Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 22627

 1                           Wednesday, 7 October 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 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             Good morning to you, Mr. Dodig.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And before we continue, I would like to remind you

15     that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you gave yesterday at

16     the beginning of your testimony.  That is, that you will speak the truth,

17     the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

18             Mr. Carrier, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Dodig.

19             MR. CARRIER:  Yes Mr. President.  There -- I think there was a

20     slight problem with the exhibit list this morning, so if we could just

21     confirm with my friends that they have received it now.  I think that

22     some of them may not have been released yet.  I just want to make sure

23     that everyone's on the same page.  There is also one document, and I have

24     informed my friends that we're still waiting -- the translation is done.

25     It's just a slight holdup in getting it put on the list.  So I won't deal

Page 22628

 1     with that until after the break.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed.  Unless there's anything in

 3     response to be said but -- nothing.

 4             Then please proceed, Mr. Carrier.

 5             MR. CARRIER:  Thank you.

 6                           WITNESS:  GORAN DODIG [Resumed]

 7                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 8                           Cross-examination by Mr. Carrier:

 9        Q.   Mr. Dodig, you state that from October 1993 until June 1994, you

10     were the Assistant Minister of Defence.  You didn't mention it in your

11     statement but your job during that time was as Assistant Minister, head

12     of Security and Information Service, or SIS; is that right?

13        A.   What you say is correct, but my curriculum vitae written here was

14     not written by me.  It was derived from the documents available to the

15     Defence.  If I had known I was supposed to write my own CV, I would have

16     done so.  It's correct that I was in the Ministry of Defence,

17     Assistant Minister for Security ...

18        Q.   Mr. Dodig --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig, perhaps -- Mr. Dodig, perhaps already at

20     the beginning we are not unlimited in time.

21             The question was answered by your first sentence.  To defend

22     yourself on whether it would have been in your curriculum if it would

23     have been created in a different way is not something that Mr. Carrier

24     has shown to be interested in very much at this moment.  So could you

25     please focus your answer on what is asked and apparently, in the

Page 22629

 1     question, Mr. Carrier was seeking to know exactly what your duties as an

 2     Assistant Minister of Defence were.

 3             Please proceed.

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

 5        Q.   And Mr. Dodig, just to follow up on that, because I'm the first

 6     person to cross-examine you here, your statements are in evidence so you

 7     don't need to repeat those things unless you find it necessary but just

 8     to focus in on the questions that I'm asking.

 9             Is it fair to say that, even before this trial started and before

10     any of the evidence was called in this case, that you had publicly

11     expressed negative opinions about this Tribunal.  For instance,

12     statements to the effect that this Tribunal's indictments, including the

13     one in this case, are politically motivated?

14        A.   Well, I am a public figure, and oftentimes, in the context of my

15     public activity, I express certain opinions on certain developments, and

16     it must have been in that context then.  I did not speak about the work

17     of the Tribunal but of its motives, the way I see them.

18             MR. CARRIER:  Mr. Registrar, could we please have document number

19     65 ter 7428 up on the screen, please.

20        Q.   Mr. Dodig, what is going to appear on the screen in front of you

21     is an article that appeared in the newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija on the

22     30th of January, 2001.

23             Sorry, Mr. Dodig, I will get back to you in a second.

24             MR. CARRIER:  Mr. President, I understand that apparently they

25     haven't been released, which is what I was canvassing in the beginning.

Page 22630

 1     But apparently that's our fault.  I apologise for that.

 2             Mr. President, I'm informed by our Case Manager that he is still

 3     trying to release the document, so ...

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you move then to another subject for the time

 5     being, until this is released.

 6             MR. CARRIER:  I will do that.

 7        Q.   Mr. Dodig, I apologise to change the train of thought on you.

 8             Mr. Dodig, you say in your statement that you heard about

 9     Operation Storm at the same time as all the other citizens in Croatia.

10     And I take it by that, that you mean that you learned about the operation

11     when it started on the 4th of August, 1995.  Is that correct?

12        A.   Precisely.

13        Q.   And, Mr. Dodig, is it fair to say, then, that you were not

14     specifically consulted, nor was your input solicited by anyone from the

15     office of the president, the Main Staff, the Ministry of Defence --

16        A.   [No interpretation].

17        Q.   -- or the Ministry of Interior in relation to the planning or

18     execution of Operation Storm?

19        A.   No, nobody either contacted me nor informed me.

20        Q.   And, Mr. Dodig, in the final paragraph of your statement, you

21     explain your understanding of the Prosecution's allegations in this case,

22     that there was a policy to encourage or condone the crimes and

23     discriminations perpetrated against Serbs in the aftermath of

24     Operation Storm, and that was done in order to create a climate of fear,

25     to drive Serbs away from the area.  And in that paragraph, you state in

Page 22631

 1     effect that these allegations are false.

 2             You also state that you probably would have been informed at the

 3     time had an allegation of that nature been true.  My question is,

 4     Mr. Dodig, given that you were not even consulted on the operation

 5     itself, why would you think that you would probably have been informed

 6     about a related criminal plot against the Krajina Serbs?

 7        A.   Give me just a moment to see ...

 8             Yes, in that last sentence, I wrote that the political position

 9     of the government of Croatia -- if the political position of the

10     government of Croatia had been such, I would have been informed.  I meant

11     that I would have known during the war if such a tendency had existed.  I

12     didn't mean that I would have been informed at one single moment.  But I

13     am aware of what the political positions were, the general attitude

14     towards the Serbs in Croatia and their leadership.  I have never heard

15     from anyone, not even a hint from the high officials that they had such

16     an attitude towards the Serbian community in Croatia that would support

17     the theory that the became was to expel them from Croatia.

18        Q.   Well, Mr. Dodig, following up on that, you mentioned that you had

19     had many meetings and discussions with Mr. Pasic, who was the Croatian

20     government's civil authority representative for Knin.  You also state

21     that in your opinion he was exposed to psychological and political terror

22     at the hands of Serbs, apparently those who didn't want or accept any

23     cooperation with Croats and had declared him a traitor for even talking

24     to Croats.

25             Would you then -- in your statement you contrast that with your

Page 22632

 1     evaluation of Mr. Pasic's very proper relations with Croats, and you note

 2     that he was accepted by all authorities and the Croats in the area.  Is

 3     that a fair summary of your position?

 4        A.   I think so.  The community where it happened is a relatively

 5     small community, so I know quite a few people, quite a few Croats from

 6     the town where Mr. Pasic lived, and they had a very good opinion of him

 7     from that time and later.  There is not a personal qualification or

 8     attitude.  It's just my experience of Mr. Pasic as a man who found

 9     himself in a very delicate situation.

10        Q.   When you say that he was accepted by all authorities, are you

11     talking about all the Croatian authorities?

12        A.   I mean the part of the authorities that I was able to relate to

13     at that time.  I could not talk to anyone from the top echelon of this

14     Croatian authorities about Mr. Pasic, but I did talk to town mayors,

15     municipal officials, and they all said that Mr. Pasic was a very good,

16     decent man.

17        Q.   So despite what you said about knowing how the upper echelon

18     thought in other circumstances, at least in this circumstance, you say

19     you don't really know what their attitude was towards Mr. Pasic, the top

20     echelon?

21        A.   No.

22             MR. CARRIER:  Mr. Registrar, could we please have Exhibit P463 up

23     on the screen.

24        Q.   Mr. Dodig, this is a transcript that's coming up on the screen in

25     front of you.  And it's from a meeting that was held on the

Page 22633

 1     22nd of August, 1995, between President Tudjman and Dr. Jure Radic at the

 2     presidential palace.  And ...

 3             MR. CARRIER:  Mr. Registrar, if we could turn to page 5 in the

 4     English and page 7 in the B/C/S.  And if you could go down to the bottom

 5     of the page, please, in the English.

 6        Q.   Mr. Dodig, I'm just going read a bit of an exchange here.

 7             This is President Tudjman speaking.  He says:

 8             "Wait a second, hadn't I sent Cermak to Knin, it would have been

 9     horrible there."

10             Dr. Radic replies:

11             "I agree.  Maybe I didn't use the right example, precisely

12     because we're all using it, but the military authority cannot run civil

13     matters in the terrain ..."

14             MR. CARRIER:  If you turn to the next page in B/C/S, please.

15        Q.    "... military authority cannot decide on who goes to which

16     house."

17             President replies:

18             "It cannot, but it can maintain order in these transitional

19     periods."

20             MR. CARRIER:  Turning the page in English.

21        Q.   Dr. Radic replies:

22             "I agree with you, but where's the problem?  The problem is where

23     [sic] the person elected in civil authority is bad, and that is usually

24     the case.  Well, not everywhere, we have a good one in Kostajnica but the

25     one in Knin is no good.  I don't know where he came from, he's a Serb."

Page 22634

 1             The president replies to the question:

 2             "He is a Serb?"

 3             Dr. Radic replies:

 4             "Yes, yes, I was told yesterday that he was a Serb.  He's no good

 5     for anything."

 6             President Tudjman replies:

 7             "Okay, replace him."

 8             Dr. Radic goes on:

 9             "We discussed that as well today.  But since this guy is no good,

10     naturally Cermak has to do everything, and then various problems come

11     up ..."

12             MR. CARRIER:  I think if we turn the page in B/C/S.

13        Q.   "The county executive gives up, et cetera, so there's a lot of

14     mess in the terrain.  I'm telling you this because I've been through that

15     and seen it all over there."

16             President Tudjman says:

17             "There is no reason for a Serb being there right now."

18             Dr. Radic replies:

19             "Sure, he shouldn't be there."

20             And the president says:

21             "There's a majority of Croats there, so change that."

22             Now -- I'll just wait a moment while that translates.

23        A.   I've got the translation.

24        Q.   Mr. Dodig, you agree that the person that President Tudjman and

25     Dr. Radic are talking about is Mr. Pasic; isn't that right?

Page 22635

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And although in your statement you had said all authorities

 3     accepted him and you qualified that to some extent, saying it was more

 4     the people you knew in the area, you have, in your statement, said that

 5     you understood how the leadership thought.  However, this exchange would

 6     suggest that, at least with regard to Mr. Pasic, there is exhibited a

 7     certain bias against having a Serb in that position in Knin.  Is that

 8     fair?

 9        A.   It's difficult for me to comment on a meeting that I did not

10     attend, because experience teaches me that there are many elements that

11     go into what people say at a particular time in a particular place.  But

12     if you ask -- if you are asking me, I will be happy to answer that

13     question, and I will, of course, appreciate what the president said about

14     being brief.

15        Q.   I take it you agree with me, then?

16        A.   No.  No, I don't agree with you.

17             President Tudjman was a man who wanted efficiency.  The point

18     here is not that Mr. Pasic is a Serb; the point is that he was

19     inefficient, ineffective.  And as at that time people spoke about others

20     in terms of Serb and Croat, it gives the impression that that's the main

21     thing here, which it isn't.  The main point here is being able to -- to

22     achieve an effect in a certain area.

23        Q.   Now, you don't mention in your statement anywhere about Mr. Pasic

24     being ineffective or inefficient or anything.  You actually spend two

25     paragraphs of your statement praising him.  Can you explain the absence

Page 22636

 1     of your new evaluation on his inefficiency?

 2        A.   That was an assessment of why President Tudjman may have said

 3     that, and I cannot judge Mr. Pasic's efficiency.  I only spoke about the

 4     position he found himself in and his psychological and moral traits

 5     that -- as I saw them in my contacts with him and based on what I heard

 6     from people, mostly ethnic Croats, who considered Mr. Pasic an honest

 7     man.

 8        Q.   So just to go back a little bit.

 9             Despite what the president says in the transcript about an

10     exchange with -- with Dr. Radic saying is he no good, he should be

11     replaced, et cetera, the inefficiency, et cetera, that you attributed to

12     the statement, you're just speculating about that.  You don't really

13     know, despite the words that are on the page.  Is that fair?

14        A.   I do not agree with the way you're putting it.  I knew along

15     which lines he was thinking.  There were many situations in the Croatian

16     political life when Mr. Tudjman accepted somebody efficient irrespective

17     of his or her ethnic background.  And we are now speaking about a time

18     when it was necessary to react fast, and he decided based on the input he

19     received.  There were elements of chaos, there was lack of control, and

20     President Tudjman simply wanted to replace the man in charge.  That is

21     how I see it.

22        Q.   At the time that you were there, August/September 1995, he wasn't

23     replaced, though, was he?

24        A.   I don't know.

25        Q.   Do you remember Mr. Pasic at all during September 1995 being in

Page 22637

 1     Knin?

 2        A.   I did meet him occasionally, but never in an official meeting.

 3        Q.   Mr. Dodig, you said in your statement that you did not speak with

 4     President Tudjman in the period leading up to Operation Storm, nor during

 5     the period after Operation Storm.  You did, however, mention that you had

 6     conversations with President Tudjman during an earlier period of time in

 7     his office in Zagreb.  Can you explain very briefly what period of time

 8     you're talking about, that these meetings were happening?

 9        A.   From the end of 1993, November to be more precise, up to roughly

10     May 1994.  And, later, it happened occasionally at some social events or

11     at tennis matches.

12        Q.   In the period leading up to Operation Storm, did you consider

13     yourself a confidant of the president?

14        A.   I considered myself that throughout the period.  But I also knew

15     that confidence is not sufficient to deal with all things in life.  It

16     ask also necessary to know, to have knowledge about these things, and I

17     didn't consider myself a person who could be of assistance to

18     President Tudjman at the time, nor did he hold that opinion.  I'm

19     speaking about military issues or other issues, because I know nothing

20     about military things.

21        Q.   Moving away from military things for a second, correct me if I'm

22     wrong, Mr. Dodig, but in your statement you seem to base your

23     understanding of President Tudjman's position vis-a-vis Serbs by

24     reference to his -- his soul, which, according to you, apparently

25     revealed a more emotional man at first glance.

Page 22638

 1             And my question, Mr. Dodig, is, whether during your interactions

 2     with President Tudjman, you ever heard Serbs in Croatia referred to as a

 3     threat or a strategic threat, or as a cancer.

 4        A.   No, never in such a way.  It did happen that there was talk about

 5     the problem of the Serbs and how the state can be consolidated.  But

 6     never were there -- there was anything pointing to a possible negative

 7     attitude of President Tudjman toward the Serbs as an ethnic community.

 8             When terms such as "cancer" were used, they didn't apply to all

 9     Serbs but only those who impede the consolidation of Croatian statehood,

10     and certainly a much greater number of Serbs in Croatia then lived and

11     still live in towns where there was no imminent threat of war.

12             So we are -- I'm now speaking about territories where the

13     Croatian state had no control, and President Tudjman has a rational and

14     normal attitude toward the Serbian community in Croatia as an integral

15     part of the civic body or civil body of Croatia.

16        Q.   But I am correct, you have heard the term "cancer" being applied

17     to at least some Serbs in Croatia?

18             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Mr. President.  This has come up --

19             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation].

20             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me.  I mean that question -- well, the

21     question's been answered but it's the context of any comment on that

22     regard that the Chamber has heard is extremely important --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but --

24             MR. KEHOE:  -- and I just point to Dr. Zuzul's testimony on that

25     score.

Page 22639

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  The witness, and to that extent I think Mr. Carrier

 2     is right asking the witness, the witness explained to us what was meant

 3     if the word "cancer" was used.  Now therefore it is appropriate to ask

 4     the witness when, as far as he knows, that word was used and in what

 5     circumstances.

 6             Could you give us an example of when the word "cancer" was used

 7     in relation to Serbs?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was never present when such a

 9     word was used, so whatever I say would be mere guessing.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Would you please refrain from guessing in this

11     courtroom, to explain to us what the word "cancer" would have meant if

12     used in relation to Serbs where you were not present.  Even if you were

13     not present, you can have knowledge about such an event, even without

14     being present, we would then like to know.  But just to explain the

15     context of the use of the word "cancer" where you say you would be just

16     guessing, is not something that assists the Chamber.

17             Mr. Carrier, please proceed.

18             MR. CARRIER:  Thank you.

19        Q.   Mr. Dodig, you said that you were never present when the term

20     "cancer" was used in relation to Serbs.  Were you present during the

21     freedom train speech in Knin that President Tudjman gave on the

22     26th August 1995?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   Mr. Dodig, continuing on on President Tudjman's position on

25     Serbs, in your statement, you say that his position was to -- or in order

Page 22640

 1     to encourage Serbs to start loving Croatia, the president was of the view

 2     that Serbs had to be given greater rights than other Croatian citizens,

 3     and you call that positive discrimination.

 4             Mr. Dodig, this Chamber has received evidence that

 5     President Tudjman was openly advocating that Croatia should try to entice

 6     Croats from abroad, places like Paraguay, Australia, Chile, Germany, and

 7     Argentina, to return to Croatia after Operation Storm, in order to

 8     re-populate the Krajina; and, at the same time, President Tudjman was

 9     also expressing his view that the Serbs that had fled during the

10     operation should not be allowed to return home.

11             Mr. Dodig, my question for you is:  Would you agree that

12     contemplating such differential treatment in terms of Croats versus Serbs

13     is very difficult to reconcile with your statement regarding

14     President Tudjman's views that Serbs were an integral part of Croatia,

15     deserving of positive discrimination.

16        A.   If you allow, I'll try to explain very briefly.

17             President Tudjman, with regard to populating Croatia, invited not

18     only Croats from the countries you mentioned to populate the Krajina but

19     also to go to the islands that are sparsely populated, to go to Lika, and

20     Croatia is -- has a small -- small population compared to its size, only

21     about 4 million, 4 and a half million.

22             President Tudjman said to me explicitly and used the term,

23     understanding the political significance of the Serbs in Croatia, their

24     historic role in the Croatian state, and the attitude of the world when

25     it comes to Serbs and Croatia.

Page 22641

 1             So he most certainly did not have a negative attitude toward

 2     them.  Whether he liked them or not isn't for me to speculate about.  But

 3     he wanted the Serbs in Croatia to feel like citizens that are an integral

 4     part of that state, and in order -- or to enable them to feel that way in

 5     this young country consolidating itself, he wanted to give them greater

 6     rights than other citizens of Croatia.

 7             To mention an example, the voting right at elections.

 8        Q.   Mr. Dodig, can I just ask you about something you just said,

 9     because I'm going to suggest to that you you're contradicting yourself.

10             You said -- in relation to President Tudjman:

11             "So he most certainly did not have a negative attitude towards

12     them."

13             Meaning Serbs.

14             And then you go on to say:

15             "Whether he liked them or not isn't for me to speculate about."

16             Now, can you explain how those things, two statements can hang

17     together, because it seems that you, in fact, in the first sentence are

18     speculating, given your second sentence?

19        A.   I apologise, but I disagree with you.  You don't have -- you

20     don't need to have a positive attitude towards someone if -- only if you

21     like them, because liking somebody is an emotional category; whereas, a

22     positive attitude is a rational one.

23        Q.   So is it fair to say you really don't have any knowledge of

24     President Tudjman's personal views on Serbs?

25        A.   That cannot be said.

Page 22642

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Carrier, would this assist the Chamber?  The

 2     witness is clearly explaining to us that whether you like someone or not

 3     you can nevertheless take a positive approach to a person or a group, and

 4     that you can treat someone fairly well even if you don't like him.  Think

 5     about doctors in hospital who would treat people they do not like at all

 6     but treat them from a medical point of view in a perfect way.

 7             Therefore, you are seeking apparently something I have

 8     difficulties to follow.

 9             There is another matter.  You asked the witness, and that is how

10     this line of questioning apparently started, you asked the witness

11     whether the -- whether the differential treatment, as you put to the

12     witness, differential treatment, Croats versus Serbs, whether that is

13     difficult to reconcile with the statement of this witness regarding

14     President Tudjman's views that Serbs were an integral part of Croatia.

15             Now the witness answered extensively that question but not really

16     because the answer came down to there -- I do not believe that there was

17     such a differential treatment.  Whether to discuss the consistency of

18     certain views, if you disagree on what these views are, doesn't make that

19     such sense.

20             You see, apparently, inconsistency in what the witness says and

21     what you deduce from the testimony we've heard until now.  The witness

22     clearly does not accept that that evidence reflects what actually was the

23     truth, and there it stops.  And then to hear why he disagrees on a

24     factual basis on your question that we find already in his statement.

25             So the witness answer effectively is, I do not accept your

Page 22643

 1     proposition that there's any evidence that could be believed which would

 2     reflect such a differential treatment.

 3             Let's leave it to that, because this Chamber will finally has to

 4     determine whether or not there is credible evidence in relation to that.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MR. CARRIER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 7        Q.   Mr. Dodig, do you recall what date it was in August 1995 when you

 8     first arrived in Knin?

 9        A.   I cannot say for certain, it was a few days after the liberation

10     of Knin.

11        Q.   And in your statement, you -- you seem to indicate that you

12     arrived a few days before you attended the UN camp with General Cermak on

13     the 9th of August.  So would it be fair to say it was some time around

14     the 7th of August or so?  I mean, just to put it in a ballpark; I know

15     you can't be exact.

16        A.   Yes, let's say it was around that time.

17        Q.   And when you arrived Knin, in your statement you describe being

18     out on the street for one or two hours.  And you report seeing a joyous

19     atmosphere, people crying with joy, not very many damaged buildings.  You

20     do, however, note that there was much disorder.  Specifically you say you

21     saw some garbage.

22             My question for you, Mr. Dodig, is, upon arriving in Knin and

23     over the course of the next few days, did you notice any of the following

24     things:  Number one, a large number of HV members in the town?

25        A.   A large number of persons in uniform, yes.

Page 22644

 1        Q.   What about damage caused by shelling to civilian structures?

 2        A.   I mostly walked down the main street in Knin, and there was no

 3     severe damage there.

 4        Q.   Did you notice any evidence of looting by HV members?

 5        A.   No.  I saw broken shop windows, but evidence of looting,

 6     especially by Croatian soldiers, no.

 7        Q.   What about people in uniform, Croatian Army uniforms?

 8        A.   No.  It -- it was day-time, and I didn't see anyone looting.

 9        Q.   Any evidence of arson?

10        A.   Not in Knin itself.  I had come from the direction of Drnis, and

11     I saw smoke from afar.  But what was burning, whether it was hay or grass

12     or houses, I cannot tell.

13        Q.   Mr. Dodig, this Chamber has received evidence that following

14     Operation Storm's shelling campaign, that the town of Knin itself over

15     the next few days had many HV soldiers present, that there were HV

16     members looting in Knin, that there was arson happening in Knin, and that

17     there were signs of destruction to civilian structures.  In light of the

18     evidence before the Chamber on those points, are you able to explain how

19     it is that you didn't see any of those things?

20        A.   I -- I'm certain that on main street, where I moved about, there

21     was no severe destruction, and it's hard for me to say whether there was

22     more destruction in some other parts of town where I didn't go.

23        Q.   Mr. Dodig, I want to review a part of your statement with you.

24     Then I'm going to ask you some questions about it.

25             If I could direct your attention to paragraph 19 of your

Page 22645

 1     statement, which is on page 11 in the English and 10 in the B/C/S.

 2     Second half of that paragraph, you state:

 3             "But that was a time when people from all parts of Croatia came,

 4     and I think that is why things we did not want happened.  I am sure that

 5     they were not members of the Croatian Army, although they were wearing

 6     uniforms, but everyone" -- sorry, "everybody was wearing a uniform at the

 7     time."

 8             And then in the next paragraph, paragraph 20, you go on to state:

 9             "In my opinion, Mr. Cermak did not know about the crimes either."

10             Mr. Dodig, your reference to "things we did not want to happen,"

11     do you mean crimes like arson and looting?

12        A.   The statement I gave was based on my knowledge and the facts that

13     I learned during all these years since Operation Storm and not based on

14     what I knew at that time about the crimes, because, at that time, I knew

15     nothing.  I only learned of them in the following years.

16             When I spoke -- or, rather, that I didn't speak to Mr. Cermak

17     about crimes because I didn't know about them, I -- I based that on fact

18     because I think that Mr. Cermak would have told me if he had known.  So

19     it is natural not to speak about something you don't even know exists.

20        Q.   Well, in your statement, in fairness, you didn't say you didn't

21     think General Cermak knew about the crimes either because he would have

22     told you about them had they been happening.  You just say:  "In my

23     opinion, Mr. Cermak did not know about the crimes either," which, again,

24     contradicts what you said, where you don't speak about things you don't

25     know?

Page 22646

 1             Are you saying you just don't know if General Cermak knew about

 2     the crimes or are you guessing he didn't know?

 3        A.   I say that in my opinion he didn't know, because I suppose that

 4     he would have shared it with me if he had known.  But I didn't know of

 5     the crimes at that time.  I clearly said that I learned about them later.

 6     And what does later mean.  After five or six months, after a year or two,

 7     I learned some facts, read the papers, et cetera, from which it follows

 8     that there had been crimes.  But, at the time we're speaking about, I

 9     didn't know of any crimes.  I have seen no dead bodies for me to start

10     wondering what happened, because there weren't any dead bodies where I

11     was.

12        Q.   Well, Mr. Dodig, would it surprise you, then, that General Cermak

13     himself has told Prosecution investigators that he was aware that members

14     of the HV had committed crimes during this period, which included

15     looting, burning, and killing.  And you mentioned reading newspapers

16     later on, but even during this time, in September 1995, General Cermak

17     appeared in the media talking about crimes having been committed.

18             Does that surprise you at all?

19        A.   No.  Mr. Cermak is an honest man, and he said what he had found

20     out to be true.

21             When I talked to him during several visits to Knin, we discussed

22     these things, and he said nothing of the sort.  So what you are saying

23     does not contradict what I say.  Because, at that moment, he wasn't aware

24     of it.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig, you again now say, At that moment he

Page 22647

 1     wasn't aware of it.  Let's stick to the facts --

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose.  I suppose he didn't

 3     know about it.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I -- what you know is what you may have discussed

 5     with Mr. Cermak.  Let's avoid to draw conclusions.  What you can say for

 6     a fact is what you discussed.  What he told you or whether there is any

 7     other fact that would indicate such knowledge.

 8             Let stick to the facts primarily and not draw conclusions,

 9     because that creates most of the possible confusion.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, if I just may raise a matter, I hope the

12     Court finds it helpful.  I think the speculation is inherent in the

13     nature of the question that was asked when he is asked to comment upon

14     something that was said on another occasion without any reference to time

15     or other matters.  But it's -- it's inherent.  I think it is almost

16     inviting a witness to speculate.  If I was asking a question in that way,

17     I would anticipate that it would come in that form, that the witness

18     would comment on something that he wasn't a party to.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, I to some extent agree with you, but, of

20     course, part of the basis for such questions - and perhaps it would be

21     wiser for Mr. Carrier not to be lured into that position - is in the

22     answers, is in the statement of the witness himself.  He says, In my

23     opinion, I believe, et cetera, et cetera, and then, of course, we have

24     already a basis for getting confused, confused between what the witness

25     knows for a fact and what the witness believes, what the opinion of the

Page 22648

 1     witness is.

 2             Mr. Carrier, this is a witness of fact, and let's focus on that,

 3     and perhaps it would be wise if the witness said, This is my opinion, you

 4     can try to explore the factual based for such an opinion, as I just did,

 5     and as I did before, rather than to discuss the accuracy of the opinion.

 6     The opinion may be right, the opinion may be wrong.  What we're

 7     interested in are the knowledge of this witness of the facts, and on the

 8     basis of those facts, the Chamber will draw the conclusions whether they

 9     are the same, or whether they are different from the conclusions drawn by

10     this witness.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. CARRIER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

13        Q.   Mr. Dodig, is it fair to say that you had quite limited contact

14     with General Cermak during your time in Knin during August and

15     September 1995?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And, in fact, in your statement you said that during your time in

18     Knin, you only met with General Cermak three or four times and

19     specifically you mentioned the first meeting in his office when you

20     arrived; second meeting when you went to the UN camp with him on the

21     9th of August; and -- additionally you mentioned having gone to one

22     meeting that General Cermak had and addressed the people present.

23             Is that the sum total of your contact with him, or do you have

24     any other specific recollection of any other time you met with

25     General Cermak in Knin during the period?

Page 22649

 1        A.   I don't know if there's any point in mentioning that every time I

 2     came, I went to greet him and that was all.  There was no substantial

 3     meeting at any time.

 4        Q.   So, just to be clear, you can't think of another time other than

 5     those three examples I just gave you.  Is that fair?  Other than saying

 6     when you came back to Knin on occasion, you'd greet him.

 7        A.   Correct.

 8        Q.   And when you left Knin during August and September 1995, how --

 9     how long were you away?  Was it for a day, or for a week?

10        A.   I did not understand.  Sorry.

11        Q.   You said that when you came back to Knin you would greet him as

12     well.  So "coming back" presumes that you left.  And, in fact, I'm

13     putting it to you, you weren't in Knin the whole time.  So I'm interested

14     in how many days you actually spent in Knin during August and

15     September 1995?

16        A.   I cannot give you a precise answer in days, but I'm sure that I

17     went six or seven times to a refugee camp.  I saw the refugee camp as the

18     focus of my work and I tried to resolve problems there, because I think

19     that was the only structured environment in which you could do anything

20     in an organised way.

21        Q.   You didn't only just go to the refugee camp.  You went to Zagreb

22     as well, didn't you, to attend cabinet meetings?

23        A.   I did go back to Zagreb, but there were no substantial meetings

24     to discuss that topic.  There were current affairs that I had to deal

25     with.

Page 22650

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig, again, Mr. Carrier clearly seeks

 2     information about presence and absence in Knin.  You give us a tiny

 3     little bit of information about -- you say, I went to a refugee camp.  I

 4     don't know whether that was 10 kilometres from Knin or 100 kilometres

 5     from Knin, which could serve to better know for how long you were away.

 6     You tell us about the importance of being in a refugee camp.  Mr. Carrier

 7     says, But you also went to Zagreb.  Then you start telling us about the

 8     importance of the meetings in Zagreb.

 9             What Mr. Carrier wants to know is, during this period of time,

10     how often and how long you were in Knin; and how often and how long you

11     were elsewhere.  So if could you please focus your answer on what is

12     asked, rather than to deal with all kind of matters in which Mr. Carrier

13     has not yet showed any interest to be informed about.

14             So could you tell us, month of August, how often were you away,

15     and where was that camp.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will try to be as precise as I

17     can in my answer.

18             The refugee camp in Knin was located roughly 800 metres, one

19     kilometre from Knin so it was very, very close.  My workplace was not --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  So, in terms of returning to Knin, when you were in

21     the refugee camp, you were actually in Knin, perhaps not exactly in town

22     but within one kilometre.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes [In English] Exactly.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  So Mr. Carrier started asking about when you say,

25     When I returned to Knin, the refugee camp was more or less in Knin.

Page 22651

 1             How long did you stay there?  A couple of hours, or one or more

 2     days?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a rule, from two to three, three

 4     and a half hours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Now Mr. Carrier apparently wants to know what

 6     you meant when you said, When I returned to Knin, where you had been.

 7             Now, did you include in that answer your absence for a couple of

 8     hours, going to the refugee camp?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I spoke mostly to people in the

10     street.  I know on two occasions I visited also the hospital --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. -- Mr. Dodig.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- because I --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig, again, please try to understand what is

14     asked from you.

15             It was about meeting Mr. Cermak when you returned to Knin.

16             Now, did you refer to meeting Mr. Cermak when you had been in the

17     refugee camp; or did you refer to meeting Mr. Cermak when you had been in

18     Zagreb for whatever reason?

19             That's what Mr. Carrier is interested to know.

20             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, I think --

21             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation].

22             MR. KAY:  -- the actual question was -- because I was watching

23     this as there was a couple.

24             I'm interested in how many days you actually spent in Knin.  I

25     think the question had departed from Mr. Cermak to how many days in -- in

Page 22652

 1     Knin.  I hope that assists Your Honour and --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but how many days you are in Knin is directly

 3     related to how many days you're not in Knin.

 4             And apparently the focus initially was on the frequency of

 5     contacts with Mr. Cermak, which were described in terms of, When I

 6     returned to Knin.

 7             Mr. Carrier, is that what you --

 8             MR. CARRIER:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- sought information about.

10             Now let's try really strictly to stick to facts and preferably

11     the facts that you are asked about, and then if you know them, tell us;

12     if you don't know them, tell us as well.

13             Please proceed, Mr. Carrier.

14             MR. CARRIER:

15        Q.   Mr. Dodig, during the months of August and September of 1995, how

16     many days did you spend in Knin itself; if you know?

17        A.   I cannot be mathematically precise.  I can say seven or eight

18     days.  That's how many days I spent in Knin.  When I say "day," I mean

19     from 9.00 a.m. to around 2.30 p.m.

20        Q.   And other than these seven days, where were you the rest of the

21     time during August and September 1995?

22        A.   I was working in my workplace.  I had annual leave and some other

23     things to attend to at the hospital where I was also working.

24        Q.   And that's in Split, right?

25        A.   [In English] Yes.  [Interpretation] Yes.

Page 22653

 1        Q.   So in your statement, all the observations and evaluations that

 2     you make of General Cermak, his authority, what happens at the meetings,

 3     whether or not he can issue orders, that's based on the few days that you

 4     were in Knin up to seven days during August and September 1995.

 5             Is that fair?

 6        A.   That was mainly in August.  Yes, that's right.

 7        Q.   And because the refugee camp is basically in Knin, that you were

 8     going to because you said that was your primary focus, I take it that

 9     your visits to those -- to the refugee camp was happening during the

10     seven days that you were actually physically in Knin during August and

11     September 1995?

12        A.   Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Carrier, in view of the statement of the

14     witness --

15             When you are talking about the refugee camp, what actually are

16     you talking about?  Are you talking about the UN compound; or are you

17     talking about any other refugee camp?

18             Mr. Dodig, could you tell us --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The UN base.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  That's clear.  Then we know where it is.  Then if

21     you would have used that word - and I'm not blaming for you for choosing

22     your own - then I would not have had to ask about the distance.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. CARRIER:  Thank you.

25        Q.   So in your statement you discuss having attended an open-door

Page 22654

 1     meeting with General Cermak.  Is it fair to say it's just one meeting

 2     that you went to in that respect?

 3        A.   Sorry, but I have to say this.  Very often terminological

 4     differences create great problems.  When I say meeting, I mean when I

 5     came to Knin to call on Mr. Cermak.  It was not a proper meeting.

 6     Mr. Cermak was so busy, people were coming and going all the time.

 7     That's why I called it open doors.  It was so hectic that there was no

 8     time, no opportunity for any meaningful conversation.  Mr. Cermak was

 9     often embarrassed that he had no more time to give me and talk to me

10     properly.  He would just say a few sentences and say, I'm sorry about

11     this, but let's try to -- to do what needs to be done.

12             There was no meeting in the sense that there was an agenda,

13     people attending a proper discussion --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I suggest to you that when this was just a

15     brief encounter that you use the expression, I briefly saw him, and if

16     there was any meeting with an agenda, you would then that call that a

17     meeting so that we avoid confusion for the remaining time.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. CARRIER:

20        Q.   So, Mr. Dodig, you are actually talking about a brief contact

21     with General Cermak when you say that you didn't notice any military

22     police or civilian police at -- isn't really a meeting but it's a brief

23     contact between you and General Cermak.  Is that what you're talking

24     about in your statement?

25        A.   Precisely.

Page 22655

 1        Q.   And is it fair to say, then, in your statement where you're

 2     talking about General Cermak issuing orders to people, that relates also

 3     to these periods of time when you're having brief contact with

 4     General Cermak.  You just don't see him during those brief contacts

 5     issuing orders or anything like that?

 6        A.   Those were very brief moments, true.  But even in those brief

 7     moments, he would contact several people, to whom he would issue certain

 8     instructions, I would say, rather than orders, as to what needs to be

 9     done.

10        Q.   But you don't actually know whether or not General Cermak was

11     issuing orders to anybody.  You don't actually have knowledge of that.

12     You're just talking about the brief interactions you had with him.

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And is it the same when you say that you didn't think that

15     General Cermak understood military hierarchy or that he wasn't really a

16     member of the military.  That was just based on your brief interactions

17     with him during those seven days that you spent in Knin, not on anything

18     else.

19             Is that fair?

20        A.   Yes, yes.

21        Q.   And going back because it wasn't apparent in your statement, when

22     you talk about not seeing much destruction in Knin or looting or crimes

23     committed by HV, this is limited to the certain days obviously that were

24     in Knin, which you can't actually identify precisely, other than,

25     perhaps, the 9th of August, 1995?

Page 22656

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Is there any reason why you didn't actually make it clear in your

 3     statement that you were only in Knin for seven days during August and

 4     September 1995?

 5        A.   I did not know it mattered.

 6        Q.   And if I could just return to -- to something you said before.

 7     When I raised the issue of having attended a cabinet in Zagreb, you said

 8     that you had attended, is that right, you had attended cabinet meetings

 9     during August and September 1995?

10        A.   I attended meetings within the office that I was in charge of,

11     not cabinet meetings.  There was one cabinet meeting held in Knin itself

12     where I was invited and I went.  But did I not attend other cabinet

13     meetings.

14        Q.   At the cabinet meeting that you did attend, you said before that

15     you didn't talk about anything do with the issues in Knin.  Is that fair?

16     Because I was confused by something you said there.  I'll just try to

17     find it.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   So I take it, then, you wouldn't have been -- your name wouldn't

20     be on a transcript during a cabinet meeting where you discuss four

21     different types of Serbs that remain in the Krajina in August 1995; where

22     you discuss certain problems; where you discuss the number of Serbs left

23     in the Krajina.

24             That doesn't ring a bell at all?

25        A.   No.

Page 22657

 1             MR. CARRIER:  Mr. President, I know it's slightly early, but this

 2     is -- the next document is the one that we had trouble uploading and it's

 3     the last thing I will be dealing with.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and may I take it that if we have a break of

 5     25 minutes, that then the problem will be resolved?

 6             MR. CARRIER:  I would love to say yes, but let me just check.

 7                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 8             MR. CARRIER:  I'm being told yes, it will be.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you're --

10             MR. CARRIER:  I'm expressing a certain amount of doubt.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  -- already saving your position if it turns out not

12     to be the case.

13             That's the only document you still wanted to deal with?

14             MR. CARRIER:  I may also have a few brief questions about the

15     first two I tried to use.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The Chamber wants to avoid that we come back

17     here and wait for another 10 or 15 minutes to find that the problems were

18     not resolved.

19             Could you -- we will have a break of 25 minutes and we'll resume

20     at ten minutes to 11.00.  But if, for whatever reason, you'll not be able

21     to put on the screen what you want to put on the screen, we'd like to be

22     informed before we enter the courtroom.

23             We'll have a break, and we will resume at - I give you five more

24     minutes - five minutes to 11.00.

25                           --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.

Page 22658

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

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Carrier, you even had more time, due to all kind

 3     of other things Judges of this Chamber had to do during the break.

 4     Apologies for the late start.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MR. CARRIER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 7             Mr. Registrar, could we please have document number 65 ter 7431

 8     on the screen, please.

 9        Q.   Now, Mr. Dodig, what is going to appear on the front of you [sic]

10     is a document which are the minutes of the 260th Closed Session of the

11     Croatian government.

12             MR. CARRIER:  And for Your Honours and my friends, there's only

13     six pages that have been translated into English and unfortunately it

14     wasn't the cover page, given the short turnaround time.  But I'll suggest

15     what it says to Mr. Dodig and he can agree or disagree.  That may be of

16     assistance.

17        Q.   But looking at the front page, Mr. Dodig, is that what it says,

18     that this is the 260th Closed Session of the Croatian government, and

19     then below that, it lists the date of the 23rd of August, 1995, and

20     starts to list the various participants in the session?

21        A.   I guess that must be correct.  I didn't attend that session.

22        Q.   Well, perhaps we could just turn to the second page in B/C/S,

23     please.

24             And if we go near the top.  In the indented paragraph in bold at

25     the top, Mr. Dodig, your name is mentioned there, Dr. Dodig.

Page 22659

 1        A.   Yes, yes.

 2        Q.   Does that refresh your memory about a session that started at

 3     11.05 a.m., on the 23rd of August, 1995, and whether or not you actually

 4     attended that meeting?

 5        A.   I did.  If it says here, then I did.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig, it's only five lines back that you said

 7     that you didn't attend that meeting.  Could I ask to you very carefully

 8     think about the answers you are giving.  I do understand that you

 9     focussed on what you saw on the cover sheet.  But if you rely on any

10     document to -- when giving your answer, would you -- and that was more or

11     less what I found to you say; that is, that since your name was not

12     there, you must not have attended that meeting, whereas on the second

13     page you saw your name and said, Well, then I must have been there.

14             That we know exactly what are conclusions based upon reading

15     documents and what is your own recollection.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. CARRIER:  Thank you.

18             And, Mr. Registrar, if we could turn to page 14 in the B/C/S,

19     please, and remaining on page 1 in the English.

20        Q.   You see at the top of the page, Mr. Dodig, your name appears and

21     I'm suggesting to that the reason that is, is because it indicates that

22     you're the one speaking here, because these were recorded meetings that

23     had been transcribed.

24             And if we look at -- in the English version halfway down where it

25     begins with the words, "Of course" - this is you speaking - which, again,

Page 22660

 1     in Croatian is also halfway down the page.  It basically corresponds and

 2     beginning with the word -- I'll mispronounce it but it is "dakako."

 3             In this section, Mr. Dodig, of the minutes, you're talking and

 4     you're actually talking about that you're concluding that there is four

 5     categories of people, that is Serbs that remained in the liberated areas

 6     after Operation Storm, and you give us a breakdown of what those groups

 7     consist of.  One is those that remained in the villages and hamlets.  The

 8     next are Serbs that were the UNCRO barracks in Knin.  Then you talk about

 9     the Serbs that are in collection or investigation centres, which is the

10     third category.  The fourth is in Western Slavonia, which finishes off at

11     the bottom of the page in English.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Mr. President, I have an inquiry.

13             I'm sorry, counsel, go ahead.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Kehoe.

15             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I -- I look at this document with the

16     65 ter number, and I look at this transcript with my colleague,

17     Mr. Misetic, and I don't want to speak for my other colleagues but --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Is it a matter you're raising at this moment

19     that can be raised in the presence of the witness?  I don't know what's

20     coming.

21             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.  Yes, it can be.  It has to do with disclosure

22     under Rule 68 subdivision (2) of all relevant information, and it appears

23     to us collectively that we have never seen this document before, albeit

24     it clearly falls into Rule 68 subdivision (2) as relevant matter.  And

25     the question I ask my learned friend across the well is why it has not

Page 22661

 1     been disclosed.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, the first question is whether it has been

 3     disclosed --

 4             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and then if not, why not.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, my apologies.  My apologies.  I took a look with

 7     Mr. Misetic and my Case Manager, Ms. Katalinic, and we don't have it

 8     disclosed.  Now I can --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I do understand that the basis for you is that

10     you have no knowledge of any disclosure, so we first seek to verify that.

11     And then if there was no disclosure we'll try to find out what the

12     reasons were.

13             Mr. Kay.

14             MR. KAY:  For our part, Your Honour, this has not been disclosed.

15     This witness has been on our witness list for some considerable time, on

16     the 65 ter list and then as a scheduled witness.  There is supposed to

17     have been Rule 68 disclosure in this case.  We have made a number of

18     complaints on several occasions about that failing to take place, but I

19     have been able to track a very important reference to my client in this

20     document that I read as being totally exculpatory on an important issue

21     in this case.  I am very, very concerned.

22             What is happening here is a document is being sprung up into

23     court.  This witness is asked whether he can remember something or not

24     15 years ago.  He is then asked questions.  He's then said, Ah, here is

25     your name, so you must have been there.  He has got to read the document.

Page 22662

 1     He should have been able to read this document whilst we were

 2     interviewing him and confirming his 92 ter statement as one of those

 3     documents that might be relevant in the case --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, I'm stopping you.  Let's first try to

 5     establish whether there is agreement about the non-disclosure so that we

 6     have that for a fact before we continue.

 7             MR. KAY:  It is not on the EDS.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Carrier.

 9             MR. CARRIER:  On the issue of disclosure, it was disclosed under

10     the RFA 750 in March 2008.  It was disclosed on March 6th, 2008, on a CD.

11     ERN range 0614-2565-0614-3142.

12             And if I could perhaps address the other issues --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, we have a few matters.  First, whether it was

14     disclosed.  I would invite -- there seems to be disagreement about

15     whether it was disclosed, yes or no.  So, therefore, it needs to be

16     verified whether it was disclosed.

17             The second issue is whether it was disclosed specifically also

18     under Rule 68 (i), that is, disclosed as exculpatory material, or whether

19     it was just disclosed in the EDS system.  From your answer, I did not

20     understand, Mr. Carrier, that it was specifically disclosed as

21     exculpatory material, which raises another matter, which is whether it is

22     exculpatory material; therefore, we'd have to rely on what Mr. Kay found

23     to be of an exculpatory nature.

24             These are the issues I think we're dealing with at this moment.

25     How we will proceed in verifying whether it was disclosed or not,

Page 22663

 1     Mr. Carrier now gave further details about disclosure.

 2             Could -- is there a possibility that you verify that right away

 3     or should we give you an opportunity first to --

 4             MR. KAY:  The machines are grinding as we speak, Your Honour, to

 5     check.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, like our brains, Mr. Kay, yes.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, just one last comment on this with

10     regard to the disclosure, and we are checking these -- this range, but we

11     also ask whether or not it has been -- it was disclosed in English, as

12     the OTP is required to do.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Carrier, in what language was it disclosed?  In

14     view of the fact that you were still working on the translations, it

15     might not have been already March 2008.

16             MR. CARRIER:  My understanding is it was disclosed in B/C/S,

17     hence the fact that we're waiting for the translation today.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you are waiting for the translation since

19     March or?

20             MR. CARRIER:  No, no, my understanding is that there's not a

21     rule that requires it to be disclosed in English, that it just be

22     disclosed.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Rule 68 (ii) you'd say doesn't need to be

24     translated --

25             MR. CARRIER:  No, if I could --

Page 22664

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  -- however exculpatory material.

 2             MR. CARRIER:  No.  It had not actually been identified under

 3     Rule 68 and the reason is -- if I could just explain a bit of the

 4     process.

 5             Initially it was just that Mr. Dodig's name appeared in the body

 6     of the document.  I didn't -- I don't speak B/C/S, nor do I read it, so I

 7     had to wait to figure out what it was, what it said.  Obviously this was

 8     happening -- well, perhaps not obviously, but this was happening on

 9     Monday when I was reviewing the ISU search.  Not knowing exactly what it

10     said, we were told at 4.30 p.m. that Mr. Dodig was being brought forward

11     to the next day, and so that's part of the reason why it hadn't actually

12     been properly looked at in that context yet.

13             And so --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  There are two different issues.  The first is

15     what explains the period of time between March and September; and the

16     seconds issue, which seems to be a smaller issue, is whether we would

17     hear the testimony of Mr. Dodig on Wednesday or on Friday.  The first

18     cover six months; the other covers two days.

19             MR. CARRIER:  It is actually longer than six months.  It was

20     2008.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  2008.

22             MR. CARRIER:  In March, so ...

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's 18 months, then, yes.

24             MR. CARRIER:  But as I said, it was disclosed in B/C/S on

25     March 6th --

Page 22665

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  So you would say a search on the name of the

 2     witness, even in B/C/S, would have at least been an indication of

 3     relevance of this document in relation to this witness?

 4             Is that --

 5             MR. CARRIER:  Potentially.  If -- sometimes, I mean, these

 6     searches happen, I'm sure Your Honour's aware, where names come up.

 7     There's not even the same name or it might have absolutely no

 8     significance whatsoever.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MR. CARRIER:  Hundreds of documents turned up with Mr. Dodig --

11     Dr. Dodig's name on them, in relation to his medical practice.  It had

12     absolutely nothing to do with it.  So it's a matter of slowly manually

13     going through them and that was what was happening, so ...

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Kuzmanovic.

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, thank you.  I would like to add,

16     out of the 84 documents that are listed on the cross-examination document

17     list, this one is not among them.

18             MR. CARRIER:  If I could respond to that.  I actually said that

19     this morning, that this one was --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  You said that there was one document still waiting

21     for translation --

22             MR. CARRIER:  And this is it.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and that was this document.

24             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, on the disclosure issue, I'm informed that

25     it's now been tracked in a 577-page document in Croatian, with no

Page 22666

 1     description of the nature of the document.

 2             This doesn't solely concern Mr. Dodig's name.  Mr. Cermak's name

 3     is mentioned and that is what I'm particularly concerned with, because

 4     there is a reference there by this witness to him of an important nature,

 5     which is exculpatory, and my learned friend will know that, and he has

 6     reviewed this document.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then one of the things that then arises is

 8     that if there is a late disclosure issue, that disclosure should,

 9     according to the Rules, also be disclosure to the Chamber.

10             Now, that sometimes would be unfavourable for the party who

11     suffered under the late disclosure.  However, since this appears to be

12     exculpatory material, there, I think, the basis for this Rule - that is,

13     that the Chamber is informed as soon as possible what exculpatory

14     material was not disclosed to the Defence - would apply.

15             Let me just confer with my colleagues for a second.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

18                           [Defence counsel confer]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Kay, is there anything --

20             MR. KAY:  To update Your Honour, because the grinding wheels have

21     produced a further piece of information.

22             The document itself wasn't disclosed.  It was in a spreadsheet.

23     The document itself is not in the EDS, so it's in a spreadsheet with

24     other material.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  That's in kind of an index, but not -- and what

Page 22667

 1     description is found in the --

 2             MR. KAY:  Just RFA 750.

 3             MR. CARRIER:  If I could just clarify one thing.  To go back to

 4     what I was saying before.  It was disclosed in a CD.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me first --

 6             Mr. Dodig, I am aware that you are more or less the victim of

 7     this procedural issue.  I hope that you will have understanding for the

 8     fact that the Chamber has to deal with these matters before we can

 9     continue and even before we decide whether we continue or not.

10             So, I take it that I'm talking on behalf of Chamber and the

11     parties, that we apologise for the inconvenience.

12             Mr. Carrier.

13             MR. CARRIER:  I apologise, I think perhaps it didn't show up in

14     the transfer.  It may have gotten cut off, but we disclosed it on a CD on

15     March 6th, 2008, the actual document, just to correct Mr. Kay.  I'm happy

16     to read out the part, the one reference to General Cermak if that's what

17     he is referring to as exculpatory.  I don't if that's going to assist

18     or ...

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, you have raised the exculpatory aspect of

20     this late disclosure.  And, of course, the Chamber is not informed about

21     what it says about Mr. Cermak.  So I -- Mr. Carrier now suggests that he

22     would read that portion.  I don't know whether you would agree or whether

23     you would propose another approach to that aspect.

24             MR. KAY:  That's certainly helps me on this issue.  And just for

25     the context, it's this witness mentioning the fact that -- that can be

Page 22668

 1     read out by Mr. Carrier.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  So you would not oppose --

 3             MR. KAY:  No.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- to take this approach.

 5             Mr. Carrier, you're invited to read the portion which you, as I

 6     now understand, correctly understood to be referred to by the Cermak

 7     Defence as being of an exculpatory character.

 8             MR. CARRIER:  Well, just to be fair, it's where Mr. Cermak's name

 9     appears.  And maybe I could just make sure that I'm not on the wrong

10     page.

11             But page 3, is that --

12             MR. KAY:  Yes.

13             MR. CARRIER:  Oh.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it seems that you agree at least on this issue.

15             MR. CARRIER:  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please read it.

17             MR. CARRIER:  If I can see his name.  Perhaps I can give a little

18     bit of context --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  If you would first please read it, because you

20     agreed on -- and Mr. Kay agreed on reading.  Before we end up in a debate

21     on whether the context you are giving is right or wrong, let's just first

22     listen to what is reported to have been said.

23             MR. CARRIER:  "On the other hand, there is General" --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Who is speaking?

25             MR. CARRIER:  This is Mr. Dodig.

Page 22669

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig speaking, yes.

 2             MR. CARRIER:  "On the other hand, there is General Cermak's

 3     positive wish to resolve there as soon as possible, and, on the other

 4     side, within the barracks themselves, there is a tendency to let all

 5     those who wanted to leave, to leave; therefore, those from UNCRO barracks

 6     and avoid the possibility of whatever."

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  May I take it that this refers to who could or

 8     who could not leave the UNCRO barracks, and that that is a matter

 9     Mr. Cermak wanted to resolve.

10             MR. KAY:  Yes, Your Honour.  And also the issue of leaving,

11     people leaving --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13             MR. KAY:  -- is highly relevant.  And --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

15             MR. KAY:  -- because of the issue of the JCE, joint criminal

16     enterprise.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I do understand that.

18             Well, at least we have now factual information of the exculpatory

19     nature, and I take it that, in this respect, disclosure to the Chamber by

20     reading that portion, at least was done, although not completely with the

21     whole of the document.  But the purpose, of course, of disclosing late

22     disclosure material to the Chamber as well is to enable the Chamber to

23     form an opinion about the effect of the late disclosure for the party who

24     suffered under the late disclosure.

25             MR. KAY:  I'm grateful for Your Honours' help.

Page 22670

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Now -- so we are now there, that Mr. Carrier says

 2     that the document has been disclosed on a CD and that the existence of

 3     this document as a product of a Request for Assistance has been -- has

 4     been disclosed in the EDS.  That's where we stand, the reference not

 5     being very precise, but, apparently, listing, This is what we received,

 6     material received as a result of a Request for Assistance, and then it

 7     being disclosed on a CD-ROM.

 8             Is there any -- I just first try to establish what has happened.

 9     Any comments on the factual part of what I just said?

10             MR. KEHOE:  I -- my only response to Mr. Carrier's comment is

11     that we do not have this 577-page document.  At minimum, of course, we

12     would like the document.  I think that we have been pretty careful

13     tracking the documents but we do not have this document.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, is it your position that you say,

15     Can't find it at this moment, or is it your position it was never

16     disclosed on the CD-ROM?

17             MR. KEHOE:  My records reflect that it was not disclosed on a

18     CD-ROM to the Gotovina Defence.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The other parties.

20             MR. MIKULICIC:  It is the same position with Markac Defence, as I

21     have been instructed.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, has the Cermak Defence received such a

23     disclosure on a CD-ROM.

24             MR. KAY:  Well, our searches so far have shown nothing coming up.

25     We are also referring this elsewhere, I won't say in our empire but

Page 22671

 1     within our organisation, for them to try and see if it is in other parts

 2     of the database.  But there's nothing shown so far.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So, therefore, the parties disagree on the

 4     factual issue, whether anything more was disclosed than a rather general

 5     reference to material received as a result of a Request for Assistance.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber will consider the consequences, once we

 8     have established what factually took place, in terms of disclosure.

 9             The Chamber finds no reason at this moment to stop Mr. Carrier

10     from asking questions to the witness; but the Chamber explicitly wants to

11     leave it open as to what facilities should be granted to the Defence for

12     re-examination, or cross-examination, in view of this new material.

13             The Chamber also will, unless, up to the moment that we have

14     finally made up our mind as to how to proceed on the longer term, will

15     MFI whatever document is tendered at this moment.

16             Mr. Kuzmanovic.

17             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

18             I think in fairness to the witness he should at least be allowed

19     to get a copy of it and read it before any questions are asked about it.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  That seems to be fair.

21             That's six pages, Mr. Carrier, if I understood you well, six

22     pages that were translated?

23             MR. CARRIER:  Six pages translated, but I think the document

24     itself might be in the order of 54 pages.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Would you -- I mean, we'll not hear anything

Page 22672

 1     from any of the other pages.  Of course, we could ask the witness to

 2     browse through them.  I don't know whether it refreshes his recollection

 3     and what the relevance of the other portions are.

 4             But I would like to hear from the parties whether we should give

 5     the witness time for 50 pages, or time for six pages, or anything in

 6     between.

 7             I would think that for six pages, that 15 to 20 minutes would do.

 8     What I suggest is that we would give the witness 30 minutes, to start

 9     with.

10             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, it seems to me, by the nature of the

11     document, having been able to read it now, he will be able to deal with

12     questions on it within this passage of six pages, I should expect that.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Even without having -- but having it read first.

14             MR. KAY:  Yes.  He needs to read it obviously but --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but then --

16             MR. KAY:  -- he can see what he said, and that will assist him.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And therefore you would say --

18             MR. KAY:  If he wants to --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  -- that some 15 minutes would do.

20             MR. KAY:  Yes.  And if he wants to see wider, it obviously should

21     be open for him to request that.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

23             MR. KEHOE:  Just --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

25             MR. KEHOE:  I'm sorry.  Yes, Mr. President, just as a final point

Page 22673

 1     in this matter, we would reiterate our ore tenus motion under Rule 65 ter

 2     for disclosure of these 577 documents, to see if there's anything else in

 3     there that -- above and beyond what we're dealing with now.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Carrier.

 5             MR. CARRIER:  I have been advised it has already been brought

 6     down on a CD, I think or -- sorry.

 7                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 8             MR. CARRIER:  They'll disclose the CD this afternoon.  They're

 9     bringing down a copy of the document for the witness now.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, a hard copy of the whole of the document?

11             MR. CARRIER:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And then would the witness know which six pages

13     require his attention first?

14             MR. CARRIER:  Where his name appears is him speaking.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but --

16             MR. CARRIER:  It's 14 to presumably 20, or 19.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  If you would please -- Mr. Dodig, we will

18     give you an opportunity to read what is considered by the parties at this

19     moment to be the most relevant portion of this document.

20             Pages 14 to 20 in B/C/S, Mr. Carrier?

21             MR. CARRIER:  Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So would you please first read pages 14 to 20

23     in your own language.  We'll give you some additional time so that you

24     can have a glance on the other pages, but I understand that at least the

25     Prosecution will not put any questions to you in relation to those other

Page 22674

 1     portions.

 2             Mr. Kay, in view of questions you may have for the witness, would

 3     you invite him to read page 3 as well?

 4             MR. KAY:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  For the context.

 6             MR. KAY:  [Microphone not activated] I have just seen the six

 7     pages and it -- that -- that page is within that, so he will see that.

 8             Thank you, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Now let's me just ...

10             I think reference was made to page 3 out of the six.

11             MR. KAY:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Out of the six.  Now I understand better.

13             Mr. Dodig, you're invited to first focus on pages 14 to 20 of

14     that document, and then just perhaps skip through the other pages, to the

15     extent you consider it useful, but, as far as it stands now, no questions

16     will be asked about the other portions of the document.

17             Now, I'm looking at the clock.  We could take now an early break

18     and then continue.

19             Let me just check with Mr. Registrar.

20                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig, you will be provided with a hard copy of

22     this document.  I invite you to read those pages.  And, meanwhile, we'll

23     deal with a few procedural matters.

24             Madam Usher, would you please escort Mr. Dodig out of the

25     courtroom.

Page 22675

 1             May I take it that the logistics for Mr. Dodig to receive the

 2     hard copy are in place?

 3                           [The witness stands down]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I would like to briefly deal with a few matters and

 5     perhaps before we deal with the practical aspects of it, perhaps I should

 6     deliver the two decisions on video-conference link and on protective

 7     measures.

 8                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps -- the decisions I wanted to deliver are the

10     decisions of the Chamber in relation to witness IC-1 and IC-2 and these

11     discussions are relevant for the practical arrangements to be made in

12     relation to the scheduling of next week.

13             If I understand the results of your conversations well, an

14     alternative solution would have been to hear the testimony of

15     Witness IC-1 and IC-2 through videolink next week, Wednesday and

16     Thursday.

17             MR. KAY:  Correct, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, the decisions I wanted to read, and I don't

19     know whether we find time to read them in its entirety, but the Chamber

20     has decided to grant the requests for videolink, so that hurdle doesn't

21     exist anymore.

22             Now, I also inform the parties that, at this very moment,

23     everyone is working hard to see whether this can be done, so there is no

24     problem in accepting the idea, but the practicalities are rather complex,

25     because there are competing videolinks on these same dates scheduled,

Page 22676

 1     which requires that both the Victims and Witness Section and Court

 2     Management Services have to consider whether they have staff available to

 3     do this all at the same time, or to re-schedule the court schedule either

 4     for this Chamber or for the other Chambers which want to use a videolink

 5     simultaneously.

 6             So that is a rather complex, practical problem at this moment.

 7     It seems that nothing opposes adopting the suggested solution, if that

 8     can be done.  That's the main problem at this moment.

 9             I can't give you any results yet.  We have to wait until all

10     those involved have -- have made their efforts to see whether this

11     suggested videolink can fit into the programme.

12             Any comments in this respect?  If not, then I'd like now to read

13     the two decisions.  We would then have a break, and that would give

14     additional time for Mr. Dodig, and even if you don't want to listen to

15     the decisions, but, rather, spent consulting people out of this courtroom

16     elsewhere, the Chamber would fully understand that.  And then, at least,

17     we have had some additional time to prepare for what will happen after

18     the break.

19             I start with a decision on protective measures and a

20     video-conference link for Witness IC-1.

21             On the 14th of September, 2009, the Cermak Defence filed a motion

22     requesting the trial-related protective measures of face and voice

23     distortion and pseudonym for Witness IC-1.  The Cermak Defence also

24     requested that the evidence of Witness IC-1 be given via video-conference

25     link.

Page 22677

 1             On the 17th of September, 2009, the Prosecution filed its

 2     response, indicating that it did not object to either of the requests.

 3             The Gotovina Defence and the Markac Defence did not respond.

 4             The Chamber will first address the request for protective

 5     measures.

 6             As has been held in previous decisions, the party seeking

 7     protective measures must demonstrate an objectively grounded risk to the

 8     security or welfare of the witness or the witness's family, should it

 9     become known that the witness has given evidence before the Tribunal.  As

10     the Chamber set out in its recent decision on protective measures for

11     Witness 13 on the 8th of June, 2009, it should be considered that even

12     though the granting of protective measures is, and should be, the

13     exception to the rule of a public trial, the threshold for when it should

14     be granted cannot be set too high.  For example, to exclude persons who

15     have not experienced threats or harassment would defy the purpose of the

16     measures; namely, protection from risks that might occur as a result of

17     the testimony.

18             Witness IC-1 is a Croatian Serb currently residing with his

19     family in Croatia.  He has expressed concerns for himself and his family

20     as he believes his testimony could cause hostile reactions in the Serb

21     community -- Serb community of his home town.  The witness is expected to

22     testify about how the Croatian authorities treated him after

23     Operation Storm.  Recently, the witness learned of threats and harassment

24     directed against another Defence witness, a Serb living in the same town,

25     also testifying in this case and on similar events.  This person has

Page 22678

 1     already been granted protective measures by the Chamber.  Although

 2     Witness IC-1 has not experienced any threats directed against him or his

 3     family, the Chamber considers that there's a risk that his testimony may

 4     antagonise persons in his immediate surroundings, and that he therefore

 5     might suffer similar threats or harassment as the witness referred to

 6     above.

 7             For these reasons, the Chamber finds that the Cermak Defence has

 8     demonstrated an objectively grounded risk as to the security and welfare

 9     of Witness IC-1, should it become known that he has given evidence before

10     this Tribunal.  The Chamber therefore grants the protective measures of

11     face and voice distortion and pseudonym.  Even though not requested by

12     the Cermak Defence, the Chamber further grants private session for

13     portions of the testimony that could reveal the witness identity.

14             The Chamber will now address the request for testimony via

15     video-conference link.  According to Rule 81 bis of the Tribunal's Rules

16     of Procedure and Evidence, a Chamber may order that the proceedings be

17     conducted by way of video-conference link if it is consistent with the

18     interests of justice.  This standard is met, if, first, the witness is

19     unable or has good reasons to be unwilling to come to the seat of the

20     Tribunal; second, the witness's testimony is sufficiently important to

21     make it unfair to the requesting party to proceed without it; and, third,

22     the accused are not prejudiced in the exercise of their rights to

23     confront the witness.

24             The witness, who is 79 years old, has informed the Cermak Defence

25     that he suffers from a serious form of a heart arrythmia and colon

Page 22679

 1     cancer.  The witness recently had an operation and is currently

 2     undergoing treatment which further aggravates his condition.  Although no

 3     confirming medical records have been presented, and in the absence of

 4     objections from the Prosecution and the other parties, the Chamber is

 5     satisfied that the witness's advanced age and physical condition render

 6     him unable to travel to the Tribunal to testify.

 7             Having been notified about the substance of the witness's

 8     anticipated testimony, the Chamber is further satisfied that it is

 9     sufficiently important to make it unfair for the Cermak Defence to

10     proceed without it.

11             Finally, the Chamber finds that neither party is prejudiced in

12     the exercise of their right to confront Witness IC-1, if the witness

13     appears via video-conference link.  The parties, none of whom objected to

14     the motion, will all be provided the opportunity to cross-examine the

15     witness.

16             Therefore, the Chamber finds that it is consistent with the

17     interests of justice to grant the Cermak Defence's request to hear

18     Witness IC-1's testimony via video-conference and grants the request,

19     pursuant to Rule 81 bis.

20             And this concludes the Chamber's decision on protective measures

21     and proceedings via video-conference for Witness IC-1.

22             I now move on to the delivery of the Chamber's decision on the

23     Cermak Defence's motion for video-conference link for Witness IC-2.

24             On 14th of September, the Cermak Defence filed a motion

25     requesting that the evidence of Witness IC-2 be given via

Page 22680

 1     video-conference link.

 2             On the 28th of September, 2009, the Prosecution filed its

 3     response indicating that it did not object to the request.  The

 4     Gotovina Defence and the Markac Defence did not respond.

 5             According to Rule 81 bis of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and

 6     Evidence, a Chamber may order that the proceedings be conducted by way of

 7     video-conference link if it is consistent with the interests of justice.

 8     This standard is met, if, first, the witness is unable or has good

 9     reasons to be unwilling to come to the seat of this Tribunal; second, the

10     witness's testimony is sufficiently important to make it unfair to the

11     requesting party to proceed without it; and, third, the accused are not

12     prejudiced in the exercise of their rights to confront the witness.

13             Witness IC-2 is 83 years old.  The Cermak Defence has submitted

14     that his health is frail and that he suffers from asthma.  Recently the

15     witness was treated at the local hospital.  His doctor told a member of

16     the Cermak Defence that the witness's present condition was caused by

17     stress relating to threats he received in connection to his testimony

18     before the Tribunal.  Although no confirming medical records have been

19     presented, and in the absence of objections from the Prosecution and the

20     other parties, the Chamber is satisfied that the witness's advanced age

21     and physical condition render him unable to travel to the Tribunal to

22     testify.

23             Having been notified about the substance of the witness's

24     anticipated testimony, the Chamber is further satisfied that it is

25     sufficiently important as to make it unfair for the Cermak Defence to

Page 22681

 1     proceed without it.

 2             Finally, the Chamber finds that neither party is prejudiced in

 3     the exercise of their right to confront Witness IC-2, if the witness

 4     appears via video-conference link.  The parties, none of whom objected to

 5     the motion, will all be provided with the opportunity to cross-examine

 6     the witness.

 7             Consequently, the Chamber finds that it is consistent with the

 8     interests of justice to grant the Cermak Defence's request to hear

 9     Witness IC-2's testimony via video-conference link and therefore grants

10     the motion, pursuant to Rule 81 bis.

11             And this concludes the Chamber's decision on proceedings via

12     video-conference link for Witness IC-2.

13             Looking at the clock, and assuming that we would resume at a

14     quarter past 12.00, would we conclude the testimony of Mr. Dodig's

15     testimony today?  And I'm aware of uncertainties that may have been

16     caused by the most recent developments, I would say disclosure

17     developments.

18             Mr. Kehoe, you're already on your feet before I put the question,

19     but I don't know whether there was anything you would like to raise or

20     that you wanted to --

21             MR. KEHOE:  It -- it goes back to our discussion previously.  We

22     have been continuing to look through evidence in the case concerning this

23     transcript of 8/23/1995, and as an officer of the court I have to inform

24     the Chamber that it is this -- not the 577 but this particular transcript

25     is in evidence already at D426.  And we, in fact, obtained it from

Page 22682

 1     another source and put it into evidence.  So ...

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  So --

 3             MR. KEHOE:  We did not get it from the OTP, but we did in fact

 4     put it into evidence, and I just want to inform the Chamber that --

 5     because we have continued since our discussion on this to go back through

 6     and see what we have and don't have.

 7             If Your Honour pulls up D426 and turns to page 9, I think it is

 8     the -- the pertinent section is there, 8 and 9.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, at least D426 is described as transcript of

10     Government of Croatia meeting of the 23rd of August, 1995.  And I'll now

11     look at the translation.

12             Yes.  It would even have prevented the witness from saying that,

13     on the first page, not seeing his name, that he had not attended because,

14     of course, this translation appears to be a -- one that was produced

15     earlier.

16             Now, this Chamber fully understands the problems the parties may

17     have with managing the huge number of documents, disclosed documents,

18     documents in evidence; full understanding for that.

19             The Chamber would also fully understand if the parties would

20     conclude from these problems that before blaming others for not having

21     fulfilled their duties, and, Mr. Carrier, you must be very happy that you

22     had already -- that there was no further obligation for you to fulfil,

23     that it's like, I think, Mr. Jordan, in one of the theatre plays of

24     Moliere, who says, I wasn't aware that I had spoken -- and then he uses a

25     term of not poetry but another type of language.  I wasn't aware that I

Page 22683

 1     had done this for all of my life, so you may not have been aware that

 2     there was no disclosure issue at all and that already it was on the

 3     record.

 4             It teaches us that what I tried to do, as a matter of fact,

 5     earlier today, to first focus on factual, to establish what are the

 6     facts, and only once we know that the facts are such that they justify

 7     some emotion - perhaps not always to the extent we let it go - but that

 8     we first focus on the facts, and that we then only start time -- spending

 9     time on --

10             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  -- heated debates on matters which finally turn out

12     to be not necessary at all.  Nevertheless, Mr. Kehoe, you have certainly

13     assisted in avoiding that even more time is lost on the matter and the

14     Chamber appreciates that highly.

15             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I don't want to take this any further

16     making this disclosure, but it still does not eliminate -- the one issue

17     for us is that we haven't received the 577 documents that we want to

18     see -- or pages, whatever it is, and we want to see what's in that

19     disclosure.

20             We -- this particular document came from another source, not from

21     the Office of the Prosecutor --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, I do understand that your request to have

23     access to the 577 pages still exists.

24             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  That's clear.  Mr. Carrier, I take it that you will

Page 22684

 1     accommodate Mr. Kehoe, who helped us so -- and helped you so well out.

 2             MR. CARRIER:  Yes.  And for my part, if, obviously, you wave a

 3     red flag at a bull, you should except to perhaps have it rush at you.  So

 4     I take no offence.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Many red flags, many red flags today.

 6             We'll have a break and we'll resume at 20 minutes past 12.00.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 12.25 p.m.

 9                           [The witness takes the stand]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig, did you have a chance to read the

11     relevant pages?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Carrier, please proceed.

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

15             If we could have Exhibit D426 on the screen, please.  And I'll do

16     my best to work from that, because that is already in evidence.

17             If we could turn to page 9 in the English, please.  Or perhaps

18     actually if we could turn to page 8 first, and page 14 in the B/C/S.

19        Q.   Mr. Dodig, you can see this is the document that you had a chance

20     to look at.  Your name appears at the top.

21             I take it, having had a chance to review this now, are you -- are

22     you in a position to change your mind with regard to something I asked

23     you before, that you actually went to a cabinet meeting, that you talked

24     about four different categories of Serbs left in the Krajina, that you

25     discussed certain problems, and that you also discussed the number of

Page 22685

 1     Serbs that remained in the Krajina, now that you've had a chance to look

 2     at it?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   So was it just that you forgot that you had done that or can you

 5     explain how it is that you -- first off that you --

 6        A.   What do you mean?

 7        Q.   Well, Mr. Dodig, you were asked a very specific question.  First,

 8     whether you had attended the cabinet meeting; and you said first no, and

 9     then you said yes, you had.  Then you were asked explicitly whether or

10     not you discussed certain things; you said no.  Can you -- I'm just

11     wondering if you can explain.  Is it just lack of memory about certain

12     events that happened or ...

13        A.   I admit that I have been imprecise, sir, but so have you.  We are

14     talking here about a cabinet meeting and not an office meeting.  I do not

15     remember everything that happened 15 years ago, and if there are certain

16     imprecisions, then, I will do my best to -- to reconstruct what has

17     happened.  And I will certainly speak only the truth.

18             MR. CARRIER:  And, Mr. Registrar, if we could turn to page 9 in

19     the English version, which -- which is page 15, I believe, in the B/C/S

20     version.

21        Q.   Now, Mr. Dodig, on this page in English, halfway down, where you

22     talk about specific problems in relation to the UNCRO barracks in Knin,

23     you are describing a situation which I'm going to put to you sounds

24     problematic.  In fact, you say that there's wounded people there, and the

25     overall situation at the point referred to as the hospital is problematic

Page 22686

 1     from the point of view of health care.

 2             And then you go on about providing beds for some adults and some

 3     childrens -- for some children.

 4             I'm asking you if you can explain those comments in the cabinet

 5     meeting, in relation to the statement you gave, where you say, at

 6     paragraph 16, that after a few visits to the UNCRO camp, you say that the

 7     situation was completely calm and that none of the people showed any

 8     interest in talking to you, and before that you describe basically a

 9     medical situation that isn't problematic at all.

10             Can you explain why it is that the cabinet meeting reflects a

11     different interpretation of the events?

12        A.   I cannot remember how much I spoke at the cabinet meeting and how

13     it was translated, about things that happened or about the situation as

14     it was at the time.  But, certainly, my visit to the UNCRO refugee camp,

15     as we called it, was such that I detected the situation, I established

16     what it was like, and -- at the humanitarian and why not say political

17     level, and what I said here is a result of a -- this information that I

18     learned.

19             And on the following day, we sent a truckload of medical items to

20     Knin.  I knew what the general policy was and what -- how we should

21     behave in such situations.  And my interpretation of the situation, as it

22     was, and even at the cabinet meeting where I spoke about the four

23     categories of Serbs, these are my arbitrary -- this is my arbitrary

24     classification.  It's not based on any expert finds or scientific

25     research.

Page 22687

 1             I focussed on this because there were a great many problems.  The

 2     people were disinterested because they had received what they wanted, and

 3     later on, it all depended on their own decisions, whether they would

 4     leave camp together in any direction -- well, some of them later did go

 5     abroad.  And when I look at this report and when I see how we spoke and

 6     when I see the reactions in the cabinet, I'm still proud of what we did,

 7     because we didn't see them as enemies but as people who needed help.

 8             So I do not know what exactly to answer to you.  Do ask me more

 9     precisely, if you want.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig, would you please focus your answer on

11     what is asked.

12             But, apparently, Mr. Carrier, Mr. Dodig has difficulties, so

13     could you please focus his attention to what you would like to know.

14             MR. CARRIER:

15        Q.   Basically I just wanted to know, Mr. Dodig, why is it different

16     in terms of what you are saying in the cabinet versus what you say in

17     your statement.  That's all I want to know on that -- on that point.

18        A.   I would ask you to point out these essential differences to me.

19        Q.   I'll take that answer as you don't see any essential differences

20     and I will move on.

21             On page 16 of your statement, halfway down that paragraph, and

22     near the bottom of the first paragraph on page 9 in English, you're

23     discussing particular problems in the barracks, the UNCRO barracks, and

24     one of the things you talk about is presence of media and the problem of

25     the -- what you call the so-called informative interview, i.e., the

Page 22688

 1     manner in which the people who, in a way, participated in the armed

 2     rebellion against Croatia would be separated from those who didn't.

 3             The next paragraph goes on:

 4             "On the one hand, it is General Cermak's very good wish to solve

 5     it as soon as possible, while, on the other hand, there's a tendency

 6     within the barracks itself that anyone who wants to leave is free to

 7     leave."

 8             My question is:  What you are talking about there is that

 9     General Cermak was insisting that there be interviews of people in the

10     camp before they be allowed to leave.

11             Is that right?

12        A.   As far as I remember, General Cermak said that he had to speak to

13     the camp commander and agree with him what to do and how to resolve the

14     situation.

15        Q.   That's with regard to the interviews, though, right?

16        A.   I suppose so.

17             MR. CARRIER:  And if we could turn to page 17 in the B/C/S.  And

18     if we can start -- which is this second paragraph appearing on page 17 in

19     the B/C/S, which is the final paragraph on page 9 in English.

20        Q.   You're quoted as saying here, Mr. Dodig, that -- and these are

21     the people inside of the UNCRO camp:

22             "As for their attitude on leaving Croatia, most of them wishes to

23     leave, approximately 70 per cent of them, and there's also a smaller

24     number of those who cannot decide as their decision depends on the fact

25     whether their house is preserved or not, whether it is burnt or not, and

Page 22689

 1     very often, as a pre-condition for making the decision, they asked to be

 2     allowed to go outside and convince themselves of the condition of their

 3     property."

 4             You don't mention that in your statement anywhere, that the

 5     people that you were talking to in the UNCRO camps were predicating their

 6     decision on whether to leave, or at least some of them, on whether or not

 7     their house had been burnt down.

 8             Can you explain why you didn't mention that?

 9        A.   Yes, I can.  I failed to mention many things in my statement

10     because otherwise my testimony would go on for days.

11             I can mention dozens of examples of helping people and taking

12     them outside, but I didn't consider it necessary for this trial.  When

13     people said they wanted to leave, they were scared, on the one hand, and,

14     on the other hand, they were curious to see what had happened.  They were

15     mostly people who were not from Knin itself but from the surroundings.

16             So a period of time was necessary to enable them to see it, but

17     there were examples of people who had left and decided on their own to

18     stay.

19             And perhaps another detail, often in conversations with these

20     people, the issue wasn't whether there were people there who had remained

21     and felt innocent, it wasn't an issue whether they would stay for

22     political reasons, but simply for existential reasons, economic reasons,

23     whether they would have anything to live off --

24        Q.   Mr. Dodig, I was just pausing -- I was just pausing to let the

25     translation finish, not to invite to you answer more.

Page 22690

 1             MR. CARRIER:  If we could turn to page 19 in the B/C/S --

 2        Q.   Where are you speaking and the bottom of page 10 in the English.

 3             You're quoted, Mr. Dodig, as estimating that the number of Serbs

 4     that remained in the former occupied territories was between 2.000 and

 5     2500 citizens of Serb nationality.

 6             You also didn't mention those numbers in your statement anywhere.

 7     Can you explain why that is?

 8        A.   I simply didn't consider that an important piece of information.

 9        Q.   And, Mr. Dodig, earlier today when I had asked you about certain

10     public statements had you made regarding the Tribunal, you said that you

11     didn't speak about the work of the Tribunal, but, rather, its motives.

12     And I'm going to suggest to you that you said more than -- you made

13     comments that were more than just about the motives.  You said, and this

14     is document 65 ter 7428, which we started to look at before it wouldn't

15     be called up.  This, just to be clear, is an article that appeared in

16     Slobodna Dalmacija on January 30th, 2001, where some comments were

17     attributed to you, and I will read what you it says in one respect.

18             You say:

19             "'The Hague Tribunal is a political Tribunal.  It has money,

20     power, media, and army, but it does not have a moral power, and it will

21     make a faux pas because of that sooner or later,' warned Dodig, saying

22     that judgements are worthless unless they are perceived as righteous."

23             Do you have any recollection, Mr. Dodig, of making that type of

24     statement?

25        A.   No.  I did speak often about the way I see the International

Page 22691

 1     Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, but I do not remember when I

 2     said this, and I'm positive that I never authorised such a text.

 3             What you said may be a free interpretation of a journalist.  But

 4     if you are interested in my opinion, I will -- I will present it, but I

 5     consider this to be a free interpretation.

 6        Q.   Let me just ask you this:  Do you agree with the sentiment

 7     expressed, in terms of what I just read to you?  Do you agree with that?

 8        A.   Well, not only sentiment but I certainly never said that the

 9     Tribunal in The Hague had an army, because that is nonsense.

10             There are many things we can talk about, but a man can change his

11     opinion based on the facts that he learns.  Whatever I said in 2001

12     doesn't mean that I would say the same thing today, due to the

13     information that I learned in the meantime and that effect my -- the way

14     I see a certain problem.

15        Q.   Okay.  So --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig, Mr. Carrier is asking you whether the

17     sentiment in the quote is what you said.  And then you started explaining

18     that you changed your mind and that you would have never said that the

19     Tribunal had an army.

20             Is that to be understood as that the sentiment, apart from the

21     army part, was, in 2001, your opinion, and that you changed it since

22     then?  I'm trying to understand your answer.  Because Mr. Carrier is

23     trying to focus on what you said at the time; whereas, you are saying, I

24     don't think about this anymore in this way.

25             Does that mean that the sentiment, as expressed, apart from the

Page 22692

 1     army part, is more or less reflecting your thoughts at that time?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the issue of how I see

 3     the Tribunal in The Hague is something I would need much more time to

 4     elaborate than just to answer yes or no.  So it is practically impossible

 5     to give an unambiguous answer to your question.  I am actually

 6     embarrassed by having to pass judgement on some people who are being

 7     tried, and that is the reason why I'm being emotional about this

 8     Tribunal.

 9             Bearing -- I swore at the beginning of my testimony that I would

10     say the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and I cannot

11     lie either to you or to myself.  I have an opinion about this Tribunal,

12     but I don't want this opinion to affect your attitude toward the

13     indictees here.

14             I'm deeply convinced that the bad things that happened after

15     Operation Storm would have been even worse if it hadn't been for these

16     people who were in their respective positions.  Speaking about things

17     beyond a time-frame and outside of a certain area is -- will result in

18     not only a different experience but also in wrong conclusions.  Both as a

19     human being and a doctor, I'm convinced that those who did bad things

20     that make me shiver, just as any civilised person, not only in Croatia

21     but anywhere in the world, that these people are not sitting here.

22             In every society there are some 15 to 20 per cent of psychopaths

23     and those were the times when such people did bad things, committed

24     crimes, but these people are not the ones sitting here.  And that is the

25     reason why I have a such an opinion about this Tribunal, which I value

Page 22693

 1     highly, and I believe that it will eventually pass a just judgement.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Carrier, could I seek one clarification.

 3             You earlier said:  "I'm actually embarrassed by having to pass

 4     judgement on people being tried."

 5             Now, who did you have in mind that would have to pass judgement?

 6     Who -- you're embarrassed by us having to pass judgement, or that you, as

 7     a witness, would have to pass judgement?  What did you mean?

 8             I read the sentence again to you.  You said:

 9             "I'm actually embarrassed by having to pass judgement on people

10     being tried, and that is the reason why I'm going emotional about the

11     Tribunal."

12             The first part of the sentence, could you please explain what you

13     actually meant there.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.

15             Testimonies and the replies that I have to give as a witness and

16     which are often brief result in possible false conclusions, and I feel as

17     part -- part of these people here.  If I knew that, at any moment, any

18     one of them, directly or indirectly, by failing to do something, helped

19     to commit criminal deeds anywhere, believe me that I would be unwilling

20     to live in such a country, and I couldn't identify with that society or

21     that time or those people in any way.

22             So the trial they are standing here, I see as a trial I am

23     standing too, and I know what -- how -- how willing I was to sacrifice

24     and what my -- that my motives were humane.  I would like to remind

25     everybody of the Jewish proverb that the fate of one person is the fate

Page 22694

 1     of the entire world.  And that is why I feel this way, and I'm trying to

 2     explain it to you.

 3             By participating in this trial or in these proceedings, I feel

 4     like I'm also involved in trying these people.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Carrier, you may proceed.

 6             MR. CARRIER:  No more questions.  Thanks.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Before I give an opportunity to the parties to put

 8     further questions to you, when you said, in this meeting on the

 9     23rd of August that there were wounded people, could you elaborate on who

10     were wounded or what kind of wounds you saw?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my statement, I mentioned that I

12     had seen wounds, but I did see young people who were covered up to their

13     waist with blankets and they were lying down.  I shook their hands, and I

14     concluded that they were only slightly wounded, possibly they were not

15     even -- they didn't even have wounds that were bleeding.  And it was in a

16     moral dilemma:  Should I react as a doctor or as representative of the

17     Croatian authorities?

18             None of them -- none of those whose hand I shook had a fever.  Of

19     course, that isn't anything that I can claim for certain.  Everyone had a

20     strong enough -- had -- had enough strength in his hand, and I can say as

21     much, because I have been -- I had been a doctor for decades and I have

22     experience, so I can tell what a case is about when I see it.

23             So I supposed that they had some kind of viruses.  But by the way

24     they moved underneath that blanket, I could tell that they had some other

25     problems.  I was -- those people were all very young, between 20 and 35

Page 22695

 1     years of age, and even in unrelated conversation with the late

 2     Mr. Pupovac, who was the president of that refugee council, who said, If

 3     any of these injured needs medical assistance, let me know, and I will

 4     see to it.  Those are my words and he said, No problem, be assured that

 5     we will let you know, if necessary.

 6             So these people certainly weren't -- didn't suffer wounds by

 7     playing football, and -- as I said at the cabinet meeting.  But resolving

 8     the situation at that moment would have -- would have had more

 9     detrimental consequences than positive ones, at that moment.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig, you earlier asked Mr. --

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig, you asked Mr. Carrier to further explain

13     to you what the inconsistencies would be what you said in this meeting on

14     the 23rd and what you say in your statement.

15             Now, in your statement, first of all, you say they were not

16     wounded; whereas, in the government meeting you are reported to have said

17     that there's wounded people there and that there was a problematic

18     situation as far as health care is concerned.

19             Now, looking at it in the context, and also listening to your

20     answer you just gave, people might think that the inconsistency between

21     what you said in the government and what you said in your statement is

22     the following.  That in the statement you present a picture where people

23     are pretending to be sick and to be wounded, and that you are fully aware

24     that they are only trying to hide and that you didn't say anything about

25     that; whereas, in the government meeting the picture created could be

Page 22696

 1     understood as a different one, that people were wounded and there was a

 2     problematic health-care situation.

 3             Now, I think that this is one of the issues Mr. Carrier had on

 4     his mind when he asked you to explain the inconsistencies; that is, the

 5     picture you give on page 8 in your statement and the words you spoke at

 6     the government meeting, could you given an explanation for that.

 7             And I'm not inviting you to again tell us what you exactly did;

 8     but I'm inviting you to explain the different colour in the two pictures.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will try to explain very briefly.

10             In my statement that I gave to this Tribunal, I did not mention

11     that there were wounded people because I cannot say that for certain.

12     When I spoke at the government session --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig --

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that there were wounded

15     people --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  -- I'm going to stop you there.

17             You say you could not establish that there were wounded, so

18     therefore, that's why you gave your statement.

19             Now, your statement - but if it is incorrectly translated, I

20     would like to hear - says they were not wounded; whereas, if I understand

21     your testimony now well, is that you apparently wanted to say, I could

22     not finally establish whether they were wounded or not.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I personally did not see a single

24     wound, but from circumstantial evidence, I thought there were wounds and

25     injuries.  But the way a court judges things, in terms of yes or no, I

Page 22697

 1     cannot claim anything for certain.  I don't have the tangible evidence.

 2             But when I say that there are wounded people, and I say it at a

 3     government meeting, that sort of obliges those present to respond --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- more quickly.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, what you're actually saying at this moment -

 7     and please correct me when I've misunderstood you -- is there were good

 8     reasons to believe that people were wounded, but I could not finally

 9     establish whether they were or not.

10             That's approximately what you tell us now, isn't it?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Roughly that's it.  And, of course,

12     there are wounds of varying intensity.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'm not asking you to further elaborate on

14     what wounds there are.

15             In your statement, you say, they were not wounded.  You do not

16     say, I had every reason to believe that they were wounded but I couldn't

17     establish that.  You say they were not wounded, and you then further

18     explain, in direct relation to that, that they were hiding rather than

19     being sick and/or wounded.  That creates a totally different picture from

20     what you tell us now.

21             Could you comment on that?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At any point -- at every point in

23     my statement, I say that it's my evaluation.  Whatever I'm saying is my

24     perception and my evaluation.  When I say here there were no wounded

25     people, I say that because I didn't see any wounds.  And precisely

Page 22698

 1     because I appreciated the fact that the Court requires positive

 2     statements, I could not say that there were any wounded people because I

 3     did not see any wounds.  What I said was the result of my experience as a

 4     physician and the circumstances of that particular situation.

 5             Some of those people who were perhaps sick or wounded pretended

 6     to be in good health, but I myself pretended that I do not notice.  And I

 7     said a moment ago that by the way they moved under the bedding, it was

 8     obvious they had certain problems and conditions that could have been a

 9     result of trauma rather than disease, and this trauma, I believe, they

10     sustained in war operations.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Is this belief -- do you have any reason for that,

12     any factual basis for these conclusions, or is it just what you think may

13     be the case?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that was so.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, any wish to re-examine the witness.

16             MR. KAY:  Thank you, Your Honour, just a few questions arising.

17                           Re-examination by Mr. Kay:

18        Q.   Dr. Dodig, you were asked questions about meeting Mr. Cermak, and

19     just to get the picture, I'd like to ask you some questions about that.

20             You described in your statement about visiting the UN camp with

21     Mr. Cermak on the 9th of August.  And I wonder if you're able to tell us

22     as to how long you were with Mr. Cermak on that day.

23        A.   Relatively briefly.  I believe up to an hour in his office.  But

24     that doesn't mean that I was with him.  We reached the camp, I can't

25     remember how, and then he went to one side to speak to the Military

Page 22699

 1     Commander of the camp, and I followed another medical errand.

 2        Q.   And the meeting with the Council of Refugees took how long?

 3        A.   In my estimation, between two and a half and three hours.

 4        Q.   And that meeting with them, was that a meeting at which both you

 5     and Mr. Cermak were at together during that time?

 6        A.   No, no, I was alone at this meeting.

 7        Q.   Can you explain how long Mr. Cermak was with you, then, and the

 8     Refugee Council when you had discussions with them on this visit?

 9        A.   A few minutes, perhaps.  He greeted them and left.

10        Q.   In relation to the questions that you were asked about other

11     meetings, you referred in your statement that you knew that Mr. Cermak

12     held meetings in his office with representatives of the civilian

13     authorities.

14        A.   I heard from many people who came to Knin that they had spoken to

15     Mr. Cermak, but I'd like to find the right term for these interactions.

16     I would call them brief encounters; that would be more precise.

17        Q.   Thank you.  You were asked questions about the differences

18     between your perception of the camp when you gave your statement at the

19     closed session of the government on the 23rd of August, which we saw in

20     the transcript, Exhibit D426, with the phrase in your statement:

21             "... the situation was completely calm and none of those people

22     showed interest in talking to me."

23             What did you mean by the expression "the situation was completely

24     calm"?  Perhaps you could explain that.

25        A.   The situation was calm enough for medical affairs to be under

Page 22700

 1     control.  Second, they were given the possibility to decide themselves

 2     what their next step would be: Leave the camp, or stay.

 3             The situation was also calm insofar as a kind of peace reigned,

 4     and people were no longer afraid of what might happen the next minute and

 5     whether they would be able to leave or not.  They had already succeeded

 6     in establishing contact with a number of international humanitarian

 7     organisations that visited and they had managed to come in touch with

 8     their family and perhaps some other people and organisations who were

 9     able to give them more assistance than I was at the time.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11             MR. KAY:  I have no further questions.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President, just briefly.

14                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:

15        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Dodig.  I would like to just talk with you a

16     bit about some of the questions that were asked from my learned friend

17     Mr. Carrier and the quote that he read about this -- this being --

18     The Hague Tribunal being a political Tribunal.  And I take it your

19     opinions and your views on The Hague Tribunal were shaped by what you

20     read and saw and heard coming out of the Tribunal, and statements by its

21     staff.  Is that right?

22        A.   Absolutely.

23        Q.   Let me bring up on the screen [Microphone not activated] ...

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

25             MR. KEHOE:  Apologies.  I can bring up on the screen via

Page 22701

 1     Sanction, 65 ter 1D2986.  And this is an excerpt from Ms. Florence

 2     Hartmann's book, from page 44, 47, and 48, that's been translated --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we -- Mr. Kehoe, let's -- before we start

 4     this, if you want to put something to the witness rather than reading a

 5     text to him.

 6             Mr. Dodig, could I ask your attention, please, not to read at

 7     this moment on the screen.  You're still -- yes.

 8             Could you ask the witness whether he has read the book before we

 9     come to any further conclusions on the matter.

10             MR. KEHOE:

11        Q.   Are you familiar with Ms. Hartmann's book?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  That's not what I suggest but whether he read it.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Well, I just -- no, no.  My --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the first question.

15             MR. KEHOE:  My first question was familiar; my next question did

16     he read it and was he aware of conversation -- well, I'll just ask the

17     questions.

18        Q.   Are you familiar with Ms. Hartmann's book?

19        A.   I know that Ms. Hartmann published a book and I have read certain

20     excerpts that appeared in our press.

21        Q.   And, sir, you are aware that that book was translated into

22     Croatian.

23        A.   I am.

24        Q.   And you, likewise, were aware that Ms. Hartmann did a media tour

25     throughout Croatia and excerpts of that book were published in the

Page 22702

 1     Croatian press.  You are aware of that?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And are you aware, sir, of Ms. Hartmann's allegations that the --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, let's first ask the witness what he

 5     remembers --

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Okay.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- from the excerpts, and then if that creates any

 8     link, then, of course, we have that link clearly established.  If it

 9     doesn't create a link then, of course, then we could further see whether

10     it refreshes the witness's memory.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. KEHOE:

13        Q.   Well, Dr. Dodig, in your -- your comments -- excuse me, in the

14     matters of Ms. Hartmann's writings and her speeches, can you tell us

15     basically what you read from that book and specifically what excerpts you

16     read from that book concerning her activities within the Office of the

17     Prosecutor when she was the spokesperson?

18        A.   At this moment I cannot recall any details.  Those were excerpts

19     I read in newspapers that were actually journalists' views and

20     interpretations.  I am one of those people who hate talking about things

21     they are not perfectly familiar with.  I know that Mrs. Hartmann

22     published a book.  I know that she was tried for contempt of court, but I

23     cannot recall any details of the book.

24        Q.   Let me show you something that refresh your recollection

25     concerning her comments.

Page 22703

 1             MR. KEHOE:  And I turn to excerpts from her book, 65 ter 1D2986,

 2     that we show via Sanction.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, just for my information, you started with

 4     what was published, as Mr. Dodig says, views.  That was in 2001.  That

 5     was your starting point of your line of questioning.  And then you are

 6     apparently exploring on what basis he had formed his opinions.

 7             Now, are we talking about the opinions expressed in 2001, or are

 8     we talking about the opinions, as he said, had changed his view.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Well, Ms. Hartmann is talking about what happened in

10     2001.  If we contextualise what Hartmann is talking about, is about

11     events in 2001 and prior to that.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but then, of course, it becomes important to

13     know what the witness knows, apart from perhaps later reading it in

14     Ms. Hartmann's book, about what happened in 2001.

15             MR. KEHOE:  Well, the issue --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  You understand, I'm trying to --

17             MR. KEHOE:  I understand, Judge.  The issue that the Prosecution

18     is attempting to say -- and maybe the witness might take his earphones

19     off, so I don't really --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we first have to establish whether he speaks

21     any English or not.  Some psychiatrists do.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  You do.  Then it is of no use to take your earphones

24     off, Mr. Dodig.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.

Page 22704

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, it may be clear that there's nothing that

 2     should not be asked to this witness, but it should always be clear what

 3     he knew, at what time, and what could be at the basis of whatever

 4     statement, opinion, whatever it is.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Well, the --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And then the first thing we have to establish what

 7     comes to his recollection without the assistance of any refreshment and

 8     then after that, we could see whether his recollection, if there is any

 9     need to do so, is refreshed by any matter.  I would like to have that on

10     the basis of a clear analysis.

11             MR. KEHOE:  And Mr. President --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

13             MR. KEHOE:  -- my line of cross is different than articulated by

14     the Chamber.  In the line of cross --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not talking about your line of cross --

16             MR. KEHOE:  No, no, no, but because it's -- because it is -- it

17     is different in the sense of whether or not the witness has read and

18     analysed what Florence Hartmann said.  To the extent that he perceived,

19     in 2001, the Tribunal being a political body, and to the extent that his

20     credibility or bias is being attacked by the OTP in that regard, this is

21     showing the Chamber, through this witness, that the -- he was not the

22     only person during this operative time-frame to say that this body was

23     political.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  But Mr. -- okay.  Mr. --

25             MR. KEHOE:  And that the OTP --

Page 22705

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, you're then invited to first explore with

 2     the witness, without using any book or anything else, to explore what was

 3     at the basis of his opinions at that time.  And then once we know that,

 4     that we could then compare that with other people's opinions at the time.

 5     We would then at least know whether what you will put to him as the

 6     opinions of others is the same or is different, and, therefore, we first

 7     have to explore what was at the basis of his opinions.

 8             Mr. Carrier.

 9             MR. CARRIER:  Mr. President, if we could move into private

10     session for one moment.  I just have an issue.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.  I don't know the

12     reason yet, but ...

13                           [Private session]

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 22706

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3                           [Open session]

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Having consulted my colleagues, Mr. Kehoe, I can

 8     speak on behalf of the Chamber that the Chamber is assisted by an

 9     approach in which you first establish the basis for opinions expressed by

10     the witness at any time.  We still do not know for sure whether apart

11     from the army, whether that was what the gist of what his opinions was at

12     the time, because we had some difficulties in establishing that.  And

13     then only after that, to compare that with others, whether in books,

14     whether anywhere else, that is the appropriate way to elicit evidence

15     from the witness which does assist the Chamber.

16             Please proceed.

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

18        Q.   Dr. Dodig, let me talk to you about your comment about The Hague

19     Tribunal being a political Tribunal, or if you said that, or were of that

20     belief back in 2001.

21             Now, turning our attention to the Office of the Prosecution, were

22     you of the belief during that period of time that you concluded or had

23     the opinion that the Office of the Prosecutor of The Hague Tribunal was a

24     political body?

25        A.   For the most part, yes, precisely the Office of the Prosecutor.

Page 22707

 1        Q.   And what was the basis of that opinion, Dr. Dodig?

 2        A.   The basis for that opinion was my perception from what I had been

 3     reading and hearing over the year; namely, that the Office of the

 4     Prosecutor is the predominant institution in this Tribunal, and that all

 5     that we hear from the Tribunal, as a three-pronged institution, is what

 6     the Office of the Prosecutor puts out.

 7             Conditions were always placed before Croatia, emanating from the

 8     Office of the Prosecutor, so the OTP had always been perceived as an

 9     institution within The Hague Tribunal who has a precise game plan and a

10     clear objective, that objective being not to find individuals guilty of

11     war crimes but individuals who symbolised the Croatian defence war, in

12     terms of military and other leadership, people who I am deeply convinced

13     play their role in that war very honourably.  And, of course, I'm aware

14     that there were individuals in the category of psychopaths that I

15     mentioned who did do ugly, ugly things.

16        Q.   I understand your conclusions, sir, and in the interests of time,

17     you noted for us that you don't recall exactly what Ms. Hartmann had to

18     say in her book --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, let's first try to explore that in as

20     much detail.

21             I do understand you answer to be that you said that for two

22     reasons you considered the Office of the Prosecutor to be the predominant

23     political element in the work of this Tribunal.  The first being that

24     always they were in the foreground; that's one.  And, second, because

25     they did not -- they were not after the guilty ones but they just wanted

Page 22708

 1     to attack the symbols who had honestly behaved.

 2             Is that correctly understood?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Now were there --  were there any other reasons,

 5     apart from the ones you mentioned, that contributed to you forming an

 6     opinion about the Tribunal or the Office of the Prosecutor as being

 7     political organs or bodies?  Was there any other thing that comes to your

 8     mind what was at the basis of your opinion?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was the basis of my -- my

10     opinion.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  And that was there were no other important elements

12     at the basis of this opinion.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nothing I -- in particular that I

14     can think of, in this moment.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

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

17        Q.   Now, Doctor, Judge Orie asked you about the two reasons for your

18     position, and in line 18, Judge Orie said you considered for the two --

19     excuse me.  You considered -- for two reasons you considered the Office

20     of the Prosecutor to be a predominant political element in the work of

21     this Tribunal, to which you responded yes.

22             Were you aware that Florence Hartmann gave the same opinion as

23     the opinion that you just articulated, concerning the Office of the

24     Prosecutor being the predominant political element in the work of the

25     Tribunal?

Page 22709

 1             Were you aware of that?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   Well, let me talk to you, go back, if we may, concerning

 4     Ms. Hartmann, her book, her discussions on media tours in Croatia, and

 5     what was printed in the press in Croatia, and you noted for us that you

 6     didn't recall exactly what you had read, so let me go to these excerpts

 7     from Ms. Hartmann's book, again, if I may, which is 65 ter 1D2986, and if

 8     we can view that via Sanction, and we are only going to look at three

 9     short excerpts on page 44, 47, 48 which have been translated into

10     English.

11             And if I may, at page 44, at the top, it notes:

12             "Lawyers, military analysts and policemen from every country of

13     the Commonwealth followed them and rushed to The HagueFrance is

14     falling behind.  While the Prosecution and the procedure fall under

15     Anglo-Saxon hands, Paris does not wish to participate in this effort.

16     However, without a budget, the ICTY depends on contributions."  It talks

17     about a piece in France.  Let me go down to the next paragraph, starting,

18     "These differences ..."

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, could you gave us the time-frame, because

20     it says a year later, but I've got no idea in what year we are.

21             MR. KEHOE:  I will have Mr. Misetic, if he can, check the

22     Croatian translation because the book itself, my understanding is that it

23     has only been drafted in -- or written in -- published, excuse me, in

24     French and Croatian.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Carrier.

Page 22710

 1             MR. CARRIER:  I just -- the part where it says "followed them,"

 2     I'm just curious as to who "them" is.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  From Mr. Misetic's review of this, it appears that

 4     she is referring to the late 1990s, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Late 1990s.  Thank you.

 6             MR. KEHOE:

 7        Q.   Next paragraph:

 8             "These difference in the attitude between the French and the

 9     Anglo-Saxons were evident from the very start and they are not

10     coincidental.  All the realists in the Tribunal see ... the extenuation

11     of the political -- of the political authority, its judicial branch.  As

12     soon as the effects of the announcement started to become obvious,

13     everyone was in agreement that the goal was already accomplished.  The

14     ICTY was a means of justification for the politicians and as a vent for

15     their [sic] emotions caused by the atrocities committed in Bosnia and

16     Herzegovina.

17             "Immediately afterward [sic] it was abandoned with no means to

18     sustain itself with no budget.  Against all expectations, a handful of

19     sufficiently idealistic masters were going to pull it away from its fate

20     of a worn-out alibi tossed in the waste basket.  They knocked on every

21     door and finally found funds to open their first investigations.

22             "This unexpected awakening brought the great powers in an awkward

23     position.  They gave promises which they had no intention of keeping.

24     They created obligations for themselves which they didn't perceive as

25     binding.  Now they will have to make a deal because the work of the

Page 22711

 1     Tribunal will undoubtedly have political implications.  However, the

 2     great powers are still not responding as fast and with the same armament

 3     before this creature is slipping from their hands and the creature they

 4     are afraid."

 5             MR. KEHOE:  If we can just scroll down a bit.

 6        Q.   They're talking about the Prosecution in this next paragraph, on

 7     page 42:

 8             "Some barely know where the Balkans even are [sic].  They are

 9     hounding the Prosecution, the moving force of the Tribunal, whose Judges

10     have been subdued to the position of arbitraries between the Defence and

11     Prosecution [sic].  Military analysts, lawyers, and intelligence officers

12     easily blend in the crowed continuing to occupy humble yet strategic

13     positions and serving more to their own governments than the ICTY."

14             The last section, talking about Carla Del Ponte:

15             "But at no time has she herself stated at the end of the [sic]

16     mandate could she have imagined that the work of the international

17     Prosecutor was so much different than the work of a state attorney, that

18     [sic] there were so many pressures and attempts of political influence.

19     Faced with the possibility of disobedience by the Prosecutors, the

20     Anglo-Saxons could not content themselves with the mere sharing of advice

21     which was so rarely followed.  This why they simultaneously developed far

22     more devious and dangerous strategics which the masters will not always

23     able to detect in time."


25             Now, sir, Dr. Dodig, does that -- those excerpts refresh your

Page 22712

 1     recollection in any fashion concerning the position of the former

 2     spokesperson of the Office of the Prosecutor according -- discussing the

 3     political nature of the Office of the Prosecutor?

 4        A.   Unfortunately, no.  My memory is not refreshed.  These were --

 5     this was the way I saw it much before I read it.  Based on things I may

 6     not be able to remember now and synthesising them all afterward, I

 7     appreciate the efforts and honour this Court, and I believe the Tribunal

 8     will do what it is supposed to do.  And I will be only too glad if I come

 9     to the conclusion eventually that I was wrong and that this Tribunal is

10     not political, and you may rest assured that I will certainly do so, and

11     if -- if that happens, and I will explain to the people where I live that

12     I was wrong about saying that this is a political body.

13             We'll see whether that will happen or not, but after all this, I

14     feel bad.

15        Q.   Thank you, Doctor.  I have no further questions.

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

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I have one last question for you.

18             In your statement, you said that -- in paragraph 6:

19             "Along the road which I took to Knin, there were only a few

20     torched houses."

21             This morning, page 17, lines 21, 22, you said that you could not

22     see whether it was hay, or grass, or houses that produced smoke.

23             Could you explain the difference in your perception when you gave

24     this statement and when you gave your testimony this morning, where you

25     said you couldn't see whether it was hay, or grass, or houses.

Page 22713

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, I couldn't see --

 2     or couldn't tell from a distance, and here where I say that I saw only a

 3     few houses on the road from Drnis to Knin, which is a distance of about

 4     30 kilometres, no burnt house I saw there had been burned recently.  So

 5     it was impossible for me to tell from travelling down that road, whether

 6     those houses were actually torched in Operation Storm or at some other

 7     time.  So the houses may have been 200 or 300 metres away from the road.

 8     So it was really hard for me to tell whether that house or those houses

 9     had been burned recently or -- and whether or not they were burned in a

10     military operation.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.

12             Any further questions triggered by the questions put to the

13     witness by the Bench?

14             MR. KAY:  No.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  If not, Mr. Dodig, this concludes your evidence in

16     this Court.  I would like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague

17     and for having answered all the questions that you were put to you,

18     questions by the --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  -- parties and questions put to you by the Bench.  I

21     wish you a safe trip home again.

22             Madam Usher.

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

24                           [The witness withdrew]

25                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

Page 22714

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  As far as next week, Thursday, the 15th, is

 2     concerned, everyone is still working.  If we would sit that whole day,

 3     then it should be expected that part of the day that the Chamber could

 4     sit only under Rule 15 bis, at least some part of the afternoon.  Of

 5     course, the Chamber will have to consider, in view of the evidence we

 6     anticipate to receive, whether that would be in the interests of justice

 7     to proceed in the absence of one of the Judges, and, further, all the

 8     staffing issues have not yet been resolved.  Everyone's working hard.  We

 9     hope to know as soon as possible, whether it will be that Thursday.

10             We'll then also consider what consequences this would have and

11     the Cermak Defence is also invited consider what consequences that would

12     have for the Wednesday, the 14th.  Because I think, up till this moment,

13     the two video-conference links were anticipated to take place on the 14th

14     and the 15th.  14th is impossible.  If we would sit more than half a

15     day's session on the 15th, we have to consider what consequences that

16     would have for the sessions on the 14th.

17             MR. KAY:  I can assist Your Honour with that, because we have the

18     schedule for that week.  We had the witness Mr. Cetina in the line for

19     the first two days of that week, and then the -- one of the witnesses who

20     had to go to hospital and would be free and available on the Wednesday,

21     the 14th, so we cover those three days.  It's really --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  That would be then be the witness who couldn't

23     testify this week on Friday.

24             MR. KAY:  Yes, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  So that would then be on -- that witness would be

Page 22715

 1     scheduled on Wednesday?

 2             MR. KAY:  Wednesday, travelling Tuesday, arriving Wednesday.

 3     What it's coming down to now is this spare -- it's not a spare day.  It's

 4     a day that's available.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And you are aware that if we would not

 6     conclude the testimony of that witness on Wednesday and if we are

 7     preparing for a videolink on Thursday, that irrespective of whether that

 8     witness would have concluded its testimony, that we would have to start

 9     with the videolink because that -- videolink prepared always takes

10     precedence over any other witness waiting, because the technical

11     facilities are not there forever.  We should use them once they are

12     available.

13             MR. KAY:  Yes.  He is not a big witness, looking at it.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  But perhaps it would also be good also to

15     discuss this briefly with the other parties and perhaps with the

16     Prosecution to see whether that testimony of that witness could be

17     concluded on that Wednesday so as to avoid that he has to stay over until

18     Friday.

19             Then we'll adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow, Thursday,

20     the 8th of October, 9.00, Courtroom III.

21                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

22                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 8th day of

23                           October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.