1 Monday, 12 October 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
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 Ms. Gustafson, are you ready to continue your cross-examination?
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then may the witness be brought into the courtroom.
15 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
17 MR. MISETIC: Just before the witness takes the stand. With
18 respect to the Chamber's invitation last Friday, in -- concerning the
19 Limaj and Popovic precedents, we have had a chance to review it in more
20 detail over the weekend.
21 JUDGE ORIE: It's not only -- I just gave by way of example --
22 MR. MISETIC: Correct.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- Limaj, and there are more as a matter of fact.
24 MR. MISETIC: I was trying to just keep it general so that the
25 Chamber knew what I was referring to.
1 We are prepared to address the issue in any manner that the
2 Chamber wishes it be addressed, just so that the Chamber is aware.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I would like to hear from the other parties
4 once they are ready so that we can make it a focussed joint effort.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Pasic.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning to you too.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, I would like to remind you that you are
9 still bound by the solemn declaration that you have given at the
10 beginning of your testimony. That may be clear to you.
11 Ms. Gustafson will now continue her cross-examination.
12 Ms. Gustafson, please proceed.
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
14 WITNESS: PETAR PASIC [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Cross-examination by Ms. Gustafson: [Continued]
17 Q. Good morning, Mr. Pasic.
18 A. Good morning to you too.
19 Q. Now on Friday at the -- near the end of the court session, I was
20 asking some questions about the military police in Knin, and you
21 explained that you did not recall Mr. Dzolic, the first military police
22 commander in Knin, and explained that you were not present at any
23 meetings between General Cermak and the military police.
24 Now, in your statement that you gave to the Defence, you stated
25 that the military police was not subordinate to General Cermak. And I'd
1 like to ask you if you're aware that General Cermak issued written orders
2 to the military police commander in Knin.
3 Did you know that?
4 A. No, I wasn't aware of that. I told you last time that members of
5 the military police did not participate in meetings together with me and
6 Mr. Cermak.
7 Q. And I -- it's clear from your statement that you know that
8 General Cermak was the garrison commander in Knin. Do have you any
9 specialised knowledge about the authority or function of a garrison
10 commander under the rules and laws that applied at the time?
11 A. As far as I know, a garrison commander does not have any special
12 authorities, save for supplying units currently deployed in the territory
13 of the town where that person serves as a garrison commander.
14 Q. Are you aware of -- of which particular rules and laws applied to
15 define the functions and authority of a garrison commander at the time?
16 A. According to information available to me, I believe that those
17 tasks belong to the civilian sector. They certainly did not belong or
18 fall within the purview of either the military or the police.
19 Q. I take it from your answer that you are not aware of which
20 particular rules and laws applied to define the functions and authority
21 of a garrison commander at the time; is that right?
22 A. I'm -- I don't think you're right. His authorities fell within
23 the purview of the civilian sector.
24 Q. Mr. Pasic, my question was about particular laws or rules that
25 applied at the time.
1 Are you able to identify any particular law or rule that applied
2 at the time?
3 A. No. I must say, unfortunately, that I don't understand your
4 question. What laws and rules? The laws and rules of the Republic of
6 Q. Thank you. Now, in your statement that you gave to the
7 Prosecution, you explained that General Cermak was upset about the crimes
8 that were going on after Operation Storm. You stated:
9 "As far as the killings, looting, and destruction was concerned,
10 he was not happy about it."
11 And in your statement to the Defence, you stated that
12 General Cermak did not have the authority that would allow him to prevent
14 Now, as far as you were aware, did General Cermak have the
15 authority to instruct either the military police or the civilian police
16 to take action in response to the report of a crime, to investigate a
17 crime. Did he have that authority, as far as you're aware?
18 A. No, he did not have that authority. And as a person who was
19 serving as the garrison commander and as the person who cooperated with
20 me, I told you that he felt upset after having received reports about
21 lootings and killings and other such things.
22 Q. So I take it that you are not aware of any specific instance
23 where General Cermak instructed either the civilian police or the
24 military police to -- to respond to a crime or to investigate a crime; is
25 that right?
1 A. That is right.
2 Q. Now, in your statement that you gave to the Defence, you describe
3 an incident where you invited General Cermak to your village and that
4 General Cermak organised a delivery of a generator and fuel to the
5 village. And that's at paragraph 30 of your Defence statement.
6 Now, your village is -- you have described as Oton. Are you
7 actually from the hamlet of Oton Bender? Is that right?
8 I see you nodding yes.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Now, I'd like, if we could have P2526, page 82 of
10 the English and page 98 of the B/C/S on the screen, please.
11 Q. Mr. Pasic, the document that's going to appear on your screen
12 shortly is part of an interview that General Cermak gave to the
13 Prosecution, and I'm going to ask you to read some parts of that
14 interview and then ask you a couple of questions, okay?
15 And the passage I'd like to you look at begins in the first
16 paragraph where General Cermak is speaking, and he says:
17 "Just before winter, in October, I was with my people from
18 logistics. We went to the Serbian village of Bender
19 because I wanted in the villages surrounding Knin where there were people
20 of Serbian nationality, the people who stayed had behind, that in each
21 village there would be an electricity generator. So I went with my
22 logistics people, and also with the government representative,
23 Mr. Pasic" --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, is it --
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think now --
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- for certain that we have the version in the
2 language of the witness on the screen.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think so. I think at this point we're in the
4 paragraph in the middle of the page.
5 JUDGE ORIE: What I see, as a matter of fact, on my screen is
6 that in the middle we have a relatively short paragraph, whereas you
7 apparently are reading from a paragraph which covers some 26 lines, and I
8 do not see --
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I --
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- any beginning, unless it is the very last one,
11 but --
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think it actually is broken up. I believe this
13 is one of the places where there's an interjection by Mr. Dondo.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That could be, and -- yes, if that is the case, you
15 may proceed.
16 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
17 Q. Are you able to follow so far, Mr. Pasic?
18 If you could look at this point at the paragraph in the middle.
19 And I'll just repeat. General Cermak says -- he mentions your name and
20 then he says:
21 "I went to that village. We set up the generator. We connected
22 the electricity to the village, delivered humanitarian aid. We delivered
23 a couple of televisions so that they wouldn't be cut off from the world
24 and could watch the news. So we talked with people and they roasted lamb
25 for us. We said good-bye. We gave somebody from the village the
1 responsibility to maintain and to fix the generator, and we set off back
2 for Knin."
3 And now, just stopping there for a moment. The incident that
4 General Cermak is describing there, as far as you are aware, is that the
5 same one that you mentioned in your witness statement, where you said
6 that you invited General Cermak to your native village and he organised
7 the delivery of a generator to your village?
8 Is that the same thing that General Cermak talks about here?
9 A. On my screen I don't see written what you have just quoted, but
10 can I say with certainty that there were no incidents. We went there
11 together, and everything corresponds in terms of the contents. We
12 brought the generator, we established the delivery of electricity,
13 humanitarian aid was brought, we spoke to people because we wanted for
14 the people who remained behind and were scared to gain trust in the
15 Croatian authorities, and to make sure that they understand that they
16 would receive as much help and aid as possible.
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: Now, if we could move down to the bottom of the
18 page in the B/C/S.
19 Q. And if could you look at that last paragraph, Mr. Pasic. And in
20 the English, General Cermak says:
21 "As soon as I arrived at the office, I received a report that in
22 the village three or four people had arrived with a truck. They took
23 sheep away from the people. They put them in the truck."
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could move to the next page in the
1 Q. Do you see that?
2 A. Yes, can I see that, and it is the truth.
3 Q. And if we -- if you look at the first large paragraph on your
4 screen, he continues:
5 "They took the televisions that we had given to them" -- sorry.
6 "They took sheep away from the people. They put them in the
7 truck. They took the televisions that we had given to them and I was
8 just completely angry. I exploded. I called the civilian police
9 commander. That was the one who came after Romanic, a Mr. Gambiroza. Do
10 whatever you want, I want the culprits to be found. And I got everyone
11 going. Two or three hours went by and the culprits were captured. One
12 policeman, a civilian policeman with his badge, with his identification.
13 Another policeman who had been suspended a couple of months before, and
14 another two civilians."
15 I take it from your previous answer that you know that the
16 villagers were robbed immediately after your and General Cermak's visit
17 to the village. Is that right?
18 A. This is just one isolated case, which happened --
19 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'm just asking if you know about it. Do you know?
20 Did you know that the villagers were robbed?
21 A. They were not robbed. It was not villagers but a villager who
22 was robbed.
23 Q. And did you know that immediately after General Cermak found out
24 about this robbery that he called Mr. Gambiroza, told him to do whatever
25 he wanted, he wanted the culprits to be found, and that General Cermak
1 got everyone going.
2 Did you know about that?
3 A. I informed General Cermak about the incident. It was a robbery
4 that was perpetrated against my uncle, a man that I shared my residence
5 with, and General Cermak reacted in the way he did.
6 Q. I was just asking if you knew about that reaction. Did you know
7 about General Cermak's phone call to Mr. Gambiroza and what he said to
8 Mr. Gambiroza?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could look at 65 ter 1802, please.
12 Q. And, Mr. Pasic, your uncle who was robbed, is his name
13 Luka Pasic; is that right.
14 Oh. Mr. Pasic, is your uncle that was robbed, is his name
15 Luka Pasic?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, on your screen --
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could scroll down in the English. I think
19 that's fine.
20 Q. You can see this is a report from the Knin police station.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we move up in the B/C/S, you can see it's from
22 the Knin police station.
23 Q. And it's addressed to a number of recipients, including
24 General Cermak, and the subject is plaintiff, Luka Pasic, criminal act of
25 aggravated theft.
1 And if could you read the text near the bottom of the page, you
2 can see this describes an incident in the village of Oton Bender
3 19th of October, 1995, related to a criminal act by three unidentified
4 perpetrators who took away 56 heads of sheep. And it describes how three
5 suspects have been detained.
6 When you get to the bottom of the page, we can turn to the next
7 page in the B/C/S, as it continues.
8 And the report describes how the suspects were brought to the
9 Knin police station. Describes how one of the suspects was a MUP
10 employee, and another had been removed six months earlier as a MUP
12 And can you see that the report --
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we go to the last page in the English.
14 Q. -- is written by Mr. Gambiroza.
15 Now, it appears from reading this report that it deals with the
16 same incident of theft that you describe in your -- that you've just
17 described and that General Cermak described in his interview. Is this,
18 again, dealing with the same incident?
19 A. I did not receive this document, but I believe that it speaks
20 about the same incident.
21 Q. You -- now, having seen this evidence of General Cermak learning
22 about a crime, calling the police commander, Mr. Gambiroza, telling him
23 to do whatever he wants, he wants the perpetrators found, getting
24 everyone going, and having seen this report from Mr. Gambiroza back to
25 General Cermak reporting on the results of the investigation, is it fair
1 to say that when you gave your statements you were not aware of the full
2 extent of General Cermak's authority, in relation to the investigation of
4 MR. KAY: Before the witness answers the question and in the need
5 for fullness if he is being asked to comment on it, my learned friend
6 should put the following document, 65 ter 2D0005, which is the original
7 report from Luka Pasic to the police and has details there, which is a
8 document that has to be considered in this context.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I'm not familiar with that document.
10 If -- I think the question is a fair one but if you --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Neither is --
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: -- I would need time to read the document to
14 JUDGE ORIE: Neither is the Court, Ms. Gustafson. So, therefore,
15 although I understand the words of Mr. Kay to be a suggestion, but a
16 suggestion of a kind which should be seriously considered. I'm not
17 saying whether finally if you would have looked at the document, whether
18 it would be appropriate to ask you to include this information but at
19 least I can't, at this moment, say anything about it. But would be
20 please be so kind to have a look at it and see whether ...
21 MR. KAY: I'm grateful, Your Honour. It's the criminal report to
22 the police on -- by Luka Pasic.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, when I put 2D305 into e-court I
24 don't get any result. Perhaps it's another number.
25 MR. KAY: No, sorry, it's four zeros.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: 2D300005, I still get no document.
2 MR. KAY: 2D00005. I'm sorry for the confusion but that is it
3 the document.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid that we have -- I did understand 2D300 --
5 MR. KAY: No, no.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: There's no 3.
7 MR. KAY: No, 3, Your Honour. Forget the 3. It's 2D00005. And
8 forget the 4 as a digit. It's just ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: So I now repeat, 2D00005.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I have looked at the document. I
11 could respond, but perhaps the witness should take his headphones off.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 Could you take your earphones off, Mr. ...
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: From what I can see, Your Honour, this is a
15 criminal report by the plaintiff, Mr. Luka Pasic, to the Knin police. I
16 don't see how this impacts on what the witness has seen or the question.
17 The evidence that Mr. Pasic might have made a report to the Knin police
18 station, I don't think, impacts on the question.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I take it, Ms. Gustafson, that the issue Mr. Kay is
20 raising is that it may have been the reporting by Mr. Pasic himself that
21 triggered the police activity, rather than a phone call on which -- phone
22 call which is mentioned in Mr. Cermak's statement.
23 Now, whether this should be put to him or not, of course, the
24 first thing before we ask any conclusions as to the authority of
25 Mr. Cermak, the witness has testified that he was not aware of what may
1 have been said during this telephone conversation with Mr. Gambiroza. So
2 perhaps we first establish what the witness knows, because there seems to
3 be a statement in which Mr. Cermak refers to a telephone conversation he
4 made. And what you're doing, actually, is looking at what then happened,
5 and I take it that Mr. Kay is very much concerned about the solidity of
6 the causal relationship between either Mr. Cermak calling Mr. Gambiroza
7 or Mr. Pasic reporting a crime which may have triggered the police
9 Now, that is, certainly before we start drawing any conclusions
10 as to the authority of Mr. Cermak, seems to be a matter which deserves
11 proper attention.
12 And if you say, well, you do not see how this in any way affects
13 the knowledge - and that's what you said before - you can't see, you
14 said, how this impacts on what the witness has seen or the question. The
15 question was -- let me ...
16 The question was is it -- you put to him the events; that is,
17 Mr. Cermak calling the police commander, saying what he -- you have seen
18 this evidence, phone call, Mr. Cermak telling them to do whatever he
19 wants them to do and having seen this report from Mr. Gambiroza back to
20 General Cermak reporting on the results of the investigation, is it fair
21 to say that when you gave your statements you were not aware of the full
22 extent of General Cermak's authority, in relation to the investigation of
24 Now, there's a lot of suggestion in there that what may have
25 triggered what exactly. Perhaps we first seek clarification from the
1 witness, whether he has any personal knowledge about what triggered the
2 police activity. If not, then he has not been aware of what was said in
3 the telephone conversation, he has no knowledge of how it was reported
4 back, and he has no knowledge as to what triggered the police activity.
5 Under those circumstances, to ask the witness about the authority
6 of Mr. Cermak might be a bit seeking opinion rather than evidence a
7 witness of fact could provide.
8 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour. I will do that.
9 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I'm sorry to add further to the matter.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. KAY: The witness has been referred to things that Mr. Cermak
12 has said, of course, which he wasn't present at himself and doesn't know
13 the basis of Mr. Cermak's knowledge. He is being asked to comment on it
14 on a very important matter without having actually been shown what in
15 law, as the Court has heard expert evidence, is the trigger event which
16 is the Article 141 report of a crime.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. KAY: And that's in the document, and --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just explore first what the witness knows for
20 a fact, and then, if that is insufficient, even to form any opinion about
21 the matter, then we should refrain from asking him.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour, I'll do that.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Pasic.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You're with us again, Mr. Pasic.
25 MS. GUSTAFSON:
1 Q. Mr. Pasic, this report --
2 A. [No interpretation].
3 Q. This report from Mr. Gambiroza that's on your screen that you --
4 you said you'd never seen it before, do you know anything about the
5 circumstances that caused Mr. Gambiroza to produce this report and send
6 it to General Cermak and others?
7 MR. KAY: Should it be how the crime was reported?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, "circumstances" is a rather general question,
9 and let's first hear the answer of the witness and then see whether we
10 have to further explore.
11 Do you know anything about the circumstances which caused this
12 report to be produced and sent to the addressee?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Luka Pasic reported a theft and
14 the disappearance of his sheep. I was aware of that, and it was me who
15 told him to go to the police to report the theft. As for any further
16 progress of the investigation and the case itself, it's something that
17 I'm not familiar with.
18 This report by Mr. Gambiroza was not addressed to me. Therefore,
19 I was not privy to the issue of investigation and potential finding of
20 the property appropriated.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said Mr. Luka Pasic reported a theft. Do
22 you remember whether that was before you spoke to Mr. Cermak or after you
23 spoke to Mr. Cermak, that -- that you told him to go to the police?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before. Before the conversation
25 with Mr. Cermak.
1 I advised Mr. Cermak about the fact of my uncle's property going
2 missing, only after that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, please proceed. If you want to
4 further explore the factual chronology, you're, of course, free to do so.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
6 Q. Mr. Pasic, just one clarification. You said -- you said before
7 the conversation with Mr. Cermak.
8 You -- I take it that you spoke with your uncle and you told him
9 to report the crime to the police and then you spoke with General Cermak;
10 is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And how long was it between the time you spoke to your uncle and
13 the time you spoke to General Cermak? A couple of minutes, a couple of
14 hours, a couple of days? How much time passed?
15 A. A few hours, I think.
16 Q. And after you spoke to your uncle and told him to report the
17 crime to the police, do you know when precisely he actually went to the
18 police and reported that crime?
19 A. He didn't -- I went to see my uncle in his village, and I took
20 him to the police station, to report the property gone missing.
21 Q. And when was that -- how long was that after you spoke with him?
22 A. What do you mean, with the uncle?
23 Q. You said you spoke with him and told him to report the crime to
24 the police. And then you said you went to see him in his village and
25 took him to the police station.
1 After you spoke with him and told him to report the crime, how
2 much time passed until you went to the village and took him to the police
3 station? Was the same day, the next day, the day after?
4 A. The same day.
5 Q. Do you remember now approximately how many hours passed between
6 when you spoke with him?
7 A. I can recall that I was in my uncle's house, and he was supposed
8 to bring the sheep back that afternoon. He went to fetch them and found
9 them gone. I suppose it was around 5.00 or 5.30, perhaps 6.00 p.m. I
10 cannot say exactly.
11 Q. And when you -- when you took your uncle to the police station,
12 was that before or after you had told General Cermak about the crime?
13 A. Could you please repeat your question.
14 Q. Sure. You -- as I understand it, all in the same day, your uncle
15 told you about the crime. You told General Cermak about the crime. And
16 you took your uncle to the police station.
17 Did you take your uncle to the police station before or after you
18 told General Cermak about the crime?
19 A. I took my uncle to the police station before that and then I
20 advised Mr. Cermak of the incident.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. KAY: Your Honour, could 2D00005 be made an exhibit whilst
23 we're on the matter?
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection, Your Honour, and I thank you for
25 the reminder that I would like to tender 65 ter 1802.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, two documents.
2 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, may I take it, Mr. Kay suggested that
4 you would look at 2D00005, then it's not entirely clear to me whether
5 Mr. Kay also suggested that you would tender that document. I'm just
6 considering whether or not it will be a Prosecution or a Defence exhibit.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: From my perspective, Your Honour, I'm not sure it
8 matters very much. I'm not sure what my friend --
9 JUDGE ORIE: No, nevertheless I --
10 MR. KAY: Perhaps keep them together as a P number if that
11 assists. If my learned friend doesn't have an objection.
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: Well, they're -- I actually think they're
13 distinct documents perhaps they need to be given two numbers --
14 JUDGE ORIE: I think that it would be wiser to have two exhibit
16 Mr. Registrar, doesn't make that much of a difference but could
17 we have two P numbers.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. 65 ter 1802 becomes
19 Exhibit P2645; and 2D00005 becomes Exhibit P2646.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And both are admitted into evidence.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'd like to turn another subject now.
23 You explained in your statement to the Defence that after you
24 arrived in Knin, you described your first meeting with General Cermak,
25 and you said:
1 "The objective of the first meeting with General Cermak was to
2 protect property and facilitate an organised return to Knin of the Croats
3 who had been living in hotels. The Knin garrison command issued blank
4 passes which General Cermak gave to me. I gave them to Croats who were
5 accommodated in hotels in Sibenik and Primosten."
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could have D489 on the screen, please.
7 Q. Mr. Pasic, you can see this is a certificate confirming that
8 you -- it's dated the 9th of August. It confirms that you took up passes
9 for entering into the Knin garrison, and it says it's delivered by
10 General Cermak.
11 And my question is: You describe in your statement the Knin
12 garrison command issuing blank passes which General Cermak gave to you.
13 Is this certificate relate to the same thing you describe in your
14 statement; namely, General Cermak issuing these passes to you for people
15 to enter Knin?
16 If you look on the screen to the document.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, when General Cermak issued these passes and gave them to
19 you, did he give you any instructions as to how you should hand out these
20 passes, to whom you should give them? What did he say to you when he
21 gave you these passes?
22 A. As he was handing the passes over, he didn't tell me anything.
23 According -- according to the needs of those who came into the office
24 that was in Sibenik, a selection was made; that is to say, the office
25 distributed those passes which we had received from General Cermak, that
1 is to say, the garrison commander.
2 Q. Did he give you these passes in person?
3 A. I cannot recall. I am Petar Pasic, but the passes were received
4 by another person, the person who actually received them signed it. It
5 is Zikica Bunac [phoen], and that is not myself.
6 Q. Okay.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could we look at D491, please.
8 Q. And this is a document dated the 11th of August, addressed to
9 General Cermak, and the subject is the list of issued passes delivered.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could go to the last page.
11 Q. You can see that it is signed by you.
12 Now, this document appears to reflect you reporting back to
13 General Cermak with a list of individuals to whom passes were issued; is
14 that right?
15 A. This is a facsimile of my signature. It is my signature, indeed,
16 and I think the contents are true.
17 Q. As far as you're aware, did General Cermak have the authority to
18 issue these passes that you gave out?
19 A. I don't know whether he had the authority. But if I may add,
20 these passes were a positive development because, in that way --
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Pasic. I'm not seeking your opinion on the passes
22 at the moment.
23 Let me ask you this: You -- General Cermak gave you the passes,
24 you handed them out, you reported back to him on -- as to who they were
25 issued to. Was there anything --
1 MR. KAY: He didn't say about reporting back. That was not the
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: Okay.
4 Q. You sent this document back to General Cermak identifying the
5 persons to whom passes were issued. Was there anything that caused to
6 you question or doubt General Cermak's authority to issue these passes?
7 A. No, I had no doubts.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could move to Exhibit D422, please.
10 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, in your statement to the Prosecution, you said
12 "The Serbs who left their homes during Oluja were required to
13 make a request to return to them by a date in December 1995. If they
14 failed to do so, their home became the property of the state. This does
15 not apply now, as the law has been changed."
16 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could move to the next page in the B/C/S,
18 Actually, in the B/C/S, it's the law that begins at the bottom of
19 the first column.
20 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, this is the Law on Temporary Taking Over and
21 Administration of Specified Property, dated the 20th of September, 1995
22 Is this the law that you were referring to in your Prosecution
24 A. Yes.
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: Now, if we could move to Article 3 of this law.
1 Q. And this is the Article that describes the property covered by
2 this law, and it says:
3 "Property under this law shall be considered any movable and
4 immovable property ..."
5 And then it goes into more detail and onto the next page in the
7 Now, on Thursday, you were asked a question by the
8 Presiding Judge about why people returning from Serbia could not regain
9 possession of their furniture from the new tenants and your answer
10 referred to a decision of the government.
11 And my question is: Is this what you're referring to here, this
12 provision of the Law on the Temporary Take Over of Property which
13 includes under that law, furniture. Is that what you were talking about
14 when you spoke about a decision of the government?
15 A. Yes.
16 MS. GUSTAFSON: Now, if we could move to Article 11 of this law,
17 which is on the fourth page in the English and the next page of the
19 Q. Now, on -- on Thursday, you also said that people who had --
20 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
22 MR. MISETIC: May I ask that the witness take his earphones off
23 again, please.
24 Just if we could establish some foundation with this witness. I
25 know he was on the ground. I don't know if he's familiar or how familiar
1 he is with these laws, but my recollection of the discussion on Friday
2 had to do with socially owned flats as opposed to the temporary take over
3 of property. As counsel knows, there were two separate sets of laws I
4 believe which the Gotovina Defence has now bar tabled. One which deal
5 with the issue of socially owned flats; another which deals property,
6 personal property or real property owned by other individuals. And just
7 so that we don't mix up what the witness said Thursday concerning
8 socially owned flats and then whether the Law on Temporary Take Over
9 applies to socially owned flats as well, if we could just get some
10 foundation from the witness as to what he knows about that and whether he
11 believes that this law applied to socially owned flats as well.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, you referred to -- I think to
13 questions that were put by me, and it is my recollection that was
14 specifically focussing on socially owned flats which would then be given
15 to other persons and then I said something about the furniture.
16 MS. GUSTAFSON: Well, the Your Honour, in his evidence, I think
17 suggested that all property was socially owned, and then he referred to
18 this decision about furniture. This is the only provision that I could
19 identify that referred to furniture. I wanted to clarify what the
20 witness was talking about.
21 In relation to Mr. Misetic's point, the witness has made a very
22 clear statement in his Prosecution statement about Serbs leaving their
23 homes being required to make a request to return, and if they failed to
24 do so, their home became the property of the state. That doesn't refer
25 to socially owned property.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to keep matters -- I wouldn't say simple
2 but at least clear. It's not my recollection, but please point me to the
3 point where the witness said that all property was socially owned, and it
4 certainly does not fit within evidence we received -- all of the evidence
5 we received on the matter.
6 Clearly he was talking at that moment about socially owned
7 apartments. That's one.
8 Now, you put the question to the witness in relation to what we
9 discussed on Thursday, and if you say, This is the only legal provision I
10 could find in relation to furniture, then that does not automatically
11 link it to my question and the answer given to that. Ms. Gustafson, may
12 I take it that you're now fully aware of the concerns of Mr. Misetic and
13 you'll keep this in the back of your mind when formulating the question
14 so as to avoid whatever misunderstanding.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour. I'm moving off that point and
16 going back to what he said in his Prosecution statement, in any event.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then we start with a kind of new entry of the
19 Please proceed. And could the witness put his earphones on
20 again, yes.
21 Please proceed, Ms. Gustafson.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, in your Prosecution statement you said that Serbs
24 who left were required to make a request to have their property returned
25 to them by a date in December 1995.
1 Now, in fact, in accordance with Article 11, Serbs actually had
2 to return to Croatia
3 A. Not correct. Some Serbs who were abroad could send, and did, a
4 document through notary public about the protection of their property in
5 Knin which means that Serbs residing in Republika Srpska and in the
6 Republic of Serbia
7 protect their property.
8 Q. Can you explain how that was possible, in accordance with this
9 law, which states that if the owner of the property returns to the
10 Republic of Croatia
11 you -- within 90 days, et cetera, "the Commission shall reverse the
12 decision under Article 5 of this law."
13 A. That's correct. If there were claims for property restitution,
14 and as far as I can remember, there was a very low number of requests
15 from abroad, there were no such requests, as far as I can remember.
16 Q. So you think requests were possible from abroad, but you can't
17 remember any such requests; is that right?
18 A. There were requests. I received them from London
19 from -- but I can't interpret this law. I suppose that one had to have a
20 Croatian citizenship in order to claim property restitution. I suppose
21 that was the case.
22 Q. The requests that you received from abroad, were those requests
23 from Serbs trying to regain their property, or were those requests from
24 Croats who wanted to move and -- and have property in Croatia allocated
25 to them?
1 A. No. It was about the protection of property of Knin citizens of
2 both ethnic groups, Croats and Serbs alike.
3 Q. I'm just having trouble understanding your evidence because you
5 "There was a very low number of requests from abroad, there were
6 no such requests, as far as I can remember."
7 And then a little later you said: "There were requests. I
8 received from London
9 A. We're talking about the citizens of Knin who had left the area
10 before Operation Storm and had resided abroad for a long time and then
11 sent in requests for protection of their property.
12 Q. And did you receive any requests from abroad from any Croatian
13 Serbs who had fled at the time of or after Operation Storm, who were
14 residing in places like Bosnia
15 property returned to them?
16 A. I can't remember. But I would say that it is quite possible.
17 Q. Okay. I'd like to move on to something else you said in your
18 Prosecution statement, which was that you received instructions from
19 Mr. Radic to house returning Croats in Knin and the surrounding villages.
20 And you stated that Knin itself was soon very full. And that's at page 8
21 of your Prosecution statement.
22 Now, this process of bringing Croats into Knin, you were not only
23 returning Croats who had left Knin earlier, but you were also moving
24 people in who were ethnic Croats from other places, such as Bosnia
25 that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And Knin itself, it changed. The demographic picture in Knin
3 changed substantially. In 1991, Knin had a large percentage -- a large
4 majority of Serbs; and in the months after Operation Storm, that changed
5 and it became a large majority of Croats. Is that right?
6 A. In 1991, the population structure of Knin changed. 90 per cent
7 of the population had been Serbs, and 8.3 per cent had been Croats. In
8 1991, only 250 Croats lived in Knin when Oluja started.
9 In 1995, the situation was reversed. The Serbs left and the
10 Croats returned and now this ratio was probably reversed. There was
11 probably 90 per cent Croats and 8 to 9 per cent Serbs by that time.
12 Q. Okay.
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could look at 65 ter 2D00054, please.
14 Q. Mr. Pasic, if you look at the screen, you can see this is a
15 document dated the 30th of August. It's addressed to you. It's from
16 General Cermak. And it says:
17 "Please find enclosed the letters of the citizens interested in
18 living and working in Knin ..."
19 And it lists the names of four people and says:
20 "Since you are competent for acceptance of all returned displaced
21 people and future workers interested in living and working in Knin, you
22 should study seriously the aforementioned letters and facilitate solving
23 citizens' requests ..."
24 Now, this letter indicates that there are four ethnic Croats,
25 Ivan Vujic, Nikola Dumandzic, and Marija and Miroslav Tomljanovic, who
1 want to move to Knin. Is that right?
2 A. I can't say whether they are ethnic Croats or not just by their
3 names and where they come from, but I will allow for that possibility,
5 Q. Now there are -- in addition to this letter, there are a number
6 of other similar letters from General Cermak to you. Do you recall
7 receiving such letters?
8 A. Not so many from General Cermak as I did from Mr. Radic, from the
9 county office.
10 Q. And after receiving a letter like this, would you then work on
11 finding housing for these people?
12 A. In the commissioner's office of the Republic of Croatia
13 we had a housing office which was composed of the officers of the
14 commissioner's office, the Croatian Red Cross, members of the Ministry of
15 Interior, I believe, and the Ministry of Defence. They were the ones who
16 would determine priorities and who would also issue decisions for those
17 who wanted to be provided with residences in Knin.
18 Q. Now, this -- one -- two of the names on this letter refer to
19 Marija and Miroslav Tomljanovic, and it says "Germany." Is this a couple
20 that live in Germany
22 A. The names don't ring any bells. But judging by the letter, I
23 would say that they, indeed, wanted to come back from Germany and start
24 living in Croatia
25 Q. And was it the case that Croats from other countries were able to
1 come to the Knin area and obtain housing?
2 A. There were people, there were Croats from Canada, who also
3 submitted a request for housing. I can tell you that I know of only one
4 such case that was seen through. How many others there were, I really
5 don't know.
6 Q. Do you have any idea how General Cermak came to have this list of
7 names or these letters from people who wanted to move into Knin?
8 A. I suppose that the senders of those letters misunderstood
9 General's position. They probably thought that he was the one who could
10 help them with their housing problems. He, in his turn, would refer all
11 such letters to me.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'd like to tender this document and there are
14 five similar letters from General Cermak to Mr. Pasic that I would also
15 like to tender. They're all on the Defence 65 ter list. The others are
16 2D00014, 2D00212, 2D00450, 2D00550, and 2D00691.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I saw that Mr. Kay was nodding that there no
19 MR. KAY: No objection, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then, it might be useful here to take them as a
21 batch together.
22 Mr. Registrar, the documents just mentioned by Ms. Gustafson.
23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this can be consolidated into one
25 document, and it will be under 2D00054 and gets Exhibit P2647.
1 JUDGE ORIE: P2647 is admitted into evidence.
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
3 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'd like to move to another subject.
4 You said in your testimony on Thursday, you said that, as far as
5 you knew, there weren't any obstacles for those who were willing to
6 return, who had expressed their wish to return, and this was given in the
7 context of Croatian Serbs after Operation Storm.
8 Now, it's the case, is it not, that, in the months after
9 Operation Storm, there were thousands of Croatian Serb refugees trying to
10 return to Croatia
12 Is that right?
13 A. I'm not in a position to know the number of those who wanted to
14 return. However, the Croatian government did not prevent the displaced
15 Serbs from returning. Prior to doing that, they had to obtain Croatian
16 documents, and the Croatian government made sure that the displaced Serbs
17 obtained documents in Vukovar and Beli Manastir. And now, if you're
18 looking at the matters, you can see that a number of Serbs who have
19 returned in the meantime have documents that were issued by the offices
20 in Beli Manastir and Vukovar.
21 Q. Mr. Pasic, I would like to read to you two paragraphs of a report
22 from the UN Special Rapporteur for the former Yugoslavia, dated the
23 7th of November, 1995, Ms. Elisabeth Rehn. And the context of these
24 paragraphs is her discussion of the Law on the Temporary Take Over of
25 Property that we looked at a few moments ago.
1 And on 7 November, she said --
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: And for the benefit of the Court and the parties,
3 this is P639, paragraphs 40 and 41.
4 Q. "Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur notes the difficulties
5 facing refugees in returning to Croatia
6 reclaim properties. The Croatian Office for Displaced Persons and
7 Refugees has established a procedure for return. After studying the
8 regulations, the Special Rapporteur is convinced that the vast majority
9 of refugees, regardless of their own intentions, will not be able to meet
10 these requirements.
11 "During the meeting with the Special Rapporteur, the deputy prime
12 minister, Mr. Ivica Kostovic, stated that all those who are able to
13 present the required documents would be allowed to return. According to
14 him, this proves the seriousness of the government in its officially
15 proclaimed policy towards the return of refugees. However, the Special
16 Rapporteur points out that a couple of thousand Croatian Serb refugees
17 are already waiting in Hungary
18 doing so by various bureaucratic measures instituted by Croatian
20 "Reports have been received of various administrative obstacles
21 and the very uncooperative attitude towards refugees of both the Croatian
22 liaison office in Belgrade
23 reports confirm that refugees have been turned back at the border,
24 despite being in possession of the necessary documentation, including
25 Croatian citizenship papers. Given that return within the prescribed
1 time-limits does not appear feasible, the requirement that the owners
2 must be in Croatia
3 currently outside Croatia
4 Do you, Mr. Pasic, have any reason to question the observations
5 of the Special Rapporteur as I read them out to you?
6 A. I read and I heard that report, and I believe that I reacted to
7 Mrs. Rehn's report, and I did not agree with her report.
8 I cannot question the words of Mrs. Rehn, but I also can't
9 question the words of my deputy prime minister, Mr. Kostovic. So there's
10 no way I can believe the words of Mrs. Rehn and not believe the words of
11 my government official.
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could we have 65 ter 2353, please.
13 Q. Mr. Pasic, this is a -- what's about to come on your screen is a
14 memo from Mr. Al-Alfi, dated the 12th of October, 1995. And you were
15 shown, on Thursday, I believe, another memo by Mr. Al-Alfi, and I believe
16 you mentioned that you remembered Mr. Al-Alfi.
17 Is that right?
18 I see you're nodding yes.
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON:
22 Q. And the title of this document is: Meeting with the mayor of
24 Now, Mr. Pasic -- and if you go to the first paragraph, he is
25 describing a meeting that he with you on the 12th of October in Knin.
1 Do you remember now --
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: Oh, sorry, if we could go to the previous page in
3 the B/C/S. Oh, sorry, no. You're right.
4 Q. Do you remember now meeting with Mr. Al-Alfi on the 12th of
5 October, Mr. Pasic?
6 A. Yes.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to page 2 in the English and
8 stay on page 2 in the B/C/S.
9 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, I'd like to direct your attention to point 5,
10 which is at the bottom of the page. And it says:
11 "According to the mayor, the Croatian Office of Displaced Persons
12 is preparing a list of those who want to leave the area. He expressed
13 disagreement with such an approach. On the contrary, in his opinion,
14 those who left the area should be encouraged to return. He went further
15 to express his disagreement with the policy regarding the return of those
16 who left the area as expressed recently by Mr. Kostovic, deputy prime
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go down to point 7, which is on
19 the next page in the B/C/S.
20 Q. It says:
21 "From the meeting, I could sense that the mayor reached a point
22 of frustration and he hinted that there is a possibility he may be
23 changed very soon. It may be recalled that the mayor is of Serb origin
24 and he is from this area. He informed me that it is very difficult for
25 him to continue holding this post of mayor of Knin at a time when this
1 area turned to be purely an area for Croats."
2 Now, do you recall saying this to Mr. Al-Alfi, that you disagreed
3 with the policy regarding the return of those who left the area, as
4 expressed recently by the deputy prime minister, Mr. Kostovic?
5 A. I don't agree with this statement. I don't find this statement
7 When I said that I did not agree with the return policy, I only
8 said that the return should be selective. Within that context, it would
9 not have been good for the town of Knin
10 among the returnees were the ring -- ring leaders of the rebellion
11 against the Republic of Croatia
12 to return should have been those who had left and whose family members
13 had stayed behind in the town of Knin
14 Q. So it's your view that only the Serbs who had family members who
15 had stayed behind in Knin should be allowed to return to Knin; is that
17 A. Not only them. I said that the approach should have been
18 selective, which means when one group returned, and those were people who
19 had family members and property in Knin, after that, applying a selective
20 approach, all those who had return -- who had left would have been
21 allowed to return.
22 Q. So, just to be clear, where it says in this memo that you
23 disagreed with the policy regarding the return of those who left the
24 area, as expressed recently by Mr. Kostovic, is your position that you
25 never said that?
1 A. I agree with the fact that, immediately after Operation Storm,
2 those who had committed crimes and who had chased Croats from Knin should
3 not return; for example, Babic, Martic and some other of the kind.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do not think that Ms. Gustafson is asking
5 specifically on the return of Mr. Babic or Mr. Martic.
6 But what she asked you is that what Mr. Al-Alfi reports you as
7 having said - that is, to disagree with the policy - she asked you
8 whether you deny that you ever said what is reported here as what you
9 would have said.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not deny this.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please further explore, Ms. Gustafson,
12 because I'm a bit --
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- in doubt.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON:
16 Q. So is this memo then correct, Mr. Pasic, that on the 12th of
17 October you said to Mr. Al-Alfi that you disagreed with the policy
18 regarding the return of those who left the area, as expressed recently by
19 Mr. Kostovic?
20 Did you say that to Mr. Al-Alfi on the 12th of October, 1995
21 A. No. No.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'm not interested in exploring this any further,
24 Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm looking at the clock, Ms. Gustafson.
1 Could you give us an indication as --
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think I need about another 15 minutes,
3 Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Another 15 minutes. Then we will have a break.
5 But I would like to seek clarification on one issue and --
6 Mr. Pasic, we earlier spoke about the 56 sheep of your uncle.
7 You remember?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Now, were you present when your uncle found out that
10 his sheep had disappeared?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Whether I was present? Yes, I was
12 in his house.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you remember the time of the day when this
14 happened? That he couldn't find his sheep anymore?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I told you already, I think it
16 was between 4.00 and 5.00 p.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you said you advised him to report this
18 to the police. Did you do that immediately?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the disappearance of the
20 sheep, I personally took him to the police station in Knin.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Was that on the same day or was that after hours,
22 after a day, after two or three days? Could you tell us when you
23 actually went to the police?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The same day, given that the
25 distance between Knin and my village is 15 kilometres. Therefore, I
1 believe we were at the police station in Knin by 6.00.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Did you ever return to the police station, in
3 relation to the same matter? Or did you go once with your uncle?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not. I simply drove him
5 there, but I did not enter the police station building.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you know whether your uncle went ever back
7 on this matter?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think he did. Had he
9 wanted to go back, it would -- it would probably have to be me who would
10 have taken him there. I don't think he had any other means of getting
12 JUDGE ORIE: Did you take him back to your village after you had
13 been to the police station?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was the only person who could
15 bring him back.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And that's what you did.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, exactly.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Now, could you try to remember when you told
19 Mr. Cermak about this uncle being robbed of his sheep?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot recall exactly. I
21 suppose, though, that while the uncle was in the police station, that I
22 informed Mr. Cermak about the event during that time.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that would not be after a couple of hours,
24 but you said you'd arrived at approximately 6.00 and then you went on --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 6.30. General Cermak was probably
1 already aware of that information.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Why do you think he was already aware of that
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I told him.
5 JUDGE ORIE: You told him after you had taken your uncle to the
6 police station or before you had taken your uncle to the police station?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said already, it was while the
8 uncle was talking to the police, reporting the missing sheep, I informed
9 Mr. Cermak. I recall what I told him. I told him, General, there's no
10 more lamb.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Did you talk about the televisions?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not at that moment.
13 JUDGE ORIE: When did you talk about the televisions?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Later on, the next day, after I had
15 been told that the TV sets were gone as well. It is then that I
16 discussed it with him.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Who told you that the TV sets were gone?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The uncle.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Were you then back in your village, or did you stay
20 there overnight?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't spend the night in the
22 village but in Knin itself.
23 JUDGE ORIE: When did you then see or speak to your uncle again
24 the next day?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I was not on duty and during
1 my resting hours later in the afternoon, it is then that I would go to
2 visit the uncle.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you did not go with him to the police
4 again, then?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: So you went to the police twice; first, on the day
7 when the sheep had disappeared, and then on the next day again?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Only when the sheep
10 JUDGE ORIE: When were the -- was the robbery of the television
11 sets then ever reported to the police?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You did not. When did you become aware of the
14 possible perpetrators to have been found?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not know the names of the
16 perpetrators, nor did I know when they were found.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 We will have a break, but I will first invite Madam Usher to
19 escort you.
20 We have a break of some 25 minutes. Could you please follow
21 Madam Usher.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE ORIE: The parties may have wondered about my last few
24 questions to the witness on reporting. The reason why I did it, and I
25 think it is appropriate that the parties should be aware of that, is
1 that, Ms. Gustafson, you rely upon the statement of Mr. Cermak and
2 reporting back the theft of some sheep to, among others, Mr. Cermak.
3 Whereas, you, Mr. Kay, you rely on where Mr. Luka Pasic reports
4 to the police the theft of these sheep.
5 Well, first of all, I noticed that, from the television sets, I
6 do not read one word about that. However, I noticed that the report to
7 the police by Mr. Luka Pasic, at least the document you submitted,
8 Mr. Kay, talks about Mr. Luka Pasic reporting on the 20th of October, at
9 a quarter to 4.00 in the afternoon, the theft of his sheep. Whereas, we
10 find in this -- we also find in -- I think it is also in 2645, that,
11 already, at 3.00 on that day, persons were found, persons who later then
12 were detained in relation to this matter.
13 We also find in the reports that, on the 19th, the theft was
14 established at 5.00 or 5.30 in the afternoon, which means that, at least
15 I have some difficulties, in view of the inconsistencies also in view of
16 what the witness just answered to my questions, to gain a better insight
17 in what actually happened. That is, was it the phone call, even before
18 Mr. Pasic had reported to the police on the 20th of October at 3.45 p.m.
19 that had triggered the police activity; or was it, as the witness just
20 told us, a reporting already on the evening of the theft, that is, the
21 19th of October, which certainly finds no confirmation in the report.
22 That's the reason why I tried to seek further information about
23 what is a matter on which the parties apparently take a different
24 starting point in considering what triggered the police activity.
25 We will have a break, and we'll resume at ten minutes past 11.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.45 a.m.
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 --- On resuming at 11.18 a.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, you may proceed.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
6 Q. Mr. Pasic, in your statement to -- that you gave to the Defence,
7 you said that there was no Croatian government or local authorities' plan
8 to expel Serbs and move in the Croats instead. And that's at
9 paragraph 29.
10 And I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about that
12 In your Prosecution statement at page 2, you said you had no
13 knowledge of the coming of Operation Storm. So I take it from that, that
14 you were not involved in the planning of Operation Storm, and you were
15 not informed about the plans for Operation Storm.
16 Is that right?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 Q. And you didn't attend any meetings with President Tudjman when
19 plans regarding -- or policies regarding the Krajina Serbs or the
20 movement of Croats into the Krajina were discussed, were you? Or did you
21 attend any such meetings?
22 A. No.
23 Q. But there was a policy, was there not, to move Croats into the
24 homes that had been vacated by the Serbs who had left the Krajina during
25 or after Operation Storm, wasn't there?
1 A. No, there wasn't.
2 Q. Mr. Pasic, your -- your statement to the Prosecution says that
3 you received instructions from Mr. Radic, the minister for reconstruction
4 and development, to move -- to house returning Croats in Knin, and that
5 Knin itself was soon very full. You've given evidence today that Croats
6 were moved into Knin from other places, such as -- who had come from
7 other places, such as Bosnia
8 after Operation Storm, the demographic picture in Knin was reversed, and
9 it was about 90 per cent Croat.
10 Can -- how do you reconcile that evidence with your statement
11 that there was no policy to move Croats into the houses that had been
12 vacated by Serbs who had left the Krajina?
13 A. I still stand by the opinion that there was no policy of
14 expelling Serbs and bringing in Croats in their stead. Croats, at least
15 some of them, were, in a way, forced to move into Knin. After
16 Operation Storm, a great many Serbs arrived in Banja Luka. With their
17 arrival there, they simply told the Croats there in their own flats, This
18 is where I'm going stay from now on and you take my house or my flat over
19 there. So it was not a planned thing. That is one thing.
20 Another thing, as for the movement of Croats from other parts of
22 their housing problem. They wanted to settle in the town of Knin
23 Q. And the housing commission in Knin and Minister Radic facilitated
24 those wishes of Croats to move into Knin; is that right?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 Q. Now, I'd like to move to something else that you said in your
2 Defence statement at paragraph 27, which was that -- you stated that the
3 ECMM requested that civilian police patrols be cancelled because the
4 Serbs did not trust the civilian police and that the patrols were
5 withdrawn. And you stated that the ECMM representatives were supposed to
6 protect them - and I -- I take that to be a reference to civilians - but
7 they did not protect them.
8 Now, the Chamber has received substantial evidence from ECMM
9 monitors and ECMM reports, and there's no indication from any of that
10 evidence that the ECMM ever requested civilian police patrols to be
11 cancelled. So I'd like to ask you what exactly is the source of your
12 information that the ECMM requested civilian police patrols to be
14 A. The source was the ECMM itself, as well as the inhabitants who
15 informed them of those wishes.
16 Q. And how did you learn of this information from the ECMM? Who
17 told you that the ECMM had requested police patrols to be cancelled?
18 A. At that time, in Knin itself, there may have been some ten
19 different organisations and types of monitors. I couldn't tell them
20 apart, but I can tell you decidedly that in the discussions with them,
21 they expressed their wish for the Croatian police not to enter certain
22 villages. They said that they were going to protect those villages,
23 which they did not.
24 Q. I take it from your answer that you can't remember which
25 particular organisation or which particular person gave you this
1 information, about wanting police patrols to be cancelled?
2 A. I cannot recall, but I know it came from them.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could we look at P953, please.
4 And, Your Honour, I'd like to tender 65 ter 2353, which was the
5 12th of October memo from Mr. Al-Alfi, which I forgot to do before.
6 MR. KAY: No objection, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 02353 becomes Exhibit P2648.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON:
11 Q. And, Mr. Pasic, I would like to direct your attention to
12 paragraph 1 of this report, which starts with the words, "General
13 situation ..."
14 And this is a report from the 9th of October, 1995. It's a daily
15 report from Team Knin of the ECMM. And it says:
16 "The stronger CRO
17 Croatian police, "after the Varivode massacre seems to improve the
18 security situation. However, little is left to protect and it is clear
19 that this new policy is the result of international pressure, rather than
20 it was a planned move. Why did we need a Varivode and why did it come so
21 late? Small-scale looting is still going on."
22 Now, here, Mr. Pasic, the ECMM is observing increased police
23 patrols, has improved the situation, and is asking why it is happening so
24 late. If it is the fact, as you suggest, that the ECMM had requested the
25 Croatian police not to patrol, why would they have written this report?
1 A. After the crime in Varivode and in Gosici, Croatian police
2 patrols became more frequent, irrespective of the fact that some wanted
3 to see them reduced. This is what this is about.
4 Q. Right. But, Mr. Pasic, your evidence is that the ECMM didn't
5 want the Croatian police to patrol. This is an ECMM report. If the ECMM
6 didn't want the police -- Croatian police to patrol, why does it say that
7 patrolling has improved the situation and ask why it is happening so
8 late? Why doesn't it say, Croatian police are patrolling and we don't
9 want them to patrol?
10 Can you explain that?
11 A. As I said, in certain areas were designated as those in which
12 patrols were not welcome. That is to say, in certain areas where more
13 civilians remained after Operation Storm, it is actually good that there
14 was patrolling there.
15 Q. I'd like to move on to something else now, which is -- relates to
16 something you said on Thursday in your evidence.
17 And you said that you were -- in response to a question by
18 Mr. Misetic, you said that you were certain that around the
19 18th of August, the 4th and 7th Guards Brigades were not involved in any
20 burning or looting. And you said:
21 "I toured the settlements around Knin, and it was said that this
22 was not done by the members of the 4th and 7th Guards Brigade."
23 Now, I'd like to ask you: Which specific settlements did you go
24 to; and who specifically did you speak to; and what specifically did they
25 say to you about the 4th and 7th Guards Brigade?
1 A. I said that I had gone and I had often visited my village. I was
2 in Plavno, Podkonje, but there were no Serbs left there, only Croats. I
3 was in -- in Biskupija, in Ocestovo. I don't know how many villages I
4 visited. I also went to Vidosevci, to Macure, which is also part of
5 Kistanje. I visited a number of settlements and villages that belonged
6 to the municipal area of the city of Knin
7 Q. And who specifically did you speak to who told you that looting
8 and burning was not done by members of the 4th and 7th Guards Brigades?
9 A. I was with people who remained living in their houses after
10 Operation Storm. If I were to tell you now that in Kistanje, the
11 gentleman's name was Djuro Macura, that in Plavno I spoke to Ilica
12 Torbica. In Ocestovo, I spoke to Rade Tango. In my own village I spoke
13 to my uncle, and everybody else who lived there, I don't know whether
14 that would be enough. What else can I tell you?
15 Q. I'm trying to understand, Mr. Pasic, specific information you
16 received from these people that you spoke to about the 4th and
17 7th Guards Brigades.
18 Can you remember that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What specifically did these people tell you; and if could you
21 tell me, who, where, when, and what they told you about the 4th and
22 7th Guards Brigade.
23 A. When they arrived, members who borne the insignia of the
24 brigades, and people are literate and they could understand those
25 insignia, those people told them, Stay in your houses, nobody will touch
1 you, you are going to be safe there, you can rest assured that you will
2 not be touched.
3 Q. Okay. You've told me the what. Now I'd like the who, and the
4 when, and the where.
5 A. I spoke to Mile Kovacevic in the village of Oton
6 can't remember all of their names, but I know what they told me.
7 If I may add to that, I just remembered, I spoke to a gentleman
8 from Orlic in the Biskupija territory. His name was Nikola Tica. He
9 remained living there, and I believe that members of the 4th Guards
10 Brigade paid him a visit on somebody's instructions, but I don't know
11 whose instructions those were.
12 Q. Do you remember when either of these conversations took place?
13 A. It was 15 years ago. I did not pay too much attention to all
14 that. It would be pure speculation if I gave you a specific time or
16 Q. Now, I'd like to go back to -- to the subject that we were
17 speaking about on -- in your evidence on Friday, which was the changes
18 that you made to your statements, and I have one more question I'd like
19 to ask you about that.
20 And you remember His Honour Judge Orie was asking you some
21 questions about last weekend, when you read your statements over several
22 times and found mistakes in them.
23 And at transcript page 22818, Judge Orie said to you:
24 "Then you read your statements on Friday evening and found that
25 there was still a lot of inaccuracies. Then you met the next morning
1 with Mr. Basic, and after had you met with him, you, as you said, read
2 your statements again. You read them over several times. Is that
3 finding, again, that they were not in every respect true and correct? Is
4 that a fair summary of what you told us?"
5 And your answer was:
6 "The moment I realised that my statements would used before this
7 Tribunal, my opinion changed completely."
8 And the Judge asked you:
9 "Your opinion about what?"
10 And you said:
11 "My opinion of the statements that had been given and that did
12 not contain elements of what I had said and did contain certain
13 statements that I had given without much thought, because I did not
14 believe that they would be used anywhere and at any point in time."
15 Now, my question is, when you told His Honour Judge Orie that you
16 realised your statements would be used before the Tribunal last weekend
17 and then your opinion of your statements changed completely, and your
18 statements contained comments that you had given without much thought, my
19 question is: When you came to The Hague on Tuesday, did you change --
20 did you make changes to any of those comments, comments that you had
21 given without much thought?
22 A. Correct. And I also said on Friday that if I were to be asked to
23 do the same thing tomorrow, I would make corrections in some other
24 statements as well.
25 Q. So if I understand your answer correctly, some of the changes you
1 made on Tuesday were changes to comments that you made at the time you
2 gave your statement but you realised last weekend you had made those
3 comments without much thought, and you changed them; is that right?
4 A. It is partly correct. Some statements and some comments do not
5 reflect my words but, rather, the words of either the interpreter or the
7 Q. Just so it's clear to me, when you said it is partly correct,
8 it's correct that some of the changes that you made were changes to
9 comments you had made to the investigators that you realised last weekend
10 you had given without much thought; is that right?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 MR. KAY: Your Honour, we're in difficulty this side of the
13 courtroom. I believe I'm not the only one. We've got no transcript and
14 so we can't make notes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, efforts to be reconnected are, at this moment,
16 not successful.
17 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
18 MS. GUSTAFSON:
19 Q. Sorry, Mr. Pasic, we're just having a technical difficulty.
20 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I --
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: It's working again.
22 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, if we looked at the -- if you looked at the
23 statement that you gave on Tuesday, would you be able to identify now
24 which of the changes you made were changes you made to statements that
25 you had given to the investigators but that you had given without much
2 Would you be able to do this now?
3 A. I perused the statement that I provided to the investigators, and
4 I made my own corrections, and -- well, you can see the penultimate
5 paragraph, the last paragraph, the military could stop the attack in
6 villages. I travelled to Sibenik every day. These are all things which
7 were not said by me. These are not my words.
8 Q. The reason I'm asking, Mr. Pasic, is because the statement that
9 gave on Tuesday, for every single change that you made, the explanation
10 that's given is that you didn't say that. And now it's clear from your
11 evidence that some of the changes you made are changes to statements that
12 you did in fact make but you realised you had given without much thought.
13 My question is: Are you able to distinguish those two
14 situations? Are you able to distinguish the statements that you gave
15 that you said you didn't make, versus the ones you said you made but you
16 didn't give much thought to?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Which ones, Mr. Pasic? Which of the changes here in points 1
19 through 16 are changes that you made to statements that gave to the
20 investigators without much thought?
21 A. Well, in every paragraph, there is an explanation as to what I
22 said, as to what I didn't say as well. I did not say that lorries full
23 of sheep were let through the check-points and that the lorries were
24 driven by members of the Croatian military or the Croatian police. I
25 didn't say that.
1 Q. Mr. Pasic, my question is a little different. In every change in
2 points 1 through 16 of this statement, it says that you're making the
3 change because you didn't say that. But your evidence now is clear that
4 some of the changes you made were changes to things you said but that you
5 had said them without much thought.
6 Do you understand the difference?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And are you able to identify now the changes that reflect
9 comments that you made to the investigators but you made without much
11 A. For example, the annex statement 1, it says that I didn't see the
12 wounded and the killed. I'm telling you now that I never saw a dead body
13 and especially I didn't see any when I return -- returned after Operation
14 Storm. So this is simply not correct.
15 In paragraph 2, here, as well, there are some things which
16 reflect my words and some don't. Some do not reflect the corrections
17 that I made.
18 Q. Mr. Pasic, I -- I'm not sure I understand.
19 Are you or are you not able to identify the specific changes in
20 the statement you made on Tuesday that relate to comments you made to the
21 investigators but you realised last weekend you made without much
23 Are you able to identify those specific changes or not?
24 A. I don't understand you. I would like to understand you. In
25 every additional statement, there is an explanation as to where the
1 true -- the words were not correct and where there are supplements and
2 additions which reflect my new view of the situation.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: In light of the witness's answers, I'm moving on
4 to the next and final question that I have --
5 Q. For you, Mr. Pasic, which again relates back to something that
6 you said on Friday, when you confirmed that the song you referred to as
7 Jure and Boban was the same song that's also known as Evo Zore, Evo Dana.
8 Now Jure and Boban in that song, that refers to Jure Francetic
9 and Rafael Boban who were commanders of the Black Legion which was a
10 World War II Ustasha unit; is that right?
11 A. I know that, but that song does not have to be tied only to them.
12 Some of the words of that song may be incriminated [as interpreted] and
13 only then lead to the phenomenon that can be tied to them as the high
14 officials of the one-time regime.
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Pasic, for answering my questions.
16 MS. GUSTAFSON: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Gustafson.
18 May I take it there must be some translation issue with the word
19 "incriminated" in the last answer, "words of that song may be
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think I heard "incriminating," at least in the
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, incriminating, yes.
24 Yes, Mr. Kay -- well, Mr. Misetic.
25 MR. MISETIC: No, I --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, yes, you were not --
2 MR. MISETIC: I wasn't just suggesting anything. I was just
3 looking at the Chamber how the Chamber wished to proceed. That's fine.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, unless the parties would -- it was announced by
5 Mr. Misetic that he might need more time in cross-examination depending
6 on what was raised by the Prosecution.
7 Now, I don't know whether you formed any opinion about whether it
8 would be appropriate to do it now, because most likely then at least
9 there is a chance that Mr. Kay would, apart from his re-examination, then
10 ask for further re-examination after your cross-examination, so
11 therefore, it might be very practical to allow you first to add to your
13 MR. MISETIC: That's what I was thinking and that my friend
14 Mr. Kay is -- I believe agrees with us.
15 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
17 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Misetic:
18 Q. Good morning, Mr. Pasic.
19 A. Good morning, Counsel.
20 Q. I'd like to start off now with Jure i Boban. Now, I have to ask
21 you a few questions about this.
22 You were asked on Friday about where these -- this song was sung
23 and I believe in the transcript of Friday's session it indicates you said
24 there were three or four occasions and you named several singers on these
25 occasions; one was Krunoslav Cigoj; the second was Kico Sladinac, I
1 believe; and the third was --
2 A. Hrid Matic.
3 Q. Hrid Matic. I'd like to recall -- I'd like to ask you: Do you
4 recall, in fact, that Mr. Cigoj and Mr. Matic didn't appear at separate
5 concerts but it was one concert?
6 A. There were separate concerts. They each had their own slot or
7 their own guest appearance.
8 Q. Okay. Let me -- let me show you a video.
9 MR. MISETIC: Just one moment, Mr. President. This is
10 65 ter 1D2987.
11 Q. Do you recall, first of all, a concert at the Knin castle on the
12 17th of October [sic], where various dignitaries were present including
13 yourself, General Gotovina, General Forand, members of the ECMM and other
14 international organisations?
15 Do you recall that?
16 A. I can't see anything on the screen. Where did that concert take
18 Q. I believe it was at the fortress in Knin. Does that refresh your
20 A. I believe that I did not attend that concert. On the day of the
21 concert, I was visited by the prefect of Istria county, Mr. del Bianco,
22 and as far as I can remember, I did not attend that particular event.
23 Q. I'm sorry, I may have misspoken. It was the 17th of August not
24 the 17th of October.
25 MR. MISETIC: I'll -- Mr. President, we'll play a short clip from
1 the concert. We have the entire two-hour video, which I believe is now
2 relevant and we will tender the entire two hours. But if we could play
3 this clip and then we'll pause it at a certain moment.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Is the issue what songs were sung or who was
6 MR. MISETIC: Both.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Both.
8 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then if you could limit yourself to portions of the
10 video that would be sufficient to establish that.
11 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And is there no -- I wonder whether there's any
13 agreement possible on this text, songs, when, in the presence of whom.
14 That seems to be the relatively simple issue.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, at this point I just can't say. I
16 just got disclosed the transcripts. I have no idea what they reflect,
17 whether they're complete, what the videos actually show. I'm just not in
18 a position to -- to say anything at this point.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's watch the video on strictly relevant portions.
20 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 [Video-clip played]
22 MR. MISETIC: Okay.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, do you recognise any persons in this shot that's
24 on the screen at 17 seconds of this clip?
25 A. As far as I can remember, as I have already told you, I did not
1 attend that event. I know that this a song from opera Zrinski, but I
2 don't know whether this person, I can see on the clip is Mr. Cigoj. He
3 is wearing a costume. But I know he is the one who performs that
4 particular aria quite often.
5 Q. Do you recognise -- first, I -- Mr. Cigoj would the person in the
6 costume on the left, correct?
7 A. Is it your left or my left? As I'm looking at the screen, he is
8 on my right-hand side.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, grey or the costume with some red in it?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Grey, a grey costume.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
12 MR. MISETIC:
13 Q. Do you recognise who the person is in the costume opposite?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Would it surprise you to learn that, in fact, Mr. Cigoj is the
16 person on the left, and the person on the right in the costume is, in
17 fact, the Mr. Matic you refer to in your testimony?
18 A. Quite possible.
19 Q. Is it also quite possible, then, that in fact you're incorrect in
20 saying that they were separate concerts but that in fact it was one
21 concert where both Mr. Matic and Mr. Cigoj sang an opera together?
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I'm not sure there is a foundation
23 for this. We have no idea how many concerts there were in total. The
24 witness has said he wasn't at this concert.
25 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, if I may.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. MISETIC: I think this should have been done by the
3 Prosecution in cross. I'm in cross now. I will go through it step by
4 step with the witness, but let's start with the one concert that everyone
5 can agree and that there is some foundation in the evidence of this trial
6 took place, which is this concert.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's focus on what we see, and in view of the
8 answers the witness is giving, let's not speculate too much on whether he
9 may have been confused on other matters without focussed question on
10 that, because there is always a possibility to --
11 MR. MISETIC: Well, let me ask --
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- be confused or to have some doubts as the
13 accuracies. So let's really try to focus, I would say, especially with
14 this witness on what we know as facts and find out what he knows for a
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.
18 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'm wondering, given the fact that you couldn't
19 identify, in my submission, what Mr. Cigoj looks like and what Mr. Matic
20 looks like, how it is that you know whether there was a concert or
21 whether you were actually present at such a concert of either Mr. Cigoj
22 or Mr. Matic?
23 A. I can confirm with certainty that I did not attend that concert.
24 When I said that there were several concerts and that there were also
25 single appearances, I thought and I meant concerts in the officers' hall
1 of the Croatian Army. There was a separate appearance by Krunoslav Cigoj
2 and another one by Hrid Matic, and as for this particular event, this
3 particular concert, it was probably an appearance by several performance
4 all at the same time. But I did not attend that.
5 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I ask that this video be marked and
6 I tender it into evidence.
7 JUDGE ORIE: The 17 seconds, I take it, instead of the two hours,
8 Mr. Misetic.
9 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, can I ask that the witness take his
10 earphones off, please.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Could you take your earphones off for a second.
13 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, in light of the fact that I
14 anticipate a potential argument of discriminatory intent by General
15 Gotovina on the basis of Jure and Boban, I would prefer that the entire
16 two hours be admitted so that we can --
17 JUDGE ORIE: So that the Chamber can watch for two hours that
18 Mr. Gotovina is not present or -- well, in opera it is always difficult
19 to know who actually is present.
20 I invite the parties to seek agreement on the fact, whether this
21 video demonstrates in any way the presence at this moment - that's the
22 17th of August - the presence of any of the accused.
23 And the Chamber is not very much inclined to take a magnifying
24 glass and watch for two hours and see among the huge audience, which we
25 saw before, who is present and who is not present.
1 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, if I could just state General Forand
2 already testified that he was present at this concert. Mr. Liborius
3 testified that he was present at this concert, and there is no dispute
4 that General Gotovina was present for this concert --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. MISETIC: -- because, as you can see it was also broadcast on
7 national television.
8 From our perspective, it's the presence of the persons and what
9 songs were sung, and it is our position and the reason we're tendering
10 the whole two-hour video is that Jure i Boban is not part of that
12 JUDGE ORIE: If that is the issue, then the parties are invited
13 to watch the two hours to see whether this song at this concert was sung,
14 yes or no.
15 MR. MISETIC: If I may just add.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. MISETIC: The next series of questions for the witness is --
18 we have actually broken down and listed out every song that was sung on
19 the two hours, and now I'm going to ask him which of the songs does he
20 think is a quote/unquote Ustasha song. But I can let the Prosecution
21 then verify.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour --
23 JUDGE ORIE: That makes sense if the Prosecution was referring to
24 the specific concert. If not --
25 Ms. Gustafson.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, no, the evidence of the witness has
2 been that he wasn't at this concert. The concerts he is referring to
3 were not concerts at the Knin fortress. They were concerts at the HV
4 Dom. Whether or not a Ustasha song is sung at this concert, I don't
5 think has any relevance to the evidence of this witness.
6 MR. MISETIC: That is incorrect.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could I then understand that it's not in dispute
8 that during this concert that the songs you asked questions about were
9 not sung?
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: I would have to review video, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: I have no idea.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that, but are you willing to seek
14 agreement on this matter?
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: I would be happy to review it and try to seek
16 agreement with Mr. Misetic.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 Now, Mr. Misetic, are there any songs sung here of which one
19 could even think about whether they would be Ustasha songs, because then
20 it makes perhaps sense to do it. But if the aim of the exercise is to
21 establish that there were none, then I would suggest that you give a list
22 of the songs you think that were sung to Ms. Gustafson so that she can
23 quickly consult with her musical experts to find out whether there is any
24 dispute, yes or no.
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 MR. MISETIC: I just asked, not because I think there was or were
2 any Ustasha songs or anything that could be considered that, but I wanted
3 to also check because the witness mentioned a few other songs in his
4 testimony in answer to Ms. Gustafson, to see whether they were sung at
5 this concert. I don't believe they were.
6 But in any event, Mr. President, the issue here is: A, the
7 witness is present in the courtroom and we wish to confirm or put to the
8 witness some of these matters. Second, with respect to the relevance of
9 it, we think it is relevant because the witness has provided no
10 foundation for any of these concerts and in fact confused and couldn't
11 identify the singers when shown --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. --
13 MR. MISETIC: If I could just finish, Mr. President.
14 The witness can't identify the singers by sight so I'm wondering
15 and we will challenge that there were such concerts in the HV hall or
16 that the witness was present at such concerts.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ... first and then perhaps may -- I'd like
18 the -- the witness to be asked whether, during these other concerts, the
19 singers were also in costume, yes or no, which might make a difference.
20 What I'm seeking is that we do not spend ages and ages on a matter which
21 I wouldn't say is without relevance, but, at the same time, whether it
22 deserves that much attention. And let's try to identify where the real
23 dispute is, and that seems to be not primarily on this concert but,
24 rather, on what the witness may have seen and heard elsewhere.
25 MR. MISETIC: I will try that, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. MISETIC: I just wish to state for the record I agree with
3 you, but given the amount of time that was spent in cross on Jure i Boban
4 and the issues of discriminatory intent by the accused on the basis of
5 that song, I think that's the reason that I'm going through this in
7 The second is that in terms of the rights to the defendant, we
8 are able to verify where General Gotovina was at various times, and
9 therefore, the failure of the Prosecution to actually establish any
10 foundation for this either through this witness or through the record
11 throughout this trial of any such concerts puts as at a disadvantage, and
12 I do believe that I need to put that to the witness.
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, just on the foundation point.
14 The foundation is the evidence of this witness that he attended
15 these concerts. There is a foundation for this. I don't understand the
16 allegation that this lacks a foundation.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the witness testifies that he has been
18 present at a certain occasion where some matters -- some songs were sung,
19 then I can imagine, Mr. Misetic, that if the witness would have no clear
20 recollection as to when it exactly was, because the where seems to have
21 been answered by the witness, then I can imagine that you would consider
22 this lack of knowledge on the dates to be relevant for your defence,
23 whereas, Ms. Gustafson may take a different position.
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: There was evidence on the dates as well. At
25 page 22844, he thought these events took place in September and August.
1 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think, as a matter of fact, that if
3 Mr. Misetic is referring to the whereabouts of Mr. Gotovina, that he is
4 not dealing with two months as one unit but, rather, to have a day by
5 day. I do agree with you that the witness was clear and that it was
6 during these two months, and Mr. Misetic thinks that lack of knowledge as
7 to the precise dates may have an impact on the evaluation of the
8 evidence. That is apparently the case.
9 MR. MISETIC: That is correct, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then --
11 MR. MISETIC: My point was simply that I do want to go through,
12 just like Ms. Gustafson, when the witness says the 4th and the 7th Guards
13 Brigades were not involved, you go through the who, what, when, where,
14 and why, and that's what I'd like to go through with this witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's keep it very factual.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Mr. Pasic, at these concerts that you say took place in the
19 Croatian Army hall, do you recall whether Mr. Cigoj or Mr. Matic would
20 wear costumes in their performances?
21 A. In the Croatian Army hall, as far as I recall, I don't think
22 there were in costumes; they were in suits.
23 Q. Okay. And do you remember when these concerts took place?
24 A. I cannot say exactly. I think some took place in August, others
25 in September, and after that time, I don't think there were any.
1 Q. Do you recall ever being present at any type of concert with
2 General Gotovina anywhere else other than the HV army hall?
3 A. No.
4 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I would like to show a video-clip.
5 This is 65 ter 1D2989.
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated] ... to ask you how many
7 hours it is but ...
8 MR. MISETIC: It's a short -- short clip.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
10 [Video-clip played]
11 "THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] In Knin today, a Little Christmas
12 Concert was held with performances of children's choirs, ballet and
13 musical groups.
14 "In the season of holiday giving, charity and love, the concert
15 Peace and Love in Knin's Kralj Zvonimir school, sincere greetings were
16 expressed by the youngest ones. Around 400 participants in the Little
17 Christmas Concert consisting of children's choirs, dance and folklore
18 groups from Knin, Split
19 created a true Christmas spirit at Knin's Kralj Zvonimir school. The
20 Little Christmas Concert was held under the auspices of Ankica Tudjman,
21 president of the humanitarian charity Save the Children of Croatia. The
22 playful and exuberant participants were welcomed by Sibenik's bishop,
23 Dr. Srecko Badurina; Split Military District commander, General Ante
24 Gotovina; and the government's commissioner for Knin, Petar Pasic."
25 MR. MISETIC:
1 Q. Does that refresh your recollection, Mr. Pasic, about attending a
2 Christmas concert -- sorry.
3 A. Yes, 100 per cent.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please repeat your question. We had to
5 wait for the translation to be finished.
6 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
7 Q. Mr. Pasic, does that refresh your recollection about attending a
8 Little Christmas Concert where both you and General Gotovina were
10 A. Yes, it does.
11 Q. Were any Ustasha songs sung at this children's Christmas concert?
12 A. No.
13 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I ask that this exhibit be marked.
14 I tender it into evidence, and I would like to tender the short clip of
15 the Knin castle video.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: I have no objection to this last video. I do
18 object to the Knin castle video on the basis that it has no relevance.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
20 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I think that's a frivolous
21 objection. Obviously we take a different view than the Prosecution
22 concerning where and when General Gotovina was present. Given that it's
23 clearly relevant if the Chamber were to view the evidence in our favour
24 that there were two concerts and these were the two, and there's only two
25 concerts where any presence by my client can be verified, then the
1 Chamber should be able to review what was actually sung. And, moreover,
2 the clip was put to the witness concerning his identification of the two
4 I don't see any basis for a relevance objection.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: The video-clip of the 17th of August will be marked
7 for identification. And the Chamber repeats its urgent invitation to the
8 parties to see what is there, in that video, the parties could agree
9 upon. That is, primarily, then, on whether any Ustasha songs were sung
10 during these two hours. If the parties cannot agree on that, they may
11 address the Chamber jointly and to explain what the songs are that are
12 contested as to their character.
13 The second video-clip, the Christmas concert, the Chamber takes
14 it, for the time being, that Christmas songs were sung there.
15 Mr. Registrar, could you assign numbers.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the Knin castle video, 17th August,
17 which is 1D2987, becomes Exhibit D1717, marked for identification. The
18 subsequent video is 1D2989, and that becomes Exhibit D1718.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
20 Mr. Misetic, the portion played is the whole of the video, D1718?
21 MR. MISETIC: It's from an evening newscast. That is whole of
22 that news, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. D1718 is admitted into evidence. And the
24 Chamber would like to hear from the parties on D1717.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President. In light of the
2 Chamber's invitation to the parties, I would like to put the list of the
3 songs to the witness just so I have something on the record in terms of
4 his opinion of the nature of the songs. With the Court's leave.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The songs of the 17th of August?
6 MR. MISETIC: Yes. I just fear if we get into a dispute later
7 about the nature of the songs, I would like to have the witness provide
8 his opinion while he is here.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You would like to have his opinion on the character
10 of the songs that were sung in his absence. Is this a matter of --
11 MR. MISETIC: I think he would have --
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- fact or is it a matter of opinion.
13 MR. MISETIC: I believe he has knowledge of the songs outside of
14 the fact that were also sung at this concert.
15 Mr. President, these are very common songs that most -- the
16 average person in Croatia
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's, of course, the main reason for my
18 concern that we start a -- a wide discussion on the character of those
20 Ms. Gustafson.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, there is -- in evidence there are
22 very small number of names of songs. I don't think it will assist the
23 proceedings in any way to list songs that's no evidence on the record of
24 them and then have the opinion of this witness on whether or not it is an
25 Ustasha song.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest the following. The list of songs sung
2 during the 17th of August concert may be provided to the witness so that
3 can he read the list during the next break, and he will then be invited
4 to tell us whether there's any song he considers a Ustasha song or a
5 strong patriotic song, and then we'll hear from him.
6 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'd like to turn to a different topic now. You heard
8 you'll have some work during the break.
9 My topic now is your -- the circumstances surrounding your
10 2002 interview with the Prosecution, so if I may ask you a few questions
11 about that.
12 In answer to a question from Ms. Gustafson this morning, you said
13 that some of the words and views expressed in that 2002 statement were
14 the words of the investigator or the interpreter and not your own words.
15 And my question is: When Mr. Foster, who was the investigator,
16 was interviewing you, did he say things to you like, What is your opinion
17 about something; or did he tell you what his opinion of something was and
18 ask you whether you agree with him?
19 A. Occasionally he put forth his opinion, and occasionally he asked
20 me for my opinion.
21 When I go back to your previous question, or, rather, we've been
22 discussing extensively the Ustasha songs. I can only repeat that in my
23 interview I did not say Ustasha songs and I had -- I said patriotic
24 songs. Therefore, that term was introduced by him.
25 Q. Well, I'm going to turn your attention to a different sentence
1 that appear in that 2002 statement, and we've already gone over it but
2 let me ask it again. It's at page 8 of the statement.
3 Where what's written down in the statement is:
4 "I believe that the looting and destruction that took place was
5 planned from above."
6 Now, did Mr. Foster say that he believed that it was planned from
7 above and ask you whether you agree with him; or did you volunteer an
8 opinion that you believed it was planned from above?
9 A. I think that he said that it was planned from above and then
10 sought to hear my opinion.
11 Q. Before the break, I'd like to show you a video-clip --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, could I ask --
13 When he sought your opinion on it, did you then expression
14 agreement or disagreement?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Firstly I agreed. That is why I
16 said I wanted to make the changes, because they do not correspond to my
17 current thinking and position in relation to the time when I gave the
19 JUDGE ORIE: So what is written down, although in the questions
20 suggested by Mr. Foster actually reflects what you said?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not quite accurately.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I think - but I may have been -- not be
23 clear, I think that I said "actually" reflects what you said rather than
24 "accurately," which is a -- I may not have pronounced my words with
25 sufficient precision.
1 But do I understand that on this matter, Mr. Foster gave his
2 opinion, asked whether you agreed, and that you, at the time, said that
3 you did agree, although you now tell us that you -- your current thinking
4 is different from what you said at the time.
5 Is that correctly understood?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
9 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.
10 Q. Mr. Pasic, now following up on that, did Mr. Foster, after you
11 would express agreement with a proposition that he put out there, did he
12 then follow up and say, Mr. Pasic, now let's go and establish the bases,
13 the factual bases for your agreement? For example, on this point about
14 whether crimes were planned from above, did he ask you how do you know
15 that; did you attend a meeting with people from above, et cetera?
16 A. No.
17 Q. There's other portions where you say, Commanders could have
18 stopped crimes. Did he ask you how do you know that; what is your
19 factual basis for saying such a thing; did you attend meetings with
20 military commanders? Any types of questions like that?
21 A. I cannot recall exactly, but as for any meetings with military
22 commanders, be it before or during the military police operation, I did
23 not attend any.
24 Q. Well, if you told Mr. Foster that, in fact, you had never
25 attended a meeting of military commanders, or let's assume you said, I
1 don't have any factual basis for my opinion --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, the witness clearly misunderstood your
3 last question. So let's first try to get an answer to that before we
4 continue and may end up in the realm of speculation.
5 MR. MISETIC: Well, I thought he answered it by saying, I cannot
6 recall exactly, but I'll follow up with him again.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I understood that in view of the remainder of
8 his answer and that's where I -- perhaps we could first try to find out
9 that out.
10 In your statement, you are reported to have said, Commanders
11 could have stopped crimes.
12 Now, first question: Was this something that was suggested or
13 proposed by Mr. Foster to you?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was his opinion. I
15 said -- actually, I did not say that the unit commanders were those who
16 could have prevented crimes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Now, did he then suggest to you in his question that
18 that was the case?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was his assumption. My
20 opinion --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. Yes, what did you then say? He asked
22 you whether you agreed or not with that?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if I said yes or no.
24 But I think I said no.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you know anything about follow-up questions
1 in relation to this specific subject; that is, whether the military
2 commanders could have stopped the crimes?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think he only wanted to learn
4 from me the names of certain unit commanders, or the units that were in
5 the area. I did respond partially because I knew some of the units and
6 commanders who, at the time, were in Knin.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
8 MR. MISETIC: Yes. Just a last question before the break.
9 Q. Mr. Pasic, if in fact had you been asked by Mr. Foster what your
10 basis of knowledge was for what military commanders could or couldn't
11 have done in that circumstance, when you were reviewing your statement,
12 particularly when it was being read back to you in 2002, would you have
13 asked why those answers concerning your knowledge weren't included in the
14 statement, if you understand what I'm asking?
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I'm confused by the question. The
16 statement was read back to him in 2002.
17 MR. MISETIC: That's my point, Mr. President. If in fact
18 Mr. Foster had asked foundational questions for these opinions, there's
19 an issue that is going to be raised by the Defence as to why Mr. Foster
20 didn't include --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but let's be, then, simple.
22 Was your statement read back to you in 2002?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I told him I didn't understand
24 English, and when I gave that statement, I don't think it was read back
25 to me.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I came to sign the second time
3 round, then it was read back to me from English into Croatian.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say that would have been early 2003.
5 So your statement was -- let me.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry, Your Honour, that was 2002.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm sorry, I'm making a mistake in the year.
8 So the statement was read back to the witness, at least that's
9 his testimony.
10 Mr. Misetic, please proceed.
11 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I'm now about to play a video-clip
12 so it might take between five and ten minutes. I don't know how you wish
13 to proceed.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I further inquire with the parties, as far as
15 the time expectations are concerned.
16 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I would say at least another 30 to
17 45 minutes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And as far as the other Defence teams are
20 Mr. Mikulicic, still the same situation, no questions.
21 MR. MIKULICIC: I will only have a couple of questions,
22 Your Honour, not more than ten minutes altogether. Even less.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Kay.
24 MR. KAY: I won't be more than 15 minutes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which means that we will not conclude the
1 testimony today.
2 Mr. Pasic, we will first have a break, and we'll resume at ten
3 minutes to 1.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 12.32 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, please proceed.
7 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. Mr. Pasic, during the break have you had a chance to review the
9 songs that were sung on the 17th of August at the Knin castle?
10 A. Well, I didn't listen to them. I just looked at the titles and I
11 can tell that I am familiar with all of them. Your question is probably
12 going to be -- but there is not a single one. All these songs express a
13 patriotic feeling without any hint of an insult made against others or
15 Q. Okay. The more specific question is: Would you -- in one of
16 your prior answers you said with respect to Jure i Boban some people
17 might consider that an Ustasha song but you wouldn't. With respect to
18 any of these songs, would some people consider those to be Ustasha songs
19 but you don't?
20 Let me -- let me ask it a different way.
21 Are those -- do those songs have anything to do with the
22 independent state of Croatia
23 A. No, nothing whatsoever.
24 Q. Thank you very much for those answers.
25 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, the next --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry to interrupt. I just didn't -- we haven't
3 received a list of the songs, so I'm sure we'll get it in -- oh.
4 MR. MISETIC: It's the surrogate sheet to the admitted exhibit.
5 If you open it up, the list is in there.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, now we -- I have explored ...
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I have explored the manner in which
10 the OTP statement was taken. I'd like to show the witness now a video of
11 another interview taken by the same OTP investigator on the same topic,
12 which is a plan to expel Serbs, burn their property, et cetera. And I
13 understand from Ms. Gustafson during the break that she has an
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
16 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour. I understand that Mr. Misetic
17 intends to tender a portion of the suspect interview of Mr. Jarnjak. I
18 don't see any foundation for that. Mr. Misetic can ask this witness
19 about the questions he was asked in his interview, and to then put
20 another interview -- portion of another interview to him with another
21 person, I don't think has any relevance.
22 Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we first ask the witness to take his
24 earphones off.
25 Yes, Mr. Misetic, let me first give you an opportunity to
2 MR. MISETIC: Yes. First, I haven't tendered anything, so at
3 this point it's a premature objection, if it's to the tendering of the
4 video. I intend to explore, though, the methodology of how the statement
5 was taken. The Chamber, I am certain, is familiar with the Tribunal's
6 case law, which the Chamber raised on Friday. With respect to the
7 admissibility for the truth of the matter asserted of the 2002 statement,
8 one of the critical factors taken into account by the Limaj Trial Chamber
9 was the fact that the methodology used by the OTP investigator could be
10 verified because it was videotaped, and the Chamber could explore the
11 reliability of the statement because it was videotaped and the nature and
12 way in which questions were posed.
13 In this case, one of the issues we will be arguing later is that
14 there it no videotape of the interview of this witness for the Chamber to
15 explore the reliability of the way in which the statement was taken.
16 The second issue is that the OTP itself didn't call this witness,
17 and so we will be challenging whether the OTP believes that the
18 2002 statement is reliable.
19 The third issue is that it's the same investigator on the video
20 we wish to show him posing questions on the exact same topic, which is
21 covered in the 2002 statement and for which no foundation -- I should say
22 no foundation one way or the other, meaning no indication is given in the
23 2002 statement that Mr. Foster asked the witness what his basis of
24 knowledge was and no indication whether the witness said, I have a basis
25 of knowledge for this or I don't have a basis of knowledge for this. And
1 we believe that the Chamber is entitled to explore with this witness the
2 methodology employed by Mr. Foster, and if there's going to be a debate
3 about whether Mr. Foster uses these types of techniques with witnesses,
4 we are entitled to put to the Chamber the techniques that Mr. Foster has
5 used in the past with other witnesses for which we have a video record of
6 it. And I'm entitled to explore with the witness whether some of the
7 answers or conclusions were, quote/unquote, the words of Mr. Foster and
8 not the witness, which he's already testified about.
9 And also to put the video of the Jarnjak suspect interview into
10 evidence not for the truth of the matters that are discussed on the video
11 but simply for impeachment purposes and to challenge the methodology
12 employed by the Office of the Prosecutor investigators because I suspect
13 this is a factor that the Chamber will have to consider in determining
14 the way in which the 2002 statement will be used.
15 Thank you, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, the witness has testified that at
17 various instances matters were put to him as a proposition and that he
18 was asked whether or not he agreed or did not agree. The witness further
19 testified that he is unaware of any follow-up question, specifically in
20 relation to the commanders. He said something that questions were asked,
21 who were the commanders, but which I do not consider a real follow-up
22 question on the matter.
23 Now, what is this video going to add, apart from confirming what
24 the witness said? That's my first -- because now you said the witness
25 was not called by the -- that was your second argument. Was not called
1 by the Prosecution. Therefore, you would -- for that, I take it the
2 issue of reliability of not being called, et cetera, that that's not an
3 issue which would -- which would urge to us look at the video, because
4 calling or not calling can have, I would say, a hundred reasons.
5 And the third issue is same topping and no questions to create a
6 further foundation. That's already what the witness testified. So I'm
7 wondering what this video is going add to what is already the evidence
8 given by this witness.
9 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, the relevance is that -- let me
10 address it this way.
11 If the Prosecution is now going to claim that the 2002 statement
12 is credible and that these are the views of the witness himself, then it
13 becomes a he said, he said between Mr. Foster and Mr. Pasic.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. MISETIC: If that's the case, then this video bolsters, in
16 our view, Mr. Pasic's assertions that this is how Mr. Foster conducted
17 the interview with him. And we would submit that under Rule 89, this
18 evidence is probative in the sense that it goes to how Mr. Foster
19 conducted interviews of persons within the Croatian system concerning the
20 existence of a plan to expel Serbs, to burn their property, and to loot
21 their property.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Wouldn't then be the next logical step also to
23 verify whether Mr. Foster ever put anything on paper which is
24 inconsistent with what that witness apparently had said. Because there
25 is a multiple claim by this witness. It is sometimes, I didn't say that;
1 and sometimes, I did say that but I've since then changed my mind.
2 Now, for the first portion, if you would say, We'd like to see
3 the methodology of Mr. Foster, that would then include the whole thing.
4 That is, how questions were put to the witness, what was then put on
5 paper, although this is video recorded, so to that extent, there not a
6 lot of margin to -- to reflect answers in any way different from what was
7 literally said. But --
8 MR. MISETIC: I must admit I'm a bit confused. Is there anything
9 that Mr. Foster put on paper during the interview with this witness? Is
10 that what we're say?
11 JUDGE ORIE: No. What I was saying is that if we are exploring
12 the methods used by Mr. Foster, that that goes from the way in which he
13 puts the questions to the witnesses and what then appears on paper.
14 Now, I do see that there is a difference, that if it is recorded,
15 that you will most likely get everything on paper, transcribed and
16 translated. So to that extent, it is -- the situation is quite
17 different. I'm aware of that.
18 MR. MISETIC: And if I can also state, Mr. President, one of the
19 issues I raised before the break, which will be our argument later, is
20 that if in fact Mr. Foster had explored or if the witness had volunteered
21 some of these conclusions, it is our submission that, given that
22 Mr. Foster is a professional investigator, he would have explored the
23 foundations for some of these conclusions that are littered throughout
24 the 2002 statement. And if in fact he did explore, as a professional
25 investigator would have, then those answers to those foundational
1 questions would have been or should have been included in the
2 2002 statement, even if the witness said, I believe there was a plan but
3 I have no personal knowledge that would support my conclusion on this, I
4 never attended a meeting where anything of the sort was discussed,
5 et cetera. That is what should have happened if, in fact, these
6 questions were put.
7 We suggest, in fact, that the witness is correct, that these
8 conclusions were, in fact, put to him as Mr. Foster's conclusions and
9 that the witness was asked, Do you agree or do you disagree. You were --
10 and if you watch the video of the Jarnjak interview, the way Mr. Foster
11 says it is, You're a person on the inside, you must know this was -- this
12 is true, although we submit you, Mr. Jarnjak, weren't part of plan.
13 I want to explore with the witness whether, in fact, such
14 techniques were used with this witness to say, You must know the plan
15 existed, this is our view, but we believe you weren't part of the plan,
16 Mr. Pasic.
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, if I could respond briefly.
18 If that is indeed what Mr. Misetic wants to do, to explore with
19 the witness whether these techniques were used with him, he can ask him
20 those questions. He doesn't need to show him the video.
21 Secondly, the -- the suggestion that Mr. Foster would have or
22 should have followed up and would have or should have included things in
23 the 2002 statement, appears to be approaching some kind of allegation of
24 misconduct which we, of course, categorically reject. Mr. Foster is a
25 professional investigator. There are many reasons why investigators do
1 or don't ask follow-up questions to certain conclusions that witnesses
2 give them during interviews.
3 And lastly, Your Honour, what Mr. Misetic said earlier, which is
4 that in his view this video bolsters, in our view, Mr. Pasic's
5 assertions -- that this is how Mr. Foster conducted the interview with
6 him. And we would submit that under Rule 89, this evidence is probative,
7 sounds to me like that is a matter for submissions, that there is nothing
8 to be gained from showing this video to this witness and seeking some
9 kind of conclusion from this witness as to whether it was similar or not.
10 Mr. Misetic can ask the questions about how the interview was
11 conducted. He can make submissions, if and when the opportunity arises,
12 as to what happened -- what may have happened in other interviews and
13 whether or not that's similar.
14 Thank you.
15 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, just a brief response? I'd --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Very brief.
17 MR. MISETIC: Ms. Gustafson's argument actually walks right into
18 what my point is. She wasn't present at the 2002 interview. She has no
19 idea how Mr. Foster conducted the interview, yet she tells the Chamber
20 they categorically reject any allegation of misconduct.
21 Now I didn't allege misconduct, but I also wonder what basis
22 Ms. Gustafson has to say there was or wasn't or -- if she knows more
23 about this interview and how it was conducted then appears in the
24 statement itself, then that needs to be disclosed to us.
25 The second point, Mr. President, is that's precisely why we wish
1 to show the Chamber that this sort of veil that, because he's an OTP
2 investigator there's a presumption that everything was done by the book,
3 is exactly the reason why we wish to, A, put this video to the witness;
4 and B, let the Chamber decide for itself whether this issue needs to be
5 explored even further.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, the allegations that Mr. Misetic is
7 making are based on this witness's evidence which is confused and
8 contradictory. This witness has impeached himself on the way that this
9 interview was conducted. And for Mr. Misetic now to make allegations
10 against Mr. Foster on that basis is not well founded.
11 Thank you.
12 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I need the record to be clear --
13 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Misetic. There was an objection. You've
14 responded to that, then, yes, you are the last one to -- because you're
15 the attacked party in this respect --
16 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- but please keep it short.
18 MR. MISETIC: It's very short.
19 I never made any allegation against Mr. Foster. I'm interested
20 in exploring the matter with Mr. Pasic first, before allegations are
22 Secondly, if there's nothing wrong with how the Jarnjak video was
23 conducted, and I'm not suggesting that that is misconduct because it was
24 in fact videotaped, but techniques used by investigators don't have to
25 amount to misconduct to -- to nevertheless call into question the
1 reliability of statements made during an interview. It's not misconduct
2 if -- if techniques were used that make certain statements in a statement
4 And to that extent, I wish to reiterate I have not made any
5 allegations against Mr. Foster. I am exploring with the witness the
6 methodology used by the investigator which he --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Which is repetitious.
8 MR. MISETIC: -- used in other cases.
9 JUDGE ORIE: It's repetitious.
10 MR. MISETIC: But which he used in other cases.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: In view of the testimony of the witness until now,
14 the Chamber does not consider it the best way to proceed to show to the
15 witness what happened in this interview with Mr. Jarnjak.
16 At the same time, the Chamber considers that there could be good
17 reasons to explore what happened.
18 The Chamber would like to proceed in the following way. The
19 Chamber would like to look at a selection, Mr. Misetic, you will play so
20 that the Chamber is better aware of techniques you are apparently
21 referring to. This not to be shown to the witness at this moment. We'll
22 ask him to leave the courtroom.
23 Then the Chamber invites you and the Chamber may even take some
24 initiative in exploring the matters without having shown, still, the
25 video to the witness to see whether similar techniques or whether the
1 interview was conducted in a similar way without leading the witness.
2 And then, at that point in time, we'll see whether it makes any sense to
3 show then to the witness the video or not. So the Chamber would like to
4 take this step-by-step approach. Therefore, agreeing with you that it is
5 worthwhile exploring, but the way in which it is done is a different one
6 than you suggest.
7 MR. MISETIC: That's fine, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, we would like to proceed I don't know
9 exactly how many minutes, but to proceed briefly without your presence.
10 I therefore invite you to follow Madam Usher, and we'd like to see you
11 back most likely very soon. So if you could remain standby, that would
12 be good.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, may I take it that you have some
15 selection limited in time which demonstrates the techniques used.
16 MR. MISETIC: That's what I am discussing right now with my Case
17 Manager, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 [Defence counsel confer]
21 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, just one question. This is a
22 suspect interview so there is a simultaneous translation within the video
23 itself. I leave it to Your Honour as to whether the booths need to be
24 simultaneously interpreting or whether we should just let the video play.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps it is even good to know exactly how the
1 questions were translated and not have a kind of a -- which allows always
2 to see whether there are any translation issues involved here.
3 I hope, Mr. Misetic, that, unlike with the interviews given by
4 Mr. Cermak, that we do not have untranslated portions or untranscribed
6 Have you provided transcripts to the booth?
7 MR. MISETIC: Yes, we have, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And your selection is now known to the booth
9 as well.
10 MR. MISETIC: It is not yet, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: But I take it that you will then clearly announce
12 what you will play so that the booth can find the relevant portions.
13 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: With the consent of the parties, I suggest that we
15 do not receive additional translation from our booth, because, finally,
16 this enables the Chamber to exactly follow the information as it was
17 given at the time to the -- to the investigators.
18 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
19 Mr. President, then I will call out the clip. It is
20 65 ter 1D2988. And for the benefits of the interpreters, we will start
21 from the very beginning, so page 1 of that clip. And we will go to the
22 top of the third page of the transcript.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And sounds quality is such that --
24 MR. MISETIC: I believe it's good.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Please proceed.
1 [Video-clip played]
2 "AP: But they were so big, they were of the opinion that the
3 policemen were just there to disturb them. What is he ... what is he
4 here, to stop him during the night!
5 "And it was difficult for me, because of that ... for these men
6 were professionals, who were just doing their job.
7 "BF: Which is why I say that ... we will say that there was an
8 agenda, a different agenda ... an agenda where certain elements of the
9 military, and even the special police, were used ... to ensure that all
10 Serbs in the liberated area were removed ... and those who were left
11 behind were killed ... and their property destroyed ... so that they
12 would not be able to return. And this is why you were getting no
13 communication between your organisation and the military. This is why
14 the Ministry of Defence didn't want to give you any assessment of what
15 was caused by the conflict and what was caused by other means. This is
16 why your civilian policemen, despite their professionalism, were not
17 succeeding in preventing or prosecuting the serious crimes that occurred.
18 This is what we say was happening, and it seems from what you say ...
19 yours is an explanation as to how it could happen, because of this wall,
20 this wall of silence, this difficulty in coordination.
21 "AP: But this difficulty did not exist only during Storm. That
22 was the approach from the very beginning. Because the Croatian Army had
23 a lot of generals in the beginning from the former JNA ... and their
24 philosophy was: Civilians can only go to that military wall and they can
25 go anywhere, and that was so from the very first day, 1991, as far as I
1 can remember. And it's not about a special agenda they had for these
2 operations. And it was, I have to say that, on the ground, an idiot ...
3 idiots or former of members, active members, of the Croatian Army ...
4 criminals who were dressed up in uniforms of the Croatian Army ... there
5 were cases of personal revenge ... because on that ... in that area from
6 1992 to 1995, 650 Croats were killed. They came back after five
7 years ... and, of course, there were many cases of personal revenge.
8 "BF: I understand the plight of the returnees, and I understand
9 that many of them certainly would have committed crimes on their
10 return ... but we have a great deal of evidence showing identified
11 military units killing, burning, destroying and looting during the course
12 of all three operations, running from Medak, Flash, and Storm.
13 "So it's all right what you say, it wasn't just Storm. There was
14 a plan to recover and liberate the occupied territory ... to remove the
15 Serbs and re-house Croats ... and make sure that it was very difficult,
16 if not impossible, for the Serbs who had lived there for many, many
17 years, to return. And I think you were aware, as a result of the many
18 meetings that you attended ... that these plans were afoot. I'm not
19 suggesting that you were part of those plans ... because I think there
20 are difficulties with this communication and the fact that certain people
21 were allowed to be within the inner circle, and others were not. But I
22 am satisfied that you were certainly aware that this was a plan and this
23 had successfully occurred in the Medak Pocket operation ..."
24 MR. MISETIC: There's a second clip, Mr. President, if we could
25 just play the second clip.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. MISETIC: There's about one minute left. It begins at the
3 bottom of page 2 of the -- or page 1 of the second clip.
4 [Video-clip played]
5 "AP: I reject any possibility that I ever knew about any such
6 plan and, in particular, that I was a part of this plan, because why
7 would I take all these actions had I known about a plan" --
8 MR. MISETIC: That's the excerpt, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness
12 into the courtroom.
13 Before we continue, the video starts with "We will say this, and
14 it seems that what you are saying is," that it's unclear to the Chamber
15 to what extent this summarises part of the earlier answers given by that
16 witness, because if you say it seems what you say, you can just imagine
17 what the suspect would say, but it also could be that it in one way or
18 other summarises what he has said already. That's a bit unclear. And I
19 take it you will have an opportunity to check that, Ms. Gustafson, and
20 Mr. Misetic.
21 MR. MISETIC: I can -- yes. We had to make a selection and,
22 Mr. President, the Chamber has heard other evidence on this same point.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm not asking -- I'm not asking to present it
24 all to the Chamber, but in all fairness, it's an observation I'd like to
1 I would have a few questions for the witness.
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, we are -- we will be talking about how
4 this interview with the investigator of the Prosecution actually took
6 Now, you told us earlier that sometimes matters were proposed to
7 you, and I specifically refer, for example, whether the commanders could
8 have stopped the crimes. Now, if such a thing was proposed to you, in
9 what way was that done? Would they say, Isn't it true that the
10 commanders could put an end; or would they say, The Prosecution thinks
11 that, it's our position that we could -- that the commanders could have
12 stopped these crimes.
13 Which -- could you tell us a bit more in detail what exactly then
14 was proposed and in what terms?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first part of what you said is
16 correct, when you asked how and in what way.
17 It was, as you explained. That was their method of work.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I explained it in two different ways. The one
19 being that they would say to you, This is what happened. Do you agree --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first possibility.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So they -- did they ever say, We, the
22 investigators -- as investigators, we think that it was done this way,
23 and would you please comment on that?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, partially they put
25 questions as well as offered answers, or led answers. When I see it now,
1 and I hope I won't upset you, but to me, it seems that the level of
2 questions is of low standard. It doesn't correspond to my intelligence,
3 and I don't think it matches the intelligence of those who were putting
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's, let's refrain from seeking your
6 qualification of -- of the quality of the questions.
7 What I'm interested in to know, and I ask you again: If they
8 proposed something to you, did they propose that as what their position
9 was, or did they propose it to you just as if these were facts?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was more their position.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand your answer correctly: If you say,
12 Well, they put it to me as what they thought was the truth, rather than
13 to present it as an absolute truth of the facts?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It was more their position
15 rather than an absolute fact.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, did they, as far as you remember, once
17 you had answered questions, did they ever oppose the two to each other,
18 that is to say, We think this is what happened, and it seems that you are
19 saying that this and this and this is what happened. Is that something
20 that happened during those interviews, as far as you remember?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The entire interview between
22 us took place in such a way, and only towards the end were the minutes
23 put at my disposal.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if you say: "The entire interview between
25 us took place in such a way," what do you mean exactly by "in such a
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In such a way that I wasn't told in
3 Croatian what I had said earlier.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say your statement, up to that
5 moment, was not summarised, and not put in contrast with what their
6 position was. Is that ...
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if you had given an answer which might not be
9 consistent with what they thought would have happened, what did they then
10 say to you?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nothing.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Did it happen that you gave answers where they
13 wanted to make clear to you that that was not consistent with what they
14 thought had happened?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Does that mean that the answers you gave were, in
17 general, in line with what they had put to you as a proposal of what
18 their view and their position was?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Did they ever raise the issue, when putting
21 questions to you, whether you would have been involved or not been
22 involved in any of -- in any form of any wrong-doings which they may have
23 considered that had taken place?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Did they ever say to you, Don't hesitate to give the
1 right answer because we're not blaming you for it; or did they ever say,
2 Well, be careful because you might have been involved as well.
3 Was there any -- was there ever any reference to your possible
4 involvement in what they apparently considered wrong behaviour?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Now, more specifically talking about whether crimes
7 that may have been committed, were committed or not, and whether there
8 was any plan behind that, did they ever allude to others being involved
9 in this planning, not you, or to the contrary, you being involved and
10 others not? Was there ever -- was this matter ever raised when
11 questioning, from, Don't worry, you may not have been part of this
12 planning; or was that ever suggested to you?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Is there anything else you would like to bring to
15 our attention in relation to how this interview was conducted, where we
16 know that you have testified that you may not have spoken some of the
17 words and in other respects may have changed your views on the matter.
18 But is there anything else, in relation to these interviews, you
19 think we should be aware of in order to be able to evaluate the
20 statement, as it was put on paper, in addition to what you've told us
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By your leave, I would only add
23 that some of the blame is mine to bear as well, for having signed such a
24 statement. I don't want to put all the blame on the investigators.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Gwaunza has a question in relation to this.
2 JUDGE GWAUNZA: Yes, Mr. Pasic, just carrying on with the -- with
3 the -- with the issue that Judge Orie has been pursuing, when the
4 investigators put, according to your opinion, questions that were
5 leading, did you find it difficult to disagree with them and tell them
6 that they were wrong and then for you to put forward what your position
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was very difficult for me to
9 answer the questions put in such a way.
10 JUDGE GWAUNZA: Why was it difficult?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because they wanted to receive an
12 answer from me the way I may not have phrased it. They wanted to receive
13 a direct answer to their questions, which not -- would not have
14 necessarily been completely mine.
15 JUDGE GWAUNZA: Thank you for those answers.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And you said that was difficult. But did you, at
17 any moment, resist their suggestions to say, Well, no, you're not right
18 here, this is not how it happened; or, Your position is wrong.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
20 JUDGE ORIE: So whatever they asked you, whatever they put to
21 you, you just said, You're right.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] More a yes than a no.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, we have not yet concluded your testimony.
25 We have not concluded to hear your testimony, and, therefore, we'd like
1 to see you back tomorrow. And unless there's any procedural issue also
2 in relation to the way in which we proceeded at this very moment, if
3 there is nothing to be raised in that respect, we'll adjourn and we will
4 resume tomorrow, Tuesday, the 13th of October, 9.00 in this courtroom.
5 But, I again would like to instruct you that you should not speak
6 with anyone about your testimony, whether given already or still to be
7 given, also not to discuss whatever the audience may have seen when you
8 were not present.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no one to discuss it with.
10 No one, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, we'd like to see you back tomorrow at
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.
14 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 13th day of
15 October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.