Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 23850

 1                           Wednesday, 4 November 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

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

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

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

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

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

10     Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12             Mr. Kehoe, will you be the first one to cross-examine

13     Mr. Albiston?

14             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President, we have no questions at this

15     time.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  No questions at this time.

17             Mr. Mikulicic.

18             MR. MIKULICIC:  I will have a couple of questions, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  You have a couple of questions.

20             Mr. Albiston, will now be cross-examined by Mr. Mikulicic.

21     Mr. Mikulicic is counsel for Mr. Cermak -- for Mr. Markac.

22                           WITNESS:  CHRISTOPHER ALBISTON [Resumed]

23                           Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Albiston.

25        A.   Good morning, sir.

Page 23851

 1        Q.   In your report - and I refer to paragraph 3.61 - you touched upon

 2     a subject in which you explain that, generally speaking, it is accepted

 3     that the prevention of crimes is a very important role of the police and

 4     that there is certain doubt about the segments of the police work that

 5     should have the priority in specific moments, whether it's the prevention

 6     of crime or the investigation of crime.

 7             So could you please elaborate a little bit between prevention of

 8     crime and detection of crime, from the police point of view?

 9        A.   Yes, certainly, sir.

10             From the civilian policing point of view, in most jurisdictions,

11     the primary responsibility for the prevention of crime rests with the

12     uniformed branch of the police service.  A number of police forces have

13     specialised officers who are described as crime prevention officers, but

14     that's a very technical function.  It has to do with providing advice to

15     businesses, shopkeepers, private citizens on things such as door locks

16     and security in the home and the office and so on.

17             But, generally speaking, crime prevention is effected by

18     uniformed patrols in areas of crime or in some countries, cities, by the

19     use of CCTV cameras and other technical devices.

20             The investigation of crime is, in many police forces, a separate

21     issue and is dealt with by officers who have special training in criminal

22     law and procedure in forensic science and in techniques of investigating

23     crime to do with interviews with witnesses, interviews with suspects, and

24     that sort of thing.

25             Now, in most police forces, the senior officers have to try and

Page 23852

 1     decide what proportion of their resources, of personnel and money, to put

 2     into the different aspects of policing, because both are important.

 3        Q.   Thank you for your answer.

 4             Now, continuing in the paragraph 3.62 of your report, you say

 5     that in the aftermath of Operation Storm there was a period of violence

 6     and fairly intense criminal activity, which was clearly distinct from

 7     organised and directed combat.

 8             So, in a situation like that, and considering the area that we

 9     are discussing and which is the subject of the indictment, in such a

10     situation, as a consequence of a war conflict, the criminal activities

11     intensified.  So this is not the usual picture of the operation of the

12     police system.  And the police system, therefore, has to adjust to such a

13     situation in one way or another.

14             While studying the materials, what did you find out in view of

15     this issue?

16        A.   I think that's exactly -- it is entirely right to say that, in

17     general, after conflict, there is an opportunity for crime and crime

18     frequently follows combat, and that in these particular circumstances the

19     material which I read suggested that certainly happened in the Krajina

20     area in the period after Operation Storm.

21             What I was attempting to distinguish between in the paragraph to

22     which you referred was a period when there was military activity by the

23     Croatian armed forces designed to achieve the objectives of the state in

24     relation to the Krajina, and when it was generally considered that that

25     operation had concluded, but there is evidence from the documents that

Page 23853

 1     there was a significant amount of crime taking place in the area.

 2             From my reading of the documents, what appears to me to have been

 3     the response of the Croatian state to this problem could be looked at in

 4     two ways.  Firstly, you could look at the anticipation of such problems

 5     by the state, and there were a number of documents to which I referred,

 6     particularly the documents such as the documents by Mr. Moric on the

 7     3rd of August and another document produced by Major-General Lausic

 8     around about that date - I'm an afraid I'm not able to quote the court

 9     numbers - which show the preparations of the state from the point of view

10     of dealing with the potential aftermath of the operation.

11             Looking, then, to what happened after Operation Storm, the

12     documents which I would cite as an indication of the response of the

13     state would include a long series of documents about the employment of,

14     what are called in translation, separate police units, which were a form

15     of reinforcements to the police, some of them apparently quite young and

16     inexperienced officers.  I would cite the evidence of witnesses such as

17     the police coordinators, who were additional officers sent to help

18     re-establish civilian policing, and they comment on the difficulties of

19     police moving into the area.  And, of course, there are other

20     commentaries in the documents before the Court which indicate that there

21     were a large number of crimes, but the number of officers available to

22     investigate those crimes did not significantly increase, which would put

23     additional pressures on them.

24             So these are the sorts of things which I think the court

25     documents show about the situation.

Page 23854

 1        Q.   I saw that you did your work in crisis areas in Northern Ireland

 2     and in Kosovo, in a situation relatively similar to the one that existed

 3     in the Sector South after the conclusion of the Operation Storm there was

 4     an increase in violence and so on.

 5             Could you draw any parallels from your own personal experience?

 6        A.   I think that there certainly are parallels to be drawn.  There is

 7     always a danger that we exaggerate the degree of similarity.  But

 8     parallels, there certainly are.

 9             There was a conflict involving peoples with long-standing

10     animosities in the Balkan matters as well as in Northern Ireland.

11     History plays a great part in determining peoples' attitudes to each

12     other.  And I think that this plays out in the conflicts and in the

13     attitudes to authority; the attitudes to policing; the belief amongst

14     some people that policing is not a non-partisan upholding of the law,

15     but, rather, the exercise of power by one group over another.

16             These are sometimes realities and sometimes exceptions, and they

17     produce difficulties.  They can turn issues which should be about law and

18     order and common sense into political issues, and I think some of these

19     problems pertained in the areas of the Balkans where I worked, as they

20     certainly do in Northern Ireland.

21             Another parallel would be that criminals, and particularly

22     organised crime and violent gangsters, will see the breakdown of ordinary

23     law and order as a opportunity for them to impose their will to establish

24     a power-base and to engage in crime.

25        Q.   We could see a similar situation in recent history also in the

Page 23855

 1     events following the Hurricane Katrina in the area of New Orleans or also

 2     during the civil unrest in Paris in 2005, when, after certain events, in

 3     one case it was a natural disaster, in the other one it was an incident,

 4     there was an explosion of crime and violence.

 5             Was the reaction of the police in these well organised

 6     environments in comparison to the reaction of the police that could you

 7     see, in the documents that you studied for the needs of this proceedings,

 8     can be compared or can any parallels be drawn between these two?

 9             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Sorry, Your Honours, I don't think there is a

10     foundation laid for this question, in particular, the events following

11     Hurricane Katrina or the civil unrest in Paris in 2005 vis-a-vis this

12     witness's knowledge.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, apart from the issue raised by

14     Ms. Gustafson, of course, until now we have not received that much

15     evidence on what happened after Katrina.  Of course, also --

16             MR. MIKULICIC:  I think it's a common knowledge, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but I said apart from what Ms. Gustafson

18     raised.  These kind of comparisons, what are we aiming at?  To see that

19     after disasters, whether natural disasters, or after wars, that there is

20     a problem?  I mean, that is common knowledge as well.

21             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  So could you please focus your questions on what

23     this witness with his experience could tell us and what he could add to

24     what we find already in his report on the basis of his experience and his

25     knowledge of other events.

Page 23856

 1             So that -- get -- if we get focussed on -- on additional -- I

 2     would say additional value, probative value.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC:  I see.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 5             MR. MIKULICIC:  I will try to do so, Your Honour.

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Albiston, my direct question is:  What is

 7     the role of police in situations when there is an increase of crime or

 8     even an explosion of crime in certain areas regardless of the

 9     consequences, whether it was a natural disaster or a war conflict or some

10     other kind of hostilities, what is the role of police in a situation of

11     this kind, and what can you tell us about this on the basis of your

12     personal experience and on the basis of the documents which you reviewed

13     for the purpose of writing your report?

14        A.   Well, the short answer to the first part of your question is that

15     the function of the police is to restore and then to maintain civil law

16     and order.

17             In relation to the second part of your question, that's slightly

18     more complex.  In my experience, in these situations, there is an role

19     for the military, and there is a role for the police.  And those who have

20     the political direction have to make a decision as to when the military

21     should be in the lead, because the problems are such that only the

22     resources of the military can deal with them, and when the police should

23     be in the lead, because, in fact, the problem is now seen as mainly a

24     problem of civil law and order, rather than a problem which is beyond the

25     means of the civilian policing.

Page 23857

 1             In some countries, of course, there are police branches or

 2     branches with a police name, such as the gendarmerie nationale in France,

 3     which have policing skills and policing functions but actually come under

 4     the Ministry of Defence, rather than the Ministry of the Interior,

 5     because it is accepted that the sort of techniques which they used in

 6     some of their duties are more akin to military techniques than to what a

 7     British person would regard as normal civilian policing techniques.  In

 8     Northern Ireland, the decision was taken 30 years ago that the police

 9     should lead and use the military in support where it was necessary.

10             In Kosovo at the time that I was police commissioner, we had one

11     area in which the military took the lead and the police assisted where

12     they could, and four areas where the police took the lead and called on

13     military assistance.  And that was based on a judgement of the level of

14     security threat and the nature of the crime.

15             So it won't always be the same thing.  In the situation which

16     this Chamber is considering, there was a military campaign followed by

17     crime.  And at some stage it was the responsibility, I would suggest, of

18     the Croatian government, to decide when the military campaign was

19     concluded and when it was possible to establish normal civilian law and

20     order through the means of the civilian police, investigating judges, and

21     prosecutors.

22        Q.   My question, Mr. Albiston, while you were studying materials for

23     the purpose of writing your reports, did you come across any proof, any

24     document, that will allow to you conclude that when it came to the wish

25     to establish law and order in the newly liberated territories, the

Page 23858

 1     Croatian government, by any of its measures or activities, that is to say

 2     the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Defence, did they in any

 3     way obstruct this duty or this task?  Did you come across any evidence

 4     that would point to the contrary, the wish not to re-establish civil law

 5     and order in the newly liberated territories?

 6             Did you ever come across any evidence that would point to

 7     anything of the kind?

 8        A.   Not at all.  In fact, quite the contrary.

 9             The documents which I concentrated on, as my research developed,

10     it became clear to me there were certain areas that I should concentrate

11     on.  And those areas, in particular, the documents to which I referred in

12     examination-in-chief which show the efforts of Mr. Moric to establish

13     civil law and order, there is nothing in any of those documents to

14     suggest that the Croatian government was taking an obstructive or

15     negative views towards its responsibilities.  What there is is an

16     indication of matters which I have seen in every jurisdiction in which

17     have I worked which is that sometimes things don't work properly,

18     sometimes people don't turn up to appointments.  Sometimes you don't have

19     the right number of people in the right place, despite what you have

20     tried to achieve.  I saw evidence of failings in that regard, but I

21     didn't see any evidence of organised failings or obstruction by

22     superiors.

23        Q.   Thank you for your answers, Mr. Albiston.

24             MR. MIKULICIC:  I have no further questions, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.

Page 23859

 1             Mr. Albiston, if you would allow me one follow-up question in

 2     relation to one of your answers.

 3             You gave as one of the parallels that -- and you said that:

 4             "... criminals, and particularly organised crime and violent

 5     gangsters, will see the breakdown of ordinary law and order as an

 6     opportunity for them to impose their will to establish power-base and to

 7     engage in crime."

 8             That was the parallel through the other experiences compared to

 9     the situation in the Krajina.

10             Could you tell us what actually you had on your mind when you

11     said that organised crime and violent gangsters would see here an

12     opportunity?  What gangsters, what crime did you have in mind?  What

13     organised crime did you have in mind on the basis of the documents you

14     have studied?

15             THE WITNESS:  Well the reference to the organised and violent

16     crime was more to the parallels to which counsel was talking about.  And

17     my personal experience of that is taking place in Kosovo and in

18     Northern Ireland.

19             The parallel from the documents is not entirely clear.  There are

20     indications in the documents of criminal activity and police officers and

21     others being threatened.  But I wouldn't try to suggest to this Chamber

22     that I have identified particular individuals engaged in organised crime

23     in this area.

24             What I'm saying is that that is one of the opportunities which is

25     presented by this sort of situation, one of the challenges with which the

Page 23860

 1     police might be expected to deal.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then there must have been some

 3     misunderstanding as far as the question is concerned, because the

 4     question was introduced by Mr. Mikulicic, referring to your experience in

 5     Northern Ireland and Kosovo, and he then said:

 6             "In a situation relatively similar to the one that existed in the

 7     Sector South after the conclusion of the Operation Storm, there was an

 8     increase in violence and so on," whether you could draw any parallels.

 9             But I do understand now that as far as organised crime is

10     concerned, and violent gangsters, that you are comparing more Kosovo and

11     Northern Ireland but have you no clue for Sector South.

12             THE WITNESS:  Well, I'm saying that the same opportunities were

13     there, but the documents don't show me that that took place in the period

14     which we're discussing.  The documents suggest violence but not of that

15     particular type.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you for that answer.

17             Ms. Gustafson, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?

18             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Albiston you will now be cross-examined by

20     Ms. Gustafson.  Ms. Gustafson is counsel for the Prosecution.

21                           Cross-examination by Ms. Gustafson:

22        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Albiston.

23        A.   Good morning, Ms. Gustafson.

24        Q.   I would like to start by asking you some questions about the

25     methodology of your report, the sources you relied on, and the process

Page 23861

 1     that you undertook in producing it.

 2             And it's clear from your report and the supplemental note that

 3     you provided that you were initially briefed by Mr. Kay on the

 4     15th of December, 2007.

 5             Prior to that briefing, had you ever -- did you know Mr. Kay, had

 6     you met anyone in the Cermak Defence or --

 7        A.   No one, no.

 8        Q.   No.  Do you know how the Cermak Defence came to contact you?

 9        A.   I don't know the first stages of the contact process.  The later

10     stage of the contact process were that a former senior police officer who

11     knew me and of my experience rang me and said that the Cermak Defence

12     team were looking to take advice from a police expert and would I be

13     interested, than's what the -- I said yes, if you want me to meet

14     someone, then the meeting with Mr. Kay took place, as a result of that.

15        Q.   And you said the meeting that you had initially lasted

16     approximately three hours and that Mr. Kay briefed you on the nature of

17     the allegations, the nature of the Defence case.  What specifically did

18     Mr. Kay tell you about the Defence case, in relation to the civilian

19     police?

20        A.   Well, it's a very simple outline.

21             The -- the main allegations against Mr. Cermak were outlined, and

22     Mr. Kay told me that the Defence did not accept those allegations because

23     they said that Mr. Cermak's role was rather different from what the

24     Prosecution's allegation was.  And the -- basically the line taken by

25     Mr. Kay in his briefing to me was that the Defence case was that

Page 23862

 1     General Cermak's role was more to do with the restoration of normality in

 2     the Knin area and not so much to do with the events that were taking

 3     place around there.  Certainly not the events that were outlined in the

 4     indictment.

 5        Q.   So did Mr. Kay tell you or did it otherwise become clear to you

 6     at that meeting that the position of the Cermak Defence was that

 7     General Cermak had no authority over the civilian police?

 8        A.   I'm not sure that that came out of that meeting.  We only had a

 9     short time.  And most of the meeting was actually taken up by Mr. Kay

10     trying to explain to me the -- the facts of what had happened in

11     Operation Storm, as opposed to the details of the case.

12             I mean, you know, a basic historical outline, really.

13        Q.   And were you, at that time, just asked to draft a report, or were

14     you asked to be -- have some kind of consulting expert role or both?

15        A.   Well, I was told that, if I agreed to become an expert witness

16     for the Cermak Defence team, I would be expected to produce a written

17     report which would be tendered to the Court, and I would be expected to

18     produce that document in evidence to the Court, and to be challenged on

19     the contents, if the Prosecution didn't agree with it.

20        Q.   And at paragraph 1.5 of your report, you describe the purpose of

21     the report, and you say:

22             "It would be to examine the evidence connecting General Cermak to

23     policing issues and to offer expert opinion, based on professional

24     experience, as to General Cermak's role and responsibilities as garrison

25     commander in Knin in relation to policing.  He was further invited to

Page 23863

 1     comment upon Croatian Ministry of Interior structures and any

 2     difficulties which might have faced the police at this time."

 3             Now, was that instruction given to you in written form or in oral

 4     form?

 5        A.   It was in oral form, to start with, although at one stage a note

 6     was produced saying basically what the terms of my engagement were.

 7        Q.   And what I read out to you and what's in paragraph 1.5 of your

 8     report, does that reproduce exactly what the terms --

 9        A.   Well, the language isn't exactly similar, but the substance is

10     similar.

11        Q.   And in producing your report, were you, at any time, asked do

12     assume any specific facts or any -- any specific evidence?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   And, yesterday, I think you said you estimated the number of

15     documents you were provided to be between 2.000 and 4.000.

16        A.   That's correct, yes.

17        Q.   And there are, not having counted them exactly, but approximately

18     200 documents cited specifically referenced in your report.  And I

19     understand that it was the Cermak Defence who selected the documents to

20     be provided to you.  Do you have any idea how those documents were

21     selected by the Defence team?

22        A.   Some of them were selected by the Defence team because they were

23     documents which they thought that I needed to see; and some of them were

24     documents which I asked to see.

25        Q.   And which documents did you ask to see?

Page 23864

 1        A.   Well, this is a long process which has been going on over

 2     18 months.  I'm not sure I can be entirely specific.

 3             I asked to see material which would demonstrate the workings of

 4     the criminal justice system in the area at the time, because I thought

 5     that the workings of the criminal justice system were relevant to my

 6     comments on civilian policing.

 7             I asked to see transcripts of the evidence of certain witnesses.

 8     I won't say who they were now, but I think they're well-known to this

 9     Chamber.

10             By and large, everything that the Defence team saw that they

11     thought might be relevant to me, I'm sure, was what was passed to me.

12        Q.   But you have no knowledge of the specific factual or evidentiary

13     criteria that they applied in making that selection?

14        A.   No, I don't.  No.

15        Q.   And aside from asking about -- asking for documents about the

16     workings of the criminal justice system and asking to see the transcripts

17     of the evidence of certain witnesses, did you ask for any other documents

18     from the Defence, at any time?

19        A.   I may -- I may have done, but I -- I can't recall.  I'm trying to

20     think of examples now.

21             The ones that come to mind are the cases of the -- those

22     witnesses which I thought were particularly germane to the area that I

23     was covering.

24        Q.   Would it be fair to say you had relatively frequent contact with

25     the Defence about the documents that you were to look at?

Page 23865

 1        A.   Well, certainly.  It was made clear to me from the very start

 2     that anything that I asked for, the Defence would seek to provide for me

 3     so that I could consider it.

 4             It would be wrong for me to say that I went to some great archive

 5     and conducted my own research.  I didn't.  And if the suggestion is that

 6     the material that I got was material which was provided by the Defence,

 7     that would be entirely correct; it was Defence material.

 8             Of course, it's material which is -- material in the Chamber.

 9             There is only one example I can think of of a case where I asked

10     for material and I was told I couldn't have it, and that was quite

11     recently.  I asked if I could see the expert report being prepared by

12     General Deverell in relation to the military aspects of the

13     Cermak Defence, and I was told it wouldn't be appropriate for me to see

14     that.  But everything else that I have asked to see, I have been shown.

15        Q.   And going back to something else you said yesterday, which was --

16     you said:

17             "I tried to read most of the material that was provided to me."

18             And that was at page 23.765.

19             My question is:  Were there any documents provided to you by the

20     Cermak Defence that you did not read?

21        A.   No.  I read them all.  Some of them had more of a lasting

22     impression, and some of them were documents from which I jotted down

23     notes as I believe that they were relevant to my area of expertise.

24     There were, of course, particularly in the early stages, a significant

25     number of documents which were useful for me to read in order to have a

Page 23866

 1     flavour of the background of the case and to see what people, at the

 2     time, thought was going on in the area.  But, actually, when it came to

 3     me writing an expert report based on my expertise in relation to the

 4     matters which I could actually address with some credibility as an

 5     expert, that narrowed the ground down significantly.

 6             So there were lots and lots of documents that I read that won't

 7     feature in my report and that I -- I wouldn't comment on to the Chamber,

 8     because they're not matters that I feel that I can comment on expertly.

 9             I mean, a lot of them are documents which would be questions of

10     evidence of fact for the Chamber and not matters upon which I, as an

11     outsider, could usefully comment.

12        Q.   And just in relation to that, you were asked yesterday about the

13     methodology used when selecting documents for your report.  And that's

14     when you gave your answer about trying to read all the material.

15             And I'd just like to try to get a more specific answer from you

16     about the criteria or methodology you applied in selecting the documents

17     that you would reference in your report.

18        A.   Well, I don't know how helpful this will be, but I will try to

19     describe the process by which my reading of documents, over a year ago,

20     results in a report for this Chamber now.

21             I read the documents in the order in which they were presented to

22     me, and sometimes this was quite a straightforward matter, because

23     sometimes they were in paper form and in folders and there was a clear

24     theme as to what they were about.  And I can give an example of that:  I

25     had a folder of documents at a very early stage in the development of my

Page 23867

 1     report which was the -- the title of which way something like

 2     "General Cermak and the Press," or "General Cermak's Interviews," that --

 3     that was the -- that was the substance of the thing.

 4             So I would go through that folder and I would make notes of

 5     anything that I thought was relevant.  And what I thought was relevant

 6     15 months ago, I may not have thought was relevant three months ago.

 7     Because during the course of reading all these documents, I refined and

 8     honed down what I thought I could usefully contribute, so that when I was

 9     first reading the documents, the way I was envisaging giving evidence

10     would be to produce a -- a massive document which produced commentary on

11     virtually everything I had seen.  But during the course of my research, I

12     decided that there were certain issues that I ought to concentrate on,

13     because they were issues where, in fact, I had expertise, and that's what

14     I had been recruited to deal with.

15             And then later on, as I -- as I said in my methodology, I decided

16     well, actually, probably the best way to deal with this is to take the

17     two issues which are civilian policing, which is my expertise, and the

18     indictment, and see where they were linked, in relation to

19     General Cermak.  And that's why the report takes the form it takes now.

20        Q.   Just to follow up on that, that process of -- of turning the

21     report from a massive document, as you said, commenting on everything, to

22     a document focussed on what you considered to be the issues in the

23     indictment relative --

24        A.   It wasn't actually a report at the early stages.  It was -- it

25     was a desk full of pieces of paper with different sections.

Page 23868

 1        Q.   And that -- the process of turning it from one to the other, is

 2     that a process that you developed on your own or did you have any input

 3     from the Cermak Defence on -- with respect to that process?

 4        A.   No.  The only time there was an input from the Cermak Defence was

 5     after I submitted a draft report, and I got a very short bit of feedback

 6     which was, This is too long.  So I revisited it.  And, in fact, I had to

 7     accept that there were areas of my report where I was able to combine

 8     different elements in one place and avoid repetition.  So actually the

 9     final report is slightly shorter than it would have been.

10        Q.   Was there any other input from the Cermak Defence on that draft

11     report?

12        A.   No.

13        Q.   And just to go back to the document selection process that we had

14     been talking about.

15             Were there any documents that you reviewed that you considered to

16     be relevant to the issues in your report that you did not specifically

17     reference?

18        A.   There were documents that might have what I considered to be some

19     relevance to my report, which were referenced at the draft stage, which

20     have dropped out, certainly.  But, by and large, the documents -- well,

21     no, the documents which you see referenced in the report are the

22     documents which I think specifically give an indication to the Chamber of

23     the issues which I'm addressing.

24        Q.   So if I understand your answer - and correct me if I'm wrong -

25     there may be some relevant documents that not referenced in the final

Page 23869

 1     report, but those that you considered to be specifically relevant to the

 2     issues are included in the report.  Is that a fair understanding?

 3        A.   I'm satisfied with -- that the report, as it stands, references

 4     the documents which go to the issues which I discuss.  But, of course, I

 5     fully anticipate that you may wish to put other documents to me, and I

 6     will address those questions.

 7        Q.   At this stage, I'm just trying to understand your process.

 8        A.   I accept the point.  Yes, I understand.  Yes.

 9        Q.   And to go back to the witness transcripts - and if at any point

10     you need to go into private session to answer the question, please

11     indicate that to the Court.

12             I take that, from your earlier answer, that you specifically

13     requested the transcripts of the witnesses who you -- whose evidence you

14     refer to in your report.  Is that right?

15        A.   Yes, certainly.  I -- I already had witness statements in

16     relation to those particular witnesses, but I asked for the transcripts

17     of their oral testimony so that I could compare and see whether there

18     were any changes in the position.  And, of course, from my experience of

19     the other jurisdictions in which I have worked, and will be guided by the

20     Chamber if that is also true here, the oral evidence of witnesses which

21     is subject to challenge under cross-examination generally has greater

22     probative value than the witness statements which are made earlier.  But

23     that my not be the case here.  I don't know.

24        Q.   But that was your assumption, that the oral --

25        A.   That was my assumption.  That the oral --

Page 23870

 1        Q.   -- that the transcripts had more weight than the statements that

 2     you were provided?

 3        A.   Well, that was the way that I looked at it, yes.

 4        Q.   And were you provided -- I understand that you were provided with

 5     Mr. Theunens' report --

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   -- and that you saw his --

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   -- evidence.  Were there any other witness statements or witness

10     evidence that were provided to you through -- in relation to any other

11     witnesses in this case?

12        A.   Oh, yes, there were a lot of witness statements which I saw in

13     the early days.  I had a -- a disc provided to me which contained witness

14     statements from a number of witnesses which were some of the first things

15     that I read.  Those witnesses -- I can't give the names, but can I group

16     them to say that they tended to be individual citizens who had been

17     president -- present in the Krajina area at the time of some of the

18     incidents that we're talking about; and internationals, for example,

19     people from the ECMM and UNCIVPOL and that sort of thing, a great lot of

20     witness statements that I read in the earlier stages, yes.

21        Q.   And, again, I take it you don't know the basis upon which that

22     witness -- that witness selection was made by the Cermak Defence, in

23     terms of the specific criteria?

24        A.   Well, I mean, the short answer to your question is, No, I don't.

25     And I know assumptions are not very helpful in judicial proceedings.  But

Page 23871

 1     my assumption, for what it's worth, was that I was being shown the lot.

 2     And certainly a lot of the material I read would not be considered to be

 3     directly relevant to General Cermak in his relation with civilian police,

 4     but they might, of course, be germane to wider issues that are before the

 5     Court.

 6        Q.   And what was the basis for your selection of the witnesses that

 7     you cited in your report?  And, again, if you need to go into private

 8     session, please indicate that.

 9        A.   Well, I don't think I need to go into private session to answer

10     the question, that the witnesses that I cite give direct evidence about

11     procedures on which I have some knowledge and which I thought were

12     specifically relevant to the issues which I'm addressing in my report.

13        Q.   And with respect to the witness evidence that you have cited in

14     your report, I assume that you have accepted that evidence to be accurate

15     and that's why you have referenced it; is that right?

16        A.   Well, not necessarily.  What I'm trying to do is to make a

17     judgement on the documents which are available to me.

18             I think it is not for me to make an assessment of the quality of

19     the evidence of some of the people to whom you and I are referring

20     slightly elliptically, and, in my submission, it's for the Chamber to

21     make a judgement about the quality of their evidence.

22             My job, as I saw it, was to draw the attention of the Chamber to

23     what I saw as the disparity between certain aspects of the Prosecution

24     case, as outlined in the indictment, and the testimony which was before

25     the Chamber.

Page 23872

 1        Q.   So if you didn't make any assessment as to the quality of the

 2     evidence, you didn't, for example, look at discrepancies within

 3     witnesses' evidence where one piece of evidence of a witness might

 4     conflict with something else the witness said.  That wasn't part of your

 5     process of analysis in terms of what evidence of the witnesses you relied

 6     on.  Is that fair?

 7        A.   Well, I -- I would be careful -- I wouldn't use the word

 8     "analysis" in relation to the process which I applied, simply because in

 9     the English speaking police world, at the moment, analysts are

10     individuals who have specific qualifications, and I'm not one of them.

11     They are people who do a two-year course in particular techniques, so I

12     hesitate to use that.

13             But in the ordinary use of the language, I certainly did read

14     statements and compare the statements with the testimony given in court.

15     And whilst I tell this Chamber that I'm not attempting to tell the

16     Chamber what value to place on individual testimony, because the Chamber

17     has seen the witnesses and made its own judgement about them, I didn't

18     see those witnesses, I didn't watch them give evidence.  But I do say,

19     and I think I suggest in my report that, that in those areas where I

20     place value on the testimony of the witnesses, it's because what they

21     have said is entirely consistent with my reading, not only of the

22     documents which show the legal and procedural provisions which were

23     extent in the Republic of Croatia at this time, in relation to policing

24     matters, but they're also consistent with my experience as a police

25     officer of the way in which police officers handle direction or attempted

Page 23873

 1     direction or liaison and cooperation and issues like that, in relation to

 2     other agencies and outside bodies.

 3        Q.   Now, also in your report, at paragraph 1.6, you reference a

 4     number of meetings you had with the Cermak Defence which you stated were:

 5             " order to collect additional material and discuss the

 6     progress in the case."

 7             Now -- and the footnotes indicate approximately 21 days that you

 8     were in The Hague.

 9        A.   Mm-hm.

10        Q.   And in terms of discussing the progress in the case, I'd like to

11     know more specifically what you spoke about and, in particular, if you

12     discussed anything relating to any of the issues you cover in your

13     report.

14        A.   Well, really the reference to progress in the case was to whether

15     particular witnesses had given their evidence.  If so, were the

16     transcripts available to me and that sort of thing.

17             I hadn't counted the number of days, but I certainly accept that

18     I spent something in the order of five to six working weeks in The Hague

19     prior to this hearing.  Most of that was actually spent sitting at a desk

20     with my laptop and with piles of paper.  One of the reasons for that is

21     that can you get far more work done in an office than you can do at home,

22     in a working day.  There are no distractions in the office that there are

23     when you're at home.

24        Q.   And did you have any discussions about the substance of any

25     witnesses or the substance of any documents or the substance of any

Page 23874

 1     issues you cover in your report during those discussions?

 2        A.   No.  No, I was left very much alone as far as that was concerned.

 3        Q.   And you were provided with Mr. Theunens' report and you came and

 4     watched his evidence.

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   What was the purpose, as far as you are aware, of having you

 7     familiarize yourself with Mr. Theunens's evidence and report?

 8        A.   I have -- maybe it is obvious, but have I never given expert

 9     evidence in this Chamber before.  And so I think the Defence team --

10     well, I know the Defence team thought that it was important that I should

11     see what is involved in giving expert evidence.  And having watched the

12     cross-examination of Mr. Theunens, I think it was a useful exercise.

13        Q.   Did you ever discuss his report or his evidence, in terms of

14     substance, with the Cermak Defence?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   And have you ever communicated with General Cermak directly?

17        A.   No, I'm -- I have never spoken to Mr. Cermak.  I have seen him

18     through a glass screen, and in the last days, of course, I have seen him

19     across the court.  But I have never spoken to him.

20        Q.   And it's also clear from your report that you had a meeting with

21     the military expert, Mr. Deverell?

22        A.   Oh, yes.

23        Q.   How many meetings did you have with him?  Is it just one or a

24     number?

25        A.   Well, it would probably not be right to describe having a meeting

Page 23875

 1     with him.  We worked in the same office together for a few days last

 2     year, and I met him again the day before yesterday.  We had dinner

 3     together.

 4        Q.   And did you and he ever discuss the substance of your report or

 5     the substance of the issues you were addressing in your reports?

 6        A.   In the early days, we discussed what was a military matter and

 7     what was a police matter, and we, after some discussion, we agreed that

 8     the military police was a military matter and not a police matter.  And

 9     we discussed the difficulties of reading documents on screens and this

10     sort of thing.  And just for the information of the Chamber, having said

11     that I wasn't allowed to see the General's report, I probably ought to

12     add that when we had dinner together, we didn't discuss the case either.

13        Q.   And in terms of the military police, that was one part of your

14     draft report, a section of your draft report on the military police you

15     subsequently removed, and I'm wondering what caused you to take that

16     section of your report out.

17        A.   Because, having considered, in an early stage, that the military

18     police would be a matter that would be handled by the military expert, I

19     had, nevertheless, read a lot of documents on the military police,

20     because I saw a lot of impact, significantly more tangential impact

21     between the military police issues and the civilian police issues.  And

22     also, when I came to collect my ideas together in terms of the

23     indictment, there were areas of the indictment where the terms

24     "military police" and "civilian police" were used together.  And I felt

25     an obligation to address the military police issues as part of addressing

Page 23876

 1     the issue in that section of the indictment.

 2             Then subsequently I thought, Well, actually, I don't have to do

 3     that because I can address just the words which are relevant to my

 4     expertise.  So having been told my report was too long, that was an

 5     obvious area to dispense with.

 6        Q.   And do you have any idea whether the conclusions you reached with

 7     respect to the military police were either consistent or inconsistent

 8     with Mr. Deverell's conclusions?

 9        A.   None whatsoever.

10        Q.   Okay.  Well, now I'd like to move to your report itself and the

11     first part of your report which deals with the extent of a garrison

12     commander's authority.

13             And my understanding from your report and -- and from your

14     testimony yesterday, that your -- you looked at whether there was any

15     source for General Cermak's authority over the civilian police in the

16     relevant military documents, such as the service regulations.  And you

17     also looked at Ministry of Interior documents.  And your conclusion is

18     neither of those two sets of documents provide for any authority of the

19     garrison commander or General Cermak over the civilian police.

20             Is that fair?

21        A.   Yes, that's right.  I tried to approach the issue from the two

22     sides, and that was the conclusion I reached, yes.

23        Q.   And you don't address any other potential sources of

24     General Cermak's authority over the civilian police.  Is that fair?

25        A.   Well, I think that is fair, yes.  Yes.

Page 23877

 1        Q.   So your view is that General Cermak's authority stemmed only from

 2     his position as garrison commander; is that right?

 3        A.   Yes, indeed.  The documents which I read showed that

 4     General Cermak was appointed to his command by the president, that the

 5     command was that of the garrison commander, and that's why I looked at

 6     documents which might indicate what the authority of the garrison

 7     commander was in military terms; and looking specifically, of course, for

 8     any impact or any locus which there might be, in relation to civilian

 9     policing.

10        Q.   So to put those two together, would it be fair to say that the --

11     more or less the starting point for your report is that General Cermak's

12     authority stemmed only from his position as garrison commander and that

13     there is no authority of a garrison commander over the civilian police?

14        A.   Well, that's certainly the conclusion which I reached after

15     examining documents and in relation to what I -- the material that I

16     looked at in the first section of my report, yes.

17        Q.   And in that first section where you discuss the duties of

18     garrison commanders, according to the rules and regulations, those duties

19     do not include normalisation of life within the garrison, liaising with

20     the press, or liaising with -- liaising between international

21     organisations and the organs of the Croatian government.

22             Is that fair?

23        A.   Well, I need to revisit the documents to look at the -- all those

24     matters.

25             I was looking specifically, for the purposes of this report, at

Page 23878

 1     issues in relation to civilian policing.  I don't say that garrison

 2     commanders don't have a function in relation to normalisation.

 3        Q.   Well, if -- if you need to look at any particular document,

 4     that's fine.  But I -- do you --

 5        A.   What I'm saying in summary is I'm not challenging your suggestion

 6     that General Cermak might have had authority in relation to normalisation

 7     issues.  I'm not challenging that.  I'm just saying that isn't an area in

 8     which I would have expertise and address in this report.

 9        Q.   Well, I just -- I'd just like to understand what your -- your

10     understanding -- what your meaning of your report is, and -- and the

11     basis upon which you drew certain conclusions and -- so let me put the

12     question this way.

13             Do you recall seeing any duty of a garrison commander that

14     related to normalisation of life, liaising with the press, or liaising

15     between international organisations and the organs of the

16     Croatian government in any of the relevant HV or Ministry of Defence

17     documents you reviewed - and please, if you need to refer to any

18     documents --

19        A.   No, like I said, I don't recall that.

20        Q.   Now, throughout your report, you have mentioned some of these

21     duties in passing, and I'd just like to mention a few of them to you.

22             You stated that General Cermak played a coordinating and

23     representative point of contact role in relation to post-conflict

24     normalisation.  That's at paragraph 2.3.

25             At paragraph 3.81 you stated that General Cermak's role in

Page 23879

 1     relation to these matters can best be seen as a public face, be it for

 2     the press or for the international interlocutors.  At paragraph 3.88, you

 3     stated:

 4             "It should, in my opinion, be interpreted in the light of

 5     General Cermak's acknowledged role in relation to the international

 6     community and UNCRO in particular."

 7             At paragraph 3.94 you referred to the latter's, referring to

 8     General Cermak's international liaison role.

 9             In paragraph 3.6 the you stated:

10             "In my opinion, this is because the nature of General Cermak's

11     coordinating role was either between the internationals and the Croats or

12     related to domestic functions pertaining to normalisation."

13             And from my reading of your report, nowhere in your report do you

14     specifically explain how you reached these conclusions that

15     General Cermak had these types of roles.

16             Is that -- is that fair?

17        A.   Yes, that is entirely fair.  I have seen no document which

18     provides some sort of legal authority or provenance or direction which

19     gives General Cermak the sort of authority in the issues which you have

20     just referred to.

21             My assessment of his role in relation to that comes not from any

22     cited document which gives General Cermak authority in those specific

23     areas; it comes from my reading of the documents as to what he actually

24     did and the authority which appears to have been accorded to him by those

25     with whom he was dealing.

Page 23880

 1             In other words, the actions of the people involved in playing out

 2     this -- the scenes which are familiar to the Chamber appear to accord

 3     that sort of authority and responsibility and role to General Cermak.

 4             But, of course, you're quite right to say that I do not, in my

 5     report, indicate any written authority for him to do that.

 6        Q.   Now, are you able to identify, now, which specific evidentiary

 7     sources you relied on to reach your implicit conclusions in your report,

 8     that General Cermak had these roles?

 9        A.   Well, I cannot quote court numbers, but I can guide the Chamber

10     towards the sort of documents.

11             In relation to the international point of contact, there are, in

12     my submission, numerous documents which indicate that, for example,

13     Brigadier Forand of Canada took the view very early on that

14     General Cermak was the man to whom he should go to get things done.  And

15     there is correspondence visible to the Chamber, which I didn't cite but

16     which I read, numerous examples.  For example, General Cermak seeks the

17     assistance of Brigadier Forand to remove abandoned and broken down

18     vehicles from the road.  He seeks the assistance of General Forand with

19     dealing with either waterworks or sewage or something of that sort.

20             Brigadier Forand is -- uses General Cermak as a point of contact

21     for dealing with his issues and, of course, the notorious one which has

22     been before the Chamber before and doubtless will resurface later on is

23     the theft of the UN vehicles, where before Brigadier Forand realises that

24     General Cermak can't actually achieve some of the things which he hopes

25     and goes to General Gotovina, Forand uses General Cermak as his avenue.

Page 23881

 1             Take another example.  We discussed yesterday communication from

 2     the ICRC who are looking for information about some crime matters.  Now,

 3     I have told the Chamber that, in my professional opinion, General Cermak

 4     wasn't the man who dealt with crime.  But that's not to say that he

 5     wasn't the man who could communicate information being it to the

 6     international community.

 7             So these are the sorts of incidents which make me take that view

 8     in relation to international liaison.

 9             So far as the press is concerned, quite early on in my research,

10     I had a folder of documents which are transcripts of General Cermak's

11     interviews with -- I hesitate to try and pronounce "Slobodna Dalmacija"

12     and various other newspapers.  There are also videos, which I think are

13     exhibits within the Chamber, of General Cermak giving television

14     interviews.

15             Now, as I said before, I can't tell this Chamber, Here's a

16     document which says the garrison commander is in charge of giving

17     television interviews.  I don't think it exists.  I would be prepared to

18     be corrected on that, but I haven't seen it if it does.  But I have seen

19     the evidence of what General Cermak did, and that is the basis upon which

20     I make the remarks in my report about those functions.

21        Q.   Thank you --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, could I seek clarification of one of

23     the earlier answers.

24             I'll read a portion of your answer, Mr. Albiston.

25             You said:

Page 23882

 1             "My assessment of his role in relation to that," and you were

 2     referring to the other issues, "comes not from any cited document which

 3     gives General Cermak authority in those specific areas; it comes from my

 4     reading of the documents as to what he actually did and the authority

 5     which appears to have been accorded to him by those with whom he was

 6     dealing."

 7             And then you continued:

 8             "In other words, the actions of the people involved in playing

 9     out this -- the scenes which are familiar to the Chamber appear to accord

10     that sort of authority and responsibility and role to General Cermak."

11             Now, in the first part of what I read, you say, The way in which

12     he acted, and the way in which he was apparently perceived by others, who

13     would then also accorded him authority, when you said "In other words,"

14     it seems that the emphasis shifts from according authority by observers

15     though who perceived his activity rather than his own activity.

16             Is that what you meant to say?

17             THE WITNESS:  I'm not sure, Mr. President, that I entirely

18     understand the distinction.  I think what I -- what my -- I'm saying to

19     the Court is that --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but let me then try ...

21             You gave one of the examples, an interview.  Now, if the

22     journalist addressed General Cermak and say, Could you give us an

23     interview, that could be perceived as how journalists looked at the

24     authority and the function of Mr. Cermak.  If I say, There will be a

25     press conference this afternoon, then we have an active role played by

Page 23883

 1     the actor, Mr. Cermak - it's just an example, not to say that that this

 2     is the way how interviews were organised.  But, you see, there are two

 3     different aspects:  The one is by your own actions to create the

 4     impression of authority; and the other one is that observers, without any

 5     clear action triggering this perception, perceive you as the man in

 6     charge.

 7             Now, in your answer, in the first part of your answer, you

 8     specifically referred to what he actually did; whereas, when you then

 9     summarised it or rephrase it "in other words," did you intend to leave

10     that part out, or is it still fully present?

11             So is there any shift from his activity triggering the impression

12     of authority to others, without any activity that would trigger that

13     impression, more or less according authority to him, I would say

14     spontaneously more or less?

15             THE WITNESS:  Well, yes, I'm grateful for that.  And I understand

16     what the distinction was that Mr. President was highlighting.

17             I'm afraid my answer to counsel wasn't quite as sophisticated as

18     that.  And basically what I was saying was both.  And I wasn't attempting

19     to describe a chronological process by which one side of that equation

20     took place before the other side.  I suppose the obvious thing is, if a

21     general gives a press interview, and I'm a press man and I turn up the

22     next day, I think, Well, there's a general who talks to the press, I'll

23     go and talk to him.

24             So the process can be sort of mutually supporting.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.

Page 23884

 1             Please proceed, Ms. Gustafson.

 2             MS. GUSTAFSON:

 3        Q.   Now, it's clear now from your answers, Mr. Albiston, that you

 4     more or less inferred that General Cermak had authority over certain

 5     tasks, based on the evidence that he was actually carrying out those

 6     tasks in fact.

 7             Is that -- is that right?

 8        A.   Yeah, I would say it's quite fair to say that a certain number of

 9     the tasks and the sort of things that you have spoken about were matters

10     in which - and I choose my words more carefully now after Mr. President's

11     intervention - but either which Mr. Cermak or General Cermak saw as his

12     responsibility and was willing to accept as his responsibility, or which

13     others chose to heap upon him as his responsibility because he was there.

14        Q.   And you covered the first two roles that I mentioned, in terms of

15     evidentiary sources, which were international point of contact and

16     liaising with the press.  What evidentiary sources did you rely on to

17     draw the implicit conclusion that General Cermak had a role to normalise

18     life within the garrison?

19        A.   Well, I would need to refer to the document which I think is

20     round about D34, because I think there 's a paragraph, or two paragraphs,

21     in there which talk about the garrison commander's role in garrison life,

22     which I think could be used by the Chamber as -- as a source of authority

23     for General Cermak's role in relation to normalisation.  But I don't say

24     that that is specific to this issue, and it wasn't one which I was

25     addressing specifically in my report.  I would base the comments in my

Page 23885

 1     report more on the documents which demonstrate that General Cermak played

 2     a role in normalisation.

 3             By "normalisation" what I'm referring to are things like

 4     re-establishing water, electricity, the re-opening of what are rather

 5     quaintly referred to as the "cake shops" and that sort of thing.

 6        Q.   In terms of evidentiary sources, are you able to point to any?

 7        A.   Well, I would need to ask the indulgence of the Chamber to

 8     highlight or identify the particular documents.  But if there's a dispute

 9     as to whether there are documents before the Chamber which show

10     General Cermak playing a role in relation to, for example, issues of

11     accommodation, power, clearing up of animal carcasses, and dealing with

12     dead bodies, if those are -- if it's an issue whether General Cermak had

13     any role in that through the documents, then I would have to go and look

14     for the documents.  But I didn't think that was an issue.

15        Q.   Really, just to be clear, it's a conclusion that you draw in your

16     report and it's implicit; it's not something that you directly address.

17        A.   Yeah, absolutely.

18        Q.   So I'm really aimed at making transparent what is not transparent

19     on your report --

20        A.   No --

21        Q.    -- as opposed to exploring those issues in substance.

22        A.   I accept that.  And if counsel thinks it's a defect in the report

23     that those assumptions are not supported by documents, then I apologise.

24     But the reason, of course, is that I did not think that that was an issue

25     which was in dispute between the Prosecution and the Defence.  And it

Page 23886

 1     wasn't an area which I thought was particularly relevant to my comments

 2     on General Cermak in relation to civilian policing.  That's why there's

 3     no citation of documents to support those statements.

 4        Q.   And nowhere in your report do you mention or discuss any

 5     discrepancy between these types of tasks that you have ascribed to

 6     General Cermak in your report and the tasks that you cite as those of

 7     a -- formal tasks of a garrison commander.  And I'm wondering if it ever

 8     crossed your mind, as you were preparing your report, that there was such

 9     a discrepancy?

10        A.   No.  No, it didn't.

11             I didn't see this as issue which was one for me to deal with

12     directly.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, if -- I need some seven or eight

14     minutes for some procedural matters soon.  We are close to 10.30.

15             MS. GUSTAFSON:  This is as good a time as any.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  This is as good a time as ...

17             Then we will not bother or bother you with the matters we have on

18     our agenda, Mr. Albiston.

19             Could you please already follow the Usher so that we can deal

20     with some procedural matters.  We'd like to see you back in approximately

21     half an hour.

22             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

23                           [The witness stands down]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  The first matter is about scheduling for next week.

25             The Chamber has looked in its agenda, and possibilities for

Page 23887

 1     sitting whole days next week would be Monday morning and afternoon, with

 2     the following observation:  That, for the last hour of Monday, not all

 3     three Judges would be available.  So for the last portion, most likely

 4     the last session of Monday, we'd have to consider to sit under

 5     Rule 15 bis.

 6             We have an opportunity to sit Tuesday, the whole of the day.  But

 7     if we would start at 9.00 in the morning, the first two hours, that is

 8     the first session, it's only possible to sit under Rule 15 bis.

 9             Then, I understand, on Wednesday, we could continue until and

10     including the first afternoon session.

11             Adding this up altogether would mean that if we would not use

12     Rule 15 bis, that, on Monday, we'd have five sessions without 15 bis; six

13     sessions with 15 bis; and we still have to see whether this could be full

14     sessions or not, because usually if we're sitting a whole day, the

15     schedule is adapted slightly.

16             For Thursday -- Tuesday, the 10th, it would mean, when using

17     15 bis, six sessions; without 15 bis, five sessions.

18             For Wednesday, it would mean four sessions as a maximum, in view

19     of the request made by the Prosecution.

20             To sit under Rule 15 bis requires that the remaining Judges,

21     which would not be the same during these two days, that the other Judges

22     would decide that it would be in the interests of justice to continue

23     hearing the case.  I make the following observation:  That for expert

24     witnesses, it might be a little bit less sensitive to read the testimony

25     or to look at the tapes of the testimony compared to witnesses of fact.

Page 23888

 1     But the Judges would have to decide.

 2             The parties are invited to see whether they can work out a

 3     schedule such that, with or without relying on 15 bis, they think they

 4     could present the evidence in-chief and in cross to the Chamber within

 5     these time-frames.  Because, if, finally, we'd need Thursday and Friday

 6     anyhow, then the Chamber is not very much inclined to do the gymnastic

 7     exercise and the whole of the rescheduling the first three days.

 8             So, therefore, the Chamber is willing to consider it and will

 9     seriously consider if that would be needed to sit - and when I'm talking

10     about the Chamber, of course, it is it always the two Judges remaining -

11     we'll seriously consider to hear the case under Rule 15 bis if there is a

12     firm commitment by the parties that, by then, we would conclude the

13     evidence of next week's witness on Wednesday, the 11th, after the first

14     afternoon session.

15             This is not a ruling, but this is an invitation.

16             If there's such a firm commitment, we'll then further consider --

17     we will then know whether you would need the 15 bis sessions or whether

18     you could even do without.  If you would need them, the Judges will then

19     consider whether Rule 15 bis would be applied or not.

20             That, as far as scheduling is concerned.  I have to deliver two

21     decisions.

22             The first one is the Chamber's decision on protective measures

23     for Witness AG-10.

24             On the 25th of September, 2009, the Gotovina Defence requested

25     the protective measures of pseudonym and under-seal treatment for

Page 23889

 1     Witness AG-10.  The Gotovina Defence argued that Witness AG-10 was

 2     concerned about testifying publicly and did not want his identity as a

 3     witness divulged to the public.

 4             On the 9th of October, 2009, the Prosecution responded to the

 5     request, not objecting to it.  Neither the Cermak Defence nor the

 6     Markac Defence responded to the request.

 7             Witness AG-10's statement was admitted, pursuant to Rule 92 bis

 8     of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence, on the

 9     16th of September, 2009.

10             As the Chamber has held in previous decisions on protective

11     measures, the party seeking protective measures for a witness must

12     demonstrate an objectively grounded risk to the security or welfare of

13     the witness or the witness's family, should it become known that the

14     witness has given evidence before the Tribunal.

15             The question of whether to grant protective measures involves a

16     delicate balance between the right of the accused to a public trial, on

17     the one hand; and the interests and need for protection and privacy for

18     victims and witnesses on the other.

19             In this respect, the Chamber is mindful that the granting of

20     protective measures does not negatively affect an accused's other fair

21     trial rights, such as the right to examine witnesses against him.  Even

22     though the granting of protective measures is, and should be, the

23     exception to the rule of a public trial, the threshold for when it should

24     be granted cannot be set too high.  The Chamber must, therefore, make a

25     risk assessment, and inherent in such an assessment, is applying a

Page 23890

 1     certain level of caution and erring on the safe side.

 2             Witness AG-10 expressed fear for the safety of his family and

 3     himself, all of whom live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The witness's

 4     testimony provides information about Serbia's involvement in, amongst

 5     others, the Krajina and about the distribution of weapons to local Serbs,

 6     including within Croatia, and the use of propaganda against Croatia.  The

 7     witness feels threatened by persons who fled from Croatia after

 8     Operation Storm and who are currently residing in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

 9     particularly in the area where his family lives.

10             The Chamber considers that the witness's testimony might

11     antagonise persons who reside in that area.  The witness also provides

12     compromising and even incriminating evidence about several named

13     individuals in positions of influence.  Witness AG-10, based on negative

14     reactions of concern persons in the past, is convinced that the

15     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot provide him with the necessary

16     protection.

17             For the foregoing reasons, and bearing in mind the general

18     considerations mentioned earlier, and the fact that none of the parties

19     opposed the request, the Chamber finds that the Gotovina Defence

20     demonstrated an objectively grounded risk to the security of

21     Witness AG-10, should it become known that the witness has given evidence

22     before this Tribunal.  The Chamber therefore grants the motion for

23     protective measures for Witness AG-10 and instructs the Registrar to keep

24     Witness AG-10's statement under seal.

25             And this concludes the Chamber's decision to grant protective

Page 23891

 1     measures for Witness AG-10.

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 23892

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20                           [Private session]

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 23893

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8                           [Open session]

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             We'll have a break, and we'll resume at ten minutes past 11.00.

12                           --- Recess taken at 10.41 a.m.

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14                           --- On resuming at 11.12 a.m.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, you may proceed.

16             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honours.

17        Q.   Mr. Albiston, before the break, you had stated that you did not

18     consider that this discrepancy between the tasks and authorities

19     General Cermak had, and the normal tasks of a garrison commander, you

20     stated that you did not consider that it was an "... issue which was one

21     for me to deal with directly."

22             And it's right that nowhere in your report do you consider what

23     were the sources of General Cermak's authority to carry out these tasks

24     that aren't covered by the tasks of a garrison commander.  Is that right?

25        A.   Yes, I think that's a fair comment.

Page 23894

 1             The documents which I studied which describe the functions of the

 2     garrison commander are perhaps best commented on by a military expert.

 3     But my reading of them, in terms of the ordinary language used, led me to

 4     believe that they were drafted with a situation in mind which was a

 5     peacetime garrison, and that some of the conditions which were extent at

 6     the time when General Cermak was the garrison commander were not entirely

 7     what was anticipated by the people who drafted those regulations.  But I

 8     think -- I hesitate to go there because I don't think that is an area of

 9     my expertise.

10        Q.   And do you mention, in passing in your report, that a garrison

11     commander under the rules is designated by the Main Staff.  But you

12     mention as well that General Cermak was appointed by President Tudjman.

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   But it appears from your report that you didn't consider this to

15     be of any relevance or at -- or that it was outside the scope of your

16     expertise, this -- the fact that General Cermak was appointed directly by

17     the president, as opposed to the Main Staff.

18        A.   Well, I -- from memory, I think I mentioned his appointment by

19     the president in the report, but you're certainly right to say that I

20     don't analyse or draw attention or comment on that particular aspect, no.

21        Q.   Now, if, in the course of President Tudjman assigning

22     General Cermak to be garrison commander, if he had personally assigned to

23     General Cermak tasks and responsibilities beyond that of a normal

24     garrison commander, that information would be relevant - would it not? -

25     to determining the scope of General Cermak's authority and the nature of

Page 23895

 1     his assignment.

 2             Is that fair?

 3        A.   Well, certainly in relation to military aspects, yes.

 4             In relation to civilian police aspects, I think there are reasons

 5     which come out in my report as to why I did not examine any additional

 6     authorities, because the authorities, in relation to civilian policing

 7     and the criminal justice system, seem, to me, to be quite clear from the

 8     documents which I studied.  But if -- if you are suggesting to me that

 9     there were authorities implicit in some arrangement between the president

10     and General Cermak of which I am unaware, then I accept that may be the

11     case.

12        Q.   Just to follow up on that answer, you seem to suggest that

13     President Tudjman couldn't have granted General Cermak, personally, some

14     authority over the civilian police.  And I'd like to know if my

15     understanding of your answer is correct, and if so, what's the basis for

16     your conclusion that President Tudjman couldn't have done this, either in

17     law or in fact.

18        A.   No, I don't -- I don't say anything.  I don't try to circumscribe

19     the powers of the president of the Republic of Croatia as they existed in

20     1995 and impose limitations on the president.  I don't know.

21        Q.   Just to be clear, you're not a position to do that --

22        A.   I'm not.

23        Q.   -- based on your expertise.  Thank you.

24             Now, the Chamber has received evidence that President Tudjman did

25     assign General Cermak tasks that go beyond that of a garrison commander.

Page 23896

 1     And my question for you is whether you saw any evidence of that

 2     assignment.

 3        A.   No, I didn't see any evidence before the Chamber or otherwise,

 4     which provides documentary authority for General Cermak to undertake

 5     those additional tasks, which he did undertake.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, if we are talking about seeing any

 7     evidence, that may create some confusion.  We have documentary evidence -

 8     and I understood from your answer, Mr. Albiston, that you didn't see

 9     evidence before the Chamber or otherwise which provides documentary

10     authority, therefore, you apparently "seeing evidence" is understood by

11     you as seeing documents which would support.

12             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Whereas, seeing evidence could also mean reading

14     transcripts of oral testimony.  And I urge both you and Ms. Gustafson to

15     be as precise as possible so that we do not have any -- any problems in

16     how -- what it exactly means to see evidence.

17             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I -- I accept the distinction, Mr. President,

18     and perhaps the best short answer would have been, No.  But I was trying

19     to assist the Chamber by confirming for Ms. Gustafson that I am not aware

20     of any statutory or procedural or authoritative document enshrined in the

21     laws and procedures of the Republic of Croatia of the of the type which

22     Ms. Gustafson was alluding to.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And did you -- are you aware of any evidence which

24     is not, by nature, statutory or documentary --

25             THE WITNESS:  No, no.

Page 23897

 1             JUDGE ORIE -- which would support the proposition by

 2     Ms. Gustafson that --

 3             THE WITNESS:  Well, no, not --

 4             JUDGE ORIE: -- special authority could have been given by the

 5     president to Mr. Cermak.

 6             THE WITNESS:  No.  Again, the short answer is, No, I'm not.  If

 7     Ms. Gustafson wishes to draw my attention to any matters, it may that be

 8     that I would recognise them.  But as I sit here, no, I don't.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Gustafson.

10             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11        Q.   And, again, just to pick up on your last answer where you stated

12     that you were not aware of any statutory or procedural or authoritative

13     document of the type that I was alluding to - and I actually didn't

14     allude to any particular kind of document - and it brings me to the

15     question, Do you have any reason to doubt that President Tudjman could

16     have assigned General Cermak authorities, significant authorities, in an

17     informal way, rather than a statutory or legal, procedural way?

18        A.   No.

19        Q.   And I'm not going to go into this in detail because it's clear

20     from your answers this isn't an area that you have addressed or -- and

21     this material that I'm alluding to isn't something that you have

22     specifically reviewed.

23             But I would like to point to one example, which is a transcript

24     of a meeting between General Cermak and President Tudjman in 1999 at

25     which they discussed General Cermak's assignment in Knin and they

Page 23898

 1     include, in the scope of this assignment, cooperation with the

 2     international community, infrastructure, return, life, hospitals, keeping

 3     order, preventing disorder, and mine clearance.

 4             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And for the record, I'm referring to P1144.

 5        Q.   I take it from your earlier answers you didn't see that

 6     particular document?

 7        A.   Well, it's certainly not one that's cited in my report.  But if

 8     could I see the document, it -- it might be one that I saw at an early

 9     stage of my review of document, yes.  I'm certainly not telling the

10     Chamber that I've never seen this.

11             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Perhaps it would make sense, then, just to pull

12     up P1144.

13        Q.   Do you recall seeing any transcripts of meetings that

14     President Tudjman held?  There are a number of them in this case, and I'm

15     wondering if that was a body of material that you recall seeing.

16        A.   Yes, I have seen a document, and possibly more than one document,

17     of the type which you are describing.  Whether this particular one is one

18     that I have seen or not, I don't know.  I'm -- if I see the text, it may

19     or may not refresh my memory.  But I'm certainly aware that such

20     documents exist, yes.

21        Q.   Well, the cover page is there now.

22             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And if we could move to page 4 in the English and

23     page 6 in the B/C/S, please.

24        Q.   And you can see the discussion takes place near the -- in the top

25     third of the page.

Page 23899

 1             Do you recall seeing that before?

 2        A.   Well, I have to say that whilst I cannot say, Yes, I definitely

 3     saw this document, reading the text of the first half of the page, it

 4     does look familiar to me.  The ideas that -- the general context does

 5     look familiar to me, yes.

 6        Q.   Now, if -- if General Cermak's tasks assigned directly from

 7     President Tudjman included keeping order and preventing disorder, that

 8     would be relevant information to determining the scope of

 9     General Cermak's authority and the scope of his authority over the

10     civilian police.  Wouldn't it?

11        A.   Well, certainly if the provisions of the prevailing law enable

12     the president to make those determinations, it would be relevant, yes.

13        Q.   And, again, you're not really in a position to say whether

14     President Tudjman couldn't have affected that in an informal way?

15        A.   I can't -- well, sorry, I was anticipating a wrong question.  I

16     don't know.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Another question.

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I beg your pardon.  I was anticipating that

19     the question would end in a slightly different way, and that's why I

20     started answering, and I shouldn't do that.

21             I don't know about the informal relationships between the

22     president and General Cermak at this time.

23             MS. GUSTAFSON:

24        Q.   And you - I just want to be clear on this - you can't opine on

25     President Tudjman's formal or informal authority over the structures of

Page 23900

 1     government?

 2        A.   On the formal side, I haven't seen any document which suggests

 3     that he could accord to General Cermak the sort of authority which you're

 4     suggesting.  I'm not saying he couldn't; I'm saying I haven't seen any

 5     documents to prove that he could.

 6             On the informal side, I think that's probably a political

 7     judgement.  I'm not qualified to say.  And I -- you know, I don't know

 8     from the documents whether he could or he couldn't.

 9        Q.   Would you agree from the documents that President Tudjman did

10     have a fair amount of authority over the government and the government

11     ministers, including the interior minister?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And just to conclude this -- this part of my questions, you don't

14     consider anywhere in your report whether General Cermak may have held

15     some authority over the civilian police by virtue of his assignment of

16     tasks directly by President Tudjman.  Is that right?

17        A.   I don't address that proposition, no.

18             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Now, if we could bring up D589.

19        Q.   And this is the document, the one document you cite in the first

20     part of your report on the garrison commander's authority that is not one

21     of the relevant laws or regulations.  And that's at paragraph 3.13 of

22     your report.

23             And in your report, you state that this document supports the

24     conclusion that General Cermak was not in a position of command or

25     control in relation to the civilian police.

Page 23901

 1             And yesterday you stated, in relation to this document, at page

 2     23.782:

 3             "... to me the significance of that is that if General Cermak, as

 4     garrison commander, featured in any way in the Ministry of the Interior

 5     or civilian policing hierarchy, surely there would be no need to ask for

 6     civilian police officers to be present in meetings which he chaired."

 7             Now, this document, as you know, is dated the

 8     28th of August, 1995, and I presume you are aware that, at this point in

 9     time, the civilian police were attending regular, virtually daily

10     meetings with General Cermak in his office, his regular meetings.  Right?

11        A.   Yes, I am aware that they did attend meetings, yes.

12             MR. KAY:  Can we have the text -- I think I'm on the wrong page

13     here.

14             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Yes, I think it should be --

15             MR. KAY:  Page 2.

16             MS. GUSTAFSON: -- page 2 in the English.

17        Q.   And the meetings that this document refers to are just the

18     meetings that General Cermak are holding with members of international

19     organisations.  It's not referring to meetings generally.  That's right,

20     isn't it?

21        A.   That's the -- that's what I take from the words on the document,

22     yes.

23        Q.   And on its face, this document doesn't say anything about whether

24     General Cermak can command the civilian police, right?

25        A.   Well, it doesn't -- it doesn't state categorically whether he can

Page 23902

 1     or he can't.  What I suggested in evidence was that the inference to be

 2     drawn from this is that he wasn't in a particular chain of command;

 3     namely, the Ministry of Interior chain of command, which the civilian

 4     police were in.

 5        Q.   That's the conclusion that I'd like to understand a bit better,

 6     because I don't understand what exactly is it that shows that he's not in

 7     a particular chain of command.  You don't mean that the civilian police

 8     would have to be present at every meeting General Cermak holds, for him

 9     to be in a position of command over them, do you?

10        A.   No.  No, I'm not saying that.  What I'm say is, If you're asking

11     at a higher level to get people into somebody else's meetings, if that

12     somebody else happened to be in the same chain of command as you, why --

13     why would you ask?

14        Q.   So, because Mr. Tomurad, the author of this report, wasn't able

15     to directly interfere and have assign civilian police officers to attend

16     meetings with General Cermak --

17        A.   I think that that's the inference you're trying to draw --

18        Q.   -- that's -- that's the basis?

19        A.   [Overlapping speakers]... yes.

20        Q.   Now, just in terms of the substance of this document --

21             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I think if we move to the next page, or the

22     bottom of the page.

23        Q.   Where it says that:

24             "The purpose for this request is to ensure that the police are

25     informed about all agreements and" --

Page 23903

 1             MS. GUSTAFSON:  If we could move to the next page.

 2        Q.   "... conclusions reached which will enable them to organise, plan

 3     tasks and duties from their purview accordingly."

 4             Now, one interpretation of this document is that General Cermak

 5     is able to enter into agreements directly with members of international

 6     organisations that the members of the MUP will then have to implement on

 7     the ground.  Is that a reasonable interpretation of this document?

 8        A.   Yes, it is.  I think you could -- you could probably go further

 9     than that and say that a concern which Mr. Tomurad appears to be

10     expressing is that information regarding the concerns of members of

11     different organisations who might be loosely termed the "international

12     community" were coming into the police second-hand, and it might be

13     better for the purposes of police organising their patrols patterns, for

14     example, if they heard some of the international's concerns directly.

15     That's -- I mean, that's one inference that I think you can draw from

16     this document.

17        Q.   Well, I actually wasn't asking about concerns of internationals.

18     I was referring to the words of the document which states:

19             "... agreements and conclusions reached ..."

20             And I infer from that that General Cermak is entering into

21     agreements and -- that will affect directly the work of the MUP in their

22     absence, and this is why Mr. Tomurad is making that request.

23        A.   Well, yes, you could interpret it that Mr. Tomurad wants the

24     police to make their own decisions or, as it says, "... plan tasks and

25     duties from their purview accordingly," yes.

Page 23904

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             MS. GUSTAFSON:  If we could go now to P38, please.

 3        Q.   The document that is about to come up is a weekly report by

 4     Mr. Al-Alfi.  And -- for the 2nd to 8th of September.

 5             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And if we could go to page 3 of the English and

 6     page 2 in the B/C/S, please.

 7             And about --

 8             Is this page 3 of the English?

 9             THE WITNESS:  It says 4 of 6 on what I'm looking at.

10             MS. GUSTAFSON:  There we go.  Thank you.

11        Q.   And you can see about a little past halfway down the page he is

12     describing a meeting with General Cermak and it says:

13             "During the meeting, we raised with General Cermak the question

14     of continuing looting and burning of houses in the area.  We further

15     raised specific cases of recent murders which were brought to his

16     attention and asked for the results of the investigation by the Croatian

17     authorities.  General Cermak did not deny the continuation of such

18     activities, and said that strict orders have been issued to arrest those

19     who commit such crimes."

20             MS. GUSTAFSON:  If we go to the last sentence of that paragraph.

21        Q.   "General Cermak agreed to give his instructions for more joint

22     patrolling between UNCIVPOL and the Croatian police, particularly in the

23     remote villages."

24             Now, this document is consistent with the previous document in

25     suggesting that General Cermak has the authority to commit the civilian

Page 23905

 1     police to take certain operational actions at his meetings he holds with

 2     internationals.  Is that right?

 3        A.   Well, forgive me, I have to disagree with that interpretation of

 4     document.  My reading of this document is that it indicates that

 5     General Cermak gave the impression that he had that authority.  And I

 6     think it's fully understandable in the circumstances.

 7             If, as I say in my report, as a result of my examination of

 8     documents, General Cermak did not have the sort of authority which he

 9     appears to be crediting himself with in this document, and that's my

10     position, it is, nevertheless, not at all surprising that he should say

11     something slightly different or be understood to be saying something

12     slightly different in these circumstances.  If he is performing an

13     international liaison role and matters are being drawn to his attention,

14     the natural result of which ought to be increased or more effective

15     patrolling or check-points by the civilian police, then, irrespective of

16     whether General Cermak had any genuine established authority over the

17     civilian police, I would expect him to say, Yes I will get something done

18     about this.  I wouldn't expect him to say, Well, I'll ask the police what

19     they think and whether they can do it, or anything like that.  I mean,

20     that's not the way people behave in these circumstances in my experience.

21        Q.   So you think these statements by General Cermak are deliberate

22     misrepresentations of his authority?

23        A.   I don't think deliberate misrepresentation is a fair way.  I

24     think that's an unnecessarily pejorative emphasis, but I think it's

25     certainly not the case on the basis on the documents that I have seen

Page 23906

 1     that General Cermak was referring to any genuine authority he had to do

 2     this.  But it's quite normal.  I would expect him to go back from a

 3     meeting like this and to say to representatives of the civilian police,

 4     Look, there is what's happening.  This is what these people are saying.

 5     What can you do about it?  And the police, then, under the authorities

 6     which I describe in my report, would take the necessary action.

 7             And indeed there are documents which we talked about yesterday

 8     which emanate through the Ministry of the Interior chain of command and

 9     the Ministry of Defence chain of command insofar as it refers to the

10     military police and the efforts of men under the command of

11     Major-General Mate Lausic, which show these responses.

12             And there are meetings which take place at all levels between the

13     civilian police and the military police to deal with precisely these

14     issues.  And the military police chain of commands and the civilian

15     police chain of commands discuss performance at check-point, discuss

16     whether people are turning up for patrols --

17        Q.   Sorry, Mr. Albiston.  Sorry.  Just to get back to your initial

18     answer to my question.

19        A.   Yeah.

20        Q.   I said:

21             "Do you think these statements by General Cermak are deliberate

22     misrepresentations of his authority?"

23             And your answer was:

24             "I don't think deliberate misrepresentation is a fair way."

25             I think you said to put it --

Page 23907

 1        A.   Yeah.

 2        Q.   Now -- and then you went on to discuss possible -- I believe,

 3     possible motivations for making that statement.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And I'd just like you to put the motivations aside for a moment

 6     an answer directly the question whether you think these statements by

 7     General Cermak, such as, that he will give his instructions for more

 8     joint patrolling between civilian police and UNCIVPOL, are deliberate

 9     misrepresentations of his authority.

10        A.   I would say that they are an overinflated representation of his

11     actual position.  But, in terms of the results that might be achieved,

12     namely, that if he passed the information to the relevant channels,

13     something might be done about it, it is it not a misrepresentation in

14     that sense.

15        Q.   Well --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, I am addressing you and the witness

17     as well.

18             I have heard now de jure de facto authority.  I have heard the

19     term "genuine authority."  In the last answer, "overinflated

20     representation of his actual position."

21             Could we, under all circumstances, try to clearly distinguish

22     between what kind of authority we are talking about.  Because I get the

23     feeling that you are more focussed on de facto authority exercised,

24     whether or not supported by any legal instrument, instruction, et cetera;

25     whereas, I get the feeling that Mr. Albiston is often, in his answer,

Page 23908

 1     very much focussing on what he calls genuine authority, which I

 2     understand de jure authority.

 3             Let's try to get these matters as clear as possible.  Because it

 4     is a repeating source of -- of -- well, not confusion, perhaps, but at

 5     least not 100 per cent understanding.  I think for 50 or 60 per cent

 6     you're talking about the same matter, but then for the remaining 40

 7     per cent you're talking about different matters.  Could you please try to

 8     keep this - and I'm also addressing, you, Mr. Albiston - could you try to

 9     make this as clear as possible in every question and in every answer.

10             Please proceed.

11             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honour.  And I will try to do so.

12     But if I fail to make that explicit, I'm always referring to authority in

13     fact in this context.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  It takes two to tango, I do understand that,

15     Ms. Gustafson.

16             MS. GUSTAFSON:

17        Q.   And, again, I would just like to go back to my question and your

18     answer, and you stated when I asked you again whether these were

19     deliberate misrepresentations:

20             "I would say that they are an overinflated representation of his

21     actual position."

22             And, again, I understand your view to be that, in fact,

23     General Cermak could not issue instructions for more joint patrolling

24     between civilian police and UNCIVPOL?

25        A.   Yes.  I -- in view of what the President says, I will try to be

Page 23909

 1     as exact as possible in my use of language.  But I think there are grey

 2     areas when we're talking about misrepresentation.

 3             I argued yesterday, and in my report, particularly from a de jure

 4     perspective, about General Cermak's authority or absence of it, in

 5     relation to the civilian police, and I also touched on the de facto

 6     aspects.

 7             In relation to this particular phrase, what I would say is this.

 8     It -- it does not impact, in my view, on the conclusions which I reached

 9     about General Cermak's de jure authority, or absence of it, in relation

10     to the civilian police, what this he did, where they patrolled, where

11     they set up check-points, how they based, and so on.

12             It may indicate that because of his central position and his

13     liaison position and the charisma or authority which goes with the rank

14     of Colonel General, and the fact that he was a source of information in

15     relation to certain matters for the civilian police, be a natural

16     follow-on that what he said would influence the conduct of the police in

17     the discharge of their duties by -- in giving them information which

18     would enable them to determine their patrols patterns or the location of

19     their check-points or the concentration of their resources or that sort

20     of thing.

21             I hope that helps on that matter.

22        Q.   Well, a little, but, actually not really, because what

23     General Cermak is saying in this document is that he will give his

24     instructions for more joint patrolling.  And what you're talking about is

25     giving information.  And yet you say it's not a deliberate

Page 23910

 1     misrepresentation, and I simply can't square these.

 2        A.   Well, I think it's -- perhaps we're playing with words.  I think

 3     it is an inflation of his authority.  Deliberate misrepresentation

 4     implies that General Cermak was in some way trying to deceive other

 5     people about what he would do, about what the outcome of the meeting

 6     might be.

 7             Now, it seems to me that if the outcome of the meeting is that

 8     police patrolling patterns will change or that police check-point

 9     locations will change because General Cermak gives the civilian police

10     information which enables them to do their job more effectively, that

11     might be the same outcome as if General Cermak, being in the chain of

12     command of the police, went back to the police station and said, Right,

13     this is what you're going to do.

14             The outcome might be the same, and I wouldn't blame

15     General Cermak for using language which attracts kudos to his position as

16     garrison commander and international point of contact.  But, deliberate

17     misrepresentation, I think that's a -- yeah, as it judgement.  But in my

18     judgement, that's, perhaps, a bit unfair.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we should not spend too much time on whether

20     it's a deliberate misrepresentation or not.

21             Mr. Albiston, you have given a picture of two situations.  The

22     one was General Cermak, in the follow-up of this meeting, giving

23     information; and the other option was that General Cermak, as you said,

24     being in the chain of command would give orders or instructions.  You

25     used the word, "Right, this is what you're going to do."

Page 23911

 1             Now, would you agree with me that there is a third option, that

 2     not being in the chain of command, nevertheless, giving instructions,

 3     orders, whatever you call it?

 4             THE WITNESS:  That can happen.  I see no evidence that that did

 5     happen, although there are certainly documents which I'm sure counsel is

 6     going to bring do my attention at some time, but ...

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that you clearly explained why, in your

 8     report, why all kind of documents which were phrased as orders should not

 9     be understood as orders.  So it comes as a bit of a surprise to me that

10     you say it can happen, but I haven't seen it.  Because I think you dealt

11     with several of them.

12             THE WITNESS:  Well, I was trying to answer what I understood to

13     be a hypothetical question by Mr. President; namely, could you have a

14     situation in which somebody doesn't have authority to give an order but

15     does so.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             THE WITNESS:  And I was trying to relate that back to my reading

18     of the documents and what had happened in this particular case.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, in such a situation.  Because what we are

20     talking about is the effect.  You explained to us that sometimes

21     providing information - and you give a lot of circumstances which could

22     then have a certain effect.  You said it is possible that in the conduct

23     of those, in performing their tasks, would be influenced by that.

24             Now, I do take it that in the other situation, if you are in a

25     chain of command, that the effect would be more or less self-explanatory,

Page 23912

 1     because if are you in command, if you give orders, that is supposed to

 2     have an impact, an effect on the conduct of your subordinates.

 3             Now, would the situation in which an instruction or an order

 4     would have been given, even if there may not be a de jure basis for that,

 5     would that have or could that have a similar effect as the situation in

 6     which you inform the police about certain matters, which you said could,

 7     under the very specific circumstances - and you mentioned quite a couple

 8     of conditions - could have an effect.

 9             Would it be any different if you would have the same rank, if the

10     same situation, the same -- well, all the other conditions.  If you would

11     issue instructions or orders, could that have the same effect as

12     providing information to the police?

13             THE WITNESS:  Well, I think it's fair to say that you could have

14     similar outcomes through two different activities.  And to take a

15     hypothetical example, you could inform the police that a murder had taken

16     place in a house, and could you inform police that there was significant

17     disorder every Friday night at a particular place.  Or, not having any

18     authority to do so, you could order police to go and investigate a murder

19     at a house, or you could order police to go and patrol in an area where

20     there was significant disorder on Friday night.

21             The outcome of the two activities might actually be the same, but

22     the process by which the decision was taken would be different.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, then, the next question would be, you

24     more or less suggested that where, in this report, Mr. Cermak is reported

25     to have said, I will give instructions.  You said, Well, he would have

Page 23913

 1     given information and you explained what effect that would have.

 2             Do you have any -- any information or any reason to choose for

 3     whether he actually did give instructions, or whether he did give

 4     information, or perhaps nothing at all, but ...

 5             THE WITNESS:  In relation to the document which is on the screen

 6     now and about which Ms. Gustafson has been asking me, the answer is, No,

 7     I don't.

 8             There are other occasions in which General Cermak, according to

 9     the documents before the Chamber, makes what might be consider to be or,

10     in my submission, would be considered to be fairly bold pronouncements

11     about what he will and will not do.  And I think we looked at a document

12     yesterday which described an incident in which UN observers were stopped

13     at a check-point in circumstances which led General Cermak to announce

14     that this was all wrong and that the police officers involved would be

15     punished.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let's --

17             THE WITNESS:  And the implication is that, you know, he had

18     authority to do these things.  Well, I'm saying that sometimes

19     General Cermak seems to be saying things about which he doesn't have the

20     authority to speak in quite the terms which he is reported as having

21     spoken.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But in relation to this document --

23             THE WITNESS:  In relation to this document, yeah --

24             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]... if we are talking about

25     whether he would have given information or instructions or orders or

Page 23914

 1     whatever, that has a speculative element in it because you do not have

 2     any specific information about the situation --

 3             THE WITNESS:  Well, I don't -- there may be another document

 4     which counsel will produce which will show a follow-up to this, and I may

 5     have seen it.  But, sitting as I do now, I can't anticipate that.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm, at this moment, trying to find out what

 7     exactly -- what exactly is assumption and what is knowledge and concrete

 8     information.

 9             Please proceed, Ms. Gustafson.

10             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11        Q.   Mr. Albiston, I'd like to move on now to the next section of your

12     report, which is about the police structures and the MUP.  And most of

13     this is about the formal MUP structure and your conclusion that the

14     garrison commander has no role in that structure.  And it may be clear to

15     you now by now, but if it's not, just to make it clear, the Prosecution

16     doesn't take issue with any of those conclusions about General Cermak's

17     role in the formal structure.  And my questions, as I've indicated, will

18     focus more on the factual situation.

19             Now in paragraph 3.34 of this section, you refer to the extent to

20     which General Cermak is mentioned in MUP documents.  And one of the

21     things you said was that notes made by Kotar-Knin Police Administration

22     Deputy Commander Zvonko Gambiroza acknowledge the problems being

23     experienced by General Cermak as a result of the continuous insisting by

24     Brigadier Forand in relation to the missing UNCRO vehicles.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 23915

 1        Q.   And do you recall, now, whether that is the only reference to

 2     General Cermak in Mr. Gambiroza's diary or whether there are others?

 3        A.   No, I don't recall now.

 4        Q.   So if I suggested to that you there were 15 references to

 5     General Cermak in this diary that covers the period between 12 August and

 6     21 September, you don't have any reason to doubt that?

 7        A.   Certainly not, no.

 8        Q.   Now, you have indicated that, in a later paragraph of your report

 9     which is 3.41, and it's clear from the evidence that the Knin civilian

10     police leadership attended meetings with General Cermak on a daily or

11     virtually daily basis.

12             And my question for you is whether you would agree that that was

13     the primary means of communication and the primary point of contact

14     between General Cermak and the Knin police, based on what you reviewed?

15        A.   Significant, certainly.  I wouldn't change primary.  That wasn't

16     the conclusion I came to.

17        Q.   And in light of the fact that there are no minutes or transcripts

18     from those meetings, at least none that we have, would you agree that the

19     bulk of General Cermak's communication or at least a large part of it

20     with the civilian police is not documented?

21        A.   Yes, I would accept that.

22        Q.   And, now, yesterday you were asked what you would have expected

23     to have seen within the MUP documentation, if General Cermak were in

24     command or control of the civilian police, in light of your experience in

25     numerous policing systems, and you said:

Page 23916

 1             "Well, I would expect General Cermak's name to appear on a

 2     significant array of documents of different types.  For example, I would

 3     expect to see his name on instructions, policy documents, orders going

 4     out to the civilian police.  I would expect to see his name on orders

 5     transferring or appointing senior police officers.  I would expect to see

 6     his name on reports going up the Ministry of the Interior chain of

 7     command."

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Now, my question is, in terms of your experience in different

10     policing systems and the expectations that you may have as a result, do

11     you have any first-hand experience or knowledge with a situation such as

12     the one that the Prosecution alleges in this case, namely, that a

13     high-ranking military officer is granted authority directly by the head

14     of state and supreme commander, and, as a result, exercises authority, in

15     fact, over the civilian police in a particular area?

16        A.   No, I don't.

17        Q.   And, again, on these meetings, daily meetings between

18     General Cermak and the civilian police, among others, you state at

19     paragraph 3.41:

20             "Another key example of General Cermak's relationship of

21     cooperation with the civilian police can be seen in the context of the

22     meetings held at the garrison in Knin.  Representatives of the Kotar-Knin

23     police administration," and you corrected that phrase, "attended regular,

24     sometimes daily, meetings chaired by General Cermak."

25             And you state:

Page 23917

 1             "In my experience, in policing circles, chairing a multi-agency

 2     meeting does not imply the authority to direct the work of all the

 3     agencies which are represented at the meeting."

 4             Now, it appears that you seem to conclude that the fact of

 5     chairing a meeting is key in terms of cooperation, and I'd like do

 6     understand that a bit better.  You would agree that a person can chair a

 7     meeting in circumstances where they have authority over the participants,

 8     and they can chair a meeting in circumstances where they don't have

 9     authority but can merely cooperate with the participants, right?

10        A.   Yes.  The chair of a meeting might have direct authority, or the

11     chair of a meeting might have status but not authority.

12        Q.   So what caused you to draw the conclusion in this paragraph that

13     General Cermak's chairing of these meetings was a key example of his

14     relationship of cooperation with the civilian police?

15        A.   Because it was an opportunity for him to have direct conversation

16     about day-to-day issues.  And my experience of working in fairly

17     difficult security environments in which the police and the military work

18     closely with each other is that daily meetings between representatives of

19     the agencies is very important.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Albiston, if you -- I take you back to one of

21     your previous answers, if you would not mind.

22             "Yes, the chair of a meeting might have direct authority."

23             Which I understood to be de jure or formal authority.

24             "... or the chair of a meeting might have status but not

25     authority."

Page 23918

 1             I understand the last authority, no formal authority but status,

 2     would not exclude de facto authority would, it?

 3             THE WITNESS:  No, it wouldn't.  It would give weight to what was

 4     said.  It would give ...

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, or even people might be inclined to do what you

 6     suggest, request, order, instruct, ask them to do.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Well, I think the -- my experience at these

 8     meetings is that where a person has status and a bit of charisma and

 9     leadership qualities, then they can excerpt influence on people over whom

10     they don't actually have direct authority.  And they can perhaps guide

11     the meeting towards a conclusion which suits them.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  What -- the reason I took you back to this

13     answer is I earlier invited you to always make clear, when you were

14     talking about authority, what kind of authority you had in mind.

15             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And now you introduced a new status concept, which

17     is not in every respect - I'm not saying entirely the same but not in

18     every respect to be distinguished from de facto authority - and I again

19     ask you to be very clear in the use of those terms.

20             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  And what I meant by status, status in

21     relation to someone who is chairing a meeting, if I from the army, and I

22     go to a meeting with a policeman, even though I am a soldier and do not

23     form part of the police rank structure, if the person who is chairing the

24     meeting from the policing side is a sergeant, I might accord that person

25     less authority and status in an informal way than if that person were a

Page 23919

 1     chief superintendent.  That's all I was saying.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  What you say is that it depends on the

 3     circumstances that even if there is no formal authority that the

 4     influence that a person chairing such a meeting tells what should be done

 5     and then preferably by the others and not by himself, that that could

 6     come close to a situation of de facto authority, whatever the words used,

 7     asking, requesting.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Well, certainly a good chair can influence the

 9     outcome of a meeting.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             THE WITNESS:  And it need not depend on de jure authority, to

12     achieve the objectives in chairing a meeting.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I notice that when de facto authority comes

14     up, that you often use the language of having an influence on the

15     behaviour of others.  I'm not going to make it any linguistic debate at

16     this moment.  But if you see a clear distinction between the two, you're

17     invited to tell me what exactly is the difference, where you say it may

18     have an influence on -- on what others are doing --

19             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  -- or inclined to do and to what accident that it

21     different from a de facto authority, so that it's clear for me how you

22     use your language.

23             Ms. Higgins.

24             MS. HIGGINS:  Your Honours, just following on from Your Honours

25     observations, in terms of a distinction, clearly the distinction between

Page 23920

 1     de jure and de facto, but also the clear distinction between, at least in

 2     law, influence and de facto, which I know Your Honour will be aware.  But

 3     I'm concerned, given the flexibility of the language.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I'm aware of that.  But often when the word

 5     de facto is used, I hear that in response that the witness responds by

 6     saying that something has an influence.  I am trying to understand means

 7     exactly what he means by those words, not in terms of the legal concept,

 8     but what he means if you using those words and how he apparently

 9     understands the word de facto authority.

10             I fully agree with you that also in the field of criminal law, of

11     course, that there is a distinction to be made, but I'm seeking, first of

12     all, at this moment, to understand what the meaning is of the words used

13     by the witness.  That's what is my aim at this point.

14             MS. HIGGINS:  Thank you.

15             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Mr. President, clearly, I'm approaching this

16     from the point of view of a police commander and not from the point of

17     view of a lawyer, which I am not and never have been.

18             I hope that, in examination-in-chief yesterday and in the report

19     which I've submitted to the Chamber, I've explained my views on command

20     and control, which I see as different concepts from the words I'm using

21     in relation to influence and cooperation and things like that.  And I'll

22     try to make sure that I make that distinction, particularly in relation

23     to Ms. Gustafson's questions.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Just for my understanding, when you are saying this

25     may influence the behaviour of others, what you are apparently then

Page 23921

 1     saying is that the role, the words used by someone chairing a meeting may

 2     have an effect on what other people are doing.  That's -- may have an

 3     effect, I say -- do not say -- have an effect?

 4             THE WITNESS:  Well, let me create an example.  In my roles in

 5     Northern Ireland and in Kosovo, I had regular meetings with senior

 6     military personnel, and I would make quite clear to them where I thought

 7     there was a need for patrolling, where I thought there was a need for

 8     joint patrolling, or for military patrolling on its on and so on.

 9             But I couldn't say to a major-general or even to a captain, Go

10     and patrol this area.  What I would say is, Look, together this is our

11     task, this is what we have got to achieve, this is the way I see us

12     approaching it, how can you help?  And, usually, the military would

13     assist.

14             And in the same way, the military would come to me and they would

15     say, Look, from our analysis of the situation, this is where we need to

16     be, and because the rules in force at the moment require police to

17     accompany military patrols, can you supply a policeman to do this,

18     please?  And the answer would be, Well, if I have got a policeman, I will

19     supply them, but I'm not talking this as an order from you, whether

20     you're a lieutenant-general or a lieutenant.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

22             Please proceed, Ms. Gustafson.

23             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24        Q.   Now, just to get back to this issue of the daily meetings.

25             Would you agree that what actually happened at those meetings

Page 23922

 1     would be more relevant to determining the nature of General Cermak's

 2     relationship with the civilian police and the extent of any de facto

 3     authority he had over them than your experience with multi-agency

 4     meetings in other contexts would be?

 5        A.   I don't dispute for one moment that direct evidence as to what

 6     took place in the meetings would have greater probative value than my

 7     experience in similar meetings elsewhere.

 8        Q.   I'm asking because you don't discuss anywhere in your report, as

 9     far as I can see, what actually happened at these meetings.  And I'm

10     wondering what your methodological reason is for that.

11        A.   Well, forgive me for appearing to contradict or to contradict

12     what seems to be implicit in the question, but I think in my references

13     to the evidence of certain witnesses - and I can be more precise about

14     that if necessary - there -- this is an discussion of the reaction of

15     search witnesses to their relationship with General Cermak.

16        Q.   Could you point specifically in your report to where you

17     reference what happened at these daily meetings?  And if you need to go

18     into private session -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

19        A.   Well I think, if I'm going to discuss this issue more precisely,

20     it probably would be necessary to go into closed session.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

22                           [Private session]

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 23923











11  Pages 23923-23933 redacted. Private session.















Page 23934

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8                           [Open session]

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             Madam Usher, could you escort Mr. Albiston out of the courtroom.

12                           [The witness stands down]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

14             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour, I have been reminded that I am

15     addressing your oral decision that you gave just prior to the other

16     break, and Mr. Misetic reminds me that you had ordered that that

17     discussion should have been in private session as well.  And that -- if I

18     can refer the Chamber back to the two exhibits that Your Honour addressed

19     at the close of the first session.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MR. KEHOE:  I can give you those numbers.  That's --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I'm aware of what you're talking about.

23                           [Defence counsel confer]

24                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

25                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

Page 23935

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  We turn into private session.

 2                           [Private session]

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 23936

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6                           [Open session]

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 9             We'll have a break, and we will resume at five minutes to -- five

10     minutes past 1.00.

11                           --- Recess taken at 12.42 p.m.

12                           --- Upon commencing at 1.08 p.m.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, you may proceed.

14             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honours.

15        Q.   Mr. Albiston, I'd like to ask you a question about a statement

16     you make in your report at paragraph 3.35, which is:

17             "A review of witness testimony reveals that Witness 86 did not

18     accept that General Cermak had any authority over the civilian police."

19             Are you referring there to formal legal authority or both legal

20     and factual authority?

21             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Excuse me, counsel.

22             It's just -- under an abundance of caution, Your Honour, this

23     need to be in private session, and I don't know if we are or not, or

24     closed.

25             MS. GUSTAFSON:  This is part of the public report, and questions

Page 23937

 1     were asked on this yesterday.  So I didn't think it needed to be.  But

 2     I'm in the Court's hands.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I think a reference to the witness by his pseudonym,

 4     if we do not go into any details and are just -- questions are put on the

 5     abstract level, then there seems to be no problem.

 6             You may proceed.

 7             MS. GUSTAFSON:

 8        Q.   Do you still have my question?

 9        A.   Yes I think, keeping it at the abstract, the answer is that the

10     assessment I make this relation to that witness's evidence, I did not

11     distinguish between those two concepts, and, in reading his testimony, it

12     didn't seem to me that he was distinguishing between them either.

13        Q.   Right before the break, you referred to contradictory references

14     in his evidence, and you stated sometimes Witness 86 ascribed a certain

15     authority to General Cermak, and in the next sentence there is an

16     expression which appears to resile from that.

17             And it appears then that you have made an assessment of this

18     evidence, in spite of contradictory references, and I'd like you to

19     explain that, particularly in light of your earlier remark that you were

20     not --  did not consider yourself to have the role of assessing the

21     accuracy of witness evidence.

22        A.   Well, I wouldn't have the role of assessing the accuracy of

23     witness evidence to matters of fact, unless there were a means whereby I

24     could compare their evidence with the documents before me.

25             In relation to these issues, I think there are those

Page 23938

 1     opportunities.

 2             If I can just go back to the first part of the question, yes, the

 3     answer which I gave was an answer directed to your question, which the

 4     question, as I recall, involved quoting to go me a fairly long chunk of

 5     testimony, I think, from the witness statement of the witness concerned,

 6     and I accepted that the quotation which you had given contained a number

 7     of elements, some of which, I think, in terms of ordinary language would

 8     be considered to contradict the sentences immediately preceding or

 9     following them, and I accept that.

10             My conclusion as to what the evidence of these witnesses means

11     is, as I tried to intimate earlier to the Chamber based on taking their

12     evidence and testimony in -- in the round and comparing it with other

13     witnesses' evidence and testimony and with the documents which describe

14     the de jure conditions in which they were operating at the time.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Now, if we could move to paragraph 3.39 of your

16     report.

17             Where you say:

18             "In terms of General Cermak's coordinating function, it is

19     evident that he was in receipt of some information from the civilian

20     police, in relation to crimes committed."

21             And you cite a number of documents.  And I'd like to turn to one

22     of those documents.

23             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Which is P2650.  And that's referenced at

24     footnote 71.  It how has an exhibit number.

25        Q.   Now yesterday you were asked about this document and you said at

Page 23939

 1     page 23.790:

 2             "Yes.  Well, I think we can see by looking at a combination of

 3     the English translation and the original document that this, as you say

 4     from Chief Cetina, and it's information being supplied again to the

 5     Knin garrison for the information of the garrison commander

 6     General Cermak.  And it amounts to a very brief rehearsal of information,

 7     in relation to the killing of three people, and informs the General that

 8     the correct investigative and judicial procedure has been initiated."

 9             Now, your answers suggests to me, and I would like to confirm

10     this, that you don't have any information about the circumstances that

11     caused Mr. Cetina to sent this report to General Cermak?

12        A.   That's correct.

13        Q.   So what -- in light of the fact that you have cited this report

14     as evidence of General Cermak's coordinating function, what exactly do

15     you consider him to be coordinating here?

16        A.   This -- this document is one of a number of documents which show

17     General Cermak being given information about crime matters, and,

18     therefore, I felt that it was a document upon which I would be expected

19     to produce some observations.

20             It's a very thin document, and it's right that I should bring it

21     to the attention of the Court, because it connects General Cermak with

22     crime, which is what I was asked to look at.  But I don't have any

23     background information which explains the full context of this.

24        Q.   And you also cite this document in paragraph 3.71, where you is

25     that state that:

Page 23940

 1             "General Cermak was passing and receiving information concerning

 2     crimes as part of his liaison role."

 3             When you refer to "liaison role" there, are you referring to his

 4     role to liaise with international organisations?

 5        A.   Not necessarily, no.  I'm referring to his function of liaison

 6     been different agencies that were present in Knin at the time.

 7        Q.   And what specifically does this document indicate, in terms of

 8     his liaison role?  What is he -- who is he liaising between here?

 9        A.   Well, he is receiving a report on a crime from Mr. Cetina.  On

10     other occasions, I have been able to demonstrate why he was receiving a

11     report on a crime, or at least to offer an interpretation to this

12     Chamber.  In relation to this one, I can't.  But I thought, in the

13     interests of completion, the document should be -- not be ignored or

14     discarded.

15        Q.   But there's no indication, and you have no knowledge of him

16     liaising between two bodies, in relation to this --

17        A.   Not in relation to this specific matter, no, I don't.

18             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And if we could go to P2645.

19        Q.   Which is another document you cite in footnote 72 of

20     paragraph 3.39 in relation to General Cermak's coordinating function.

21             And, again, you were shown this yesterday, and you stated at page

22     23.791:

23             "... this document is it not entirely clear to me, or should I

24     say the purpose of the document is not entirely clear to me."

25             And a little further down you said:

Page 23941

 1             "I think what is quite clear is that because of the recipients

 2     and the way that the paper is addressed, there's no expectation of any

 3     action on the part of General Cermak in response to this document."

 4             And, again, I take it that you don't have any knowledge as to why

 5     this report was written or why it was being sent to General Cermak.  Is

 6     that right?

 7        A.   I am unable to link that to any other thing which seeks that

 8     information, no.  I don't say it doesn't exist, I'm simply not in a

 9     position to identify or cite it.

10        Q.   And, again, you have cited that document in paragraph 3.71 as

11     evidence that General Cermak was passing and receiving information

12     concerning crimes as part of his liaison role.  You don't have any

13     information about -- as to whether or not he was liaising between two

14     bodies, in relation to this particular document, do you?

15        A.   No.  I think, perhaps, it should be the other way around that, in

16     relation to these documents, I'm not stating a proposition and then

17     stating the documents to support the proposition; I'm looking at the

18     documents and trying to offer the Chamber an interpretation of their part

19     in this scene, this scenario.

20        Q.   I'm sorry, when you say in paragraph 3.71, at the end, you say:

21             "I based this conclusion on witness testimony concerning meetings

22     at which General Cermak was present and on documents which indicate that

23     General Cermak was passing and receiving information concerning crimes as

24     part of his liaison role."

25             And then this is an footnote, and I understood that footnote to

Page 23942

 1     refer to documents that were supporting the proposition.

 2             Is that not correct?

 3        A.   Yes, it is.  But then the footnote refers to a lot of other

 4     documents as well; whereas, the grouping that you were asking me about

 5     are these documents which I'm seeking to assist the Court with.

 6        Q.   So some of the documents support the proposition and some don't.

 7     Is that ...

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Now, in relation to this particular report from

10     Mr. Gambiroza, the one dated the 21st of October, 1995.  General Cermak,

11     in one of his interviews with the Prosecution, recounted a conversation

12     that he had with Mr. Gambiroza about the same incident that is the

13     subject of this report.  And in that interview, he said about this report

14     or this incident, he said --

15             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And this is, for the benefit of the Court and the

16     parties, P2526, at page 82 of the English.

17        Q.   "Just before winter, in October, I was with my people from

18     logistics.  We went" --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, if I may inquire in what direction

20     you are heading.  Because, of course, the Chamber is familiar with the

21     evidence in relation to, I would say, this event, the name Pasic appears,

22     all that, the witness apparently could not give any further information

23     as to why he used this document as a -- as an indication that it would

24     have been sent to him as -- in order to liaise with the internationals.

25             I'm -- I was wondering to what extent, where the witness

Page 23943

 1     apparently has no knowledge, which means that - well, perhaps not for --

 2     for specific reasons, he has just put this document in the footnote -

 3     what the use of is going into the background of this report with this

 4     witness.  If it is for the Chamber, the Chamber is aware of the

 5     background of this document and the event.

 6             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Well, Your Honour, the -- the witness has relied

 7     on this report in terms of his conclusions as to General Cermak's

 8     coordinating versus commanding role.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And in light of the fact that he is an expert

11     drawing conclusions, I am attempting to test those.  If the Chamber isn't

12     it -- and I was attempting to ask him to draw conclusions as to the

13     nature of that role on the basis of this information.  If the Chamber

14     doesn't want those conclusion from this witness, I'm happy to move on.

15     That was the end goal.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I -- we can perhaps do that in a different way.

17             Mr. Albiston, if there would be a background in relation to

18     matter, which places Mr. Cermak in a role which has, I think, correct me

19     when I'm wrong, but has got nothing to do with liaising with the

20     internationals, but, rather, with his concern for the well-being of

21     people in a village and perhaps his personal relationship with persons

22     involved in this event, would there be any reason for you still to claim

23     that this document would be indicative for his liaising role with the

24     international organisations?

25             THE WITNESS:  Well, that would be new information for me, sir,

Page 23944

 1     and obviously I would have to reconsider my position in the light of new

 2     information.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Before we -- the Chamber is not assisted by

 6     inviting the witness to go look at the full background of this and then

 7     to see whether he comes to other conclusions or not.

 8             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Your Honour, I -- I'll accept the guidance.  It

 9     puts me in a difficult position, but ...

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- one could not reasonably expect anything

11     from informing the witness about the background other than that they shed

12     quite a different light on why Mr. Cermak may have been informed about

13     these events.  That's --

14             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Your Honour, just to be clear, the end goal was

15     to ask the witness to draw conclusions as to a coordinating versus a

16     commanding role.  If the Chamber doesn't want those conclusions from this

17     expert witness, that's fine.  But ...

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Coordinating, I thought it was still in -- in

19     relation to the liaising function.

20             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I was referring to two paragraphs of the report

21     where this was mentioned, paragraph 3.39, where this document is cited in

22     terms of -- in support of General Cermak's coordinating function.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Higgins.

25             MS. HIGGINS:  Your Honour has already given guidance in this

Page 23945

 1     regard.  I understand where Ms. Gustafson wishes to go.  But what we will

 2     end up doing is putting to this witness something which he know nothing

 3     about, asking for his conclusions about what Mr. Cermak has described

 4     about an incident in his interview with the OTP statement.  And I wonder

 5     whether this takes the matter very much further, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson.

 7             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I think I'm entitled to ask the witness to draw

 8     conclusions on the evidence, I mean, that's what he is here for.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- I consulted with my colleagues.  The

10     background of this event is so specific that the Chamber does not expect

11     it to be -- or would be highly surprised if, by any way of reasoning,

12     this event could be considered as indicative for a certain role, the

13     roles you mentioned, coordination, or -- coordination function or the ...

14             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Command.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Or the command function.

16             The Chamber does not prevent you from addressing this specific

17     aspect but is of the opinion that it should be the -- perhaps the last

18     thing to do if have you time available.

19             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I take the Court's guidance in that regard, and I

20     move to the next point.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

22             MS. GUSTAFSON:

23        Q.   Mr. Albiston, I would like to move, now, to paragraph 3.42 of

24     your report.  Where you state:

25             "It should also be remembered that high level coordination in

Page 23946

 1     relation to problems in the Knin and surrounding areas was being effected

 2     totally outside of the Knin garrison meetings."

 3             And you go on to discuss some of the documentation regarding that

 4     high-level coordination and you conclude:

 5             "In all of this there was no role for the garrison commander."

 6             Now, I'm just -- I'd like to ask you about this conclusion, in

 7     light of the evidence that the Chamber has received, that General Cermak

 8     was affecting a coordinating role at the daily meetings that he held at

 9     the Knin garrison with the civilian police and the military police, among

10     others.  And I'm wondering, in light of that, what the significance of

11     whether or not he's involved in communications between Mr. Lausic or

12     Mr. Moric or other high-level communications, in light of that, daily

13     coordination function?

14        A.   Yes.  The conclusion which I'm drawing from this particular set

15     of documents is that, when it comes to the operational business on the

16     ground, the business of dealing with the problems that existed in the

17     Krajina, the Knin area at this time, it was the civilian police answering

18     through a chain of command to Mr. Moric, and the military police

19     detachments who were answering through a chain of command to

20     Major-General Lausic, who were actually dealing with the day-to-day, the

21     nuts and bolts, the operational response, to these problems.  These are

22     the meetings at which there are discussions about patrolling patterns,

23     joint patrolling, check-points, joint check-points, what's happening

24     what's, going to happen next.  There's no role in any of this, according

25     to the documents which I cite, which are fairly comprehensive, for

Page 23947

 1     General Cermak -- indeed, there's one document which describes a meeting

 2     where representatives of the military police and the civilian police, who

 3     have the responsibility de jure - and I would say in light of the

 4     questions that have been put, also de facto - for dealing with these

 5     problems at which Major-General Lausic says at one stage - the meeting is

 6     in Plitvice, I think it is called.

 7             Major-General Lausic says, Look, everybody that needs to be here

 8     is here to deal with these problems.  But General Cermak is not there.

 9     General Cermak's deputy or representative is not there.  There is no

10     apologies for absence by General Cermak in relation to this meeting.  And

11     the -- the document -- the document is D595, and it's a note of a

12     meeting.  And these are, in my assessment, are essential documents for

13     understanding how the Croatian state apparatus responded to crime and

14     disorder in this area at this time.  These are the people who are dealing

15     with the problems, and General Cermak isn't one of them.

16        Q.   Now, just to go back something you said earlier in that answer.

17     You talk about Mr. Moric and Mr. Lausic dealing with the day-to-day, the

18     nuts and bolts, the operational response.  "These are the meetings at

19     which there were discussions about patrolling patterns, check-points,

20     et cetera."  And you say:

21             "There's no role for this, according to the documents, which I

22     cite for General Cermak."

23             It seems to that - and correct me if I'm wrong - that there's an

24     underlying assumption here which is that these problems, these kinds of

25     discussions about matters such as check-points and patrols, are not

Page 23948

 1     taking place at the daily meetings that General Cermak it holding.  And

 2     if my understanding of your assumption is correct, I'd like to --

 3        A.   [Overlapping speakers]... I'm not excluding the possibility that

 4     there is discussion about those matters at those meetings.  What I'm

 5     saying is that the -- my interpretation of the totality of the documents

 6     is that the decisions and the responsibility for performance, these are

 7     matters which are being dealt with in these meetings, involving the

 8     civilian police and the VP.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  That answers my question.

10             Now, I would like to turn to the next part of your report, which

11     deals with orders issued by General Cermak to the civilian police,

12     beginning at paragraph 3.43.

13             And you state that:

14             "At the outset, some documents which best fit the description of

15     orders issued by General Cermak to the civilian police were also directed

16     to the military police."

17             And in that paragraph, you also state that "these orders should

18     be seen in the context of General Cermak's international point of contact

19     role."

20             And I'm not really sure what you mean by that statement, "seen in

21     the context of General Cermak's international point of contact role."

22             Is it your position that General Cermak had the authority, in

23     fact, to issue orders to the civilian police in relation to this

24     appointment of contact role; and, if not, what are you saying here in

25     your report?

Page 23949

 1        A.   Definitely not.  What I'm saying is that General Cermak found

 2     himself in a position, having received complaints from Brigadier Forand,

 3     for example, or, having received other information, turned to the

 4     civilian police and the military police to achieve resolution of these

 5     problems.  And I think I was trying to address two different parts of

 6     indictment, and that's why there are two sections of my report which

 7     address similar issues.

 8             And so I think that this part of my report should be read in

 9     conjunction with a later part of my report, which is round about 3.71,

10     where I discuss whether pieces of paper with the word "order" at the top

11     can really be understood to be orders in the full sense of the word.

12        Q.   Now, in this section, you haven't directly discussed other

13     written orders issued by General Cermak to the civilian police, including

14     P509, which you looked at yesterday, which was the order to allow

15     civilians unhindered entry into Knin.

16             D504, which is General Cermak's 11 October order to transfer MUP

17     officers to another building.

18             And D501, which is General Cermak's 10th August decision to have

19     the MUP hand over a former hotel and adjust it to specific requirements,

20     and instructing the headquarters administration of the

21     Ministry of Defence and the MUP to jointly find adequate space for the

22     accommodation of MUP personnel.

23             And, now, none of these three orders relate to international

24     organisations or General Cermak's international role.  Is that right?

25        A.   They are discussed in other parts of the report.  I was firstly

Page 23950

 1     addressing, in this section, the four documents to which I refer.  But I

 2     think it's right to say that the three documents, to which you've

 3     referred, do receive attention at other parts of the report.

 4        Q.   And in terms of their tone, in -- as orders, they don't differ in

 5     any material respects from the orders General Cermak issued in relation

 6     to the missing UN equipment.  Is that right?

 7             MS. HIGGINS:  Your Honour, before the witness answers the

 8     question, perhaps the question could be framed a little bit more

 9     specifically.  In that question is wrapped up three different orders.

10     And it's perhaps unfair to the witness, without pulling up the documents

11     and looking at them, to ask such a generic question.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  At the same time, I did understand

13     Ms. Gustafson to focus just on the tone to the extent that it says

14     "orders" rather than anything else.

15             Is that correct, Ms. Gustafson?

16             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Well, it was actually the -- the tone -- I

17     mean -- of course, they all say orders.  It was more addressed at the

18     commanding tone of these documents.  But I take Ms. Higgins's guidance

19     is --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If the witness would like to view again the

21     orders or the documents you were referring to, then he will have -- he

22     should be given an opportunity to do so.

23             Would you like to have a look at them, Mr. Albiston?

24             THE WITNESS:  Well, I think, Mr. President, if I'm being invited

25     to go through the orders line by line and compare the use of language,

Page 23951

 1     then it would be necessary for me to look at the three orders.

 2             If this is an general proposition that these are orders and that

 3     they purport to give instructions, irrespective of whether I take a view

 4     about their legitimacy de jure, then, the answer is, Yes, we they are all

 5     documents which say order at the top and which purport to give

 6     instructions.

 7             I don't know whether that shortens the --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, we'll leave it to Ms. Gustafson.  If she wants

 9     to explore it further, then you may be provided with the orders until we

10     return tomorrow.

11             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  If not, then Ms. Gustafson will put her next

13     question to you.

14             But, Ms. Gustafson, two minutes are left.

15             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I was about to return to those written orders, so

16     it may make sense to break now because by the time the document comes up

17     we'll be --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and you would like to deal with them in further

19     detail.

20             Yes, I do not know whether you have them available to you now,

21     Mr. Albiston.  If not, we will provide copies to you.  Let me just scroll

22     up.

23             THE WITNESS:  I have copies of these documents in my laptop at my

24     hotel, so I can consider them this evening, if that would help the Court

25     tomorrow.

Page 23952

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we are talking about P509, D504, and D501, if

 2     I'm not mistaken, Ms. Gustafson.

 3             Now perhaps you would prefer to write that down.

 4             So P509, D504, and D501.  If would you be kind enough to have a

 5     look at them, but also not to speak about them with anyone, so as you

 6     should not speak about your testimony, whether already given or still to

 7     be given with anyone.  Then we'd like to see you back tomorrow --

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.  I have access to electronic copies of

 9     these without the need to contact any other person.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's understood.

11             And we'd like to see you back tomorrow at 9.00, because we

12     adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow, Thursday, 5th of November,

13     9.00, Courtroom III.

14                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

15                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day of

16                           November, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.