Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 22192

 1                           Tuesday, 29 September 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

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

 6     courtroom.

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

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

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

10     Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12             Mr. Kay, is the Cermak Defence ready to call its next witness?

13             MR. KAY:  Yes, it is, Your Honour, and I call Mr. Borislav

14     Skegro.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into

16     the courtroom.

17             Perhaps we could use our time in between.

18             Mr. Mikulicic, we have looked at The Blue Book, some parts on the

19     ELMO.  Now, it seems that in the electronic version of The Blue Book, we

20     do not see certain portions which are there in the hard copy.  Would it

21     be possible to have a look at the hard copy, just to start with, for

22     comparison reasons?

23             MR. MIKULICIC:  I believe that's possible, Your Honour.  But as

24     we said, we are not intent to enter The Blue Booked into the evidence.

25     That was a Prosecution intent.  So I believe if there is something to be

Page 22193

 1     clarified The Blue Book, it is up to the party that would like to

 2     introduce The Blue Book into the evidence.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             Let me first, for one second, I was just filling the time

 5     available.  I will come back to this at a later stage.

 6                           [The witness entered court]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Skegro.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Skegro, before you give evidence in this Court,

10     the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn

11     declaration that you will speak the truth, whole truth and nothing but

12     the truth.  The text is now handed out to you.  I would like to invite to

13     you make that solemn declaration.

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

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

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please be seated, Mr. Skegro.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  You will be first be examined by Mr. Kay.  Mr. Kay

19     is counsel for Mr. Cermak.

20             Please proceed.

21                           WITNESS:  BORISLAV SKEGRO

22                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

23                           Examination by Mr. Kay:

24        Q.   Mr. Skegro, you speak the English language, but as I understand

25     it, you would prefer to give your testimony in your own tongue.

Page 22194

 1        A.   Yes, that's true.  The matters are serious and one wishes to be

 2     as precise as possible.

 3        Q.   Thank you very much.  I just say that so that the Court is clear.

 4             Mr. Skegro, you gave a statement to the Defence, is that correct,

 5     for these proceedings?

 6        A.   That's correct.

 7             MR. KAY:  Could we call up 2D00721, which will go on the screen.

 8        Q.   And I believe you have a hard copy in front of you, Mr. Skegro;

 9     is that right?

10        A.   That's correct.

11        Q.   Do you see a witness statement on the screen on the right-hand

12     side?

13             MR. KAY:  And if we can go down to the bottom of the screen.

14        Q.   Is that your signature beneath it?

15        A.   Yes, this is my signature.

16        Q.   And do you confirm that this is the statement that you gave to

17     the Defence and signed.  And perhaps we could look at the end of the

18     statement to the last page, where there is a date and a final signature.

19        A.   Yes, this is that document.

20             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, unless requires it of me, each and every

21     page is signed in between.

22        Q.   Mr. Skegro, were there three minor corrections that you needed to

23     make to that statement, one of which you told me about today, but the

24     other two, when I met you on the 8th of September to confirm the contents

25     of your statement?

Page 22195

 1        A.   Yes.  We are indeed talking about three minor corrections, but

 2     let's be precise and let's correct them nevertheless.

 3        Q.   Yes.  The parties have all been given a notice about this, and I

 4     will lead you through it.  So if we just go to paragraph 3, line 28 to

 5     31, of the English translation, and it's lines 21 to 24 in the Croatian

 6     original, was there a correction that you wanted to make to the text

 7     there so that it read:

 8             "The office of the president was responsible for four ministries,

 9     the Ministry of Defence, of the interior, foreign affairs, and of

10     finance.  The ministers for three, Mr. Susak, Mr. Granic, and Mr.

11     Jarnjak, reported to the prime minister, Mr. Valentic, and to

12     President Tudjman."

13             Is that a correction that you wanted to make to your original

14     statement?

15        A.   Yes.  There were four state ministries.  The Ministry of Defence,

16     of the interior, foreign affairs, and of finance.  And here it -- you can

17     see that only three ministries are indicated and the ministry of finance

18     is missing.  However, in practice, the president, together with the prime

19     minister, directly coordinated the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry

20     of Foreign Affairs and of Defence, and the Ministry of Finance in a

21     certain way, in that distribution of work was within the purview of the

22     government headed by Minister Valentic.

23        Q.   Now, Mr. Skegro, we're in a court, where what we say is

24     translated and that requires us to speak at times at a much slower pace

25     than we are used to, and I saw you looking at me when I was stopping in

Page 22196

 1     my sentences but that was because I was allowing others to translate in

 2     sections.

 3        A.   I apologise, I'll try to slow down.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             If we turn to paragraph 11, line 24, in the English translation;

 6     line 29 in the Croatian original, should it read:

 7             "We returned from Drnis to Split and then by aeroplane to

 8     Zagreb."

 9        A.   Yes, that's correct.

10        Q.   And a further matter you told me about this morning, in the

11     English, paragraph 4, line 33.  Instead of the word "army," it should be

12     "Ministry of Defence"?

13        A.   That's correct.  "The Ministry of Defence," full stop.

14        Q.   Thank you.

15             Now, taking into account those corrections to your original

16     statement, if I was to ask you the questions again today that enabled you

17     to give the answers that are contained within your statement, would your

18     answers today be the same as when you originally made your statement?

19        A.   They would be completely identical.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             MR. KAY:  In those circumstances, Your Honour, I move that the

22     witness statement be put into evidence.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, this suggests -- and I don't think you

24     asked the witness that he gave his statement to the best of his

25     recollection and in accordance with the truth, because the last question

Page 22197

 1     and answer do not mean very much if that has not been established.

 2             May I take it that you gave your statement at the time to the

 3     best of your recollection and in accordance with the truth?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And also that what is put on paper reflects what you

 6     said at the time.

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

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  I think -- Mr. Hedaraly.

 9             MR. HEDARALY:  No objection.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.  I do not hear of any objections from

11     the other Defence teams.

12             Mr. Registrar, the statement of Mr. Skegro.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1679.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  D1679 is admitted into evidence.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. KAY:

17        Q.   Mr. Skegro, I have no further questions to ask you today, but

18     others may, so please remain there.

19             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, that concludes my examination-in-chief.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Do you wish to read the summary now or ...

21             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, I will do it now with the leave of the

22     Court.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps that's -- yes.

24             MR. KAY:  Yeah.

25             The statement of Borislav Skegro, in a summary form, is -- is as

Page 22198

 1     follows.

 2             That on the 3rd of April, 1993, he was appointed deputy prime

 3     minister of the Republic of Croatia for the economy.  Also, on the

 4     11th of September, 1997, he became the finance minister, and he remained

 5     in both of those positions until the year 2000.

 6             When he was appointed deputy prime minister, Mr. Cermak was the

 7     minister of industry, shipbuilding, and energy.  As Mr. Skegro was the

 8     deputy prime minister for the economy, he oversaw the economic sector of

 9     the government and was responsible for the ministries of finance,

10     industry, shipbuilding, energy, agriculture, tourism, and construction.

11     So whilst he was the deputy prime minister for the economy, Mr. Cermak,

12     whilst a minister, was subordinated to him.

13             Mr. Cermak had told him that he would be a minister for only a

14     few months and that he would later be replaced by someone else, and that

15     in October 1993, Mr. Cermak left the government and Mr. Skegro had no

16     further dealings with him directly but he knew that he was in the oil

17     business with his own private company.

18             On 4th August 1995, when Operation Storm started, he was on

19     vacation but he had had strong indications that something would happen,

20     although he was not involved in the planning.  On that day, he talked to

21     the prime minister, Mr. Valentic, around noon, and he was asked to return

22     urgently to Zagreb.  He arrived in Zagreb around midnight on the

23     4th of August.

24             On the 5th of August, at around 10.00, he was with the prime

25     minister in his office when he learnt that Knin had been liberated.

Page 22199

 1     President Tudjman called Prime Minister Valentic and they congratulated

 2     each other on the telephone.  Around noon, he went to Tuskanac with

 3     President Tudjman and other ministers, where they met.  There was

 4     Mr. Granic, Mr. Susak, Mr. Jarnjak, Mr. Radic, Mr. Pasalic, and others.

 5     They were all the members of the government who were in Zagreb at that

 6     time, and they followed the news reports about the Croatian Army entering

 7     Knin several hours before.  During that time, Mr. Galbraith called and

 8     talked to Minister Susak and gave congratulations for the Operation

 9     Storm.

10             President Tudjman said at one stage, We must find a person and

11     send him to Knin, somebody who will integrate and resuscitate the

12     economy, with the experience of a former minister, establish

13     communication with the UN and the international community, somebody who

14     will have knowledge in military logistics who speaks a foreign language,

15     a multi-dimensional person.  Some people recommend Ivan Cermak to me.

16     Ivan has experience in private business, was an assistant minister of

17     defence.  He has an untypical style for a general, and he will establish

18     relations with the UN and the international community.

19             That is how Mr. Cermak was appointed the commander of the Knin

20     garrison.  His job was to establish communication with the UN and bring

21     life back to normal, provide the services for the town.  Therefore,

22     civilian logistics within the army.

23             "I agreed that this was a very good choice.  I believe that

24     President Tudjman wanted to send a message to them that we wanted the

25     Serbs to stay and that we encourage reconstruction."

Page 22200

 1             Mr. Skegro states that normalisation included the return of

 2     persons displaced in 1991 as well as those who left their homes in 1995.

 3     It was meant for all, and the mandate was to help all people, regardless

 4     of ethnic affiliation.  The normalisation in Knin was important for

 5     normalisation in the rest of Croatia because of the strategic positioning

 6     of the town Knin within the state of Croatia.

 7             At that time, in 1995, money was needed to normalise life.  He

 8     was attempting to get a loan on the international money markets to

 9     prevent the collapse of the national currency.  It was necessary to

10     activate companies as soon as possible; for example, the Tvik factory,

11     and other factories which used to operate in Knin.  The purpose of

12     sending Mr. Cermak to Knin was to get the whole system to start

13     functioning as soon as possible for the benefit of the town and the whole

14     Croatian economy.

15             Mr. Skegro visited Knin with President Tudjman on the

16     6th of August.  There was a lunch on that day, and after lunch he walked

17     around the town and visited several locations, and then he went to visit

18     Drnis.  The next time he visited Knin was on the 26th of August on the

19     freedom train, from Zagreb, via Knin, to Split, when President Tudjman,

20     members of the government, politicians, actors, public figures,

21     academics, businessmen, and others, were also on the train.

22             On the 7th of September, 1995, he visited Knin again to attend a

23     session of the Croatian government which was held in the town.  About

24     five or six such sessions had been held outside the capital, Zagreb, and

25     all members of the government were present at the session in Knin where

Page 22201

 1     the agenda concerned establishment, functioning of civilian authorities

 2     in liberated areas, reconstruction, information about the return and

 3     other matters.

 4             On his way back to Zagreb, he travelled by bus, and he saw some

 5     houses on fire, and smoke, near Korenica.  He saw some ten dead sheep by

 6     the road.  He and Prime Minister Valentic commented about what kind of

 7     person could have done that and what could be done to prevent that from

 8     happening in the future.  They wondered who was starting the fires and

 9     looting.

10             He states that there was a period when Croatia had been occupied

11     for four years and the government had not had control of its territory

12     during that period, and no government could be perfectly organised in

13     such conditions.  It was the job of the government to establish law and

14     order in the area.  The minister of the interior sent additional forces

15     to make sure that perpetrators of crimes were arrested and prosecuted,

16     and a formal decision had been taken by the government by which

17     Minister Jarnjak explicitly took over responsibility for the whole

18     territory as of the 6th of August, 1995.

19             He states that Mr. Cermak could not have been part of a joint

20     criminal enterprise, because there was no such joint criminal enterprise.

21     The government, in which he was the deputy prime minister, was not

22     involved in any such plan.  If there had been such a plan, he believed he

23     would have been informed, considering his position at the time.  He is

24     sure that a motive of personal revenge was responsible for what took

25     place.

Page 22202

 1             Your Honour, that concludes my summary of Mr. Skegro's statement

 2     and as the Court knows, I have no further questions.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's clear, Mr. Kay.

 4             Mr. Kehoe, do you want to cross-examine the witness?

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President, very briefly.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Skegro, yes.  You would like to -- yes.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Kay has read out

 8     the summary which reflects what was told in everything but two minor

 9     details.  It may seem like hair-splitting but let me explain.

10             When there's a list of people who were present at the Tuskanac on

11     5th of August, together with President Tudjman --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Skegro, what is in evidence is your statement,

13     to the extent there may be minor imprecisions in what Mr. Kay said, that

14     it's mainly to inform the public, and Mr. Kay is rather detailed in his

15     summaries, unlike some other parties.  So, therefore, as far as evidence

16     is concerned, you don't have to bother.  If there's anything triggered by

17     the reading of the summary by Mr. Kay that you say, No, my statement must

18     have been misunderstood or is incorrect, then we'd like to hear from you.

19     But hair-splitting exercises just for what is to inform the public about

20     what is basically to be found in your statement, it being only your

21     statement that is in evidence and not the summary.

22             So if you want to correct anything, please proceed, but, if it is

23     just the way in which the summary was phrased, then unless it creates

24     real confusion, then I would suggest that we would proceed.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was just a minor point and I

Page 22203

 1     will -- I withdraw it.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, you're ready to cross-examine the

 3     witness.

 4             Mr. Skegro, you will now be cross-examined by Mr. Kehoe, and

 5     Mr. Kehoe is counsel for Mr. Gotovina.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:

 9        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Skegro.

10             Mr. Skegro, I would like to just ask you a few questions and draw

11     on your experience and your expertise as the deputy prime minister of

12     economy, and I would like to focus, if we can, on paragraph 8 of your

13     statement, where you are discussing the economic impact of control of the

14     Krajina.

15             MR. KEHOE:  If we can turn to that.  Should be page 6 in the

16     English and I'm not quite sure what it is in the B/C/S.  That's the page

17     in the English, thank you, yeah.  Ta.

18        Q.   Now, Mr. Skegro, if I may, towards the bottom of the paragraph 8,

19     where you're talking about -- I assume talking about the so-called

20     Republic of Serbian Krajina and Knin, you note that:

21             "It was possible to control all flows of goods and trade in Knin,

22     as well as passenger travel from one part of the country to another.  We

23     were blockaded, and if we tried to calculate the economic loss sustained

24     by the Republic of Croatia, the physical destruction of production

25     capacity in the Republic of Croatia and that bypass road which you had to

Page 22204

 1     take every time you travelled to Dalmatia, the loss would be enormous."

 2             Now, Mr. Skegro, the Chamber has received some evidence on the

 3     economic impact that the continued existence of the so-called Republic of

 4     Serb Krajina had on the Republic of Croatia and how that was negatively

 5     impacting the economic growth of the country.

 6             Can you elaborate on that just a bit and -- and dovetail it with

 7     this particular paragraph on what was happening in your experience as the

 8     deputy minister of economics while the so-called Republic of Serb Krajina

 9     continued in its incident existence?  And what was happening, I'm talking

10     about economically?

11        A.   Anybody who looks at the geographical map of Croatia, where

12     they're railroads and main roads drawn in, will realise that once the

13     Knin area was blocked off, and that lasted from August 1990 onwards, and

14     basically cut off -- cut Croatia into two separate parts, so that when

15     the war broke out in 1991, and when the bridge connecting the island of

16     Pag with the land was seriously damaged, the entire Dalmatia, to the

17     south of the island of Pag, in the economical sense and in practical

18     sense could be considered an island which one could reach only by a ferry

19     from Zigljen and then by driving 60 or 70 kilometres on Pag and then by

20     crossing via one, I repeat, one lane of the Pag bridge which hadn't been

21     destroyed and then travelling onwards.

22             This is to say that when Knin was not integrated in the Republic

23     of Croatia was simply a blocked off area that had -- that stood no chance

24     of having any economic success.  It also inflicted significant economic

25     damage on Croatia, and I don't want to bandy about any figures, in terms

Page 22205

 1     of millions of dollars, kunas and so on, but if one were to calculate it,

 2     and even if one were to forget the entire damage caused by war, then one

 3     would reach really significant amounts, billions and billions of euros,

 4     without mentioning how it affected tourism.  There was basically no

 5     tourism in Dalmatia during that period of time because nobody wanted to

 6     travel to a country that was either a state of war or in -- in imminent

 7     state -- threat of war.

 8        Q.   Mr. Skegro, just if I may, just comment on your last answer where

 9     you talked about the entire damage caused by the war and then one -- if

10     one would forget the entire damage caused by war and then one would reach

11     really significant amounts, billions and billions of euros, without how

12     it affected tourism.

13             Is it your assessment -- without coming to exact figures,

14     Mr. Skegro, and heaven knows, I'm not asking you that, but is your

15     assessment, as you look back at that time, as -- in your role as the --

16     the deputy prime minister for economy, was your assessment that there was

17     in fact billions and billions of euros in damage to the Republic of

18     Croatia during this time-frame when the Republic -- the so-called

19     Republic of Serbian Krajina was in existence?

20        A.   Naturally, if somebody wanted a comprehensive and more precise

21     information about the damage, then the republican Croatia, sometime in

22     1997 or 1998, adopted an official document which was a report of the

23     Commission on War Damage.  A separate government commission had been

24     established, and after the war this commission listed down all cases of

25     direct damage, destruction during wartime as well as indirect damage

Page 22206

 1     caused by the lack of economic activity and then expenses related to

 2     refugees, and so on, and all of these figures can be found in one

 3     document.  And if I remember well, the entire figure mentioned at the

 4     time was 270 billion kunas, up until either 1996 or 1997.

 5             Therefore, in order to give you a perspective on what

 6     270 billion kunas is, that would be approximately two annual gross

 7     domestic product of Croatia.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  I'm not sure, Mr. President, if that came through

 9     clearly on the translation to me.

10        Q.   Can you repeat that last comment, Mr. Skegro, about the

11     270 billion kuna?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I had no difficulties.  I understood that it was --

13     the national product for two years, which is a gross national product

14     which is a --

15             MR. KEHOE:  I got that then.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  -- standardly used expression in economics.

17             MR. KEHOE:  Right.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             MR. KEHOE:

20        Q.   So what we're talking about is two years of GNP, gross national

21     product.

22             One last question on this score.  In your para -- the

23     paragraph in the translation, where you talked about -- in paragraph 8,

24     where you talk about Knin being a cross-roads town, about midway through

25     that paragraph you note that:

Page 22207

 1             "The town of Knin itself, if it is cut off and not part of

 2     Croatia is insignificant.  If it is in the Republic of Croatia, it is

 3     connected to Zagreb, and it connects to [sic] Zadar, Sibenik, Bosnia and

 4     Herzegovina?"

 5             In the context of this, what are you talking about the town of

 6     Knin itself being insignificant?

 7        A.   Well, the town did not come about outside of Croatia and it would

 8     serve no purpose if were not located there, at the cross-roads of valleys

 9     and so on.  If -- you may know that, during medieval times, Knin was

10     founded in an area where there are natural cross-roads of valleys and

11     rivers and so on.  It's the natural environment surrounding it, and this

12     is why the town was founded, and if you cut it off, then this natural

13     reason for its existence will be gone.

14        Q.   Mr. Skegro, thank you very much.  I have no further questions.

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

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.

17             One additional question, the kuna at the time was -- compared to

18     the dollar or to the Deutschemark was approximately how much?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Believe it or not, exactly the same

20     exchange rate as today, approximately 1 German mark was 3.7 kunas at the

21     time.  If we multiply that by 1.955883, which is the exchange rate

22     between euro and German mark, then you would see approximately the --

23     today's exchange rate between kuna and euro which is one -- that one --

24     that 1 euro is 7.3 kunas.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, which then means that we are talking about

Page 22208

 1     approximately 40 million -- 40 billion euros.  That is 40.000 million

 2     euros.  That's just for my --

 3             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation].

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- own understanding.  That's approximately the

 5     number we are talking about, which means 20.000 million or 20 billion

 6     euros is the gross -- the yearly gross national product of Croatia.

 7             Is that correctly concluded?  You said two gross national

 8     products a year?

 9             I'm just trying to verify whether my understanding of the number

10     is correct.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yes, you understood

12     this perfectly.  I understood you in English, and despite some minor

13     imprecisions in interpretation you were correct.

14             40 billion euros approximately equals 270 billion kunas, and that

15     was equal to two annual GDPs in the 1990s of the last century, in 1995

16     and 1996.  To give you another comparison, this is approximately this

17     year's annual GDP of Croatia because, fortunately, in the meantime,

18     Croatia has made significant progress and its annual GDP has doubled in

19     the meantime.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.

21             Mr. Mikulicic, do you have any questions for Mr. Skegro?

22             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, I will be short, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Skegro, you will be now be cross-examined by

24     Mr. Mikulicic.  Mr. Mikulicic is counsel for Mr. Markac.

25             Please proceed.

Page 22209

 1                           Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Skegro.

 3        A.   Good morning, Mr. Mikulicic.

 4        Q.   Just a few things I needed to clarify with you, and I would

 5     kindly ask you to make sure you have a small break between question and

 6     answer so as to enable the interpreters to do their job properly.

 7             Mr. Skegro, I will now refer to paragraph 14 of your statement

 8     given to the Defence of General Cermak.  And in that paragraph you speak

 9     of how the Croatian government did not have control of the area of the

10     so-called republic of Krajina for four years.  The area was later

11     liberated in Operation Storm, and you say that you personally - and you

12     say this in line 26, paragraph 14, of the Croatian version - so you say

13     that with police forces that Croatia had at its disposal, "we could not

14     successfully cover such a large territory which suddenly became free."

15             Could you please elaborate on that?  What did you mean by this?

16     What did you mean by this statement, by this phrase in your statement?

17        A.   Very simply, before Operation Storm we had a territory of

18     100 territorial units, let's say, and you covered it with 100 policemen.

19     Several days after that, you have 130 territorial units and still just

20     100 policemen.  That's what I meant by this.

21             Simply speaking, the then existing police forces by definition

22     were not sufficient to cover this additional territory, or, rather, to

23     cover it well.

24        Q.   Mr. Skegro, you, as member of the government, did you ever

25     witness or did you ever feel that the Croatian authorities, and I'm now

Page 22210

 1     referring mostly to the government and Ministry of Interior, were not

 2     putting in sufficient effort to control that area by means of police

 3     force, that there was some tacit or -- agreement to tolerate these crimes

 4     which took place after the completion of Operation Storm?

 5        A.   Mr. Mikulicic, there are two questions in this question of yours

 6     and I will try to deal with them one by one.

 7             The first question, as I can see from the English transcript, is,

 8     whether, based on my best recollection, Croatian government put in

 9     sufficient effort to enable the police to control this newly liberated

10     area, and my answer to that question is yes.

11             Your second question is whether, in my opinion, there was some

12     kind of a tacit agreement to tolerate the crimes that may have happened,

13     and my explicit answer to that is no.  And now that you have asked me

14     this, I feel the need to say here, in this venue, that, had I ever felt

15     that somewhere in Croatia, in the government, in some circles, there was

16     such a way of thinking or let alone such an agreement, I would not have

17     spent a single minute with those people.

18        Q.   Thank you for your answers, Mr. Skegro.

19             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour, that completes my cross-examination.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.

21             Mr. Russo, Mr. Hedaraly.  Mr. Hedaraly apparently.

22             Mr. Skegro, you will now be cross-examined by Mr. Hedaraly.

23     Mr. Hedaraly is counsel for the Prosecution.

24             Please proceed.

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

Page 22211

 1             Can I have 65 ter 2807 on the screen, please.

 2                           Cross-examination by Mr. Hedaraly:

 3        Q.   Mr. Skegro, what you will see on the screen appearing is a

 4     transcript of a meeting at the presidential palace on 11 April 1995.  And

 5     will you see on the first page that you were one of the persons present

 6     at that meeting.

 7             If we now go to page 71 in the English, page 70 in the B/C/S,

 8     there's a statement that you make that I want to read to you and then ask

 9     you a question about it.

10             You say:

11             "And then a question arises, Mr. President, shall I go to

12     Washington and lie to those people?  If it is for the benefit of Croatia,

13     I will lie to the Pope, just as I had lied flatly in the parliament when

14     asked why the budget had taken a loan with the national bank, because we

15     knew what it was.  It was for the weapons.  I said, as cool as a

16     cucumber, that it was for the stabilisation programme and I don't know

17     what else."

18             Now, Mr. Skegro, in the transcript of that recording, you

19     admitted having lied to the Croatian parliament and that you would be

20     willing to lie to anyone, including the Pope.  Can you tell this Chamber

21     why they should not think that you're lying today?

22        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, I would kindly ask you to split this text of what

23     I purportedly said.  Frankly speaking, I think that I did say this, I did

24     utter these words, although in the transcripts one never know what was

25     left out and what was added.  But as I'm reading this now, I can tell you

Page 22212

 1     that, yes, I could have phrased this in these terms as read out here.

 2             We have to look at the context, Mr. Prosecutor, and I have the

 3     Croatian version before me now in which I say that I'm not going to go

 4     and lie to these people in Washington.  That's my first sentence.  I'm

 5     saying, Mr. President, I'm not going to Washington to go and lie to these

 6     people.  That is my request to the president.  And if you let me look at

 7     the transcript, two pages back, perhaps I could refresh my memory as to

 8     the context.  But I think that I do remember, based on the date, what was

 9     the main topic of this meeting.

10             And then my second sentence that you put to me, where I say, If

11     necessary, for the welfare of Croatia, I will lie even to the Pope.  You

12     will allow me that this is rhetorics.  This is a figure of speech.  I

13     don't need to explain this any further.  And then I go on to say, Just as

14     I lied in Sabor in the parliament, and what the budget was for, with the

15     national bank because we knew what it was, it was weapons.

16             Mr. Prosecutor, as you know, Croatia had to arm itself in secret

17     because there was a resolution of the Security Council of the UN - I'm

18     not going to comment upon it, I'm not going to comment on why and how -

19     but this resolution forbade Croatia, which was unarmed, to arm itself.

20     So any weaponry that arrived Croatia was in violation of this resolution

21     of the Security Council.

22             You don't really expect me to state in front of the Croatian

23     parliament that, at that time, we were violating the resolution of the

24     UN Security Council.  Yes, we did.  Those were the times, those were the

25     circumstances, and if I were to find myself in the same circumstances

Page 22213

 1     again, I would have done the same thing.

 2        Q.   Mr. Skegro, you're not denying making that statement; correct?

 3        A.   No, not at all.

 4             MR. HEDARALY:  Can I have 65 ter 2807 into evidence, and,

 5     Mr. President, we have a truncated version as well which only covers the

 6     first page and this page.  I don't know if the parties want to add more

 7     pages for context.  The quote is really the only thing that we are

 8     concerned.  That would be 65 ter 2807A, but I leave that in the hands of

 9     the Chamber.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  There are two issues, Mr. Hedaraly.  The first one

11     is that the witness apparently challenges the translation, or at least

12     interprets his own words in a different way from what it looks, Shall I

13     go to Washington and lie to those people, whether that is an expression

14     of willingness to do so or, rather, reluctance to do so; that's the first

15     issue.

16             The second issue is that if we only have the quote, then we do

17     not know what the witness is either reluctant or willing to lie for.  So,

18     therefore, we would need a bit more of context to better understand the

19     context of all this.

20             So, therefore, I'm -- I would like to consider with my colleagues

21     whether we can do just with the quote.  I think cover page is fine, but I

22     will look for some more context.

23             Mr. Kay.

24             MR. KAY:  Plainly the translation needs to be looked at, so if

25     this document is marked for identification, let the parties look at the

Page 22214

 1     translation, look at the whole transcript for further context, that may

 2     assist the Court on this issue.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And I take it that there will be no need, in

 4     view of the fact that the Prosecution is focussing that much on the

 5     quote, that the full 120 pages should be -- they are translated already,

 6     Mr. Hedaraly?  Yes.

 7             So there's no -- nevertheless, to have to read through 120 pages

 8     if only a couple are relevant might not be a good idea.

 9             So the parties are invited to -- apart from checking the

10     translation, also to further consider what would give the appropriate

11     context for the Chamber to understand the testimony of the witness.

12             Mr. Registrar, could you assign a MFI number to this document.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this will become Exhibit P2640,

14     marked for identification.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

16             Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

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

18        Q.   In your statement, Mr. Skegro, at paragraph 7, you state that you

19     were one of the witnesses of the way in which Mr. Cermak was appointed;

20     is that right?

21        A.   That's correct.

22        Q.   And that was on the 5th of August, at a meeting in Tuskanac?

23        A.   That's correct.

24        Q.   And that you were involved in that decision?

25        A.   It's very difficult for me to say how much my opinion

Page 22215

 1     influenced -- influenced Mr. President's decision.  But I agreed with all

 2     his arguments when he spoke about the characteristics of a person who

 3     would be sent to Knin.  I agreed that Ivan Cermak was a suitable person

 4     for that.

 5        Q.   Did you know, Mr. Skegro, that the president had actually made

 6     the decision to send General Cermak to Knin on the previous day, on the

 7     4th of August?

 8        A.   No.  However, if anyone among us opposed to the decision at the

 9     meeting, knowing President Tudjman, I believe that he might have even

10     changed that decision.

11        Q.   Do you know when Mr. Cermak was formally appointed as garrison

12     commander of the Knin garrison?

13        A.   I don't, no.

14             MR. HEDARALY:  If I can have 65 ter 7418, please, on the screen.

15        Q.   This is another presidential transcript meeting, this time dated

16     2 July 1993.

17             MR. HEDARALY:  And if we go to page 36 in the B/C/S; page 29 in

18     the English.

19        Q.   And I will let you read where you start your intervention.  And

20     then when we go to the next page, there's a portion I want to -- actually

21     why don't you read it, tell us when you -- we can go to the next page.  I

22     think your full statement lasts a page and a half or two pages.  Read it,

23     and then I want to focus on specific portions so you have the full

24     benefit of what you said.

25        A.   Can you turn the page, please.

Page 22216

 1             Turn the page, please.

 2             I have read the Croatian version of the text, and drawing my

 3     lessons from our previous discussion, I would like to see the English

 4     version, because, Your Honours, the English translation in the previous

 5     text was exactly contrary to what I said.  In Croatian the words are "I'm

 6     not going lie," and in the English version it says, "I am going to lie."

 7             I had given up on some minor imprecisions but this is a crucial

 8     thing.  If you want me to do so I can comment upon the Croatian version

 9     of what I have just read and then can you ask me questions, and then

10     depending on what your questions are going to be, I will probably go back

11     and ask for the English version to see what your questions may be based

12     on.  If I decide there are ambiguities in your questions.

13        Q.   This is what I propose to do:  I will read a portion of that in

14     English, so you will have that benefit, and then I'll ask you a question.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And the parties are invited to the highly

16     contested line from before the break, whether he would go and lie or

17     whether he would not go and lie, that to be checked already during the

18     first break perhaps with the assistance -- it's focussing really on one

19     line, to seek the assistance of CLSS and see whether there is any -- any

20     way to resolve that -- that issue.

21             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you.

22             If we can go back -- two pages back in the English, please, and

23     one page back in the B/C/S, and at the -- one more page back, please, in

24     the English.  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

25        Q.   Now at the bottom of that page, the last paragraph starts -- and

Page 22217

 1     that's the portion I want to read from you:

 2             "Aside from Mr. President read out about these terrible realities

 3     of the English policy and beyond, I would only remind you by drawing a

 4     parallel with what Willy Brandt said on the Berlin Wall the night when it

 5     was practically torn to down.  He said, Those who belong together are to

 6     live together.  I only say it goes the other way around too.  Those who

 7     do not belong together will not live together.  From everything I know in

 8     Bosnia and Herzegovina, or in Yugoslavia, no matter what we think,

 9     whether it is civilised, whether it's like this or like that, and not

10     only because of the atrocities that have taken place, there is no core

11     existence.  There is no Bosnia-Herzegovina."

12             And my question for you, Mr. Skegro, is:  What you've expressed

13     about people not belonging together, not living together, did you feel

14     the same way about the Serbs in Croatia, that they did not belong there?

15        A.   No, Mr. Prosecutor.  Since you have decided to use this quote,

16     I'd like to say that, to the best of my recollection, that quote is

17     correct.  This is more or less what I indeed did say.  Unfortunately, as

18     we all know today, I was right.  Look at Bosnia and Herzegovina today and

19     you will see how it manages to exist.  The point of my discussion was

20     this.  With all -- all the historical encumbrances, the differences,

21     Bosnia and Herzegovina as a sovereign state without an international

22     umbrella or protectorate could not exist.  And as you can see for

23     yourself today, unfortunately, and I repeat, unfortunately I was

24     absolutely right, and I was talking about Bosnia-Herzegovina, mind you.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Skegro, if you would not mind, would you please

Page 22218

 1     answer the question that was put to you.  You were not asked to comment

 2     on how realistic your views were in view of the developments in Bosnia

 3     and Herzegovina.  But the question was whether you did feel the same way

 4     about the Serbs in Croatia; that is, that people, not belonging together,

 5     that they would or should not live together.  That was the question that

 6     was put to you.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is not what I

 8     meant either at the time or now.  At that -- I never implied Serbs in

 9     Croatia.  We shouldn't confuse things and compare in an appropriate way

10     situations in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia.  As you know, in Bosnia

11     and Herzegovina there existed and still exists three constituent people,

12     Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, which was not the case in Croatia, never has

13     been.  So to draw such parallels may be useful where if you want it

14     discredit your witness but it really does not have any bearing on the

15     reality, and it does not stem from the reality at all.

16             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Can I tender

17     65 ter 7418 into evidence.

18             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, it might be appropriate, again, if it is

19     marked for identification so that we could see if there 's any further

20     parts of the transcript that ought to be put in evidence.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  There seems to be no translation issue but for

22     contextualisation and for carefully selecting the relevant portions,

23     Mr. Hedaraly, may I take it that you would agree with that.

24             MR. HEDARALY:  Absolutely.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, would you please assign a number.

Page 22219

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2641,

 2     marked for identification.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

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

 5        Q.   You had discussed in your statement your view that there was no

 6     joint criminal enterprise, and I just want to ask you a few questions.

 7             You were on the Brioni island on 31 July 1995, were you?

 8        A.   No, I wasn't on the Brioni island on that day.  I did not belong

 9     there.

10        Q.   So you were not at the meeting that President Tudjman had with

11     his military advisors on that day; correct?

12        A.   Correct.  I was not at that meeting.

13        Q.   And you were also not involved -- would it be also correct to say

14     that you were not involved in the planning of the Storm military

15     operation at all?

16        A.   Nowhere in the world is this part of the job of the deputy prime

17     minister in charge of economy and finances.

18        Q.   I'm not aware of everywhere in the world but I --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Skegro, it seems that, for one reason or

20     another, you feel a need to criticise the one who questions you, at least

21     implicitly.  I think Mr. Hedaraly was just seeking confirmation whether

22     you were involved or not and what happens in the rest of the world, I

23     think the simple answer would have been, No, I was not involved in it.

24     Isn't it?  Then we keep matters as --

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I was not involved.

Page 22220

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

 2             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you.

 3        Q.   And in paragraph 14 of your statement, and Mr. Mikulicic referred

 4     to a sentence there about the availability of the police forces.  In the

 5     English, it was at line 28 to 30.  And the following line you write or

 6     you stated:

 7             "Operation Storm took place several months after Operation Flash

 8     and we had no experience."

 9             I'm just seeking clarification here.  Are you saying that because

10     the two operations were so close in time together, you had no experience

11     to drawn on for Storm, that you could have had from Flash?  Is that how I

12     should understand that statement?

13        A.   Precisely, Mr. Prosecutor.  The point of my statement was to say

14     that too little time had passed in order for us to draw any lessons from

15     the similar situations that appeared after Operation Flash.

16             So irrespective of the experience drawn from Flash, the

17     government was not prepared to face new realities, at least not in

18     operational terms.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             MR. HEDARALY:  If we can have P462, please.

21        Q.   And, Mr. Skegro, I want to ask you briefly about three meetings.

22     In each of these meetings, your name is not mentioned as one of the

23     participants, and I have also done a word search for your name and do you

24     not appear in the text of the meeting as having participated in the

25     meeting.  So I just want to ask if you remember being at the any of these

Page 22221

 1     meetings.

 2             The first one is an 11 August 1995 meeting, where -- with the

 3     president and others, where it was decided to pass the decree regarding

 4     the take-over of property that the Krajina Serbs left behind.  Now, I

 5     understand that you probably have some knowledge of that decree and that

 6     law, but my question for you is:  Were you present -- do you remember

 7     being present at that specific meeting where that decision was made?

 8        A.   On the 11th of August, 1995, which was some five days after my

 9     visit to Knin, I was not in Zagreb.  Therefore, I am not on the list of

10     those present at the meeting.

11             Are you trying to say that my name was omitted by mistake?  I am

12     afraid that I did not understand the gist of your question.  Could you

13     clarify please.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  The question simply was, where Mr. Hedaraly said,

15     Your name is not there.  He more or less invites you to confirm that this

16     was not by mistake but that you were not there, because there is always a

17     possibility of a mistake.  But you said you were not in Zagreb, so there

18     is no suggestion in it in any way of taking out anything.  Mr. Hedaraly

19     is just seeking confirmation that where you do not appear that you also

20     actually did not attend.

21             Did you attend, did you not attend?  I think from your answer, I

22     took it, not being in Zagreb, that you confirm that you did not attend

23     that meeting.

24             Is that correctly understood?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I was not in

Page 22222

 1     Zagreb.  I was not at the meeting.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 3             Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

 4             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you.

 5        Q.   The next one is P463, and this is a meeting where it appears

 6     that, from the cover page at least, that only President Tudjman and

 7     Dr. Radic are present.  There is a discussion in there.  One of the

 8     things being discussed is -- there's a statement made that not even

 9     10 per cent of Serbs should return --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. -- Mr. Kehoe.

11             MR. HEDARALY:  I'll stay general.  I'm not trying to argue --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you try characterise that statement as

13     precisely as possible, because you know that avoids that Mr. Kehoe

14     remains on his feet.

15             MR. KEHOE:  I'm going to sit down now, Judge.

16             MR. HEDARALY:  I am simply trying to provide based on the

17     Chamber's guidance yesterday, and -- that's why I'm not going to talk

18     about any areas, any specific parts.

19        Q.   But there's a -- do you remember being at the meeting where there

20     is a statement made that not even 10 per cent of Serbs should return?

21             MR. KEHOE:  That is simply -- if we turn to page 9 and 10 of 463,

22     Mr. President.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  We --

24             MR. HEDARALY:  Let's go to page 10 of the English, then.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, read it again, try to understand what

Page 22223

 1     Mr. Kehoe's problems are, and rephrase your question accordingly.

 2             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour, I understand what his problems are.

 3     I disagree with his characterisation, as I'm sure will not come as a

 4     surprise.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- page 10.  Could I have page 10 on the

 6     screen.

 7             MR. HEDARALY:  It actually starts at the bottom of page 9,

 8     Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I will re-read it.

10             Could we go to -- well, you can -- you can read English,

11     Mr. Skegro.

12             Why not invite the witness to read that portion so that he is

13     aware what -- not to ask him to comment on it, but --

14             MR. HEDARALY:  If he remembers being present when that discussion

15     took place.  That's all I'm interested in, Mr. President.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  There is some discussion during this meeting,

17     Mr. Skegro, about the return of Serb population.  I leave it apart now,

18     where exactly, what the exact number would have been, although

19     10 per cent has been mentioned.

20             Does this ring in any way a bell as to your presence during that

21     meeting; or would you say, I was not present?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was never present at

23     any such meeting, but now I'm completely confused by the exchange between

24     you, the Prosecutor, and Mr. Kehoe.  I suppose that we are discussing the

25     meeting that took place on the 22nd of August, 1995, and as can you read

Page 22224

 1     here, only two people were present, Dr. Jure Radic and President Tudjman.

 2             Is this what we are discussing at the moment?

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  This is what we are discussing at the moment.  And I

 4     take it from your answer that you say you were not present.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am certain that I was not present

 6     at that meeting.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.  Then we can proceed.

 8             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you.

 9        Q.   The last -- and once again, Mr. Skegro, I'm not suggesting that

10     you were -- as the president said, I'm just seeking confirmation that you

11     in fact were not, so if you remember --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. --

13             MR. HEDARALY:  -- for the next one --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Skegro, I will just explain it to you, because

15     it -- sometimes if we have transcripts of meetings, sometimes people come

16     and testify and say, Although my name is not here, I was present; or

17     although my name is here, I was present but not during the whole of the

18     meeting.  Whereas it is always possible that someone is not mentioned on

19     the cover page, but, nevertheless, says that he was in the room or in the

20     room next to it, whatever varieties there are there life, that's the only

21     reason why this is asked, to see whether what we find on paper, whether

22     that is in accordance with your recollection.  Nothing more, nothing

23     less.

24             Please proceed.

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

Page 22225

 1        Q.   And the last one of these I want to discuss or show you and ask

 2     you if you were present is the 20 -- is a 30 August meeting.  And that is

 3     P466.

 4             And once again you will see your name is not present as the

 5     participants and it also does not appear in the rest of the document.

 6             And my question for you is:  Do you remember a discussion about

 7     Serbs trying to return to Croatia via Hungary?

 8        A.   I was not at that meeting.

 9        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skegro.

10             Were you aware of a conversation that occurred between

11     General Cermak and General Tolj regarding the crimes taking place in the

12     aftermath of Operation Storm, and General Tolj telling General Cermak

13     that there was pressure from -- he had pressure from higher up to say

14     that it was civilians dressed in uniforms.

15             Were you aware of such a conversation?

16        A.   I was not privy to that conversation.

17             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour, I have a few more questions but I'm

18     about to change topics, so if we can -- I don't know if we want to have

19     the break now.  I can start now.  There's a few documents that I want to

20     go through.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  It might be wiser to take the break first.

22             We will have a break, and we will resume at ten minutes to 11.00.

23                           --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I just briefly hear from the parties on the

Page 22226

 1     famous line to be translated.

 2             Let me be clear on one thing, first of all.  That is, this

 3     document has been marked for identification, which means that if we want

 4     to -- the translation to be replaced, there's a formal procedure for that

 5     which will take -- we immediate to make a formal request to CLSS, it will

 6     then be checked.  So, therefore, at this moment, we can't replace

 7     formally such a translation.

 8             At the same time, we -- it's a very practical matter that the

 9     witness will be gone by that time, and that, therefore, if there would be

10     one way or another to get an indication from the parties, based on their

11     information, whether they would consider it very likely or less likely

12     that such a formal request would result in a different translation, I

13     would like to hear from the parties.

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

15             I have discussed the matter with Mr. Cayley and we have both

16     checked independently and both came -- received the same information,

17     that -- I don't know if you want to pull it up on the screen so that we

18     are clear, and it is P2640, page 71 in the English.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  While that -- you earlier said 71.  In e-court

20     it appears on page 70.  And the number at the bottom of that page is

21     70 out of 120.

22             So --

23             MR. HEDARALY:  Well, then I'm sure it is still the same.  My

24     version said 71 out of 120, but I'm sure it doesn't change the -- now.

25     And that the --

Page 22227

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And I think it is -- it is the line --

 2             MR. HEDARALY:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  -- "and then a question arises here, President" --

 4             MR. HEDARALY:  And what the --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  -- "shall I go to Washington and lie to those

 6     people?"

 7             MR. HEDARALY:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the line we're talking about.

 9             MR. HEDARALY:  And what the parties have come to a joint

10     conclusion is that the -- it actually says:

11             "And then a question arises here, President, shall I go now?  I

12     will not [Realtime transcript read in error "now"] lie to these people in

13     Washington.  If it is for the benefit of Croatia, I will lie to the

14     Pope," and then it continues, and there's no dispute as to the remaining

15     portion of that excerpt.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So we have to understand this portion, and now

17     I'm addressing you as well, Mr. Skegro, that you said, If you send me to

18     Washington I'll not lie; I may lie to the Pope, or I may have lied in the

19     past but here I would not lie.  That's the -- now, common understanding.

20             Then we'll have to make a formal request for the translation to

21     be verified, and we will then act from now on in this courtroom on the

22     basis of the agreement between the parties of what this line says.

23             Mr. Skegro, you see that any serious complaint about translation

24     we'll deal with that, and you have followed the observations made by the

25     parties and my observations, so that is now clear on the transcript.

Page 22228

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MR. HEDARALY:  Just on a technical matter, Mr. President.  It is

 3     the Prosecution Exhibit so we have to make the request.  Could we only

 4     make the request for that one sentence or for that one paragraph, or

 5     should we make -- it doesn't make sense to make a request for the

 6     entire --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I think the dispute is about the -- this

 8     sentence.  Do we need to have the translation verified as well as to the

 9     other incidents of --

10             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  -- possible not speaking the truth.

12             MR. CAYLEY:  You did also request that we look at the context in

13     that particular paragraph falls and I think we would like, where we can

14     agree on what additional pages would be put into evidence, that we would

15     like all of those passages checked for accuracy.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             MR. HEDARALY:  That is very reasonable, Mr. President.  And we

18     will agree to that.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And the -- the context, as far as going to

20     Washington and not to lie, that diminishes the relevance and importance

21     of knowing exactly what the reason was, although we find that apparently

22     on the further -- up on page 70, that we find some context.

23             If you would please communicate with Mr. Hedaraly, which portions

24     you would like to have verified exactly and then ...

25             MR. CAYLEY:  Yes, I will, Your Honour.

Page 22229

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And I take it that he will follow your suggestions.

 2             Mr. Hedaraly, you may proceed.

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

 4             Can we have 65 ter 7424 on the screen, please.

 5        Q.   And, Mr. Skegro, what you will see on the screen is a -- is a

 6     report or portions of report from the Office of the Commissioner for

 7     Human Rights in Geneva discussing the media situation in Croatia.

 8             MR. HEDARALY:  And I want to go on the second page of this

 9     document in the English, and I believe it's the -- also the beginning of

10     the second page in the B/C/S.  If we can go further down in the B/C/S,

11     please.  Thank you.  And the top of the English.

12        Q.   And it says here, Mr. Skegro:

13             "On 25 January 1996, in the parliament building, Mr. Skegro met

14     Ms. Edita Vlahovic and, unsatisfied with her writings (Ms. Vlahovic wrote

15     an article 'Skegro's Phenomenal Numbers,' in which she criticised new

16     state budget) Skegro started to threaten her, You should be killed.

17     After that he followed her to journalists' room and there (in front of

18     several other journalists) took the pistol from one of the security

19     guards, triggered it to her, asked, 'What do you say on this?'  And after

20     that, 'I will kill you now.'  After that Skegro started to laugh and said

21     it was just a joke."

22             Mr. Skegro, can you tell us what exactly you thought was funny

23     about pointing a gun at someone and telling them you would kill them?

24        A.   It's not a funny matter.  The only problem is that this never

25     happened.  This is a shameless lie, due to which I instituted legal

Page 22230

 1     proceedings, as did the journalist, and after three years of proceedings,

 2     there was a judgement acquitting me of any responsibility, but the

 3     newspapers that carried such lies were found guilty and had to publish a

 4     retraction and also pay a fine.

 5        Q.   Did you ever threaten the journalist in any way, even without a

 6     gun, and saying that she should be killed?

 7        A.   No.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9             MR. HEDARALY:  Could I have 65 ter 7424 into evidence, please.

10             MR. KAY:  No, Your Honour, we object.  The reliability of this

11     information has been challenged by the witness who said very clearly,

12     This is a shameless lie, and there have even been legal proceedings as

13     the journalist instituted as well.

14             So even the subject matter of the issue and the basis of the

15     question appears to have challenged this particular piece of information.

16     In those circumstances we submit that it does not pass the reliability

17     test.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, what if we would have copies of those

19     judgements, which give us a full view on what happened, also the

20     reasoning of what the witness said about the courts concluding there was

21     no blame for Mr. Skegro.  However, that the journalists were even fined

22     for -- I don't know exactly for what, but that seems to be the

23     documentation which would support the answer of the witness and would

24     give a full insight in what is reported here.

25             MR. KAY:  First of all, the Prosecution have not asked for that,

Page 22231

 1     Your Honour, and I feel that the obligation is being put on us like a

 2     burden of proof in relation to a --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  Sometimes --

 4             MR. KAY:  -- a matter that, in my submission, the witness has

 5     dealt with.  If anyone wants to take it further and prove whatever

 6     issues, let them do so.  But for my part, I don't want to have to spend

 7     time chasing matters that I don't think are of substance in relation to

 8     the issues in this trial, and I appreciate Your Honours' suggestion but I

 9     do have to draw a line in the sand on matters such as this.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber invites the parties to see before it

12     calls for this evidence itself, which is -- the Chamber is entitled to

13     do, to see whether these judgements are available, and if they are easily

14     accessible, to see whether they can be produced; and, meanwhile, we'll

15     MFI this document.

16             MR. KAY:  Thank you, Your Honour, and we will obviously follow

17     the Court's --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and perhaps the witness could help us out.

19             He apparently was -- do you have copies of those judgements

20     because you said, I was totally -- well, I don't know ... you were

21     acquitted or it's not entirely clear to me what kind of proceedings these

22     were.  But at least the court said that you were not to be blamed for

23     anything; however, the journalists were.

24             Do you have copies of those judgements?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Naturally.  I can send them to you,

Page 22232

 1     perhaps even today, by fax.  If my wife can find them in our home

 2     archives.  But you can also apply to the municipal or county courts in

 3     Zagreb, and they will send these judgements to you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If you would be so kind to see whether can

 5     you -- because that goes far quicker, I take it, if you have copies

 6     available, to send it.  And then the Chamber will consider whether it

 7     will be first given to the parties or whether the Chamber would like to

 8     have a look at it as well, at this moment.  But, of course, it may shed

 9     further light on what is now tendered into evidence on the reliability of

10     it -- of this document, and, at the same time, reliability and

11     credibility of the witness.

12             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, one matter.  We note that no issues have

13     been raised as to the provenance of this information, how this document

14     came about, which I would have thought would have been important on a

15     matter such as this.  We've sort of gone straight to the issue, putting

16     the Defence witness in the position of dealing with it without it being

17     put on the maker of the statement, the responsibility to back up what is

18     said, where this information came from, what this document is, which is

19     why, in a way we are --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MR. KAY:  -- opposing and have taken a line on -- on this.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Kay, you earlier objected on the basis of

23     reliability, mainly focussing on the answers the witness has given.

24             Mr. Hedaraly, the document will be marked for identification.  If

25     you could provide further information or seek further information -

Page 22233

 1     perhaps the witness knows what the document is, where it comes from - and

 2     there's a lot of handwriting in it as well, what's the origin of this

 3     document, that would certainly assist the Chamber in later on deciding

 4     whether or not this is an admissible piece of evidence.

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

 6             This is a document that the Prosecution received from, as I

 7     mentioned, the office -- the High Commissioner for Human Rights as part

 8     of a larger, a much larger collection of documents, but hundreds of

 9     pages, and this is one -- one of the documents in that -- in that

10     collection we received.  As far as we know, the handwritten notes were

11     how the documents were found in those archives when they were sent to us,

12     and that is the information that we have regarding its provenance.  And

13     it -- that it was -- from the face of it, we see that it discusses the

14     media situation and the freedom of the press issues and so on.  That is

15     the information I have for the Chamber on that document.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Now we see already on the face of the document that

17     it's -- the typewriting is in -- apparently in sections.  Is there any

18     information as to not only where it comes from, but also how they were

19     produced, created, who takes responsibility for the -- for the text in

20     it, and on what basis.

21             MR. HEDARALY:  I don't have that information, and, Mr. President,

22     it does --  I do agree with Your Honour and it does seem like it has been

23     different sections collated together in one -- in one document.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We will.

25             Mr. Kay.

Page 22234

 1             MR. KAY:  I don't know if the Prosecution has done any research

 2     on information they are putting and perhaps they can be asked about that,

 3     because we have just been on to a web site of Helsinki Watch which deals

 4     with the matter according to the -- what the witness has already said.

 5     That's on Sanction now.  My Case Manager got it in one minute, and we can

 6     put it on for the Court to see if the Court wants to see that this

 7     instant.  We're having to deal with something that is put up.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps you can --

 9             MR. KAY:  Should we put it --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- use it in re-examination then.  Because from the

11     mere fact that I asked these questions to Mr. Hedaraly, of course, that

12     is an expression of the relevance of finding answers to those questions

13     before the Chamber finally decides whether or not to admit this MFI'd

14     document.  Any further matters, I would not at this moment interrupt the

15     cross-examination by Mr. Hedaraly but --

16             MR. KAY:  It is there if the Court wanted to see it.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Perhaps we would invite to you do that in

18     re-examination.

19             MR. KAY:  Very well, Your Honour.  There's one matter as well

20     which is of concern, the translation of the disputed sentence, transcript

21     page 35, line 2.  We have on our transcript, "I will now lie to these

22     people in Washington," which I think we can all agree was not what

23     Mr. Hedaraly said, in the joint submission.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  The word "now" there seems to replace the word

25     "not."

Page 22235

 1             MR. KAY:  "I will not now," in fact, was the agreed statement

 2     between the parties.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I later summarised it in the sense --

 4             MR. KAY:  Yeah.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  -- which I think is now in agreement between the

 6     parties, and finally we'll get an official correction anyhow, because, as

 7     Mr. Hedaraly said, he will ask.  After having consulted with Mr. Cayley,

 8     he will ask for a formal -- but you're perfectly right that on the

 9     transcript we find now a confusing statement.  It has been corrected now.

10             Mr. Kehoe.

11             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.  With regard to the documents on

12     the screen, I trust that the subject of discussion is simply the

13     paragraph dealing with the witness in page 2.  But the balance of the

14     document is somewhat incendiary.  Not somewhat, it is very incendiary,

15     and, of course, we would object to any admission at any point regarding

16     any of those issues because A, they have no relevance to these

17     proceedings, but more importantly, we're not permitted to get to the

18     provenance of this document and who is exactly making these allegations.

19             So if we're going address this issue and it's going to be MFI'd,

20     we would ask the Prosecution to redact every portion of that document

21     expect that portion that they are trying to admit into evidence, which I

22     trust is the paragraph beginning:  "On 25 May 1996."

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly, I take it that you want to focus on

24     the portion you put to the witness.

25             MR. HEDARALY:  Yes, and that was 25 January, just for the record.

Page 22236

 1             MR. KEHOE:  [Microphone not activated]

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  It is January -- sorry, 25 January 1996.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MR. HEDARALY:

 7        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skegro.  Let me show you another article from a

 8     newspaper and another allegation made against you, and I will ask you to

 9     comment on that.

10             It's 65 ter 7421.  It's an article from the Independent

11     Newspaper, dated 1 November 2000.  It discusses the tapes of these

12     presidential meetings.  We've seen some of these transcripts here today.

13             MR. HEDARALY:  And once it comes up on the screen, I will ask to

14     please go to the second page in both the English and the B/C/S.

15        Q.   And I want to focus on the second paragraph in the English, which

16     is the third paragraph in the B/C/S, and the Independent writes:

17             "One set of tapes show how Tudjman and his cronies skim

18     100 million (69 million pounds) off the top of a near billion-dollar

19     selloff of Croatia's telephone service.  Some of the money went into a

20     political slush fund.

21             "On the afternoon of 13 October last year, Tudjman met with the

22     then deputy prime minister and finance minister Borislav Skegro.

23     Mr. Skegro said:  Mr. President, I've put the money aside for

24     December because I think we need it.  We have to prepare for the upcoming

25     elections.  He added:  It's in an Irish bank ... 100 per cent safe.  Only

Page 22237

 1     you and I know about this."

 2             Mr. Skegro, can you comment on this?  Were you aware of that

 3     allegation being made and can you comment on it?

 4        A.   Yes, I can, Mr. Prosecutor, but I think it would be more much

 5     effective for this Honourable Chamber to get a hold of transcript of my

 6     alleged conversation with Mr. Tudjman rather than this source, which is a

 7     description of this conversation.  If you were to get a hold of the

 8     original transcript, you would see it was a perfectly legitimate

 9     conversation between the president and a minister of finance of a country

10     discussing where legitimate funds were deposited and were also discussing

11     how other ministers were not aware of the existence of that money;

12     otherwise, as ministers are prone to do, they would have spent that money

13     already.

14        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skegro.  I haven't shown you the transcript.

15     Unfortunately, I don't have it.  We will definitely ask for it and look

16     at it.

17             MR. HEDARALY:  In the meantime, Your Honour, if we could have

18     that exhibit tendered or marked for identification as well as the

19     previous one, which was 65 ter 7424, for which we did not receive a

20     number.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, first, we'll ask for a number -- an MFI number

22     for the last document.

23                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, reminds me that the word "last" is

25     confusing me.

Page 22238

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter 07424 becomes Exhibit P2642,

 2     marked for identification; and 65 ter number 07421 becomes Exhibit P2643,

 3     also marked for identification.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 5             Any objections against admission of the publication on the --

 6     well, let's say the -- the amount of money in the Irish bank.

 7             MR. KAY:  Yes, Your Honour.  Because it has not been adopted by

 8     the witness and he asked that, If you have got information to put to me

 9     about it that directly from the source, show it to me.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             Mr. Kehoe.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, again, we have another document that has made

13     incendiary allegations where we can't back to the provenance of those

14     allegations.  That's number one.

15             Number two, what is the relevance of a conversation that is

16     taking place in 1999?  I haven't heard any articulated relevance on that

17     score.  Certainly it is outside the scope of this indictment.  It simply

18     doesn't fit squarely within any evidence that we have.  This article

19     itself is 1 November 2000, and if I'm not mistaken, and I can be

20     corrected, this is apparently relaying a conversation of 13 October 1999.

21             For all of the above-stated reasons, A, the incendiary nature of

22     it, which we can't get to the core of the -- even the writer of this;

23     two, we don't have the actual tape to see exactly what transpired; and

24     three, it's outside of the scope of the indictment and completely

25     irrelevant.

Page 22239

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly, could I invite to you especially

 2     respond to the relevance also in view of the time.

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  Well, Mr. President, first of all, we have had

 4     discussions of newspaper articles numerous times and when the person is

 5     mentioned in it, it has typically gone to the weight to be accorded to

 6     the document and not its admissibility.

 7             Second of all, our submission would be that such allegations

 8     square -- fall squarely within Rule 90(H), and its relevance is the

 9     credibility of the witness that is testifying.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

11             MR. KEHOE:  If I may respond to that, Judge, and I would test the

12     statement by the Prosecution.  When the Prosecution presents evidence

13     that was completely outside the time-frame of this indictment, ergo

14     irrelevant, as opposed to a commentary by a witness talking about events

15     that took place during the time-frame of this indictment, clearly, for

16     the plain reading of this document is we're talking about a conversation

17     where we don't have the underlying document that is in the latter part of

18     1999, years after the time-frame of this indictment and clearly

19     irrelevant.

20             MR. HEDARALY:  Mr. President, I mean, if -- just briefly --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  First -- before -- Mr. Kay, do you have any --

22     is there any need for you to further respond.

23             MR. KAY:  No need -- [Microphone not activated].

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

25             MR. HEDARALY:  If the allegations are correct, it shows

Page 22240

 1     dishonesty.  If it shows dishonesty, it affects the credibility of the

 2     witness and therefore is clearly relevant.  Although not the underlying

 3     facts may not be relevant to this indictment, but the evidence would be

 4     relevant to the witness's credibility.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, one last --

 6             MR. KEHOE:  And, Mr. President, it -- it -- obviously this

 7     witness has been known by the Prosecution to come for some time.  If this

 8     is such an important issue concerning this witness's credibility, the

 9     Chamber deserves what the context of this conversation is, and not have

10     some statement concerning any witness's credibility thrown out with the

11     hopes that it's somehow going to -- to smear or -- or put some type of

12     dark stain on evidence coming in.

13             But be that as it may, it's simply so far outside the scope of

14     this indictment it simply has no relevance.

15             Now, if we were to engage in a media search of every witness that

16     discussed things throughout the entire time-frame of this person's life

17     or space of time that they were in office, I'm sure we could find a lot

18     of things.  That's not the purpose of what this Trial Chamber has to do,

19     which is to find out what the facts are and make decisions accordingly.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe --

21             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  -- if you look at the transcript, page 47, line 3,

23     it reads:  "Mr. Kehoe, one last," and then I wanted to say "line," which

24     would certainly have guided you not to take 15 lines.

25             MR. KEHOE:  My apologies.

Page 22241

 1             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Mikulicic.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, just for the record, the Markac Defence is

 4     standing along the arguments of my learned colleagues of other two

 5     Defences.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             The document will be marked for identification.

 8             Mr. Registrar, we -- or have you -- you have given it a number

 9     already, yes, and then I asked -- so that's -- it has been marked.  Yes,

10     P2643.  We'll further consider admissibility of these documents.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. HEDARALY:  I have no further questions, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Hedaraly.

14             Mr. Kay, when I'm asking you where there's any need to re-examine

15     the witness, it's also in a bit of an expectation that you would take us

16     to the Internet and to find out what happened with the story of the

17     threats.

18             MR. KAY:  Yes.  Your Honour, I'll just explain the source of the

19     Internet we're looking at.

20             Helsinki Watch Human Rights, and if the passage can be found.

21             Put it on Sanction, please.  I'm in between two experts,

22     Your Honour and I'm not quite sure who is driving the car.  I suppose I'm

23     supposed to be driving the car, but --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, when you said that you could find it in one

25     minute I thought that you were praising your team members.

Page 22242

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MR. KAY:  Yeah, we had it in actually less, and I think the Court

 3     can see on the screen:

 4             "On the 26th of July, the vice-president of the Croatian

 5     government, Borislav Skegro threatened Edita Vlahovic working for

 6     Novi List with a gun which he had taken from a security officer at the

 7     parliament building.  Legal proceedings were initiated against Skegro,

 8     but he was acquitted on all counts."

 9                           Re-examination by Mr. Kay:

10        Q.   Can you see that, Mr. Skegro?  That's just a report we have

11     pulled up.  And would you like to elaborate any further on the matter

12     beyond that paragraph we have been able to find there?

13        A.   First of all, I would like to correct some things.  It was not on

14     the 22nd -- 26th of July, but 22nd of January.  But this is neither here

15     nor there.  It was not the parliament building but the government

16     building.  So these are technicalities.  And the rest is correct, that I

17     was acquitted of all charges and not only that.  At the same time I sued

18     the papers that conveyed the lies and those were the weekly, Globus, and

19     the dailies, Glas Slavonije and Novi List.  And I won all the three suits

20     and was compensated for damages.

21             So it was -- the parties appealed and the cases went to a higher

22     instance court, which was a county court, where my innocence was again

23     confirmed.  They appealed at the Supreme Court, and four or five years

24     later, from the beginning of the proceedings, the appeals court confirmed

25     the original sentence, and that was that the document that was

Page 22243

 1     purportedly conveyed was nothing but a blatant lie.  Now what happened

 2     and why it happened, I believe that we could organise a parallel trial in

 3     order to investigate and establish what actually happened and why it

 4     happened.

 5        Q.   The information that you gave us there as to what took place over

 6     this matter, was that reported in the Croatian media?

 7        A.   Yes, of course.  However, if somebody is charged with crimes,

 8     then the titles appear in three-inch block letters.  And when that same

 9     journalist has to deny the original article after the court decision,

10     then that appears on page 57 of the same newspaper, in a very, very small

11     letters, in font 3 letters.  I'm talking about the size of the letters

12     when I say font 3.

13        Q.   And questions I want to ask you about is, because you were put an

14     extract from some document or other, but how freely available, if someone

15     had researched this matter and looked for the public details to check

16     them, how easy that would have been today in Croatia?

17        A.   Mr. Kay, I really don't know how available documents are in court

18     archives and whether you can access documents on complete cases.  I would

19     assume that it shouldn't be difficult.

20             But I repeat, I had the original of the final decision at home,

21     where it says, expresses verbis expressly everything that shows that the

22     allegations against me were lies.  The journalist herself, before the

23     Trial Chamber, at the express question, whether this happened, she said

24     no, did he say this and that, and she replied, No, he didn't.  So,

25     sapienti sat.

Page 22244

 1        Q.   And those details you've told us about, that the journalist

 2     involved in this particular matter, was that reported in the media and

 3     press, if anyone had looked that up, taken the time to research the

 4     matter?

 5        A.   I believe so.  I believe if you Google my name, her name, and the

 6     word "court decision," I'm sure you will find some results.  But apart

 7     from the Google, there's some official archives, which in my view are the

 8     only relevant ones, and I'm sure that they would be much better to use.

 9             That lady was also a victim.  She was also set up just like I

10     was.  She was not the one who initiated the whole matter and who actually

11     launched the allegations against me.

12             I have a question.  I don't have the text, the English text of

13     the transcript of my words on the screen.  I would very much like to have

14     the transcript on the screen, the transcript of my words, please.

15        Q.   This the document marked for identification, which was -- yeah,

16     P2642.

17             Is that the one you wanted to see or did you want to see the --

18     the document we put on the -- the one with words is in the extract that

19     the -- of the document the Prosecution produced.

20             MR. KAY:  Is that coming up?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now have I everything that I need.

22             I have the LiveNote on the left screen, which is brilliant, and I

23     have the document, the relevant document on the right-hand side screen.

24             MR. KAY:

25        Q.   Did you want to look at those words again and make a comment?

Page 22245

 1        A.   No.  No, it is self-explanatory.  You can see that this was a

 2     copy/paste exercise, five-size font, somebody throwing words at somebody

 3     else.

 4             But the essence of the matter was contained in my previous

 5     answer.  It really does not matter very much what the provenance of the

 6     document is.  What matters are the facts of the matter.

 7        Q.   Just as a general matter, is this a -- a usual or unusual

 8     conflict between a public figure in Croatia, such as yourself, and -- and

 9     the media?

10        A.   Unfortunately, every time that was not a -- the only one or an

11     unusual case.  Of course, this was the most difficult and serious

12     incident in my career, an allegation that appeared in a weekly, and then

13     it was blown out of proportion in all the dailies that are mentioned

14     here.  And when the inertia took hold, I had to fight against the

15     windmills.  And when it -- the matter came to the court, it was not easy

16     to prove my innocence.  It was just like the indictment against Socrates

17     which was so absurd that it cannot -- it could simply not be refuted.

18        Q.   You heard the statement by the Prosecution that they were asking

19     questions based on issues of credibility, and as a result, I want to ask

20     you this.

21             Is the statement that you have made in this court, in relation to

22     these proceedings, the truth?

23        A.   Absolutely.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             MR. KAY:  I have no further questions.

Page 22246

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kay.

 2             Any ...

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Judge Kinis has one or more questions for you.

 5                           Questioned by the Court:

 6             JUDGE KINIS:  Thank you.

 7             Mr. Skegro, I wanted to ask you questions -- a question regarding

 8     your statement in paragraph 8.

 9             You are mentioning normalisation included the return of persons

10     displaced in 1991 as well as those who left homes in 1995 for all

11     regardless of their ethnic affiliations.

12             We had and we -- it was already admitted into evidence also this

13     transcript between president and Radic, where numbers of possible return

14     of displaced Serbs was mentioned, and it was mentioned not more than

15     10 per cent.

16             My question is to you:  Do have you some knowledge whether

17     government implemented such a tacit agreement in the practical way?

18        A.   Your Honour, I'm stating that the government never implemented,

19     planned or intended to implement a discrimination of this kind.  What we

20     can discuss here is what was relevant at any given moment, which refugees

21     were capable of returning and which were not.  What I'm saying is that in

22     1991, first Croats were expelled and then continued to live in refugee

23     camps in hotels and all over the place, and they also were supposed to

24     return.  So we're not talking only about the programme for the return of

25     the Serbs.  We are also talking about the programme for the return of the

Page 22247

 1     Croats as well, of everybody, to be very clear.

 2             JUDGE KINIS:  I understand, excuse me, Mr. Skegro but I just

 3     wanted to know this in brief answer.

 4             And next question is to me:  If government decided or

 5     governmental authorities or civil servants decided to adopt a programme,

 6     for instance, was there such situations that Mr. Tudjman would effect

 7     this decision and simply revoke it?

 8        A.   Your Honour, I would like to be absolutely sure that I understand

 9     your question properly in order to be able to provide a proper answer.

10             You are asking me if the government could make a decision and

11     then President Tudjman would use his authority to overturn or change that

12     decision.

13             Did I understand your question correctly?

14             JUDGE KINIS:  That is correct.

15        A.   A thing of that kind never happened.  It could not have happened.

16     It would not have been based on law.  President Tudjman did not have the

17     authority to overthrow a decision by the government or the parliament.

18     He cannot just simply override a decision by any of the two bodies.

19             JUDGE KINIS:  Thank you.

20             And last question from me is, in paragraph 9 you mentioned that

21     that situation, financial -- at that time financial situation was very

22     tense.

23             And my question is to you:  Do you have some knowledge how

24     Mr. Cermak's authority and jobs what he was conducted was financed at

25     that time?  Which was financing sources by -- it was paid by military

Page 22248

 1     budgets or it was paid by civilian budget and -- or did he have some

 2     separate bookkeeping system?

 3        A.   To be honest, Your Honour, I don't know.  I should have to

 4     rewind, go back in time and try to deduct conclusions from the system as

 5     it functioned.

 6             I suppose that some of the funds were allocated from the budget

 7     of the government, some from the military budget, but I really wouldn't

 8     be able to explain how this was done.  I can't provide a precise answer.

 9     Maybe you should ask Mr. Cermak.  I'm sure that he would be able to

10     answer that much better than I -- than I could.

11             JUDGE KINIS:  Thank you very much for those answers.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I have a few questions for you.

13             First of all, I would like to come back to these judgements, I

14     would really appreciate if you could find them and ...

15             Now, the -- counsel for Mr. Cermak drew attention to the matter

16     of the journalist by taking us to the International Helsinki Federation

17     for Human Rights annual report 1997, because, Mr. Kay, I checked that on

18     the Internet to see the context of what was shown to us.

19             Now, the issue there is raised in a context of criticism to the

20     way in which the Penal Code was used against journalists rather than as

21     primary serving to demonstrate that you were acquitted.  That's the

22     reason why I would very much like to see that -- that judgement.

23             Now, if you say you were acquitted, or at least that's what the

24     report says and what you said, was there a trial, or was the case

25     dismissed before trial?

Page 22249

 1        A.   Your Honour, there was a trial, which, in different stages,

 2     lasted for three years.  There were three different judges and three

 3     separate proceedings, which dealt with the same subject.

 4             Why three?  Well, that's Croatian judiciary for you.  In one

 5     proceedings, the journalist sued me for a death threat.  Because, if what

 6     the newspapers published was true, then it would have been logical to

 7     expect she sued me for that, and I was fully acquitted on all counts.

 8     She lost and, you know, it happened as I've told you.

 9             In the second proceedings, I sued the second and third newspaper

10     which conveyed these uncritical texts and lies about me, referring to the

11     first newspapers.  And in each of those subsequent articles, they added

12     on something, which wasn't present in the initial article.

13             So, I will forward you the copies of these judgements,

14     Your Honour, with great pleasure, but in view of the entire situation and

15     the cooperation with The Hague, I don't know what the right channels are.

16     Should I just simply put in an envelope and mail it to the ICTY in

17     The Hague or should I do it via some office in Croatia for cooperation

18     with the ICTY?  I think it would be best if this entire matter was

19     resolved in this way, rather than searching on Internet and conveying who

20     heard wrongly this or that.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  As you may have been aware of, I was very much

22     in favour of looking at the original documents.  I don't think, as a

23     matter of fact, that these are all public judgements.  I take it that

24     there's no confidentiality involved in any way and therefore, I see no

25     problem in it being sent to the Tribunal directly.

Page 22250

 1        A.   That's how I will do it, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So we'll check that, once we have received it.

 3             Since you are here now, I have, nevertheless, have one additional

 4     question for you.

 5             When you say you were acquitted after having been at trial, was

 6     it established that a gun was used but it was not to be taken as a

 7     threat; or that you never, ever had a gun in your hands; or is it -- I

 8     mean, an acquittal can take various forms.

 9             Could you tell us which form it took, as far as facts were

10     concerned?

11        A.   Your Honours, I can certainly tell you this.  Number one, I

12     never, ever had a gun in my hands.  Number two, yes, a security person

13     was pointing to a gun in his hands.  Number three, yes, I was present in

14     that room at that particular moment, together with the journalist.  And

15     this is a room adjoining the room where the government meeting was to be

16     held, and all of this was taking place just immediately prior to the

17     beginning of the meeting, and there's live broadcast for journalists to

18     follow the proceedings.  And I arrived there some five minutes earlier in

19     order to have a cigarette there.

20             Several days later, in an unsigned text written by a person who

21     was not present, these terrible accusations emerged.  Later on, I

22     realised that it wasn't by accident, it wasn't by chance, it wasn't an

23     innocent mistake.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, most important for me is to know what we will

25     find in the judgement.  We will find this information all in the

Page 22251

 1     judgement you --

 2        A.   That's correct.  Absolutely.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll ask Mr. Registrar to tell the Victims and

 4     Witness Section to give you an address where you can send these

 5     documents.

 6             Your statement says that you -- when you were driving through the

 7     area, that you wondered who would have put on fire houses, that you

 8     discussed that, and who would have done that.

 9             Were you aware of allegations that the Croatian military were

10     involved in putting houses on fire?

11        A.   At that time, Your Honours, you actually go back to my statement,

12     where I describe how we travelled through Korenica, right?  Is that what

13     you're referring to?

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15        A.   At that point in time, no.  Just like it says in my statement, we

16     could see on the side sheep that had been killed.  We could conclude that

17     it was done by automatic weapons, which is something that is not normal.

18     This was 20 or 30 metres from the main road, this flock of sheep.  One

19     could see smoke rising in the distance; obviously something was on fire.

20     Naturally at that point in time, I didn't know.

21             Later on, information emerged, people learned of things, evidence

22     was collected, and in order to reply to your question, whether this was

23     done by members of the Croatian Army, I cannot tell you anything but,

24     yes, this has been done by people in uniforms.  What capacity they acted

25     in, what were they, were they just camouflaged robbers, demilitarised

Page 22252

 1     members of Croatian Army who went on a rampage in order to avenge

 2     something, I don't know, Your Honours.  We would really have to examine

 3     this on a case-by-case basis.  I don't know.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, at the end of paragraph 14 of your statement

 5     you say:

 6             "The Croatian Army and police were issuing orders to prevent

 7     looting and arson."

 8             Do you have any detailed knowledge of it?  I mean, what's the

 9     source of this part of your statement.

10        A.   Your Honours, I am afraid I didn't quite understand your

11     question.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, my question -- your statement again reads in

13     this respect, and I'll put it in context.  You said:

14             "I was concerned then that with police forces which we had at our

15     disposal we could not successfully cover such a large territory which was

16     suddenly free.  Operation Storm took place several months after

17     Operation Flash, and we had no experience.  The RH government tried to

18     get prosecutors and courts to start working as soon as possible.  The

19     police were doing their job.  We were trying to remove the army from the

20     town.  The Croatian Army and the police were issuing orders to prevent

21     looting and arson."

22             What I wanted to know is your familiarity with such orders,

23     apparently what was undertaken, what your knowledge was about the police

24     doing their jobs.  How did you follow these events, and what -- on what

25     factual basis you stated that the Croatian Army and the police were

Page 22253

 1     issuing orders to prevent looting and arson?  Did you see those orders?

 2     Who exactly issued them?

 3             Could you tell us more about the details of this portion of your

 4     statement?

 5        A.   I have understood your question now.  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6             I was a member of the government, of the cabinet, which met at

 7     least twice a week during that period of time.  Naturally, the first and

 8     main points on our agenda were matters that had to do with normalisation,

 9     report from the ground, as we called them, whether it was the Ministry of

10     Defence, Ministry of Justice, or Ministry of the Interior.  Who informed

11     on this, which is to say that a member of the government under whose

12     responsible this was not directly.

13             So that was my primary source of information.

14             As for the rest, any of us can gather information, based on

15     something they heard, they read, and so on, but in this particular case I

16     based this exclusively on the reports received at government cabinet

17     meetings.  And I think that in your documentation you must have documents

18     and minutes from the meetings of the Croatian cabinet which quite clearly

19     and unambiguously say who needs to do what in order for the situation to

20     improve, because the situation, as it was, was not good.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.

22             One final question.  When Mr. Cermak was appointed earlier on as

23     a minister, we find in your statement that it was meant to an appointment

24     only for a relatively limited period of time.  When Mr. Cermak was

25     appointed in 1995 as garrison commander, it was also he served there for

Page 22254

 1     a limited portion of time.

 2             Could you tell us, do you know of any reason why these

 3     appointments would be only for such a short period of time?  I'm just

 4     wondering ...

 5        A.   Mr. Cermak is present here.  He would probably be better placed

 6     to answer your first question.

 7             I suppose that he wanted to come out of the government

 8     establishment and those bodies and go into private business.

 9             Your Honours, there were a lot of us in that government who were

10     in the role, I will use a German word for you, Gastarbeiter there.  We

11     were not professional politicians.  It's just that we were invited by

12     President Tudjman, in those early days of the creation of the state, to

13     contribute in roles which were not our true roles that we intended to

14     play for the rest of our lives.  I spent eight years in the government

15     and Mr. Cermak and I both went back to our previous domain which was

16     private business.  So I suppose that was his primary motivation.

17             As for the second matter, I think that we can suppose that by

18     definition this was a transitional role, when, after the army had played

19     its role, the civilian authorities need to be established in an area

20     where, I emphasise once again, the Croatian government did not have

21     control over for five years.  So not a single office, not a single

22     service, not a single body where you could go and obtain some documents

23     existed within the system of the Republic of Croatia.  And this lasted

24     since August 1990, that is to say, five years prior to Operation Storm.

25             So in that sense, by definition this role of Mr. Cermak was to be

Page 22255

 1     transitional and short -- of short limitation, until regular authorities

 2     were established and could take over their regular duties as defined by

 3     law.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  My last question to you is the following.  This

 5     Chamber has heard quite some evidence about an incident that took place

 6     in the village of Grubori in the last few days of August 1995.

 7             Did you learn anything about this incident, or did you not hear

 8     anything about it at that time?

 9             I'm not asking you for further details and what you know about

10     it, but whether you, at all, got acquainted with such a thing that had

11     happened.

12        A.   Yes.  I became aware and that place remained etched in my memory

13     as a place where a terrible crime had taken place.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you tell us, where did you learn about this

15     event?

16        A.   At the cabinet.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  It was discussed at a cabinet meeting or ...

18        A.   Your Honours, despite all my efforts, I cannot remember any

19     details.  But I know that it was discussed at the government gatherings.

20     Now, I know I discussed it with Nikica Valentic.  Now whether it was at

21     preparatory meetings, official cabinet meetings, whether it was in his

22     office, I really couldn't remember right now.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And it was at the time when it happened, just to

24     have a time-frame for your knowledge?

25        A.   Yes, several days after that.

Page 22256

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, you describe it as -- and let me repeat

 2     your words.  You describe it as a terrible crime.  What, as far as you

 3     know, was done about that crime?  Because you told us that the police

 4     were doing their job.

 5        A.   I suppose that relevant bodies did their job, the police, the

 6     prosecutor's office, along the lines of how the justice system was

 7     established in those days.

 8             When I said that I heard that a terrible crime had taken place,

 9     according to what I heard, there was a group of the elderly who were

10     killed practically in their homes by somebody.

11             Now, as to who did it, how they did it, Your Honours, I don't

12     know that to this day, let alone back then.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  But it was discussed in terms of crime, rather than

14     as an incident.

15             Is that correctly understood?

16        A.   Yes, that's correct, you understood me well.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  And you did not learn about this incident as being

18     part of any combat activities.

19             Is that also correctly understood?

20        A.   Yes, that's how I understood it, because this had allegedly

21     happened several days after main combat operations had been completed.

22     But it's hard for me now to speculate about the details after all these

23     years.  Your Honours, it is hard for me to discern what I learned at

24     the -- at that particular moment and what I learned subsequently.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  But whether you learned it subsequently or not, this

Page 22257

 1     is what you learned, what you told us?

 2        A.   That's correct.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  I have no further questions.

 4             Mr. Kay, have the questions by the Bench triggered --

 5             MR. KAY:  Yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  -- any need to further examine the witness.

 7             Mr. Kay may have some further questions for you.

 8                           Further Re-examination by Mr. Kay:

 9        Q.   Mr. Skegro, you referred to meetings took place by the cabinet in

10     answer to His Honour's questions about orders being given in relation to

11     crimes.  At those meetings you refer to, would Mr. Jarnjak, the minister

12     for the Ministry of Interior, was he present?

13        A.   At some of them.  At the cabinet meetings, of course, either

14     Minister Jarnjak, or, if Minister Jarnjak was not available, then he

15     would have his deputy replacing him at those meetings.

16        Q.   And the name of the deputy, if Mr. Jarnjak wasn't there?

17        A.   You're putting my memory at test.  I believe that his deputy was

18     Mr. Gledec.  I say "deputy" but I'm not 100 per cent sure.  I was

19     vice-president of the government for a long time, and during that time,

20     there was a time when Gledec was Jarnjak's deputy.

21        Q.   And also, in relation to the same meetings, was the minister for

22     the Ministry of Defence, Mr. Susak, present?

23        A.   Yes.  Either Susak personally or, again, his deputy.

24        Q.   And just for the record, the name of the deputy?

25        A.   Yes, that was Mr. Kresimir Cosic.

Page 22258

 1        Q.   Thank you.  We've had discussion about the media report of this

 2     incident with the journalist.  I'd like you to just look at another

 3     report, which can deal with the matter very quickly on Sanction, from the

 4     HINA news agency.  And if you could just read out what you see there.

 5     Remember to do it slowly so that the translators can translate.

 6             First of all, the headline?

 7        A.   The headline:  "Skegro acquitted of charges."

 8             And in the heading -- I can read actually the same.

 9             Is that what you wanted me to go -- start reading from?

10        Q.   Yes, please do.

11        A.   In the text, the body of the text.

12        Q.   The text, the body of the text.

13        A.   "The municipal court in Zagreb acquitted the vice-president of

14     the government, Borislav Skegro, of charges from a civil suit by the

15     journalist of Novi List, Edita Vlahovic Zuvela.  According to the

16     charges, at the beginning of last year, on the 26th of January, he

17     threatened journalist Vlahovic with a gun and insulted her on account of

18     an article which was entitled:  "Phenomenal figures," produced by

19     Borislav Skegro, that was published in the Novi List of Rijeka.

20             "In the statement of reasons of the acquittal, Judge Marin Mrcela

21     stated that the court did not find any proof that Skegro had committed

22     the acts that he was charged with, and the Trial Chamber also said that

23     the decision was reached based on the credibility of the statements by

24     the witness, Based on the credible statements, I believe that it was not

25     established that Borislav Skegro ever held a gun.  I believe that it was

Page 22259

 1     not established that he ever threatened journalist Vlahovic that he would

 2     kill her, and I believe that it was not established that he ever called

 3     her a murderer with a baby face.  That was said on Wednesday by

 4     Judge Mrcela, when the -- the decision was delivered.  Journalist Edita

 5     Vlahovic has right to appeal against the municipal court judgement to the

 6     county court.  HINA on 29th of September, 2009."

 7        Q.   That's today's date, because this has been downloaded.

 8             Thank you very much for that.

 9             You've been asked to forward the judicial documents to the Court.

10     For that we're grateful.

11             Can you check that you forward all relevant documents, including

12     the appeal, anything in the nature of these judgements, to the Court?

13        A.   I will do that.  I'm sure that I have the first-instance court

14     judgement, the second-instance court judgement.  I will send you whatever

15     I have.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, that concludes my questions of the matters

18     arising.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kay.

20             Mr. Mikulicic.

21             MR. MIKULICIC:  If I may, very briefly, Your Honour.

22                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Skegro, His Honour asked you about the

24     incident in the village of Grubori and you said that you remember that

25     that matter was discussed at the government session, and that the

Page 22260

 1     incident was, indeed, discussed.

 2             At any of the government sessions, did you ever discuss the

 3     incidents, in terms of this incident being ignored or hushed down, or was

 4     the contrary said, the -- and that is that the incident had to be

 5     investigated by the authorised bodies.

 6             Can you please answer the question?

 7        A.   Not only at the session of the government but also during the

 8     consultations by the members of the government, there was never any

 9     reference to the incident being ignored or hushed down.  It was just the

10     contrary.  There were requests for investigation and there were also

11     requests for the culprits to be punished.

12        Q.   Can you remember, did it ever happen that at any of the sessions

13     of the government you received information that there had been attempts

14     to hush down the event or influence the investigation into the incident

15     that had taken place in the village of Grubori?

16        A.   No.

17        Q.   Thank you very much.

18             MR. MIKULICIC:  I have no further questions, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

20             Mr. Kehoe.

21             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President, just briefly.

22                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:

23        Q.   Mr. Skegro, I would like to ask you whether or not you recall an

24     incident in -- in and about October or September of 1995, in some killing

25     allegations from Varivode.  Do you recall that?  And do you recall it

Page 22261

 1     being discussed at cabinet meetings?

 2        A.   Yes, I remember that Varivode and Grubori were the two names of

 3     the villages or hamlets that I had not been familiar with before that,

 4     and that all of a sudden turned up, as major, major problems.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly, you were on your feet.

 6             MR. HEDARALY:  I was -- I was just wondering how that had arisen

 7     from the Bench's questions.  There was something about orders, there was

 8     something about Grubori.  I don't remember Varivode or other crimes being

 9     discussed.

10             MR. KEHOE:  I will --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, we've now heard the answer of the

12     witness, that at least Varivode was a name that -- that he became

13     familiar with at the time.

14             Mr. Kehoe, any response to what Mr. Hedaraly raised.

15             MR. KEHOE:  I will gladly give the response outside the presence

16     of the witness.  I don't want to --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             MR. KEHOE:  -- foretell that particular statement.  But I will

19     gladly talk about that.  The problem with this witness, of course, is

20     this witness speaks English as well.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22                           [Defence counsel confer]

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, if I may, my next question will

25     clearly show the relevance.  I don't think we need to send the witness

Page 22262

 1     out, but I think my next question will put it on the table at that point.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  If you put your next question to the witness,

 3     whether we will ask him to answer that question is then a matter possibly

 4     for discussion and then in the absence of the witness.

 5             Please put the question.

 6             And, Mr. Skegro, you are invited not yet to answer the question

 7     that Mr. Kehoe will put to you before I have invited you to do so.

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

 9        Q.   Mr. Skegro, with regard to these conversations in cabinet

10     meetings and outside cabinet meetings that you were talking about, could

11     it that be you that are confusing the Varivode incident which was

12     discussed at cabinet meetings with Grubori?  Could you be confusing those

13     two incidents?

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you may answer the question.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Kehoe, can you be more specific

16     about the period?  If you're asking whether I heard about Varivode and

17     Grubori during the month of September 1995, then I really can't tell you

18     with any degree of certainty that I heard of the both at that time.

19             If you are asking me whether that was sometime towards the end of

20     1995, then I could probably say yes.  Before the end of 1995, I heard of

21     both places, but I believe that you have too high expectations of me at

22     the moment.

23             It is possible that I heard of Varivode subsequently, which means

24     maybe not one, two, or five days after the incident that had taken place

25     there.

Page 22263

 1        Q.   Following up with that, Mr. Skegro, there's evidence on the

 2     record that there is discussion in cabinet meetings with Minister Jarnjak

 3     and other officials in October of 1995 regarding the Varivode incident.

 4             Now, with that evidence that is before this Trial Chamber being

 5     presented by the Office of the Prosecutor, my question to you is:  Given

 6     that fact, which is undisputed in the record, could you confusing the

 7     discussions of killing incidents that took place in the cabinet meetings

 8     and confusing the Varivode incident which was discussed with Grubori?

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

10             Before you answer that question, Mr. Hedaraly.

11             MR. HEDARALY:  First of all, Mr. Kehoe asked that question

12     already and the witness answered.

13             Second of all, it's page 61 of today's transcript in answer to --

14     the question was very clear from Your Honour that it was the last few

15     days of August and the witness's answer was clear that that place

16     remained etched in his memory.

17             So I think that should also in fairness be put to the witness;

18     otherwise Mr. Kehoe is not liking the answer gave the first time and

19     asking him to --

20             MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Well, I object to the

21     counsel's speeches.  I object to the speech.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Kehoe, when I give an opportunity to

23     Mr. Hedaraly, then let me just take one second.

24             I'd like to invite the witness to leave the courtroom for a

25     second, so that we can follow up the objections.

Page 22264

 1             MR. KAY:  It might be a moment to take the break, so to speak,

 2     Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  But, at the same time it might well be that we could

 4     finish within the next five or seven minutes, in which case it would be

 5     not a good idea to have the witness wait for another half an hour.

 6             Would you please follow the usher for a second.

 7                           [The witness stands down]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, let me put a few matters together.

 9             I asked the witness about his knowledge of an incident which

10     appears in the indictment and whether this was how he obtained

11     acknowledge of that.  I only mentioned the name of the village, nothing

12     else.

13             MR. KEHOE:  And the time, Judge.  You put the time in there of

14     August.  He didn't put the time in, Your Honour, you did.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I was about to come to that.  What I meant to

16     say is that I didn't say anything about what the event was.  I only

17     relate to Grubori.

18             Then I'd given him the time and I asked him for a time-frame when

19     he learned about it.  He said, Just a couple of days after the event.  I

20     specifically asked for that.  Which situates us somewhere in either late

21     August or early September.  The witness describes the incident himself,

22     spontaneously, as elderly killed more or less in their homes.

23             Now, to put to the witness all kind of evidence on when the

24     Varivode matter was discussed and say, Wouldn't you be confused, could

25     also induce confusion in certainty, which is, in view of the questions I

Page 22265

 1     raised with the witness about an incident which he describes, whether it

 2     was a clear time-frame, might not, in every respect, serve the finding of

 3     the -- the facts.  Before the Chamber decides on whether or not we will

 4     allow you to continue your line of questioning, I thought it would be

 5     fair to give you an opportunity and to give Mr. Hedaraly an opportunity

 6     to comment on what I just said.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, if you asked this witness the

 8     time-frame, he's not going to give a specific recollection of the

 9     time-frame.  In evidence is D214.  It is a -- the minutes of a cabinet

10     meeting of --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No, Mr. -- that's not the issue.  I asked him about

12     late August.  And he said he learned about it a couple of days after

13     that.  What happened in October, that's not -- I think is not contested.

14             MR. KEHOE:  It is, Mr. President, with all due respect.  It is

15     contested because the witness is conflating two issues that were

16     discussed in cabinet meetings.  These Varivode incident, which, Judge,

17     does involve killing of elderly people in their homes, does -- was

18     discussed at a cabinet meeting in October of 1995.  And we go do D214.

19     One of the deputy prime ministers present, the first name mentioned after

20     Valentic, is in fact Mr. Skegro.  He is at that meeting when they are

21     discussing that killings at Varivode, which involve - I don't want to say

22     the same facts of Grubori - but a parallel case where there are killings

23     of elderly people.

24             Now, the issue here is the possible merger of these particular

25     incidents in a man who is asked about this some nine years -- or excuse

Page 22266

 1     me, some 14 years after the fact.

 2             Now, those are issues that are pertinent because why we talk

 3     about an incident in Varivode that is discussed where in fact the

 4     government did do something about it.  Where we -- we have a discussion

 5     about it that it is out in the open and that is the reason why we are

 6     going into it.

 7             Now this is cross-examination.  And I do believe that in

 8     cross-examination we're entitled to test this witness's recollection

 9     about particular events, and that's all I'm trying to do is get some

10     clarity as to exactly what's discussed at this cabinet meeting.  And if

11     in fact I put to him this -- that matter which is in the record already,

12     the discussion of Varivode in the cabinet meeting, if that calls into

13     some question his memory and recollection concerning a discussion

14     regarding Grubori that took place in a cabinet meeting as well.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

16             MR. HEDARALY:  I -- I don't really have any further submissions,

17     Your Honour.  He asked the question, the witness answered, and now

18     Mr. Kehoe wants to educate him and show him more documents to get the

19     conclusion that he wants.

20             But we leave it in the Chamber's hands, Your Honour.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22                           [Defence counsel confer]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, with some hesitation, the Chamber will

24     allow you to put further questions to the witness in this respect.  At

25     the same time, whether the Rules for whether this is real

Page 22267

 1     cross-examination, that is, examining the witness on matters that were

 2     asked by the calling party, that is still a matter to be seen, because

 3     the matter had not been raised in any way.

 4             At the same -- therefore, the Chamber, in order to be best

 5     assisted by the testimony of the witness, would expect you to -- to be

 6     very cautious in inducing to the witness -- this witness is an

 7     intelligent person, and it's easy to understand what confusion that may

 8     have arisen.  The Defence would -- would not be negative for the Defence,

 9     if that confusion would arise, and that's -- might create dilemmas for

10     the witness, so, therefore, you're invited to limit the signals of what

11     is the preferred answer.  I'm very cautious in saying this, and it has to

12     do with a rather uncommon situation, that it's not normal -- it's not

13     normal cross-examination, as I said before.

14             MR. KEHOE:  I believe I -- I believe I understand Your Honours'

15     guide-lines.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That is, if you push too hard on what was

17     discussed at another moment, then if would you ask me, rather, receive

18     spontaneous answers from the witness, if he has any hesitations I might

19     instruct him to also express any hesitations he may have on certain

20     matters.

21             Could the witness be brought into the courtroom again.

22                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And I might just have two -- one or two questions to

24     start with.

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 22268

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Skegro, we talked before we asked you to leave

 2     the courtroom for a while, we talked about the Grubori incident, we

 3     talked about the Varivode incident.

 4             Could you characterise what you remember the Varivode incident

 5     was?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I really can't say

 7     anything, or, rather, not much more than the fact that when I heard about

 8     the incident, it seemed that somebody on the Croatian side allegedly

 9     committed a crime over the Serb civilians who had remained living in the

10     area.

11             This is the best I can do.  I can't tell you who, when.  It's

12     very difficult to tell me anything about that.  It was difficult at the

13     time, and it is even more difficult today.  But this is, that is, clearly

14     on my mind.  The Varivode and Grubori incidents -- or, rather, Varivode

15     and Grubori as places where crimes took place.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, when you earlier answered a question, one

17     of my questions about the Grubori incident, you were a bit more specific.

18     You said elderly people killed in or approximately -- in their homes.

19             Now, Varivode, could you give us a first characterisation of what

20     you remember of that to be?  Was it the same, was it different?  How

21     could you distinguish between the two in your recollection?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, first of all, Your Honours,

23     let's start with Grubori.

24             I can't say that at the time I did not have precise information,

25     or, rather, that at the time, which was a few days after the incidents in

Page 22269

 1     Grubori had taken place, that I had a full picture and that I knew that

 2     the persons involved were elderly people.

 3             Subsequently, and I can only speculate on when it was, a year,

 4     five or ten years later, I was provided with some details.  It was

 5     relayed by the media, maybe in relation to the -- these trials here.  It

 6     is very difficult for me to tell you when I heard the details of that

 7     incident for the first time.

 8             And as for Varivode, all that I remember is the name of the place

 9     where some sort of crime took place.  Who was charged with the crimes,

10     what happened, really, I can't remember.

11             Maybe I can provide a third explanation.  What you remember is

12     names or some pairs of names, for example, Skabrnja, Vukovar; Srebrenica,

13     Omarska; Varivode, Grubori.  As to when you heard about any of them, what

14     you learned about any of them, in my case it would take a lot of effort

15     to say something before this Court under the oath and with full

16     responsibility.  I would really not go into any further details, because

17     that would be speculation.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Nevertheless, you told us about the elderly, elderly

19     people being killed approximately in their homes.

20             Now, how did -- do you remember how you know that it was about

21     elderly people being killed?  Was that discussed in the meeting; did you

22     see that from the media?  What was the -- how did you get to know that?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, with the caveat that I'm

24     trying very hard to remember.  As for the people being elderly, I'm sure

25     that I heard that much, much later, much later than August or

Page 22270

 1     September 1995, and I believe that I heard that within the context of

 2     The Hague indictments, because there was a lot said in the Croatian media

 3     about the crimes alleged in the indictments, the locations, or maybe I

 4     heard it in the reports of different NGOs that were active in Croatia.

 5             If you are asking me when it was when I learned that people were

 6     elderly for the first time, I really can't say.  Today, as I sit here, I

 7     believe that they were elderly and now if you're asking me for a precise

 8     answer as to what happened and where and when it happened, I really can't

 9     be of much assistance.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  In your last answer, you said again that, as

11     you said before, that it was a couple of days after the incident that it

12     was discussed.  Is that the recollection that it was said this happened a

13     couple of days before, or did you learn about the incident and then

14     remember that a couple of days after that, that the meeting was held

15     where the matter was discussed?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I assumed that when I

17     first heard about the matter that we're discussing at the moment, it did

18     not have to necessarily be tied with reference to specific names.  For

19     example, let me illustrate that by relaying a story to you when

20     Prime Minister Valentic in the presence of some other ministers, told us

21     that he was privy to information that we were not privy to at the time,

22     because he received information from other services than us in the

23     economy, and he said, We -- we know that a lot was going on in the

24     liberated areas, that crimes were happening.  He did not mention any

25     names.  He never mentioned the names of Grubori or Varivode, for example.

Page 22271

 1     That's my illustration of the point that I'm trying to bring home here.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Do you remember that both of these incidents

 3     were discussed at meetings of the cabinet or ...

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when?  When were they

 5     discussed?  Immediately after it -- we learned of it or they learned in

 6     the government about them?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As to that, I can't be certain that

 9     I was present in a meeting where it was discussed in detail, where

10     information was provided about specific locations.  So it's very

11     difficult for me to pin-point time-wise when I learned of a crime in

12     general, which happened in a liberated area in the vicinity of Knin, and

13     when I learned the details concerning name of the village, kind of

14     victims, suspects, and so on.

15             It's very hard for me to discern that.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  You twice answered that it was a couple of days

17     after the Grubori incident that it was discussed.  You gave that answer

18     twice.

19             What I'm asking now is whether you also discussed the Varivode

20     incident, and whether you have any recollection as to how much time that

21     was after that event had happened?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm certain when it comes to

23     Varivode that I cannot -- that I didn't know with precision about that

24     place.  What I'm trying to say, Your Honour, is the names of locations

25     where a crime had happened were not important to me.  It was the crimes

Page 22272

 1     that mattered to me.

 2             Now you're going into details of something that happened 14 years

 3     ago, and you're asking me to remember on which day I heard about a

 4     certain village, and I think that you are overestimating my memory and my

 5     abilities in that sense, especially since this was discussed and written

 6     about at length in the media for the last ten years.  And, now, to ask me

 7     at what time I heard in detail about these incidents is something that I

 8     simply cannot give you an answer to.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, any further questions?  I bring to your

10     attention that the tape gives us only a couple of minutes, very few

11     minutes, so if we would have to spend more time on it, then we would have

12     to take another break.

13             MR. KEHOE:  I would suggest a break, Mr. President.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll, then, take the break first.

16             We'll have a break and resume at ten minutes past 1.00.

17                           --- Recess taken at 12.49 p.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 1.13 p.m.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, please proceed.

20             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, thank you, Mr. President.

21        Q.   Mr. Skegro, I would like to have you take a look at a document

22     that's in evidence.  D214.

23             MR. KEHOE:  If we can bring that up on the screen.

24        Q.   Mr. Skegro, this is a -- the minutes of a closed session of the

25     government of the Republic of Croatia dated 5 October 1995, before

Page 22273

 1     Prime Minister Valentic.  As can you see from the list of deputy prime

 2     ministers, your name is first.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  And I would like to turn to page 8 in the English.

 4        Q.   And I will tell you, Mr. Skegro, based on the evidence in the

 5     record.  And, specifically, Mr. President, D808, the incident in

 6     Varivode, took place on the 28th of September, 1995.  This meeting being

 7     5 October 1995.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  And if we could just take it to the next page, I

 9     believe ...

10             If we can go to the next page in the B/C/S, please.  Scroll a

11     little -- that's it.  Okay.

12        Q.   As you can see, Mr. Skegro, this is a report that was presented

13     by Minister Jarnjak.  And Minister Jarnjak, in the second paragraph, also

14     informed -- excuse me.  That:

15             "Jarnjak informed the government of the killing of nine Serb

16     civilians in the village of Varivode, near Knin, noting that the all the

17     civilians were elderly than they had been killed by fire-arms.

18     I. Jarnjak also informed the government of the measures that the Ministry

19     of the Interior had taken to find the perpetrators of this crime as

20     quickly as possible.

21             "After a date in which" -- several ministers, including yourself,

22     Mr. Skegro, "took part, the government entrusted the Ministry of the

23     Interior with regularly reporting to the government on all measures taken

24     and the findings of the investigating bodies."

25             Now, sir, given the fact that Varivode took place on the 28th of

Page 22274

 1     September, this meeting is 5 October, do you recall this discussion?

 2        A.   Now that I see these minutes, then, yes.  I remember, we talked

 3     about.  Now whether I had heard about Varivode before this meeting or

 4     then, I don't know.  But it is here, yes.

 5        Q.   Did you get additional information on this incident, and as --

 6     Grubori, as time went on?

 7        A.   I suppose, yes.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  If I might have one moment, Mr. President.

 9                           [Defence counsel confer]

10             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I have no further questions.

11        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skegro.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Any further questions to be put to the witness?

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Skegro, since there are no further questions for

15     you, this concludes your testimony in this court.  I would like to thank

16     you very much for coming to The Hague and for answering the questions

17     that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench, and I wish you a

18     safe return home again.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Skegro out of

21     the courtroom.

22                           [The witness withdrew]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not going to deal with the whole of the MFI

24     list, but there was a pending issue on orders by Mr. Mladic.  There was

25     some discussion about whether they were exculpatory, yes or no.

Page 22275

 1     Mr. Misetic announced that he would tender them from bar table, and I

 2     think we're still waiting for -- I don't think that numbers have already

 3     been assigned to them, Mr. Misetic.  Is that correct?

 4             MR. MISETIC:  That is correct, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Nevertheless, there would be some consultations and

 6     that the Prosecution would express its views on whether it would oppose

 7     against these documents tendered in this way.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  I believe we've had correspondence back and forth

 9     and, Mr. President, we have received the comments from the Prosecution

10     which we will incorporate into the spreadsheet that we have prepared, and

11     I think that resolves the Prosecution's review, and I believe we can then

12     tender them into evidence.  But we have been privately communicating back

13     and forth about the wording of the spreadsheet.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it's good that I'm not familiar with that.

15     That's then ...

16                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Unless there's any urgent procedural -- Mr. Waespi.

18             MR. WAESPI:  Yes.  I just wanted to inform Your Honours and

19     Defence teams that it is Mr. Russo's last day today in the court and in

20     the ICTY tomorrow, and since he was a very active participant in these

21     proceedings, I just wanted to let you know about that.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I take it that I speak of all that we'll miss him.

23     He's blushing a bit.  That's not what he's usually doing, but ...

24             MR. KAY:  And before he goes, Your Honour, he has one last

25     obligation to deal with, his marking for identification of

Page 22276

 1     Mr. Kovacevic's report.  If we let him go without finishing that which he

 2     started, we might never see him again, for all we know.

 3             To remind, Your Honour, the documents are D676, MFI, and D7677,

 4     MFI, and Mr. Hedaraly had volunteered him to deal with the issue

 5     yesterday.

 6             MR. MISETIC:  And, Mr. President, I also don't want Mr. Russo to

 7     feel left out by the Gotovina Defence, so I also have an issue to raise

 8     with him.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  They'll all keep you busy until the very end,

10     Mr. Russo.

11             Yes, Mr. Misetic.

12             MR. MISETIC:  It relates to an issue we have with translation of

13     Exhibit D970.  I believe Mr. Kehoe advised the Court that we wanted to

14     address the issue today with the Chamber, and we need to bring to the

15     Chamber's attention because we have reached a impasse with CLSS, and we

16     feel we need to bring it to your attention.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's first deal with the expert report by

18     Mr. Kovacevic.

19             Mr. Russo, I think you reserved your position until after we

20     heard the testimony of Mr. Kovacevic.

21             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, Mr. President.  Thank you.

22             The Prosecution's position is that we will not object to the

23     admission of the report but did want to make clear that this is not

24     intended to be a lack of objection to the transparency and reliability

25     issues which we believe are fairly significant with Mr. Kovacevic.

Page 22277

 1     However, in light of the Court's decision with regard to the

 2     admissibility of Professor Corn's expert report, we are taking that as

 3     guidance that these matters are simply to be addressed through the weight

 4     to be accorded.

 5             And on that basis, we are not objecting.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Then D -- I think it is D7 -- no, it couldn't be.

 7     It should be --

 8             MR. KAY:  1676 and 1677, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  D1676 and D1677 are admitted into evidence.

10             Now, Mr. Russo, your last job.  Translation issues in relation to

11     D --

12             MR. MISETIC:  970.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  970.

14             MR. MISETIC:  If we could pull that, Mr. President.  Or

15     Mr. Registrar, I should say.

16             If we could go to -- this is Mr. Rajcic's artillery order from

17     the 2nd of August.  And if we can go to page 3 in both versions, please.

18             I'm interested in the last sentence of section 3.  And the Court

19     will recall we have had a lot of discussion about this sentence.  The

20     English has been translated as:

21             "Shell the towns of Drvar, Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, and Gracac."

22             And in the original Croatian, it says, and obviously this is the

23     issue, but it uses the Croatian words [B/C/S spoken] and the word "udare"

24     [phoen]  here is what's of interest to us.  We sent it to CLSS for a

25     check and we now have a response back from CLSS which is that the

Page 22278

 1     translation should be:

 2             "Put the towns of Drvar, Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, and Gracac

 3     under artillery fire."

 4             CLSS has chosen to translate the word "udare" as "fire."  But we

 5     believe that the proper translation should be "strikes."

 6             And the issue is relevant, Mr. President, because if I can turn

 7     then to the next document, which is P1272, now this is again the list of

 8     targets.  And if you look in the left-hand column, along the edge, it --

 9     in the English it's been translated as "first strike, second strike."  In

10     the original, if you look, you will see that the word "udar" is used,

11     which is the same word that's used in the Croatian, which is to put the

12     towns under, again the Croatian word, "udare."  And so now we have the

13     same word being used in Croatian, "udar," which is being translated by

14     CLSS in one document as "fire," and in this document CLSS has translated

15     it as "strike."

16             For our purposes, what we are interested in is the consistent use

17     or consistent translation of the same word because the Chamber may find

18     it relevant that Mr. Rajcic, in his order, says:  "Put the towns under

19     artillery strikes," and then here we have actual specification of targets

20     for first strike, second strike.  Without going into details of why we

21     think that would be relevant in a context of an indiscriminate shelling

22     case.

23             In any event, we have asked CLSS to provide us an explanation as

24     to why the same word is being translated two different ways and they have

25     simply stood on their position which is that they believe that the

Page 22279

 1     essence of the translation is accurate.  But we believe that for the

 2     Chamber's purposes, it is misleading, because I think the Chamber should

 3     have the benefit of knowing that the same word is being used in both

 4     documents.

 5             At this point, we don't know --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it seems that the Chamber will further consider

 7     the matter and we'll also further consider whether we need any further

 8     explanation.  For example, whether if a word has several meanings that,

 9     in a certain context, for example, in one moment that it is preceded by

10     the word first whether that changes the choice for possible translations

11     as a contextual.  I do not know whether that would be the case or would

12     not be the case, but most important for the Chamber at this moment is to

13     consider whether we would seek further clarification on this issue, which

14     focuses on apparently the same word in a different contextual setting

15     being translated by different words and not by one word.

16             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.  As I said before, Mr. President, we asked for

17     a further explanation, even if it were something along those lines, and

18     we were unable to get a response beyond that they felt it was consistent

19     with the essence of the --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But also that's another way of dealing with

21     the matter -- at least that's considering the matter is that you'd say

22     it -- it doesn't make -- it's the same.  The meaning of it is the same.

23     We'll all have to consider whether we need further information about that

24     or how to deal with the matter.  That's the only thing I can say at this

25     moment.  It's now clearly on the record that the different words used for

Page 22280

 1     the translation of the word "udar" is of concern to the Gotovina Defence

 2     and that the Gotovina Defence invites the Chamber to further consider

 3     this matter.

 4             That's all that can be said about it at this moment, I take it.

 5             Mr. Hedaraly.

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

 7             Your Honour had raised, before the witness entered, the issue of

 8     The Blue Book.  I don't know if we should deal with it tomorrow.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, first of all, could I know, has The Blue Book

10     been copied because it has been put on the ELMO.  To the extent it came

11     to our eyes and we can -- then, of course, it's a very cumbersome way,

12     ask for the video and then see on the video what is on ELMO.  Whereas if

13     this is a copy available --

14             MR. HEDARALY:  And this is why I had gotten on my feet before the

15     witness came, Mr. President.

16             We have returned the physical copy to Mr. Mikulicic and thanked

17     him for his assistance.  We have scanned the physical version of the

18     book, which, I think Mr. Carrier had indicated, we may be tendering

19     portions or the entirety of the book.  Obviously there's a translation

20     issue still to be resolved.  But the book in a scanned version, so the

21     electronic version of what was physically in the book, is there, so a

22     comparison can now be made between that and the electronic version that

23     was put on the CD.  We have not uploaded it.  We have not tendered it yet

24     because we are awaiting for the translation.  If the Chamber is

25     interested to have the Croatian version of the entire book that we have

Page 22281

 1     scanned, then, of course, we can provide that to the Chamber or deal with

 2     it in -- in whatever manner, way that the Chamber sees fit.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I think one of the issues that came up was the use

 4     of diagrams.  Now, Chamber staff, when I asked them to see if there were

 5     in the diagrams in the electronic version of The Blue Book, came up with

 6     a rather limited set of diagrams; whereas, it is my recollection, but I

 7     would have to look at the video again to see what exactly was on the

 8     ELMO, but it was one -- at least one of the more complicated -- one of

 9     the more complicated diagrams and not the relatively simple ones.  So the

10     Chamber, since the attention has been drawn to diagrams and who produced

11     them and who may have copied or invented or scanned, or whatever, have

12     done with that, the Chamber might be interested to have a look at the

13     diagrams from The Blue Book.  And we're not seeking, at this moment, to

14     have the whole of The Blue Book to be translated but, rather, to look at

15     the diagrams.

16             So for transparency purposes, I wished to raise the matter in

17     court and not to ask in any other way.  But the Chamber would have --

18     would like to have a look at the diagrams as they appear The Blue Book,

19     and gives an opportunities to the parties to comment, if the parties

20     would consider that this is not what the Chamber should do.

21             MR. HEDARALY:  Would the Chamber want the translations of the

22     diagrams as well?  I assume that would not take -- before handing it over

23     or ...

24             JUDGE ORIE:  It depends.  It could well be that if the same

25     diagrams do appear elsewhere that -- and if the text is the same, then,

Page 22282

 1     of course, we wouldn't ask for any additional translation.  But we'd

 2     first just like to have a look at them and then perhaps come back to the

 3     issue at a later stage.

 4             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President, we will do so.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And would you please be so kind to -- whatever you

 6     send to us, to send a copy to the other parties, so that the parties

 7     are -- that the Defence teams are fully aware of what has been brought to

 8     our attention.

 9             MR. HEDARALY:  Of course, and that is our common practice as

10     well.

11             On the related issue, Mr. Feldi was asked about two documents

12     that he was going to provide the Chamber.  One of them was the contract,

13     and the other was the order of appointment for the preparation of The

14     Blue Book.  We have received one of these two documents via the Registry,

15     and I just want to put that on the record that it's in Croatian.  I think

16     it looks like a contract, but the second one is still pending, and I just

17     wanted to put that on the record to see if we can make sure that we also

18     received the second document that is missing.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

20             MR. KAY:  We haven't received that, so whoever is sending

21     documents to the Prosecution, if they could remember that the other

22     parties have an interest as well.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  From my previous remark it may be clear

24     already that the Chamber considers this also important that there is full

25     transparency on any material.

Page 22283

 1             May I take it, Mr. Hedaraly, that whatever you have received,

 2     that you will disclose a copy to the Defence teams, and then if you

 3     receive any further documents, that you would do the same.

 4             MR. HEDARALY:  Of course.

 5                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Kay, you have produced two Internet pages,

 7     in relation to the last witness.  Well, if -- do you have any -- did you

 8     want to tender them?  I think the best thing to do is to -- to print them

 9     out from the Internet and then to file them, or to file the precise page

10     identification.  The problem is that, of course, a page can be changed

11     over time.  So, therefore, I think a quick printout of -- I think it was

12     one from the HINA web site and the other one from the international

13     Helsinki Committee, that would create the transparency we need, that

14     everyone, including possibly the Appeals Chamber, would know what we

15     looked at.

16             MR. KAY:  Firstly, they were both read into the record, so that

17     has been dealt with, and they were seen on the screen here.  So the

18     matters have been recorded.

19             We will upload them into e-court and get numbers.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's another way of dealing with the matter.

21     I do remember that you read the second one.  It's just a lack of

22     recollection whether you fully read the first one.  And what I do

23     remember is that we started looking at a certain page, whereas, I think,

24     it was me, myself, who later said, This is the annual report of 1997

25     coming from this and this and this, so that we have the context.  But if

Page 22284

 1     we have the Internet page uploaded then we have all the information we

 2     would need.

 3             Then once it has been uploaded, I take it that you -- you will

 4     take the initiative to tender it.  And may I already establish that there

 5     is no objection.  Mr. Russo, perhaps one of your last official -- no.

 6             Mr. Hedaraly will whisper into your ear whether you should object

 7     or not and then that would be your last ...

 8                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 9             MR. RUSSO:  I hate to go out with a whimper, Your Honour, but we

10     don't have any objection.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then once uploaded, it's ready to be admitted

12     into evidence.

13             No other matters at this moment.

14             Then we will adjourn and we'll resume tomorrow, Wednesday, the

15     30th of September, quarter past 2.00, in Courtroom III.

16                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.40 p.m.,

17                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 30th day of

18                           September, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.