it that you consider it supportive for the Prosecution's position,

14     but that's irrelevant for the witness to know.  I would say, important is

15     to what extent this evidence, of which you may think whether it's

16     supportive or not, what comments this witness, who apparently differs of

17     opinion on certain matters, as expressed in that evidence, what his

18     comment on it is.

19             MR. RUSSO:  Well, Mr. President, I have to disagree,

20     respectfully, with Your Honour.  I do believe that under 90(H), which is

21     a rule of fairness to the witness, I do believe I have to preface these

22     questions by advising the witness that the evidence that I'm going to put

23     to him -- advising him that, in my view, it supports my case.  It's to

24     allow the witness to address the evidence I'm going to suggest to him in

25     that context.

Page 22109

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's listen to your question, and I do understand

 2     that you disagree, but you're nevertheless encouraged to put it to the

 3     witness in such a way that the type of objections raised by Mr. Kay will

 4     not result from your questions.  And if you are falling short of any

 5     other -- of any obligation under Rule 90(H), I trust that Mr. Kay will

 6     raise that issue.

 7             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8        Q.   Now, I'm going to refer you to, Mr. Kovacevic, particular pieces

 9     of Mr. Dzolic's testimony, and again I'm going to do those seriatim and

10     then ask you some questions about them.  But you indicated that you have

11     reviewed the testimony of Mr. Dzolic; correct?

12        A.   I watched his testimony when I was working on that part of my

13     report dealing with General Cermak reporting on some arson.  You can find

14     it in my expertise.

15        Q.   Yes.  And before I move on to the specific pieces I want to

16     address with you, I do want to make a it clear, in case you hadn't seen

17     this portion of the evidence, at transcript pages 9017, lines 16 to 18,

18     as well as transcript pages 9035 to 9037, this is upon questioning by

19     Mr. Kay.  Mr. Dzolic in fact indicated that he was not under the command

20     of General Cermak and that General Cermak could not issue orders to him.

21     I do want to make it clear that in case you hadn't read that testimony,

22     he did testify to that on cross-examination.

23             Now, what I'd like to put to you are some of the statements he

24     made before he gave that evidence on cross-examination and ask you

25     whether you considered those.

Page 22110

 1             Now, in his first statement to the Prosecution, Mr. Dzolic stated

 2     that he was asked -- and I'm sorry, for the benefit of everyone, this is

 3     at P875, paragraph 37 of the statement.

 4             In that paragraph, Mr. Dzolic stated that he was asked by his

 5     superior, Colonel Budimir, to be at General Cermak's disposal, and he

 6     understood that to mean that he was partly under General Cermak's command

 7     and partly under Colonel Butmir's command, and that he was to obey any

 8     order that General Cermak gave him.

 9             In a subsequent statement that Mr. Dzolic made to the OTP, he

10     made a correction to that very same paragraph that I've just referenced,

11     but he did not change that particular statement about receiving orders or

12     responding to orders issued by General Cermak.

13             Now, prior to confirming the accuracy of his statements,

14     Mr. Dzolic was given an opportunity to review the statements that he made

15     on the morning of his testimony, and he, in fact, made several

16     corrections -- clarifications to those.  However, he did not change

17     anything in paragraph 37, which I've just referenced for you, or the

18     paragraph, which is paragraph 15 of his second statement, which makes

19     reference to paragraph 37 of the first statement.  And then Dzolic

20     testified that if he was asked the same questions as he was asked in

21     those statements, if he was giving the same answers --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, you're emphasizing at this moment how

23     serious we should take this portion of the statement.  We don't have to

24     go through all the procedural details.  I mean, if there's any need, the

25     other parties will ask you, but this is really -- just put to the witness

Page 22111

 1     what is in his statement, and then you have already referred to the fact

 2     that, in cross-examination, the matter was revisited, and let's --

 3     because what you're actually doing - I hope you're aware of that - you're

 4     emphasizing that there could be no doubt as to this is really what he

 5     meant to say.  Let's just put the statement to him.

 6             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, Mr. President.

 7        Q.   During his testimony, Mr. Dzolic testified on direct

 8     examination -- this is at transcript page 8953, lines 20 to 21:

 9             "I was invited by General Cermak to come there for a conversation

10     because I was subordinate to him in the daily tasks."

11             Now, I take it from what I've read in your expert report that you

12     endorse the retraction that Mr. Dzolic made on cross-examination, that he

13     was not subject to the orders of General Cermak, rather than endorsing

14     the statements he had made previously regarding his subordination to

15     General Cermak.  Do I have that right?

16        A.   That is correct.  Dzolic was not subordinated to General Cermak,

17     and the military police in Knin was not subordinated to General Cermak.

18     It could not have been, for the reasons I have explained in detail in my

19     report in footnotes -- sorry, in paragraphs 541 to and including 549.

20        Q.   Now, Mr. Kovacevic, I'd like your explanation for why you didn't

21     choose to endorse the evidence which Mr. Dzolic gave prior to his

22     cross-examination.  Why, in your opinion, having looked at the evidence,

23     why not give that credit over his retraction on cross-examination?

24        A.   First of all, I didn't do that at all.  I simply wrote my expert

25     opinion.  I did a legal analysis rather than dealing with Dzolic's

Page 22112

 1     statements.  I didn't use that as a basis for my expert report.  It would

 2     be a dilettante thing to do.  I used legal regulations to draft a

 3     professional expert report.

 4        Q.   I'm sorry.  Are you indicating that you didn't rely on any of the

 5     testimony given by any of the witnesses in this case, or any evidence

 6     other than legal regulations, before you formed your opinion?

 7        A.   The laws and regulations, yes.  I did refer to Dzolic's statement

 8     or testimony, and I can tell you exactly in which part of my expert

 9     report it refers to the specific cases.  It is in Chapter 3.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll try to cut this matter short.

11             Mr. Russo, in the previous answer the witness said that he

12     explained, in his report, why the initial statement of Mr. Dzolic is

13     wrong.  Now, you have referred to his statement and you have referred to

14     retracting that position, saying that Mr. Dzolic was not subject to the

15     orders, where earlier he said that he had to come for a conversation

16     because he was a subordinate to him.  Now, it appears to me, but please

17     correct me when I'm wrong, that this witness prefers the second position

18     taken by Mr. Dzolic on the basis of his analysis, right or wrong, of the

19     legal structure and the legal texts.  That seems obvious to me.  Are you

20     seeking for any other reasons or -- because that's what the witness said,

21     Mr. Dzolic is wrong because I've written that in my report, what the real

22     subordination system was, so he must have been wrong with his first

23     answer.  Whether this expert is right or wrong, and what the importance

24     is of Mr. Dzolic thinking that he was subordinate or not thinking that he

25     was a subordinate, is another matter.  But what do you expect now the

Page 22113

 1     witness to say, other than what he has said in his analysis of the legal

 2     structure, legal texts?

 3             MR. RUSSO:  Well, Mr. President, first of all, I have a problem

 4     with indicating to the Trial Chamber, in front of the witness, what the

 5     purpose is of the questions I'm asking, because I don't want to tip him

 6     off.  But since the Trial Chamber wants to know, I'll indicate to you

 7     now, since I'm going to move on with this line of questioning.  What I'm

 8     attempting to demonstrate is that Mr. Dzolic formed his opinions on the

 9     basis of whatever he says he formed his opinions about, and that he was

10     unwilling to revisit the opinions he made or the conclusions he drew

11     based upon the Prosecution's evidence, and that, in fact, he's already

12     indicated by his testimony, at least that's what I'm attempting to get

13     him to confirm, that I believe he used the words "only a dilettante would

14     do that," would refer to the evidence which has been presented to change

15     an opinion he's already drawn.  I'm trying to establish that the witness

16     came to a preconceived conclusion and did not make a neutral and

17     objective analysis of all of the evidence presented before forming his

18     opinion.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, which raises the issue as the relevance and

20     importance of the testimony of a witness in forming an opinion as an

21     expert on legal structure.  That's the issue.  I'd suggest that you

22     proceed.

23             MR. RUSSO:  If I could have just a moment, Mr. President.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may, to conclude, I can tell

25     you that I did read the testimony in the case of arson of some houses in

Page 22114

 1     Knin.  I have read that part of the statements, and it's all in there.

 2             MR. KAY:  I'm sorry.  I have to raise this in the approach of my

 3     learned friend saying, I'm trying to establish that the witness came to a

 4     preconceived conclusion and did not make a neutral and objective

 5     analysis.  When this whole questioning starts off with a description of

 6     the witness saying one thing, and then on cross-examination, and I'll

 7     refer Your Honours to it, at lines -- at page 9037, line 3, contradicting

 8     the proposition that's being put by my learned friend as the basis of his

 9     questioning.  So to accuse the witness of coming to a preconceived

10     conclusion when the materials he relies upon are fundamentally flawed, as

11     the Court will see and as he's admitted in the preamble to the question,

12     that -- I'm sorry, but I don't want my witness confused or misled, or

13     this exercise to have some sort of impact on the proceedings, which is --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand you.  We could go on with this

15     for a long time.  Apparently, the focus of Mr. Russo is somewhere, and it

16     might not have been very wise of me to invite him to explain that, or

17     perhaps he should have asked the witness to take off his earphones.  That

18     would have been a better solution.

19             The focus should be on understanding what this expert tells us.

20     Now, if he has considered evidence given at another moment before this

21     Trial Chamber, then, of course, we could be very selective, emphasizing

22     what he said first and then emphasizing what he said in

23     cross-examination, still to be considered in the totality of the

24     evidence, which part of the evidence should be given more weight or less

25     weight.  The Chamber will consider that in its entirety, but more or less

Page 22115

 1     to put the most favourable portions of the evidence and then say, Why

 2     didn't you follow that?  Or put another portion and say, Why didn't you

 3     follow that?  I think this expert has provided us with his interpretation

 4     of the rules, the applicable rules at the time, and what we see is that

 5     we had various statements, that we have various pieces of evidence either

 6     in favour of this interpretation or in that interpretation.  Now, it's

 7     clear what the interpretation of this witness is.  And of course there's

 8     nothing wrong with asking specific questions to the witness in relation

 9     to earlier evidence, but let's try not to draw all kind of conclusions as

10     with what intention someone may have rightly interpreted or

11     misinterpreted a legal context, and why he didn't pay more attention to

12     this or more attention to that.  Let's try to keep it clear, and let's

13     take 20 minutes to think it over, how to achieve that.

14             We'll have a break, and we'll resume at 10 minutes to 1.00.

15                           --- Recess taken at 12.27 p.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 12.57 p.m.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, in relation to Articles 8, 9,

18     and 10, Mr. Russo, but I'm also addressing Defence counsel, quite a lot

19     of hairs have been split.  New evidence may result in these hairs to be

20     split again, but perhaps with different results.  Now, for the Chamber,

21     it is important to know how the hair looks once being split by A, B, C,

22     and D.  However, the Chamber is not interested that much in a comparative

23     analysis of the tools used when splitting that hair, the light that was

24     there when we looked at the result at a certain moment.  We should just

25     accept that the hair is split in different ways by different parties, by

Page 22116

 1     different experts, by different witnesses.  We'll look at it in its

 2     entirety at the end, and the parties are not encouraged to see, unless,

 3     of course, there's good cause to do so, whether there is another hair to

 4     be found that could be split in the same context, or to again, as I said,

 5     compare the splitting exercise in every single detail.

 6             You may proceed, Mr. Russo.

 7             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, now, am I right in interpreting your report as

 9     looking at the situation as it should be according to your interpretation

10     of Croatian laws and regulations; is that right?

11        A.   Partly correct.  This is only partly correct.

12        Q.   Can you explain what other part is not correct?

13        A.   In my methodology, I specified and clarified how the expert

14     report was drafted and what it contains.

15        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, I've read the portion of your report where you

16     indicate the methodology, but it's unclear to me whether you were

17     offering an opinion about the way the situation actually unfolded on the

18     ground or whether you were offering a position as to what was -- what

19     should have happened on the ground, according to legal regulations.

20        A.   My opinion encompasses both aspects.  I'm talking about my expert

21     report, and I'm saying that it encompasses both aspects of that

22     situation.

23        Q.   So to be clear, you're offering an opinion about what, in fact,

24     General Cermak's authority was in Knin at the time relevant to the

25     indictment; is that what you're saying?

Page 22117

 1        A.   Yes, that's what I'm saying, yes.  I don't understand what you

 2     are asking me.  What is it that you want to hear from me?  Can you be

 3     more specific, please.

 4        Q.   Well, you've answered my question, Mr. Kovacevic.  Now, you've

 5     come to the conclusion that General Cermak was not authorised to issue

 6     orders to the military police; is that correct?

 7        A.   Correct.

 8        Q.   And if I showed you orders that were issued by General Cermak to

 9     the military police, would that change the opinion that you've formed?

10        A.   It wouldn't change that, and I have to explain why, perhaps.

11     There are some orders which --

12        Q.   [Overlapping speakers]... stop you there.  At this point, I'm not

13     interested in why you wouldn't accept -- or why you would not change your

14     opinion.  I just want to be clear.  And it's also your opinion that

15     General Cermak did not have authority to issue orders to the civilian

16     police; correct?

17        A.   Of course it is correct.  He was not part of the civilian police

18     system.  How could he issue orders to them?  He did not have any legal

19     right to do that.  The Ministry of Defence [as interpreted] is a state

20     ministry, and it was well known who could issue order to the police, and

21     that's why we have the structure of the ministry and all police

22     administrations.  There is no state in the world where a military will be

23     allowed to issue orders to the civilian police.

24        Q.   So, Mr. Kovacevic --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic.

Page 22118

 1             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 2             I believe there's an error in translation in line 21, when it's

 3     mentioned "the minister of defence."  I suppose the witness mentioned

 4     some other ministry.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kovacevic, you said, talking about issuing

 6     orders to the civilian police, you said, about Mr. Cermak, "he did not

 7     have any legal right to do that."  Then you referred to a ministry and

 8     said this was a state ministry, and it was well known who could issue an

 9     order to the police.  What ministry were you referring to at that moment?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Ministry of the Interior.

11     That's the ministry I was referring to, and that was a state ministry, of

12     course.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  That clarifies the issue.

14             Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

15             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16        Q.   Now, Mr. Kovacevic, if I showed you orders issued by

17     General Cermak to the civilian police, would that change your opinion?

18        A.   No, it won't change my opinion.  In my expert report, I specified

19     some situation from practice, showing that commanders issued orders to

20     civilian bodies which they were not authorised to do.

21        Q.   Well, the point I'm attempting to make here, and let me see if

22     you agree with me:  Irrespective of your opinion as to whether or not

23     those orders could legally be issued, did you consider the fact that --

24     the fact that they were issued, did you consider that that might indicate

25     that the situation on the ground is not as it is reflected in your

Page 22119

 1     opinion of what it should have been?

 2        A.   I believe that I even found statements issued by some witnesses

 3     who stated that those orders were treated as information by those who

 4     received them, which is in keeping with my legal point of view and with

 5     the legislation.

 6        Q.   Did you -- well, if I showed you evidence which indicates that

 7     people who received orders from General Cermak treated them or at least

 8     referred to them as orders or commands, would that change your opinion?

 9        A.   I wouldn't change my opinion.  My opinion is exact, it's based on

10     regulations, it's based on statements, and every case can be looked on

11     its own, in its entirety, and we can then clarify anything that may not

12     be clear.

13        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, in the methodology section of your report, you

14     indicate that you conducted an analysis of "all documents and evidence

15     referring to the case in question."  Can you tell me, in reviewing all of

16     that evidence, did you find any evidence at all which indicates, on its

17     face, that General Cermak did, in fact, have authority to issue orders to

18     the military police or the civilian police?

19        A.   I did not find a single piece of evidence indicating that

20     General Cermak was authorised to issue orders to the police, and I did

21     find documents showing that he did.

22        Q.   And did you find any evidence to suggest that the orders that he

23     did issue were, in fact, followed by the people he ordered to follow

24     them?

25        A.   I believe that there was something with regard to the restriction

Page 22120

 1     of movement, the initial restriction of movement, but that was all

 2     cancelled when the Police Administration of Split and Dalmacija warned

 3     General Cermak that he was not authorised to restrict the movement of

 4     people or issue any sort of passes to that effect.  That was within the

 5     purview of the Ministry of the Interior, or the Ministry of Defence, or

 6     military commanders at the level of military districts when combat

 7     activities are going on.

 8        Q.   Can you point me to the piece of evidence that you reference here

 9     about a warning issued to General Cermak?  Can you point me to that piece

10     of evidence?

11        A.   I don't have it on me.  I saw the document.  I don't have it on

12     me.  This document was issued by the Police Administration of Split and

13     Dalmacija, the chief of the Police Administration wrote to the MUP.  I

14     was with the Ministry of Defence at the time.  I got a call from the

15     Chief of the Main Staff, and I said that he, as a commander, did not have

16     the authority to restrict movement or issue passes to that effect, that

17     this was within the purview of the Ministry of the Interior, or the

18     Ministry of Defence, or the commander of the military district pursuant

19     to Article 150 something of the Law on Defence.  And, finally, when

20     things came to a head, it was decided that some actions were against the

21     law.

22        Q.   I'm sorry, Mr. Kovacevic, am I correct in interpreting your

23     answer?  Are you saying that you got a call from somebody in the -- the

24     Chief of the Main Staff?  Are you saying that you were involved in this

25     warning to Mr. Cermak?

Page 22121

 1        A.   General Cervenko was the chief of the Main Staff, and he asked me

 2     for a piece of legal advice when it came to that.  He asked me about the

 3     restriction of movement, who was in charge of that, and then I provided

 4     my interpretation of the law and told him within whose purview was that.

 5     General Cervenko, while he was Chief of the Main Staff and chief of the

 6     military office, always consulted me about any military issues because I

 7     was the one who had drafted all the laws and regulations within that

 8     area.

 9        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, can you tell us where we can find in your report

10     any indication of the fact that you were issuing legal advice regarding

11     the actions of General Cermak at the time?

12        A.   No, no.  I did not put that anywhere in my report.  You asked me

13     a very specific question.  You asked me about a concrete case, and then

14     you followed up on that, and I then told you exactly how the whole

15     situation unfolded with this regard.

16        Q.   When exactly did you get this call from General Cervenko

17     regarding the actions of General Cermak?

18        A.   It's very difficult for me to remember as I sit here today.  It

19     was sometime in August 1995.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Now, Mr. Kovacevic, did you review the --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, it all started with the warning.  Are you

22     able to identify, if at all, in what document we can find this warning?

23     Is it footnoted in your report?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already told you that this is

25     not in my report.  Mr. Russo asked me if I am aware of any such specific

Page 22122

 1     and concrete situation, so I referred him to a document issued by the

 2     chief of the Police Administration of Split and Dalmacija, who reacted

 3     and said that General Cermak was acting against the law.  This is not in

 4     my expert report.  I was answering Mr. Russo's question, and I

 5     illustrated my answer with that example.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, so you say we do not find a reference to that

 7     document in your report.

 8             Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

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

11        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, did you -- in conducting your analysis, did you

12     consider the evidence provided by General Cermak in the interviews that

13     he gave to the Office of the Prosecutor?

14        A.   Yes, I did read that statement.  But what do you want to know,

15     what is your question?

16        Q.   Well, in his 2004 interview with the Office of the

17     Prosecutor - that's Exhibit P2532 - this appears at page 20 in the

18     English, the B/C/S is also in the same transcript, General Cermak states

19     that General Gotovina had the entire military police under him.  Do you

20     recall reading that part of General Cermak's interview?

21        A.   I do not recall that detail, but I believe that he misspoke,

22     because it's not correct.

23        Q.   Well, let me ask you this:  Do you think -- is it your opinion

24     that he's lying about that or simply uninformed?

25        A.   Well, look, General Cermak did not have military knowledge and

Page 22123

 1     skills with regard to the legal issues and regulations.  Maybe he

 2     believed that to be the case.  In other words, he did not have a full

 3     legal picture which would enable him to answer all the questions

 4     correctly.

 5        Q.   Well, Mr. Kovacevic, wouldn't you agree with me that

 6     General Cermak would have a better picture than you about what the

 7     situation actually was in Knin and around the area in August of 1995?

 8        A.   What exactly are you referring to when you use the term

 9     "picture"?  What are you referring to?  General Cermak did not have

10     complete knowledge and information about all the regulations, laws, and

11     orders that we are discussing today and which make part of my report.  He

12     did not have that knowledge and information.  Otherwise, he would not

13     have provided a statement of that kind, because full control of military

14     police, when you say that, that means that the military police is not

15     under the Administration of the Military Police and Lausic, which is

16     incorrect.

17        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, I'm not asking you to give me your opinion about

18     whether he's correct or not correct.  First of all, you don't know what

19     General Cermak knows or doesn't know about the laws and regulations;

20     right?  I mean, you're assuming that he doesn't know; is that correct?

21             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic.

23             MR. MISETIC:  I don't think this is fair --

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You don't know it either, do you?

25             MR. MISETIC:  The question posed to him, Is it your opinion

Page 22124

 1     General Cermak is lying, and then he provided an answer as to what his

 2     opinion was.

 3             I'm sorry, if I can look at the question again.  It says then --

 4     then he follows up after he gets the answer by saying, I'm not asking you

 5     to give me your opinion, which is exactly what he did ask for in the

 6     prior question.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that was one of the prior questions.

 8             MR. RUSSO:  I can respond, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  The last question was about the better picture.

10     This line of questioning, Mr. Russo -- I'll be careful.  What happens, as

11     a matter of fact, is the expert is -- when he talks about the full

12     picture, he's primarily talking about the legal picture.  If you are

13     talking about the picture on the ground, you're apparently referring to

14     something else.  And then to ask, Wouldn't he have a better picture, it

15     depends on what picture you have on your mind, because authority --

16     exercise of authority has both the legal aspects and can be viewed in

17     very factual terms as well.  You can ask yourself what was the legal

18     authority of a person at a certain moment, and you can ask yourself

19     whether that person behaves in line with what you would consider to be

20     his legal authority or that he would, in his behaviour, show that either

21     he had a different opinion on his authority or that, with full knowledge

22     of the authority, he just didn't behave in accordance with it.

23             That's, in short, the situation I think we are talking about.

24     And let's try to clearly identify what we are talking about.

25             MR. RUSSO:  Mr. President, at transcript page 78, line 6 to 8, I

Page 22125

 1     asked the witness whether General Cermak would have a better picture than

 2     you about what the situation actually was in Knin."

 3             I don't know any other way to explain or express to the witness

 4     the distinction I'm attempting to draw between what he says the situation

 5     should be and what the situation actually was.  I think the witness

 6     understood my question.  The answer he provided --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And then he immediately went to his view on the

 8     matter.  Going back to the legal authority, that's the reason why I tried

 9     to explain - and, Mr. Kovacevic, you'll certainly have understood this -

10     what Mr. Russo, when he talks whether you have a clear picture on what

11     happened on the ground, what he's asking is whether Mr. Cermak would know

12     better than you or whether the behaviour that could be observed at that

13     time was in line with what you consider to be consistent with authority

14     in abstract legal terms.  That's what Mr. Russo is trying to find out.

15     Mr. Russo, unless I've misunderstood you.

16             Could you -- so on the behaviour on the ground, could you tell us

17     whether Mr. Cermak would have a clear view on that, at least,

18     irrespective of whether he understood all the details of the legal

19     aspects?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He had a misperception.  I don't

21     know what he meant when he said that.  What did he mean when he said to

22     have under him, to have full control, what did he mean?  I am saying that

23     he had a misperception from the point of view of the legislation of the

24     Republic of Croatia and of all the regulations.

25             It's very difficult to answer a question about a picture because

Page 22126

 1     we have to go into that -- deeper into that to see what General Cermak

 2     actually meant.  If I knew that, I would be able to provide you a proper,

 3     correct answer.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo is asking you not what he meant in saying

 5     that, but Mr. Russo is asking whether -- what your knowledge and to what

 6     extent you considered what actually happened on the ground, in terms of

 7     behaviour.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have taken everything into

 9     consideration.  I said that in the methodology part.  There were

10     situations where things were done against the law, and that was

11     subsequently corrected.  Commanders would issue orders that they were not

12     authorised to do.  When that was realised and established, there were

13     sanctions, and such orders were withdrawn.  Laws are laws.  They have to

14     be implemented.  Regulations are regulations.  One cannot and should not

15     issue orders for which they are not authorised.  This is the principle

16     according to which a state with a rule of law functions.  And if you

17     learn of such instances, you have to react.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  One line in your answer said you cannot and you

19     should not issue orders you're not authorised to give.  Would you agree

20     with me that you can, but that you should not?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I agree, yes, you're right.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Proceed.

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

24        Q.   Now, Mr. Kovacevic, just a very short answer.  Did General Cermak

25     or anyone on General Cermak's behalf tell you what General Cermak knew

Page 22127

 1     about the subordination of either the military police or the civilian

 2     police to him in August, September, October, and December of 1995?

 3        A.   I'm afraid I don't understand your question.  You're talking

 4     about a problem that General Cermak had?  He was in reserve.  He was out

 5     of the action for a long number of years, and then he went down there.

 6        Q.   Let me stop you there.  Did you talk to General Cermak about what

 7     happened in this case?

 8        A.   No, never.

 9        Q.   Did anyone on behalf of General Cermak tell you what

10     General Cermak knew or believed about his authority in Knin and the

11     surrounding area between August and the end of 1995?

12        A.   From documents that I perused, I could see that he was not very

13     clear about his authorities at first, but gradually he became much better

14     versed and he became more knowledgeable in that respect, which is only

15     understandable.  He had been in reserve.  Then he was appointed again.

16     He did not have --

17        Q.   Mr. Kovacic, my answer [sic] was:  Did anyone, on behalf of

18     General Cermak, tell you what General Cermak knew or believed about his

19     authority in the area at the relevant time-period?

20        A.   What do you mean when you say "anyone"?  I looked at documents,

21     and I told you what was my basis for answering your --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  It's clear that you formed an opinion on the basis

23     of documents.  The question of Mr. Russo is whether ever anyone came to

24     you, saying, Mr. Cermak considers this or this or that to be his

25     authority, whether anyone told you what Mr. Cermak thought about what his

Page 22128

 1     authority was, not what you concluded from documents, but whether someone

 2     came and told you.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, okay.  I believe that on

 4     one occasion, the late General Cervenko told me, It seems to me that

 5     General Cermak doesn't really know what his authorities actually are.  It

 6     was during an informal conversation when we were talking about the passes

 7     that I mentioned before.

 8             MR. RUSSO:  Mr. President, I don't have any further questions.  I

 9     do have the printed-out pages of the material that I asked the witness to

10     read earlier.  I have the entire section here.  If we -- if the Court

11     wants to go through that exercise, I leave it to the Trial Chamber, but I

12     have no further questions for the witness.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Russo.

14             Mr. Kay.

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the counsel, please.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Use your microphone, and then we could hear you.

17             MR. KAY:  People are helping me, and I'm finding -- excuse me,

18     Your Honour.  I'm just trying to find something that was e-mailed to me.

19     Ah, here it is.

20             Sorry, Your Honour.  Just something that arose towards the end of

21     cross-examination by my learned friend, and I want to be exact with the

22     text, and finding it takes a little time.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24                           Re-examination by Mr. Kay:

25        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, you told us that in August 1995 you were working

Page 22129

 1     in a certain position and General Cervenko had occasion to speak to you.

 2     What was your position at that time in August 1995?

 3        A.   I was the chief of the Department for Supervision of the

 4     Implementation of Regulations in the Ministry of Defence, the chief of

 5     the Department for the Supervision of the Implementation of Regulations

 6     of the Legal Administration of the Ministry of Defence.

 7        Q.   And General Cervenko would speak to you about what kind of

 8     matters?

 9        A.   General Cervenko spoke to me daily, almost, on different legal

10     issues pertaining to the implementation of the existing regulations on

11     various issues.  He frequently asked me to come to his office and sought

12     my legal opinion on the various legal issues.

13        Q.   And in relation to the matter you raised concerning

14     General Cermak at the time, a legal issue that General Cervenko spoke to

15     you about, you made a comment about General Cervenko's view concerning

16     General Cermak.  Could you tell us, as much as possible, what he said

17     about General Cermak's knowledge of his role?

18        A.   I think that General Cervenko told me something to the extent

19     that it seemed to him that General Cermak was not aware of his authority,

20     as the garrison commander.  He also said that it was understandable

21     because he was not an active serviceman and many things had changed in

22     the armed forces.

23        Q.   Thank you.  You were asked various questions concerning the

24     testimony of General Lausic concerning Article 9, and I want to read out

25     to you a passage of his testimony, transcript page 15606 to 15607.  It

Page 22130

 1     won't be -- it's not in your report, Mr. Kovacevic.  It's --

 2     General Lausic gave evidence earlier in the proceedings.  You've been

 3     asked about various aspects of testimony, and I want to put to you

 4     something he said for your comment.

 5             He was asked this question in relation to a document dated the

 6     14th of August, and it was this:

 7             "So just looking at that, in the terms of this order, your

 8     commander of the 72nd in Knin, Budimir, was required to do a positive act

 9     of subordinating the commander of the newly-established company of the

10     Knin Military Police to the most senior Croatian military commander by

11     function in the zone of responsibility, isn't that right, that required

12     him to do a positive act to ensure subordination took place?"

13             His answer was:

14             "Correct.  Based on this order that I issued, all battalion

15     commanders from whose battalions, the newly-established platoons, and the

16     company in Knin were formed had to specify how this item 14 was to be

17     implemented."

18             So this concerned subordination of any of the military police

19     battalions and the mechanism, if that was to be take place, how it was to

20     happen.  What is your comment there on the answer of General Lausic?

21        A.   This answer is correct, and I have also discussed it in my expert

22     report.  It was necessary to issue an implementation order.  This is what

23     General Lausic said as well.  In his view, this was supposed to have been

24     done by the commander of the 72nd MP Battalion, and the other commanders

25     that the order would include, legally speaking, Lausic said that they

Page 22131

 1     should have been determined, and he rightfully says that this was

 2     supposed to have been carried out by the commander of the 72nd Battalion,

 3     which he did not.

 4             MR. KAY:  Thank you very much.  I have no further questions.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kay.

 6             Mr. Misetic.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm looking at the clock.  Could you give me an

 9     indication as --

10             MR. MISETIC:  I hope to finish in less than five minutes,

11     Mr. President.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Less than five minutes.  I'm also looking at the

13     other Defence.

14             Please proceed.

15             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you.

16                           Further cross-examination by Mr. Misetic:

17        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, let me just ask you a few questions on the basis

18     of the famous Article 8 and 9 now.  The 1994 rules, February of 1994, do

19     you agree with me that those were rules passed within the Ministry of

20     Defence?

21        A.   Of course, these are the rules of the Ministry of Defence, i.e.,

22     bylaws put in force by the minister of defence based on the amendments

23     and changes to the Law on Defence.

24        Q.   As such, therefore, they are -- those rules are binding for

25     persons who are subordinated to the minister of defence within the

Page 22132

 1     Ministry of Defence; correct?

 2        A.   He was supposed to bring those rules for all those employed in

 3     the Ministry of Defence.  It was based on Article 152 of the Law on

 4     Defence.  This was a bylaw which is binding.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Let me ask you this:  In and of itself, would the rules

 6     require -- let me ask it a different way.  General Lausic, as the chief

 7     of the Military Police Administration, could not issue orders to

 8     operational commanders or to HV commanders; correct?

 9        A.   General Lausic had nothing to do with the operative commands of

10     the HV.  General Lausic was commander of the military police and the head

11     of the MP Administration.  The military police, by virtue of the Law on

12     Defence of 1993, was excluded from the structure of the armed forces and

13     fell under the Ministry of Defence.

14             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you very much.

15             Mr. President, I have no further questions.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

17             Mr. Kovacevic, follow my example.

18                           Questioned by the Court:

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kovacevic, you prepared your report.  Did you do

20     the typewriting yourself, or did you deliver it handwritten?

21        A.   I did it myself.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Did you give a printed-out copy to the Defence, or

23     did you give an electronic version to the Defence?

24        A.   An electronic version, and the diagrams were on paper, and they

25     were later introduced into the report.  I mean the diagrams Mr. Russo

Page 22133

 1     inquired about.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The layout of the report, that is, division in

 3     paragraphs, subparagraphs, et cetera, headers, footers, did you choose

 4     your own layout, or was that -- or was it later re-done -- done again by

 5     others?

 6        A.   This was all my work, only at the end the paragraph were

 7     enumerated, 1, 2, 3, and so on.  That was the only addition.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Footers and headers were as you had created

 9     them, or were you given a certain format?

10        A.   That is all mine.  Mr. Kay gave me the general structure that I

11     should follow, stipulating that I was free to work on it further to find

12     the best structure that I saw fit.  This was followed through.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I asked you specifically about headers and

14     footers, whether you created them yourself, and were you given any

15     instructions in this respect, or use footers, or say that, It should be

16     page this out of so many?  Or did you just find yourself the format and

17     the layout?

18        A.   I have written many books and articles in my life.  Therefore,

19     when I start to write something, I do it myself, then I re-read, go back,

20     put in things that I think are missing, put in headers, et cetera.  I did

21     it all myself.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  You did it all yourself.  Now, looking at the copy

23     as it has been presented to this Court in your own language -- has the

24     witness a copy?  Could we have a look at -- perhaps have the report,

25     whatever page it is, on the screen.

Page 22134

 1             MR. KAY:  He has a hard copy in front of him, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Was the layout changed after you had delivered

 3     it, as far as you're aware of?

 4        A.   Nothing was changed, only the paragraphs were numbered.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And the line numbering, is that something you

 6     put into your draft?  Because we have a copy in which every page the

 7     lines are numbered from 1 up to, well, up to over 40.

 8        A.   I'm not sure what you have in mind.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I then have a look at the copy you have to

10     see -- to compare whether we are really looking at the same document?

11     Could you just -- whatever page, one page, Croatian version, so that

12     I can have a look at it.

13             At the left, you see that all the lines of the pages are

14     numbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, up to -- depending on the number of lines.

15     Did you put this line numbering in there as well yourself?

16        A.   That was done subsequently.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  That was done subsequently.  So someone has worked

18     on the document.  Was there anything else that -- in the layout that was

19     changed, apart from this line numbering?  Looking at the headers at the

20     top of the page, I see "-40-B/C/S."  That is what you put in there?

21        A.   I did that part.  This was according to the Rules of this

22     Tribunal, in terms of what an expert report should contain.  I asked for

23     these designations to be entered, stating on what list that document can

24     be found as evidence or on any of the lists, be it on the OTP or Defence

25     sides.  Nothing was changed in relation to what I had handed over.  I

Page 22135

 1     only see that now they have numbered the lines, but not a single word was

 2     changed in relation to what I had written; only the numbers.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  More specifically, looking at the header which you

 4     find at -- so not the numbers, but where it reads "IC-40-B/C/S," is that

 5     what you had put in this document?

 6        A.   No, I did not enter that, and also the line numbering was not

 7     done by me.  I was told, though, that they would do that, before handing

 8     it over to the Tribunal on the 24th of July, I believe.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, at the footer, "Pero Kovacevic, strucni

10     izvjestaj svjedoka," is that what you put in there or --

11        A.   Yes, that was there from the start.  When one is writing such a

12     piece of work, one needs to have the correct pagination and those other

13     things that one needs to have to prevent any additional insertion of

14     pages or deletion of pages.  This is a measure of prevention when

15     compiling a piece of work.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So that's not what you were instructed to do,

17     but you did it on your own?

18        A.   That was on my own initiative.  You can also find that in the

19     many rules of intelligence services or in the minutes of parliamentary

20     sessions.  There are clear standards in terms of what should be contained

21     in each page before such fora.  This also applies to Master theses,

22     expert articles, books.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The cover page, the first page of your report,

24     the layout of that, are you the intellectual author of that?  So not the

25     cover page in English, but the cover page saying "Page 1 out of 113," is

Page 22136

 1     the layout -- is that what you have chosen as a layout for the cover

 2     page?

 3             MR. KAY:  He's looking at a different page, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm asking for the -- where it reads at the bottom

 5     "Sdr 1 od 130," that page which started "Izvjestaj Za Zlucaj [phoen]

 6     IT0690."  That's the layout you have chosen for this page?

 7        A.   The first page corresponds to other expert reports which I saw

 8     had been produced for the needs of this Tribunal.  When I was

 9     constructing the first page, I followed the layout of Mr. Theunens.  I

10     looked at his cover page and the way he organised his expert report, in

11     terms of layout -- layout and technical approach.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Did you just see Mr. Theunens' report, or did you

13     use other expert reports as well to -- for choosing this layout?

14        A.   The first page is based on the expert report by Mr. Theunens.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm asking you these questions because there is a

16     striking similarity in the layout of the report of Mr. Feldi compared to

17     yours.  Do you have any comment on that?

18        A.   It is not the same.  My title is different from his, and I never

19     saw his expert report.  In any case, I'm positive that the title is

20     different.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I was talking about the layout rather than

22     about the title.  Of course, I wouldn't expect you to present a report

23     under the same title.  I'm just thinking in terms of layout on footnotes,

24     headers, cover pages.  Have you any comment on that?

25        A.   I don't have a comment.  This was created the way I've explained.

Page 22137

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, thank you.

 2             Mr. Russo, have the questions by the Bench triggered any need for

 3     any further questions?

 4             MR. RUSSO:  No, Mr. President.

 5             MR. KAY:  I do, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I know that I went beyond the time.  Let's --

 7     I'm stealing a bit of time, but I'll let you -- I'll take the blame for

 8     the Trial Chamber that follows.

 9             MR. KAY:  Well, I suppose Your Honour caused it because it arises

10     from Your Honour's questions.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I can imagine, yes.

12                           Further re-examination by Mr. Kay:

13        Q.   You've been asked several questions about the pages of your

14     report, the lines, what it looks like.  Have you read your report?

15        A.   Of course I did.  I wrote it myself, and I read it myself.

16        Q.   Has anyone inserted anything in your report that shouldn't be

17     there?

18        A.   No.  I would not have signed it if anything was added to it.  My

19     report is my report.

20             MR. KAY:  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kay.

22             Mr. Kovacevic, this then concludes your testimony in this court.

23     I would like to thank you very much for coming your long way to The Hague

24     and for having answered all the questions that were put to you by the

25     parties and by the Bench, and I wish you a safe trip home again.  Thank

Page 22138

 1     you for coming.

 2             We'll adjourn, and we'll resume on Monday, the 28th of September,

 3     9.00, Courtroom I.

 4                           [The witness withdrew]

 5                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.54 p.m.,

 6                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 28th day of

 7                           September, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.