Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 23953

 1                           Thursday, 5 November 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

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

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around the

 7     courtroom.

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

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

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

11     Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

13             Good morning to you, Mr. Albiston.  I would like to remind you

14     that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you have given at the

15     beginning of your testimony.

16             THE WITNESS:  Good morning, Mr. President, yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, are you ready to continue your

18     cross-examination.

19             MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honours.

20             If we could have P509 brought up, please.

21                           WITNESS:  CHRISTOPHER ALBISTON [Resumed]

22                           Cross-examination by Mr. Gustafson: [Continued]

23        Q.   Mr. Albiston, this is a document that you were shown on Tuesday

24     and you were asked to provide your observations about this document and

25     you stated:

Page 23954

 1             "Well, in this document, General Cermak is giving permission or

 2     agreeing that people can move freely."

 3             And that was at page 23.809.

 4             I would like to go through this one step at a time with you.

 5             And, first, on its face in this document, General Cermak is not

 6     agreeing or giving permission.  He is, in fact, ordering the civilian

 7     police and the military police to allow the free movement of civilians.

 8     Is that right?

 9        A.   Yes, the text of paragraph 1 is granting permission for

10     unhindered entry, yeah.

11        Q.   I take it from the word "yes" that you agree with me that it is

12     an order?

13        A.   Well, it says "order" on it.  We discussed -- or I offered a view

14     on its qualities as an order earlier on, and there was some discussion

15     also, I think, on Tuesday about who actually had authority in relation to

16     the granting of passes and permissions and free movement and so on.

17        Q.   Well, again, my question was about this document on its -- on its

18     face, and I think --

19        A.   On its face it says "order."  I accept that, yes.

20             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Now, could we move into private session, please.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

22                           [Private session]

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 23955











11  Pages 23955-23969 redacted. Private session.















Page 23970

 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                           [Open session]

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

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

20             MS. GUSTAFSON:

21        Q.   And then in paragraph 3.88 you state that this document cannot

22     simply be ignored.  And you conclude:

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

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

25     community and to UNCRO in particular and his desire to be seen to be

Page 23971

 1     assisting them."

 2             And I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean by this.  And

 3     I'd like to ask you:  Is the view here that you viewed General Cermak as

 4     issuing these orders pretending to have more authority that he has, in

 5     fact, and due to his desire to be assisting the internationals.  Is that

 6     what you're getting at here?

 7        A.   Yes, I think to say that he's pretending to have more authority

 8     than he has, may be to imply, if I were to accept that, would be to imply

 9     that I thought there was something improper about General Cermak's

10     conduct in relation to this matter.  My interpretation of it is that it

11     is -- he is acting with goodwill, attempting to achieve objectives which

12     will be to the benefit of the international community and to the benefit

13     of the reputation of the Republic of Croatia.

14             He has written an order, and you see my comments, that whilst I

15     am taking a view in my report that General Cermak did not have the legal

16     constitutional authority to issue orders to the civilian police,

17     nevertheless, it is a document which I have to address and not omit.  And

18     if I am to stand by my judgement, then I have to offer some explanation

19     as to where this document fits.

20             Now, it says "order" on it, and I say in my report that the

21     phraseology in the document is consistent with what you would expect in

22     an order in a disciplined hierarchical organisation.  And it says "order"

23     at the top.  And it has a rubric, an introductory paragraph, which gives

24     the explanation, the rational, for the order.

25             I think it's fair to say just by writing the word "order" on a

Page 23972

 1     piece of paper it doesn't, in fact, give the piece of paper the status of

 2     an order any more than if I wrote on a piece of paper "royal

 3     proclamation" it would be a royal proclamation.  But it does require

 4     respondents to notify me immediately when the vehicles are found.

 5     Unfortunately, it is undermined a little bit by not actually having an

 6     addressee --

 7        Q.   Sorry, Mr. Albiston, I think are you moving a little bit away

 8     from my question which was --

 9        A.   Sorry.

10        Q.   Seeing this document in the light of General Cermak's

11     international role, and I think you answered that at the beginning --

12        A.   Oh, right, okay.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Higgins.

14             MS. HIGGINS:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  This is an important

15     document in the case, and I would ask that, Mr. Albiston, be allowed to

16     finish the complete answer in respect of this.  It is useful to the

17     parties; and I submit it is useful to the Chamber.  I can go back to it

18     in re-examination, but he should be allowed to finish his answer in its

19     entirety.

20             MS. GUSTAFSON:  He testified at length on this document in

21     examination-in-chief, Your Honour, I just wanted him to focus on my

22     question.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson is entitled to guide the witness to

24     focused answers on what she specifically asked.  And if there is any

25     matter still remaining, then, of course, in re-examination, Ms. Higgins,

Page 23973

 1     have you an opportunity to hear what the witness would, apart from the

 2     focus of this question, would be able to tell us.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5        Q.   Now, --

 6        A.   Yes, I'm sorry.  To address, specifically, the element of the

 7     question concerning the international community and whether

 8     General Cermak was being dishonest, I'm not imputing dishonesty to

 9     General Cermak in relation to his choice of words on the order.  I think

10     he was trying to do his best to get a result on behalf of the

11     international community.

12        Q.   And would you agree - would you not? - that this order has very

13     similar format as P509, the one we just looked at a few moments ago?

14        A.   Yes, I would.

15             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And if we could, please, have D504 on the screen,

16     please.

17        Q.   And this is the order from General Cermak transferring MUP

18     officers to another building.  And this document also has a very similar

19     format to D303 that we just looked at.  Doesn't it?

20        A.   Yes it does.  I don't know whether it's important, but it says at

21     the bottom that it's addressed to individuals rather than copied to --

22     or, rather, addressed to addressees rather than copied to addressees.

23     But I entirely accept the Prosecution's suggestion that this is similar

24     in its format and layout.

25        Q.   In light of the similar format between this order and the D303

Page 23974

 1     and -- P509 and D303 and the fact that those two orders have nothing to

 2     do with the international community, I'd like you to explain why it is

 3     you think that D303 should be viewed in a unique way in terms of

 4     General Cermak's international role.

 5        A.   Sorry, is this -- it's not D303 that's on the screen, is it?

 6        Q.   No, D303 was the one we just looked at.  If you'd like to see it

 7     again, we can go back to --

 8        A.   Yes, please.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10        A.   Yes, the question is:  Why do I think this is an important

11     document?

12        Q.   No.  My question is why you view this as having to be interpreted

13     in light of General Cermak's international role when he issued other

14     orders in a very similar format that had nothing to do with his

15     international role.

16        A.   I'm not sure that I -- I understand fully the implications of why

17     it is you think that this document should be viewed in a unique way in

18     view of General Cermak's international role.  I'm sorry.

19        Q.   I base that on paragraph 3.88 -- 3.88 of your report where you

20     say:

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

22     Cermak's acknowledged role in relation to the international community and

23     UNCRO in particular."

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   So I'm basing it on what you say in your report.

Page 23975

 1        A.   But I'm not sure whether it's being suggested that this -- this

 2     is a -- why the word "unique" is here.

 3        Q.   Well --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see whether I can get things on track again.

 5             Mr. Albiston, it seems that you are, in 3.88, saying that the

 6     order should be "interpreted in the light of General Cermak's

 7     acknowledged role in relation to the international community."

 8             And you then give -- refer to some details of that document:

 9             "It's important to note that the order did not specify which

10     individuals or how many individuals should be allocated to the task.  It

11     made no attempt to give guidance on how any inquiry should be carried out

12     and is, in my opinion, consistent with General Cermak's role as a

13     coordinator."

14             You say that is his role.  And I see -- in the format of this

15     order, I see weak spots, at least you see flaws, which, apparently, are a

16     reason or are among the reasons why you interpret this document in a

17     certain way.

18             What Ms. Gustafson does at this moment, she presents to you an

19     order in which she says, There's not much difference, as far as the

20     format elements you refer to in relation to the other order, but the

21     substance of it has got nothing to do with international relations, and,

22     therefore, she is exploring how sound the format basis for your

23     conclusions is.

24             And that's why she puts the two documents in sequence to you.

25             Ms. Gustafson, have I understood your intention?

Page 23976

 1             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I think mostly, Your Honour.  I wasn't so much

 2     focused on what the perceived flaws were in the order were; it was more

 3     the statement that it should be viewed in light of the --

 4     General Cermak's ...

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but you referred to the format, and you say

 6     this order in its format is much similar but the substance is quite

 7     different.

 8             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Yes, Your Honour.  And I was -- aimed at the --

 9     exploring the answer that this was an effort by General Cermak to get a

10     result on behalf of the international community and comparing that to

11     orders with a very similar structure that have nothing to do with the

12     international community.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, well it could not be the aim that -- to satisfy

14     the international community.

15             Mr. Albiston, is it clear now what Ms. Gustafson asks you?

16             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I think I understand the point.  And I accept

17     the point that this order refers to a matter in which General Cermak is

18     seeking to assist the international community.  And Ms. Gustafson wants

19     to draw my attention to other documents which might be considered by the

20     Chamber to be orders, depending on their view, which don't relate to the

21     international community.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, if you have any follow-up questions.

23             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No, Your Honour, I think I'll just move to the

24     next question.

25        Q.   Now, on Tuesday, you provided some testimony about this document,

Page 23977

 1     and you stated that you thought the meaning was clear at page 23833, but

 2     you said that:

 3             "In my experience, in a hierarchical situation, it is very

 4     difficult to address an order to two different individuals without

 5     specifying how you expect that order to be complied with."

 6             Now, these -- this order is addressed to two different

 7     individuals in two different hierarchical structures.  But, to me, it is

 8     clear that General Cermak expected this order to be complied with.  He

 9     expected the military police commander and the civilian police commander

10     to form a joint team to find this equipment, and he left it up to those

11     commanders who are, after all, the experts in policing matters, to figure

12     out how to implement that task.

13             Now, is that not a reasonable interpretation of this order?

14        A.   Yes, I think in part it is reasonable.  But it doesn't -- it

15     doesn't contradict the proposition which I put on Tuesday, which is that

16     this would be a difficult order for people in two separate hierarchical

17     chains to comply with.  I don't say "impossible," because common sense

18     and goodwill can achieve an awful lot in the absence of proper

19     constitutional, legal, hierarchical arrangements.

20        Q.   Well, that's something that's inherent in issuing an order to

21     people in different hierarchical organisations, isn't it?

22        A.   Well, in my experience, in military and policing hierarchies,

23     orders from one to another simply don't exist.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see whether I understand you.

25             Mr. Albiston, you said this is a funny order because it's

Page 23978

 1     addressed to two different people and they are even in different --

 2             Now, could you tell us, if I, for whatever reason, think that I'm

 3     authorised to bridge a gap or to create a link between two persons in two

 4     hierarchical situations, well, let's say, I want A to meet with B to do

 5     something.  How would you phrase that order?  Just to A, just to B, or

 6     would you address the order to A and B and say, Please meet, or you have

 7     to meet and do together something?

 8             I mean, I see, in general, the point that you shouldn't say to

 9     A and B -- give them similar instructions.  But if the specific content

10     of what you want to achieve is that you want A to meet with B and to do

11     something together, wouldn't it be totally logical to address that to

12     both A and B?  If you do it only to A, then B wouldn't know about it; if

13     you only do it to B, A would say I'm not addressed by it.

14             It sounds so logical to me that for the specific purpose here

15     that the general observation that you shouldn't issue orders to two

16     different persons, because that creates confusion, that, here, it

17     perfectly makes sense and is logical.

18             THE WITNESS:  I don't think, with respect, that that is the way

19     that police and military organisations work.  I entirely accept that

20     common sense and goodwill can make things work without always having to

21     refer back up the line of command to the very top for authority to do

22     things, and it's not just a question of the organisations that I've

23     worked in and with.  It might be more relevant to these proceedings if I

24     were to cite an example in relation to this place and this time.  And

25     what I have in mind - it may not be a direct parallel, but it may help

Page 23979

 1     the Court - is the agreement reached between the United Nations and the

 2     Republic of Croatia in relation to the way that UNCIVPOL would work with

 3     the Croatian civilian police.  And there's a document which is, I think,

 4     cited in my report, and it's certainly known to the Chamber, which, at

 5     the highest level, sets out the mechanisms for that coordination.  And it

 6     shows that the coordination will start at the bottom.  And that in the

 7     event of a disagreement at the bottom level, there will be referral

 8     upwards and so on.

 9             So these sort of arrangement can work.  I don't say that

10     different agencies can't work together; all I say is that police, in

11     particular, always look for authority in the law or the constitution for

12     the actions which they take.  Police are trained to enforce the law and

13     to obey the law, and it is a part of their culture always to look for a

14     specific authority for what they do.  And, I think, that is what gives

15     rise to occasions in witness testimony, for example, when we have heard

16     about various witnesses saying that they didn't take orders from

17     General Cermak, and yet, counsel for Prosecution is saying, Well,

18     actually, they may not have taken orders, but we see things happening

19     which suggests that what General Cermak was suggesting to them, that

20     passing on information from the international community or discussing the

21     situation, actually produced some sort of concrete results.

22             I think those are entirely consistent positions.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             Please proceed, Ms. Gustafson.

25             MS. GUSTAFSON:

Page 23980

 1        Q.   I'd like to move, now, to paragraph 3.90 of your report, where

 2     you discuss General Cermak's 12th of August, 1995, request to

 3     General Gotovina to inform HV unit commanders in the

 4     Split Military District of the need to urgently return missing vehicles

 5     and equipment.  And that's D304.

 6             MS. GUSTAFSON:  If we could have that brought up, please.

 7        Q.   And you note in your report that the letter states that

 8     General Cermak has attempted to find and return these vehicles through

 9     the assistance of the civilian police and military police and has had no

10     success to date.

11             And you conclude that this is:

12             "A persuasive indicator of the severe limitations on

13     General Cermak's authority and influence over the police and army."

14             And on Tuesday, you testified about this document as well at page

15     23835 and you stated:

16             "It seems to me, from the text of the document, that it is

17     tantamount to an admission by General Cermak that actually he is not

18     getting anywhere with the steps which he has taken and that he realizes

19     that if he wants action from the military, in relation to recovery of the

20     vehicles, then it's to the Military Command that he needs to go."

21             Now, in relation to the police, General Cermak is not asking

22     General Gotovina to assist him in having the civilian police or the

23     military police act in relation to this matter.  It is clear, as you

24     stated, that he is asking General Gotovina to take steps through his

25     operational command.

Page 23981

 1             And this document certainly indicates that the missing equipment

 2     has not yet been recovered.  But there's no indication in this document

 3     that either the civilian police or the military police have not acted on

 4     General Cermak's order, is there?

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   And if General Cermak had considered that what was needed here

 7     was to have the military police and the civilian police take some further

 8     action that he thought they were not taking, then he would have requested

 9     assistance from somebody who he thought could initiate further action by

10     the military police or the civilian police, wouldn't you think?

11        A.   Yes, I think I -- I think I see the point.

12        Q.   In other words --

13        A.   The --

14        Q.   Go ahead.

15        A.   Yeah.  The document does not suggest that -- if Prosecution is

16     saying the document doesn't suggest that General Cermak has simply given

17     up on the civilian police as a vehicle for finding the stolen vehicles,

18     no.  I entirely accept that.

19        Q.   Doesn't this document simply indicate that General Cermak is

20     attempting to employ another avenue in order to find this equipment that

21     hasn't yet been recovered?

22        A.   Yes, I think he is.

23        Q.   Perhaps this is outside of your expertise, and if it is, please

24     indicate that.  But the fact that General Gotovina acts immediately on

25     General Cermak's request is an indication of a significance influence

Page 23982

 1     that General Cermak is able to excerpt at the level of the

 2     Military District Command.  Don't you think?

 3             And, again, if you don't feel capable of answering that, that's

 4     fine.

 5        A.   I hesitate to comment on the relationship between the two

 6     Generals, who, as I understand, were of equal rank within the -- within

 7     the army.  But I think -- I mean, if it helps, then, there is another

 8     document, which I cite in my report, which shows General Gotovina taking

 9     immediate action in response to General Cermak's request, yes.

10        Q.   Now, you state in paragraph 3.90 that stolen vehicles should be a

11     police matter.

12             Now, I -- it's certainly outside the scope of this report, and I

13     would think outside of the scope of your expertise to assess the extent

14     to which the duties of military commanders might be triggered here in

15     relation to equipment in the hands of their subordinates.  Is that right?

16        A.   Yes.  The remark in my report is simply intended to mean that,

17     when Brigadier Forand reported this matter to General Cermak, he was

18     complaining that his vehicles had been stolen.  And that's a crime, and

19     that's why -- well, one of the reasons, I think, why General Cermak

20     involved the civilian police.

21        Q.   Now, also in paragraph 3.90 you refer to Exhibit D500 and D502

22     which are documents that the Knin police chief Mr. Mihic wrote to

23     neighbouring police station chiefs seeking the assistance to recover

24     stolen vehicles and referring to a criminal complaint from the Knin

25     garrison.

Page 23983

 1             And you were asked some questions about these documents on

 2     Tuesday, and I would just like to read some of those questions and

 3     answers to you.

 4             In relation to D500, you were asked:

 5             "What I'm interested in is its relevance in terms of the

 6     authority or not of the original orders which you saw from Mr. Cermak."

 7             And you answered, and this is page 23836 and following:

 8             "The way I read this document is that Mr. Mihic, the commander of

 9     the Knin police station, is ensuring that information he has received

10     from General Cermak regarding the stolen vehicles is available to the

11     other police stations so that, should these vehicles be found, they can

12     be returned accordingly."

13             And then you were asked:

14             "Does it tell you anything about Milos Mihic's attitude towards

15     the original order or not?"

16             And you answered:

17             "He uses the expression gathered information.  He doesn't suggest

18     that he is acting on the instructions of the garrison commander."

19             And in relation to D502, you were asked again about its relevance

20     to the issue of authority of Mr. Cermak, and also how Milos Mihic

21     interprets the information as best you can say, if at all, that he

22     received in respect of the order.

23             And you answered:

24             "In part, Mr. Mihic is regarding General Cermak as the vehicle

25     for conveying information about a crime from the complainant and into the

Page 23984

 1     civilian policing system."

 2             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And if we could please move into private session

 3     for my next question.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

 5                           [Private session]

 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 23985

 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                           [Open session]

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

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

18             MS. GUSTAFSON:

19        Q.   Now, in paragraph 3.93 of your report, you refer to

20     General Forand's letter to General Gotovina, the 26th of August, which is

21     D150.  And you state in bold highlighted text:

22             "Brigadier Forand had come to the conclusion that General Cermak

23     did not have the authority to deal effectively with this problem."

24             And you refer to General Forand's statement in that letter:

25             "I am sure that he is very frustrated to find that his authority

Page 23986

 1     is limited in certain areas."

 2             My question for you is:  Are you aware of the specific facts and

 3     circumstances that formed the basis for General Forand's conclusion that

 4     he was sure General Cermak was frustrated to find his authority limited?

 5             Do you know the basis for that conclusion in his letter?

 6        A.   I don't know what -- what you're alluding to, no.

 7        Q.   So I take it you didn't review General Forand's testimony in that

 8     regard?

 9        A.   I read General Forand's testimony.  I don't remember the

10     particular issue, in relation to this.

11        Q.   So you didn't -- that's not something that you incorporated,

12     certainly not explicitly, but even implicitly in your report and the

13     conclusions that you draw?

14        A.   I don't cite any testimony from General Forand.  No, that's

15     right.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I would just refer the Court to transcript pages

18     4235, to 36 here.

19        Q.   Now, these written orders from General Cermak to the civilian

20     police span a period beginning in early to mid August and extend into

21     October.

22             Now, that suggests - does it not? - that General Cermak held the

23     belief and continued to hold the belief that he had the authority, in

24     fact, to issue orders to the civilian police.  Does it not?

25        A.   I'm not sure that that argument can be sustained from all the

Page 23987

 1     evidence.  Certainly, during the period to which you refer,

 2     General Cermak continued to carry out his duties.  And the number of

 3     documents which are addressed or copied to the civilian police and could

 4     reasonably be argued as orders are -- is pretty small, in my view.

 5             I don't dispute the dates which you're suggesting for

 6     General Cermak's period in office, no.

 7             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Now, could we move to P34, please.

 8        Q.   Now, this is a Human Rights Action Team report for the

 9     29th of August.

10             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And if we could go to page 2 in both the English

11     and the B/C/S, under point five.

12        Q.   And it describes a meeting that the team had with General Cermak.

13             And starting in the -- the first paragraph under point five.

14             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Perhaps we could blow that up.  It's not very

15     large.

16        Q.   Starting in the middle of the paragraph the report states:

17             "While denying that anyone is being urged to leave their homes,

18     the HRAT stressed to the general the necessity of providing a stronger

19     Croatian police presence in outlying areas.  The general stated he is

20     giving an order to that effect today to Knin chief of police Romanic."

21             My question here is similar to one I asked you yesterday:  Do you

22     think this statement reflects a genuine believe on the part of

23     General Cermak that was, in fact, able to issue orders to the civilian

24     police?

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Higgins.

Page 23988

 1             MS. HIGGINS:  Your Honour, my concern is that we are going to

 2     documents and questions are being posed in respect of Mr. Albiston's view

 3     of what other individual believed at the time.  And I think we have to be

 4     very careful about drawing conclusions about other individual's beliefs.

 5     There's only a certain extent that one can draw from this documentation.

 6     One can look at the actions that were taken, but it doesn't necessarily

 7     mean that an individual believed or didn't believe.  And, therefore, I'd

 8     ask that caution be exercised in asking Mr. Albiston his view on

 9     Mr. Cermak's beliefs.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson.

11             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Well, Your Honour, the witness has been opining

12     as to General Cermak's intentions with respect to certain statements he's

13     made, so I think it's a fair question in that light.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, in view of the content of the report, the

15     Chamber certainly allows you to ask the witness to draw conclusions but,

16     at the same time, that some caution is well placed here is -- is true as

17     well.

18             Please proceed.

19             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you.

20        Q.   Mr. Albiston, if could you please answer the question.

21        A.   Yes.  It certainly reflects a desire on the part of

22     General Cermak to persuade the people whom he is addressing that he will

23     take strong executive action.  Whether that reflects his inner state of

24     mind, I'm not sure that I do agree with that.  It's right to tell the

25     Chamber that my views may be influenced by having read what

Page 23989

 1     General Cermak said in interview with the officials of the OTP.  But,

 2     nevertheless, as Document P34 stands, it seems to me to be an indication

 3     of what General Cermak wanted the people he was with to believe rather

 4     than what he believed himself.

 5        Q.   Just to go back to something you said.  I'd just like to confirm

 6     that you have, in the course of preparing your report, read

 7     General Cermak's interviews with the OTP and his statements in those

 8     interviews have influenced your views as they're expressed in your

 9     report.  Is that right?

10        A.   Well, they haven't influenced my views in relation to what did or

11     did not happen.  But there are a couple of paragraphs within the report

12     which suggest what General Cermak wanted to tell the

13     Office of the Prosecutor at the time of the interviews, and that -- I

14     mention that to the Chamber in case they want to draw any conclusions

15     about my view of General Cermak's position from that.

16        Q.   So you accepted the views that General Cermak expressed in his

17     interviews with the Prosecution, as to what he wanted and desired at the

18     time.

19        A.   No, no.  I'm not making a judgement about what General Cermak

20     said.  I'm indicating to the Chamber that I'm aware of what he said.

21        Q.   And they influenced your views?

22        A.   Well, in the sense that I took them into consideration along with

23     all the other material which I studied, yes, I suppose they did influence

24     my views.

25        Q.   Now, Mr. Albiston, I'd like to ask you a question based on your

Page 23990

 1     personal experience as a police officer, police official.

 2             Now, if you were in a situation where you were working in

 3     coordination or cooperation with another person who you considered not to

 4     have the authority to issue orders to you, and that person tried to issue

 5     orders to you, would you take that up with your chain of command?  Would

 6     you raise it with your superior officer, for example.

 7        A.   Yes, I would.

 8        Q.   And you haven't seen any evidence of anyone in the Knin Police

 9     Administration complaining or questioning General Cermak's authority to

10     issue orders to them, have you?

11        A.   No, I haven't.

12        Q.   And are you aware that Mr. Cetina recently testified and stated

13     that neither Mr. Romanic nor Mr. Mihic complained to them about

14     General Cermak orders or sought his advice as to how to deal with them?

15     I'm referring to pages 23526 of the transcript.

16        A.   I am aware that Mr. Cetina gave evidence recently, but I

17     haven't -- I didn't watch him giving evidence, and I haven't seen any

18     indication of the evidence.  And, of course, I accept what counsel says

19     about what he said.

20        Q.   And, from my reading of your report, you have not considered this

21     as a factor, this evidence of a lack of complaints or queries regarding

22     General Cermak's ability or authority to issue orders.  Is that right?

23        A.   It's right that I haven't addressed the issue of what certain

24     witnesses or concern officers said about this matter at the time.  There

25     are issues about chain of command which are addressed in relation to

Page 23991

 1     other matters, but not specifically to the Knin police station.

 2        Q.   I'd like to move now to paragraph 3.50 of your report.  And this

 3     is where you begin to discuss the issue of the -- General Cermak's role

 4     in the issuing of passes and freedom of movement.

 5             And in the second half of that paragraph, you rely on document

 6     D494.

 7             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And if we could bring that up on the screen,

 8     please.

 9        Q.   And you've concluded:

10             "This document shows that the MUP considered that General Cermak

11     had no authority over the movement of civilians."

12             That's the last sentence of paragraph 3.50 of your report.

13             And I'd like to ask you what, specifically, in this document,

14     caused you to conclude that the MUP considered that General Cermak had no

15     authority over the movement of civilians?

16        A.   Well, the authority for that, on this particular document, taking

17     it in isolation, although I don't think it's best to read the document in

18     isolation, but taking this document in isolation and the way that you

19     have put it to me, then I rely on the last part of the handwritten

20     section, which says:

21             "It must come in writing" -- in translation it says:

22             "It must come in writing from the MORH, Ministry of Defence of

23     the Republic of Croatia."

24             In other words, General Cermak should annul what he said

25     previously.

Page 23992

 1        Q.   In relation to the movement of civilians, this document indicates

 2     that General Cermak has the authority to issue an order for the free

 3     movement of civilians - does it not? - in particular, the handwriting.

 4        A.   Well, I've interpreted this in the light of other documents as

 5     meaning that he is cancelling that, because the Ministry of the Interior

 6     is saying, Well, We don't really accept that he has got this authority.

 7     And certainly in relation to civilians.

 8        Q.   Now, you -- the person who wrote this by hand -- and I assume you

 9     don't know who that is?

10        A.   I don't know, no.

11        Q.   That person, at least on the face of this document, appears to

12     consider that General Cermak has the authority to order the free movement

13     of civilians, does it not?

14        A.   Well, it's not clear to me what form any order would take.

15        Q.   Well, we've seen, in fact, that that very day, General Cermak did

16     issue an order for the free movement of civilians, than was P509 that we

17     looked at a few moments ago.  And there's no evidence - is there? - that

18     anyone in the MUP thought that General Cermak didn't have the authority

19     to issue P509 at the time, is there?

20        A.   Well, we did look at the evidence of a discussion on what the

21     views of the MUP were about General Cermak's authority in this area, and

22     I don't -- I don't want to repeat what I said then.

23             What I can say is that I do not know what is the statutory

24     authority for anybody to issue passes or to restrict movement.  I can't

25     tell this Chamber what that statutory basis is.

Page 23993

 1        Q.   Well, I was just asking you whether the -- to confirm that you

 2     haven't seen any evidence that anyone in the MUP thought that

 3     General Cermak didn't have the authority to issue P509 at the time.  Is

 4     that right?

 5        A.   I don't -- I'm not sure that I can relate the subsequent material

 6     concerning the MUP's views of freedom of movement with the document which

 7     you suggest, yes.  That's right.

 8             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I'd like to look at other documents now, so

 9     perhaps it would be a good time to have a break.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  It is, Ms. Gustafson.

11             We'll have a break, and we'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.

12                           --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

13                           [The witness stands down]

14                           --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, I explained yesterday, under

16     what conditions the Chamber was considering to -- to adapt the scheduling

17     next week.

18             Has there been any commitment or any --

19             Mr. Hedaraly.

20             MR. HEDARALY:  Yes, Mr. President, Your Honours, good morning.

21             Yes, we have -- I have discussed with all parties involved, and

22     there definitely is a commitment.  There is also an expectation that the

23     testimony of the witness will be completed by Wednesday.  And it seems

24     that it could even start tomorrow, given current estimates.  And if that

25     is the case, then it is even likely that we will not need for the Chamber

Page 23994

 1     to consider sitting pursuant to Rule 15 bis just with the approximate

 2     five sessions on Monday, the approximate five sessions on Tuesday, and

 3     the, perhaps, extra session on Wednesday will be sufficient to cover the

 4     examination of all parties.

 5             If I have misspoken or misrepresented anything, I'm sure my

 6     colleagues across the well will correct me.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I hear of no corrections.  I think the Chamber spoke

 8     about commitment, and you spoke about exceptions, which is not exactly

 9     the same, although with a firm commitment.  Of course, we would expect

10     then that it would -- and, of course, I'm aware that a commitment is

11     always to some extent, conditional, that you never know what happens in a

12     courtroom.  But I understand the exceptions and also giving up the 15 bis

13     time as a commitment by all parties, that, unless, totally unexpected

14     things will happen, that the parties have divided the time in such a way

15     that we can be confident that the testimony of Mr. Deverell will be

16     finished by Wednesday, not later than 4.00.

17             Then, Mr. Registrar, I think we still need a number to be

18     assigned to the statement of Witness AG-10 for which protective measures

19     were granted yesterday.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1782.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted -- no, was, I think -- yes, I think

22     it was already admitted by written decision of the 16th of September,

23     so -- but the statement now has got a number as well.

24             The Chamber understands that, in relation to the issue of the

25     admission of Milosevic and Martic material, that there's an ongoing

Page 23995

 1     discussion with the OTP.

 2             Are there any results to be reported already?

 3             Mr. Kay.

 4             MR. KAY:  Not any further than when we were last time,

 5     Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Which was on the 28th of October.

 7             MR. KAY:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             MR. KAY:  I think the project is being considered by the OTP as

10     to -- how best to manage it and provide the information.  That's where we

11     are, and Mr. Waespi is dealing with it.

12             MR. HEDARALY:  Yes, is he not here right now.  But we have looked

13     at it, and I think there has been some exchanges in dealing with the --

14     with the volume of information and how best to admit those without having

15     all the witness statements.  And I think there is an agreement that has

16     been reached on principle, it's just a matter of sorting out the

17     mechanics of the filing and how to resubmit the matter which, hopefully,

18     we will be able to complete shortly.

19             MS. HIGGINS:  Can I assist the Chamber as well --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MS. HIGGINS:  -- as to say that in terms of the motions that the

22     Chamber received concerning the Martic and the Milosevic material, the

23     text has now been agreed, in a table form, and it just needs to be

24     effectively tidied up.  But we have reached agreement on that part.

25             We are still, as Mr. Kay says, awaiting further disclosure in

Page 23996

 1     relation to witness statements which we have not referred to from our own

 2     searches but will be coming, I hope and anticipate, from the Prosecution.

 3             So we are still in discussions with the Prosecution on that

 4     front.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  That's on disclosure rather than on admission?

 6             MS. HIGGINS:  It is, Your Honour, yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If there are any obstacles to be expected, of

 8     course, the Chamber would like to be informed about it.  Because we are

 9     reaching stages of these proceedings in which we cannot afford anymore to

10     say that we are dealing with matters.  Matters are at a point that they

11     have to be resolved.

12             So the Chamber is -- we'll hear from the parties both on a table

13     of facts and on any possible problem in relation to disclosure of

14     statements from these cases.

15             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, it's not in relation to those cases; it's

16     the wired disclosure that is outstanding.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

18             MR. KAY:  The Martic/Milosevic has all been taken care of.  It's

19     the other, wider information.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I -- yes, misspoke, Mr. Kay --

21             MR. KAY:  Sorry, yeah.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and I appreciate your correction.

23             Then we can continue the cross-examination of Mr. Albiston.

24             Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the

25     courtroom.

Page 23997

 1             MR. HEDARALY:  Mr. President, if I may be excused.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Hedaraly, you are.

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you.

 4             MS. GUSTAFSON:  While the witness is brought, Your Honour, I

 5     should just put on the record that I misspoke at page 32 of today's

 6     transcript.  I had attempted to refer the Court and the parties to

 7     General Forand's testimony at pages 4325 to 26, and my colleague,

 8     Mr. Kehoe, helpfully pointed out that I had made a mistake.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

10                           [The witness takes the stand]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm a bit surprised because I still have on my

12     screen, because I'm used to checking all the references, I still have

13     4325 on my screen.  So that apparently was the -- what you referred to at

14     the time.

15             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Yes, Your Honour.  My dyslexia persists.  I meant

16     to refer to 4235 to 36, thank you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  4235, 4236, which makes any questions as to the page

18     I have on my screen superfluous.  Let me just check.

19             Ms. Gustafson, are you ready to continue the cross-examination of

20     Mr. Albiston?

21             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

22             If we could have D499 brought up on the screen, please.

23        Q.   Mr. Albiston, this is an order that you testified about on

24     Tuesday.

25             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And if we could move to page 2 in the English.

Page 23998

 1        Q.   It's an order from Mr. Moric to the police administrations, dated

 2     the 17th of August.  And, among other things, it states:

 3             "Do not restrict the movement of European Union monitors,

 4     UNCIVPOL members, or UNHCR members."

 5             And on Tuesday you stated at page 23818:

 6             "In my opinion, it demonstrates that the assistant minister for

 7     the interior, Mr. Moric, is the man who is making and communicating

 8     decisions about the requirements for passes, freedom of movement, and

 9     those sorts of issues within this area."

10             And the contents of this order are similar to the contents of

11     General Cermak's 15th of August order, except that this order relates to

12     members of international organisations, and General Cermak's order

13     relates to civilians.

14             And right before the break, you confirmed that there was no

15     evidence that the -- anyone in the MUP had thought, at the time, that

16     General Cermak didn't have the authority to issue his order.  And I'm

17     wondering how you've concluded that it was Mr. Moric rather than

18     General Cermak who was the man making decisions about freedom of

19     movement, in light of these two distinct, rather similar, orders, albeit

20     dealing with different subjects in terms of the people?

21             MS. HIGGINS:  Your Honour, I wonder, if were being asked to

22     compare the two documents, if Mr. Albiston could be given a chance to

23     just see just, again, the General Cermak 15th of August order, please.

24             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Certainly, if that will help the witness.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Albiston, I -- Ms. Higgins protects you

Page 23999

 1     carefully.  If would you have any need to look at any document - and I

 2     think earlier you expressed your wish to see a certain document again -

 3     you are invited to directly address Ms. Gustafson or the Chamber so that

 4     we would never receive an answer by -- you would feel that you would have

 5     had insufficient opportunity to review a document again.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Well, of course, Mr. President, I'm grateful for

 7     Ms. Higgins' protection.  But, actually, in relation to the question, as

 8     I understood it, put by counsel, I would refer to yet another document.

 9     And it may that be that I can assist the Chamber without necessarily

10     having the documents up on the screen, and the document to which I'm

11     referring is one which was mentioned in the Chamber previously during the

12     course of my evidence.  I think during the course of my evidence in

13     chief.  And that was a document of, I think, the 3rd of August and it was

14     from Mr. Moric and it described the roles of Mr. Tolj and Mr. Rebic in

15     the arrangements for the issuing of passes.

16             And earlier this morning, in answer to a question from

17     Ms. Gustafson, I confirmed that I cannot refer to any constitutional

18     order or legislation or authority of the type, which I have referred to

19     in many parts of my report, which would establish exactly who has what

20     authority to deal with this issue.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I appreciate your evidence in this respect.

22             I do not know exactly whether this was an answer to your

23     question, Ms. Gustafson.  If not, please repeat your question.

24             MS. GUSTAFSON:

25        Q.   I take it - please correct me if I'm wrong, because I may have

Page 24000

 1     misunderstood your answer - that the reason you conclude that it's

 2     Mr. Moric rather than General Cermak is based on the formal legal

 3     structures in place at the time.  Is that -- is that a correct

 4     understanding?

 5        A.   Yes, it is.  Except that, as I say, I can't refer this Chamber to

 6     a law which says it's the Ministry of the Interior and not the

 7     Ministry of Defence which deals with this issues.  I don't know what the

 8     law is about passes in areas which have been the subject of a military

 9     campaign and the restoration of civil law and order.

10        Q.   Okay.  Well, then -- then maybe I would like to ask my question

11     again, which is, how did you come to the conclusion that it was Mr. Moric

12     rather than General Cermak who was the man responsible for freedom of

13     movement in light of the fact that each of them had issued an order in

14     this respect?

15        A.   Yes.  The basis on which I draw that conclusion is that the

16     3rd August document, if that is, indeed, the correct date, to which I

17     referred, shows activity at Zagreb, which is at the highest level, and

18     which includes reference to officials from the Ministry of Defence, so

19     that that is the basis on which I say the documents from Mr. Moric carry

20     greater authority.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Now I'd like to go to document P957.

23        Q.   It's another document you looked at on Tuesday.

24             And this was the ECMM report, referring to a complaint to

25     General Cermak regarding a restriction of movement.  And it's the

Page 24001

 1     paragraph 2 that's relevant here.

 2             And on Tuesday, at page 23817, you stated:

 3             "I think what that indicates to us is that at the time of this

 4     incident, General Cermak is recognizing the role of the -- what he

 5     describes or what the author of this document ... describes as the

 6     minister of internal affairs, in other words, the MUP hierarchy, as the

 7     authority which should have been dealing with this matter."

 8             And my first question to you is:  Based on your experience and

 9     knowledge, in your jurisdiction, how many people do you know who are

10     outside the formal Ministry of Interior structure who are able to call

11     the minister of the interior directly to have an intervene in a policing

12     complaint, and if you know who they are, if you could name them or

13     identify them.

14        A.   No, I don't know any.

15        Q.   So, based on your experience from your jurisdiction, you would

16     agree that this document illustrates significant influence and access on

17     the part of General Cermak over the MUP leadership.  Is that fair?

18        A.   I think that's exactly right.  Influence and access, certainly.

19        Q.   And there's nothing in this document that indicates that

20     General Cermak could not have intervened directly with the Knin police in

21     respect of a restriction on movement, is there?

22        A.   No, I -- I accept this document at face value.

23        Q.   Now, the Chamber has heard quite a lot of evidence of General --

24     of international monitors being stopped at police check-points and being

25     able to call General Cermak who would intervene directly to stop the

Page 24002

 1     restriction.

 2             Did you see evidence of that in the material you reviewed?

 3        A.   Yes, I did.

 4        Q.   And you don't refer to any of this material in your report.  And

 5     I take it from that, that you didn't consider any of that to be relevant

 6     to General Cermak's factual authority over freedom of movement issues.

 7             Is that fair?

 8        A.   Well, if -- if you say that there's no reference to any of that

 9     in my report, I have to accept that, yes.

10        Q.   And did you consider it irrelevant, then, to the issues you were

11     addressing?

12        A.   No, I don't think I did consider it irrelevant.

13        Q.   And how, then, did you decide -- what process caused you to

14     decide not to address any of this material in your report, given that you

15     thought it was relevant, or at least not irrelevant?

16        A.   Well, I accept that some of these incident may have a bearing on

17     judgements about what you call informal authority that General Cermak may

18     or may not have exercised.  But I think, if there is no reference to this

19     in my document, it was because I was trying to address the de jure

20     position in relation to the matters we are discussing.

21        Q.   Okay.  I would now look to move to the part of report entitled:

22             "The Investigation of Crimes and Other Irregular Acts."

23             And that's beginning at paragraph 3.56.

24             And, in this section, you have focused largely on a number of the

25     applicable legal provisions, and you have concluded that the garrison had

Page 24003

 1     no role in the enforcement of law and order or the investigation and

 2     punishment of crimes.  And that's at paragraph 3.69.

 3             And at paragraph 3.70, you conclude that:

 4             "According to law, the only duty General Cermak had in relation

 5     to crimes coming to his notice was to ensure they were reported through

 6     the appropriate channels."

 7             And you gave evidence to that effect, as well, on Tuesday at page

 8     23819.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Now, first, in relation to General Cermak's duties, you have

11     referred to his responsibilities as a senior representative of a state

12     body and a citizen.  And the laws that you refer to are the

13     Law on Criminal Procedure and the Basic Criminal Law of Croatia.  And

14     that's at paragraph 3.71.

15             And I take it from this that you have not considered it to be

16     within the scope of your report or at least have you not addressed any

17     powers, responsibilities, or duties that General Cermak may have had in

18     relation to the military justice system and under the military hierarchy

19     as a garrison commander and a senior HV officer.

20             Is that --

21        A.   That's correct.  I considered that that was a matter for a

22     military expert to address.

23        Q.   And from your answers yesterday to my questions about

24     General Cermak's appointment and tasks from President Tudjman, you have

25     not considered any duties that may have arisen from the tasks and

Page 24004

 1     assignment he was given directly by the president.  Is that right?

 2        A.   With not -- well, I saw no evidence that he was given any tasks

 3     in relation to this issue.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Higgins.

 5             MS. HIGGINS:  Your Honour, in respect of the last question which

 6     my learned friend has asked, she states:

 7             "Have you not considered any duties that may have arisen from the

 8     tasks and assignments that he was given directly by the president.  Is

 9     that right."

10             I would ask - we've seen one document which my learned friend

11     referred to as an example yesterday which was P1144 - if my learned

12     friend has any other evidence to support her question, I would ask that

13     it be shown to this witness, who has reviewed between 2 to 4.000

14     documents, that he be given the opportunity to see the evidence that my

15     learned friend says exists.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson.

17             MS. GUSTAFSON:  The witness made clear from his evidence

18     yesterday that this was an area that he did not address at all in his

19     report.  And I don't think it is reasonable or practical for me to try

20     and have him look at all of the relevant evidence and draw conclusions

21     when this is an area he has never turned his mind to.  I think my

22     question was a fair one in that context.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Higgins.

24             MS. HIGGINS:  The Prosecution is alleging that an authority was

25     given by the president to Mr. Cermak over the civilian police.

Page 24005

 1             Now, I ask that my learned friend follow through on her

 2     obligation to put her case and to allow this witness to see that or other

 3     documents, if they exist.

 4             It's a very simply point, and this witness should be given the

 5     opportunity, Your Honour.

 6             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Your Honour, I put that case yesterday.  It's

 7     very clear that this is something the witness did not address in his

 8     report.  It is not my obligation to educate this witness on all the

 9     material and have him draw conclusions afresh.

10             MS. HIGGINS:  Well, I'd ask that -- sorry.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Higgins, you have objected.  Ms. Gustafson has

12     responded.  You had an opportunity to reply.  Ms. Gustafson now has given

13     her view again.

14             Let me see whether the Chamber can rule on the matter.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Before the Chamber rules on the matter,

17     Mr. Albiston, I would have a question for you.

18             As far as the authority of Mr. Cermak is concerned, is it correct

19     to say that you focused on the position of a garrison commander as you

20     find it in legal instruments of different kinds and that you did not

21     include, in your analysis of the situation, any authority assigned beyond

22     those instruments, for example, by the president, whatever they may have

23     been?

24             THE WITNESS:  That's absolutely correct, Mr. President, because

25     if my review of the documents I didn't see any additional authorities

Page 24006

 1     ascribed to General Cermak.  I understand the Prosecution's line of

 2     questioning, but I'm unable to assist, because I'm not aware of any

 3     documents which would provide that additional authority to which

 4     Ms. Gustafson appears to be alluding.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, yesterday, a document, P1144 - I think it

 6     was page 4, Ms. Higgins - was shown to you.  That is a later conversation

 7     of President Tudjman with Mr. Cermak - I think it was 1999, if I'm not

 8     mistaken - in which they look back --

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- to what happened at the time.  There a --

11     Mr. Cermak mentions with what mission he was sent or at least what tasks

12     he was assigned by the president, and then the president adds one element

13     to that.

14             Ms. Gustafson --

15             Let me first ask you:  You have no other knowledge about the

16     assignment of the task, further to what was shown to you yesterday, or do

17     you have?

18             THE WITNESS:  No, I don't.  And I remember the document which was

19     shown to me yesterday, but I have seen nothing else which suggests the

20     sort of authority which, clearly, Ms. Gustafson is suggesting to me.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             Now, is it clear to you that the position of the Office of the

23     Prosecution, is that due to this, let's say, personal assignment, if I

24     could call it that, by the president, that the authority of Mr. Cermak

25     went beyond what is written in legal instruments and that they interpret

Page 24007

 1     the behaviour and the acts and conduct of Mr. Cermak in that broader

 2     context?

 3             Is that clear to you.

 4             THE WITNESS:  It has become clear to me in the last two days.

 5     Yes, certainly, sir.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             And, Ms. Gustafson, in view of what the witness has told us he is

 8     familiar with and what he has no knowledge about, I think that you could

 9     phrase your questions in such a way that -- and the Chamber certainly

10     does not encourage you to do that, without any specific need as to give

11     this witness all of the evidence, that is, not only documents, documents

12     that might not be that much, as a matter of fact, but other witnesses

13     telling the chamber about the background of why Mr. Cermak was chosen for

14     the job, what his specific qualities were.  I think there's no need to

15     put that to the witness at this moment.

16             But, the Chamber will carefully listen to your questions, and the

17     Chamber will also consider whether, due to the formulation of that

18     question -- of your questions, that position will change.

19             Ms. Higgins.

20             MS. HIGGINS:  Your Honour, arising from the comments that

21     Your Honour has made, I don't want to prejudice the evidence that this

22     witness is giving, but an important issue does arise, and I would ask,

23     just for a couple of moments, that the witness be removed from the

24     courtroom so that can I address you and Your Honours at the Bench in his

25     absence, please.

Page 24008

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, then we would follow your wish.

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Higgins.

 5             MS. HIGGINS:  I'm grateful, Your Honour.  I will are brief.

 6             The point that Your Honour refers to about the evidence that has

 7     been given before this Chamber from various witnesses as to how

 8     Mr. Cermak was appointed and what the remit of those roles, that I am not

 9     concerned with.  What I am concerned is the specific allegation that has

10     been put by my learned friend that a specific authority over the civilian

11     police was given by the president to Mr. Cermak.

12             Now my learned friend, Your Honour, has an obligation to put her

13     case.  She also has obligation to have a foundation, an evidential

14     foundation, for the questions that she asks.  And if it's not going to be

15     raised with this witness, for the purposes of transparency, which I know

16     Your Honour is inherently concerned about, I would ask that the Chamber

17     ask Ms. Gustafson to provide me and my team with the documents that she

18     refers to in relation to that specific point, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's first, perhaps, try to find out what

20     Ms. Gustafson was exactly referring to.

21             Were you referring to more than this -- what we find in this

22     conversation between President Tudjman and Mr. Cermak?

23             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Your Honour, I'm referring to the whole body of

24     evidence, indicating factual authority by General Cermak over the

25     civilian police --

Page 24009

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, now we have to carefully make a

 2     distinction.

 3             MS. GUSTAFSON:  But --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Whether that authority was or was not part of or

 5     included in what is described in a rather general way in this

 6     conversation, if you are referring to the exercise of -- well, just to

 7     say, You see here Mr. Cermak signs an order.  That's something different

 8     from, Look, the president has assigned specific authority over the

 9     civilian police to Mr. Cermak.

10             Now, finally, the Chamber, of course, will have to look at the

11     evidence in its entirety, including what was said in this conversation,

12     what happened on the ground, how persons receiving orders were

13     interpreting them.  There's a lot of evidence there.  But I think that

14     the primary concern of Ms. Higgins seems to that be, in the formulation

15     of your question, it is suggested, more or less, that the assignment for

16     specific tasks follows from documentary evidence, which the witness has

17     not seen.

18             Ms. Higgins, is that correctly understood?

19             MS. HIGGINS:  That's absolutely right, Your Honour.  It's that

20     specific point, not the body of evidence, that my learned friend referred

21     to.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, Ms. Gustafson, if you would -- I do not know to

23     what extent for your line of questioning it is needed to refer to

24     evidence or documents in which the president assigns an authority over

25     the civilian police to Mr. Cermak, rather than, that, as we have seen in

Page 24010

 1     this conversation, the tasks assigned to Mr. Cermak, at least from the

 2     words spoken, seem to go beyond what is the -- the task of a garrison

 3     commander as laid down in legal, written instruments.

 4             Again, if you need a specific reference to documents in which an

 5     authority over the civilian police, in those words, is assigned, then

 6     have you to give it to the witness.  If, however, you want to refer to

 7     the broader tasks assigned, often they're summarized internationals and

 8     restoration of order, in this conversation we find a bit more details in

 9     1999.  If you need to go any further, and, nevertheless, want to stick to

10     assignment of authority over the police, then you'll have to show it to

11     the witness.

12             Is that clear?

13             And perhaps we now go back to your question exactly.  Could

14     you ...

15             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Your Honour, it's --

16             JUDGE ORIE: -- tell me exactly where --

17             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I'm not sure exactly where in the transcript, but

18     the question was to have the witness confirm that he didn't consider, in

19     the scope of his report, any duties arising from the tasks assigned to

20     him personally by President Tudjman.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just see.

22             Again, page and line, could you assist me.

23             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I ...

24             Page 48, line 20.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It's of some concern that we have to go back

Page 24011

 1     six pages to find where the question is.

 2             Yes.  I think the matter is clear at this moment, isn't it,

 3     Ms. Higgins?

 4             MS. HIGGINS:  It does clarify one point, although if I could

 5     raise the following issue:

 6             Yesterday, my learned friend asked the witness whether he had any

 7     reason do doubt that President Tudjman could have assigned General Cermak

 8     authorities, significant authorities, in any informal way rather than a

 9     statutory or legal procedural way, and she was clearly referring,

10     although didn't put it directly, to the assignment to Mr. Cermak by the

11     president in respect of authority de facto, de jure, whatever to

12     Mr. Cermak from the president.

13             And, again, I reiterate my request to the Bench that

14     Ms. Gustafson, in the interests of transparency, indicates to this team

15     what she is referring to beyond P1144.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that what -- Mr. Kay is looking at the

17     screen.

18             MR. KAY:  If I can assist my learned friend because I've found

19     the question.

20             MS. HIGGINS:  The precise question was:

21             "... from your answers yesterday to my questions about

22     General Cermak's appointment and tasks from President Tudjman, you have

23     not considered any duties that may have arisen from the tasks and

24     assignment that he was given directly by the president.  Is that right?"

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, that means -- that's the same question.

Page 24012

 1             MS. HIGGINS:  Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  The witness apparently has considered the authority

 3     of Mr. Cermak in the context of the -- of the legal framework in which he

 4     was appointed and not anything outside that.

 5             Let's not now speculate.  Because yesterday we see in P1144,

 6     nothing specifically is said about authority over the civilian police.

 7     That may be clear.

 8             So, therefore, if this was put to the witness yesterday, there

 9     was no specific reference to the civilian police.  And under those

10     circumstances -- but if you phrased the questions in such a way that a

11     suggestion from that assignment, from the text used there, that that

12     would include civilian police, apart from what happened on the ground

13     later on, but also any suggestion whether it would be excluded, there's

14     no way it's about tasks.  It's about areas that President Tudjman and

15     Mr. Cermak are talking about.

16             Ms. Higgins.

17             MS. HIGGINS:  Very briefly, Your Honour.

18             Again, for the purposes of transparency - and I'm looking further

19     down the line to the final brief stage - my concern was the words that

20     were put "keeping order," "preventing disorder" and as Your Honour

21     rightly says, there's nothing in here about authority over the civilian

22     police.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but it's also not excluded --

24             MS. HIGGINS:  Well --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  -- that the civilian police would play a role in --

Page 24013

 1     I mean, the text doesn't say anything.  But apparently Mr. Cermak,

 2     with -- who is appointed as a garrison commander, has, at least that's

 3     what they say at that time that in -- in 1995 that he was tasked, that's

 4     at least how I understand this line, tasked with a role in preventing

 5     or -- how do you say the ...

 6             MS. HIGGINS:  The words are "keeping order,"

 7     "preventing disorder," which are, of course, open to interpretation and,

 8     finally, conclusion by the Bench.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MS. HIGGINS:  But I raise the point because it is one that I

11     know, further down the line, will be an issue between the parties.  And I

12     want it to be put to the witness fairly if there's any other document

13     that is relied on than this.  Surely I'm entitled --

14             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]... he did -- he did not -- I

15     do understand that he did not even consider -- he did not consider P1144,

16     and he did, as I asked him, he did not consider the authority of

17     Mr. Cermak beyond the scope of what a garrison commander, under the

18     existing legal instruments, is tasked with.

19             MS. HIGGINS:  Yes, I agree, Your Honour.  My point is a separate

20     and distinct one, which is whether I can be given the documents that my

21     learned friend is referring to when she puts her position --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  That's -- that was the second --

23             MS. HIGGINS:  That's what I would like, yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, the first thing you asked is that

25     Ms. Gustafson would put to the witness certain documents.

Page 24014

 1             Now the second thing is that, Ms. Gustafson, if there is any

 2     document which is not yet in evidence because that's -- or not yet

 3     disclosed on which you rely for the authority granted, not under the

 4     legal instruments but by the president, to Mr. Tudjman [sic], anything

 5     which is not in evidence or not disclosed or where it could be unclear

 6     for Ms. Higgins that this was disclosed material which she would not have

 7     expected to deal with this matter, then could you tell us what it is.

 8             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No, Your Honour, there's nothing that is not

 9     already in evidence.  And if it assists Ms. Higgins, I'm relying on the

10     large body of evidence that General Cermak's role was -- part of that

11     role was the normalisation of life within the garrison which, in the

12     Prosecution's submission, is not limited to turning on the lights and the

13     water.  And I would also refer, for example, to the interview he gave at

14     P2355.  If that assists my colleague, then --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Ms. Higgins, apparently there is not anything

16     which you are not already not supposed to know in this context.

17             MS. HIGGINS:  I'm grateful.  And final, without wishing to repeat

18     myself, even if it is in evidence, it is certainly unclear to me, and I

19     give the commitment to knowing as best as anybody can know the documents

20     in this case, what exhibited material my learned friend is relying on for

21     the single proposition that President Tudjman assigned tasks to

22     Mr. Cermak an authority over the civilian police.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  That was not part of the question.  Because the

24     question did not specifically, if I -- I will check it again --

25     specifically refer to authority over the civilian police.

Page 24015

 1             MS. HIGGINS:  Your Honour authority over the civilian police,

 2     that's fine.  I would still like to know what exhibited material my

 3     learned friend is relying upon, because it's certainly unclear to me.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand that she's relying, written

 5     material, primarily on P1144, and, of course, there's other evidence

 6     which explains why and for what purposes Mr. Cermak was chosen by the

 7     president.

 8             And I do understand that the Prosecution wants to interpret what

 9     these tasks assigned to Mr. Cermak really meant by looking at what then

10     happened on the ground, on paper, or in meetings, or under whatever

11     circumstances, in interviews, in -- et cetera.

12             That's how I understand the position of the Prosecution in this

13     respect.  If I'm wrong, please, correct me, Ms. Gustafson.

14             But there's not a document somewhere where it says, Mr. Cermak,

15     don't forget to keep tight control over the civilian police or don't let

16     them off the hook if they're not performing well or --

17             There's nothing of the kind.

18             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No, Your Honour.  Not that I am aware.

19             MS. HIGGINS:  Thank you very much.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that the matter has been sufficiently

21     further explored.

22             And Madam Usher is invited to escort the witness into the

23     courtroom again.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 24016

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  If the flow of evidence could be interrupted as

 2     little as possible, that would be highly appreciated.

 3             MS. HIGGINS:  Of course, Your Honour.  And I'm grateful.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Albiston, we'll continue.

 5             Ms. Gustafson, perhaps you should repeat the question which was

 6     put to the witness or -- in the same wording or in a slightly different

 7     wording, because I wouldn't expect him to have a recollection of so many

 8     pages.

 9             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Certainly, Your Honour.  And perhaps I could

10     preface it by referring the witness to his answers yesterday.

11        Q.   When I was asking you about whether you were in a position to say

12     whether President Tudjman couldn't have granted General Cermak authority,

13     in fact, in an informal way, of General Cermak over the civilian police,

14     and you stated that you didn't know about the relationship between -- the

15     informal relationship between the president and General Cermak and that

16     you weren't, on the informal side, you said:

17             "I'm not qualified to say" --

18             When I asked you whether you could opine on President Tudjman's

19     informal authority over the structures of government, you said:

20             "I'm not qualified to say."

21             And I would just like to follow up on that.  You have not

22     considered it within the scope of your report or expertise to consider

23     whether or not any duties may have arisen on the part of General Cermak

24     arising from any informal tasks -- or tasks he was assigned in an

25     informal way by President Tudjman.

Page 24017

 1             Is that fair?

 2        A.   Yes, that is entirely fair.

 3        Q.   And is it right that, in this section of your report on the

 4     investigation of crime, that you have only considered General Cermak's

 5     formal legal role within the MUP structure in relation to investigating

 6     crime, and have not addressed whether or not General Cermak could, in

 7     fact, initiate an investigation into a criminal incident?

 8        A.   No, I wouldn't put it that way.  I looked at the de jure

 9     situation and also at the de facto situation, where I conclude that he

10     didn't have the resources at his disposal to deal with these matters.

11     But I think it's quite clear from the law that garrison commanders don't

12     play a role within the criminal justice system.

13        Q.   And when you refer to "resources at his disposal," you consider

14     that he didn't have a sufficient personnel within the garrison unit to

15     conduct an investigation.  Is that what you're referring to?

16        A.   The garrison command itself, yes, doesn't have the resources to

17     do that and isn't designed for it.  Although, of course, it is probably

18     better to hear an expert opinion on that from a military man.

19             But so far as the relationship between the civilian police and

20     the criminal justice system is concerned, I think can I say that, yes.

21        Q.   Okay.

22             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Could we move into private session, please.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

24                           [Private session]

25   (redacted)

Page 24018











11  Pages 24018-24022 redacted. Private session.















Page 24023

 1   (redacted)

 2                           [Open session]

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

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 5             MS. GUSTAFSON:

 6        Q.   I'd like to move, now, Mr. Albiston, to paragraph 3.71 of your

 7     report.  And, in particular, the last sentence where you refer to

 8     documents indicating that General Cermak was passing and receiving

 9     information as part of his liaison role.

10             And we looked at a couple of those documents yesterday, and I

11     won't repeat that.

12             I'd like to look at another of those documents that you cite

13     here, which is D505.

14             MS. GUSTAFSON:  If we could bring that up, please.

15        Q.   And while that's coming up, if I could also just direct your

16     attention to paragraph 3.95 of your report where you refer again to this

17     document.  And you conclude that this document is an unambiguous

18     declaration by General Cermak that, in the absence of any requirement to

19     assist internationals in a liaison capacity, he did not deal with crime.

20             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And is it possible to just bring up the English

21     initially of this document.

22             Is it possible to just show the English, initially.  Thank you.

23        Q.   And you've stated that this -- the language in this document is

24     not the language of a senior member of a hierarchical chain of command,

25     issuing orders to subordinates.

Page 24024

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And the tone of this letter is very different from the tone of

 3     General Cermak's written orders to the police.  Is that right?

 4        A.   Certainly.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Now, do you know if General Cermak signed this letter?

 6        A.   No, I don't.

 7        Q.   You don't know one way or the other?

 8        A.   No, I don't.  I see commander of the Knin garrison at the bottom.

 9     But I haven't seen -- I don't have the original document.

10        Q.   Okay.  We can look at the B/C/S as well.

11             So you weren't provided with the original documents, just the

12     translations.  Is that right?

13        A.   No, I have no Croatian, I'm afraid.

14        Q.   Now, if we look at the B/C/S, if I suggested to you that that's

15     not General Cermak's signature, you don't have any reason to disbelieve

16     that?

17        A.   Indeed, not.  I'm not familiar with what General Cermak's

18     signature looks like, no.

19        Q.   And you would agree that, in light of the fact that

20     General Cermak didn't sign this letter, there's no indication that he

21     necessarily chose those particular words or necessarily even saw the

22     letter.  Is that fair?

23        A.   Well, this is it new information for me.  And certainly it would

24     be true that if General Cermak didn't sign the letter, then I'm not in a

25     position to say what General Cermak's attitude to the language of the

Page 24025

 1     letter would be.

 2             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And if we could go to a split screen again.

 3        Q.   And you can see that it relates to the theft of material from a

 4     factory in village called Srb.

 5             Do you know where Srb is?

 6        A.   I couldn't place it on the map, no.

 7        Q.   So don't know whether it's inside or outside of the Knin garrison

 8     area?

 9        A.   No, I don't.

10        Q.   And it is, in fact, in the municipality of Donji Lapac, which is

11     outside the Knin garrison area.

12             And did you notice that it was -- oh, I guess you didn't receive

13     this document in the original, just the English translation.  Is that

14     right?

15        A.   Just the English translation, yes.

16        Q.   Well, in fact, it's a two-page document in the original.  And the

17     letter that's being -- there's another letter attached to the English and

18     I would just like do bring that up.

19             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Which can 2D04-0153 ET.  That's the doc ID

20     number.

21        Q.   And this is the letter that was originally sent to

22     General Cermak, describing the incident.

23             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, counsel.  I believe we addressed this

24     during one of our sessions, but this is the document that is misstated

25     that hasn't been uploaded yet.  We see that the original letter was

Page 24026

 1     September 19th, whereas the translation is August 19th.

 2             I may be mistaken, but I do recall we discussed this,

 3     Mr. President, or you brought it up, I think.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I think I paid attention to a difference, and that

 5     difference in the date, and that I asked the whole of the document to be

 6     reviewed for translation, where, apparently such a mistake was made here.

 7             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Yes, Your Honour, I -- my understanding was that

 8     it was a Cermak Defence document and that they would be look into the

 9     translation, but perhaps I'm mistake.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I think, as a matter of fact, it was.  But I'm

11     not concern about that anymore.

12             MS. HIGGINS:  Yes, it was, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and have you reviewed the translation in other

14     respects apart from the month?

15             MS. HIGGINS:  Your Honour, I can do it within the next minute or

16     so if it helps the Chamber.  I'm afraid my --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, at this moment I asked to you do it.

18             MS. HIGGINS:  Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's proceed in the following way:

20             At this moment, we understand that the English version gives a

21     date which does not correspond with the other -- with the original.

22     We'll proceed on the basis that -- we'll proceed on the basis that there

23     are no other mistakes.  But -- otherwise, we would have to wait and stop,

24     which is not what I'd like to do at this moment.

25             Let's proceed on the basis that the translation in every other

Page 24027

 1     respect is accurate, but if there will be any doubts, we will then here,

 2     within this one minute, from you, Ms. Higgins.

 3             MS. HIGGINS:  I appreciate that.  I understand it's the

 4     15th of September that's the correct date.  And we will check the rest of

 5     the document.

 6             MS. GUSTAFSON:

 7        Q.   Mr. Albiston, are you able to read this document?

 8        A.   Ms. Gustafson, I have on my screen now an English translation of

 9     a document which starts off:

10             "According to the information at the disposal of our

11     association ..."

12        Q.   Okay.  If you could read through that.  And this is a document

13     that has been sent to General Cermak from Zagreb, and it describes the

14     alleged incident of equipment that was supposed to be taken from the

15     factory in Srb to Zagreb but was, instead, fraudulently removed to a

16     private company in Pozega.

17        A.   Yes, I have seen that.  Thank you.

18        Q.   And Pozega is in -- it's not in Sector South; it's not in the

19     Zadar-Knin Police Administration; not in the Knin garrison area; it's in

20     North-East Croatia.  And my question for you is that -- the fact that

21     this complaint is coming from Zagreb, that the alleged theft occurred

22     outside the garrison area, and that the property is alleged to now be in

23     a municipality in North-East Croatia, nowhere near General Cermak's area

24     of authority, those would be relevant factors to consider in -- before

25     drawing any inferences, in a general way, about whether General Cermak

Page 24028

 1     dealt with crime or had any command, in fact, over the civilian police

 2     within his area of responsibility.  Wouldn't it?

 3        A.   Certainly in relation to this crime, I entirely accept that

 4     proposition, although the previous document says - and I will try to

 5     quote from memory because it's not up.  It says, We have no authority in

 6     this and similar matters.  Which I read, in my reading of the document's

 7     English translation, to suggest that General Cermak was saying, Look, I

 8     don't deal with crime.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, a very practical matter:  This

10     document apparently is uploaded in e-court in, as it says, original

11     language, English.  I do not see any translation uploaded in e-court.  Is

12     there any ...

13             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No, Your Honour, in fact, I was about to request

14     that it be added to D505, which in -- D505 contains this letter in the

15     original, and it was not translated in D505.  So I would just like to add

16     this to --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  And then also have the date, perhaps, be verified,

18     because it seems very much a 5 to me rather than a 3 in --

19             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Certainly.

20             And, Your Honour, if I could request that that document be added

21     to the exhibit, and we will verify the date.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which means that we complete the translation

23     of D505 so that it covers the whole of the document, rather than only one

24     page of it.

25             Mr. Registrar, is that clear?

Page 24029

 1                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  If the translation of the second page of D505 is

 3     uploaded, then it will become the second page of the translation.  And

 4     then we have - and that's new for us - then we have two pages with both

 5     problems with the date, in translation or in transcription.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 8        Q.   Mr. Albiston, I would like to turn, now, to the part of your

 9     report entitled:

10             "The Garrison Commander and the Prevention of Crime."

11             And that begins at paragraph 3.72.

12             And in that paragraph you conclude, in relation to

13     General Cermak's subordinates:

14             "... that his actual subordinates never exceeded ten in number;

15     and there is no suggestion that any of [those] individuals were involved

16     in any crime [sic]."

17             Now, in -- you're referring here to his formal subordinates

18     within the garrison; is that right?

19        A.   Yes, I'm referring to the small number, the handful of people,

20     directly subordinated to General Cermak according to the documents that

21     have I read.  Although I understand that the Prosecution's view of who

22     might be subordinated to General Cermak is rather different.

23        Q.   And the -- you've not addressed and, again, I would think that it

24     would be outside the scope of your expertise to consider the extent to

25     which units within the garrison might be considered General Cermak's

Page 24030

 1     subordinates pursuant to the provision of the service regulations that

 2     all units and institutions within the garrison are subordinate to the

 3     garrison commander as regards the issue of order, discipline, and

 4     service.

 5             Is that right?

 6        A.   I touch on that tangentially in my introduction, but I leave firm

 7     conclusions and a more detailed examination to a military expert.

 8        Q.   Now, I'd like to go to the next paragraph of your report where

 9     you say, at 3.73:

10             "An examination of the documents in the case reveals that

11     responsibility for the prevention of crime lay with the

12     Ministry of the Interior."

13             And then at paragraph 3.76, you make a similar conclusion.  You

14     say:

15             "Several documents demonstrate the serious approach which was

16     taken to the problems of torching and looting."

17             And you say:

18             "This was considered to be primarily a matter for the

19     Ministry of the Interior."

20             Now, you do not appear to address in your report, and -- the

21     existence or function of the military justice system, and I presume

22     that's something that you considered also to be outside of your

23     expertise.  Is that right?

24        A.   That's correct, ma'am, yes.

25        Q.   Now, in terms of the conclusion that the responsibility for the

Page 24031

 1     prevention of crime lay within the Ministry of Interior, I'd like to look

 2     at a couple of documents that you refer to in your report, and the first

 3     is D46.

 4             MS. GUSTAFSON:  If that could be brought up.

 5        Q.   And just so you're aware, I'm going to look at a number of

 6     document with you, and I'll just have you familiarize yourself with them

 7     and then ask you a couple of questions.

 8             And you can see here, this is -- Mr. Moric's 10th August letter

 9     to Mr. Lausic where he informs Mr. Lausic of cases being noted of

10     "individual Croatian army members on liberated territory, stealing

11     movable property, burning houses, and killing the cattle ..."

12             And in the last paragraph:

13             "While understanding the size and nature of the tasks that you

14     have to contend with, we kindly ask you to take measures to eliminate

15     these things."

16             And the next document is D48.  And this is

17     Mr. Moric's 17 August letter to Mr. Lausic.

18             And, again, he notes the problem of burning and looting, and he

19     says:

20             "The perpetrators," in the second paragraph, "the perpetrators of

21     these acts, in most cases, are persons wearing Croatian army uniforms.

22     Our information points to these persons who are formally and in effect

23     members of the HV but that there are also persons who are not members of

24     the HV."

25             Then in the next paragraph he says:

Page 24032

 1             "The fact that the perpetrators wear HV uniforms completely

 2     blocks the work of the civilian police."

 3             And the next document is D49.

 4             And this is Mr. Moric's order to the police administrations.

 5     Again, noting the problem of looting and burning.  And in the second

 6     paragraph stating that:

 7             "Most of these acts are perpetrated by individuals in Croatian

 8     army uniforms and the facts indicate that these individuals are formally

 9     and actually members of the army, but there are also individuals

10     wrongfully wearing Croatian army uniforms."

11             And on the next page he lists a number of measures including

12     having the police administration chiefs meet with military police,

13     battalions, requesting mixed barrier check-points with civilian and

14     military police.

15             And in point 5 stating that if military police cannot perform the

16     task mentioned in item 4, which is to process the crimes, the civilian

17     police will do it alone, irrespective of whether the perpetrator wears a

18     Croatian army uniform?

19             Now, I would like to briefly review the evidence of a few of the

20     witness in this case, including Mr. Lausic, who testified that, in

21     practice, after Operation Storm, the MUP would contact the military

22     police at the first sign of a uniform.  That's P2159, paragraphs 48 to

23     49, 55 to 59, and 62.

24             And Mr. Buhin, whose testimony I understand you have reviewed,

25     who stated that if someone in uniform was suspected of killing or

Page 24033

 1     looting, they could be arrested by the civilian police but then would

 2     have to be handed over to the military police.  That's at 9922 to 23.

 3             And then stated that in practice detaining military personnel was

 4     impossible.  He explained that the situation was very tense and

 5     dangerous, at page 9942, and that the civilian police were frightened

 6     that the military police would shoot at them if they interfered.  That's

 7     P963 and page 9942.

 8             And he agreed with the statement of Mr. Moric in D48 that the

 9     fact that the perpetrators wear HV uniforms completely blocks the work of

10     the civilian police.

11             Now, my question for you is how you concluded that the problem of

12     looting and burning lay -- the primary responsibility lay with the

13     civilian police, when the information you cite and the evidence that you

14     reviewed indicates that most of the incidents are being perpetrated by HV

15     members in HV uniforms and that the MUP had a limited ability to

16     effectively act to stop these -- or process these perpetrators?

17        A.   Yes, the primary responsibility for dealing with civilian --

18     civil -- civilian law and order issues rests with the MUP.  I don't think

19     it's in dispute that in many of the crimes which were being reported, the

20     persons who were suspected of involvement were either HV members or

21     persons wearing HV uniforms, particularly in the early stages of the

22     period that we're looking at.  And that, therefore, it was necessary to

23     invoke the assistance of the VP in order to address these issues.

24             I accept that, yes.

25        Q.   So when you say "an examination of the documents in the case

Page 24034

 1     reveals that responsibility for the prevention of crime lay with the

 2     MUP," would it be better to clarify that to be civilian crime?

 3        A.   Well, yes, the investigation of crime, until such time as it's

 4     demonstrated, that in fact it doesn't involve elements over which the

 5     civilian police can exercise that authority.

 6        Q.   Such as the fact that the persons is wearing a uniform?

 7        A.   Well, such as the fact that the -- there is a suspicion that the

 8     person might be involved -- might be a military man, yes.

 9             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I'm going move to another topic now, so if this

10     is a convenient time for the Chamber for a break ...

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We will have a break, and we will resume at

12     ten minutes to 1.00.

13                           --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 12.56 p.m.

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

16             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you.

17        Q.   Now, Mr. Albiston, I'd like to go back to paragraph 3.76 of your

18     report, near the middle of the page, where you state:

19             "When it became apparent that there were serious problems in the

20     area, Assistant Minister Josko Moric turned on 17 August 1995 to the

21     chief of the military police administration, General Mate Lausic."

22             And we've just looked at the series of correspondence between --

23     from Mr. Moric to Mr. Lausic, D46 on the 10th of August, D48 on the

24     17th of August.

25             And my question is:  What specifically did you consider to be the

Page 24035

 1     serious approach taken to the problem of torching and looting by

 2     Mr. Moric between the 10th of August and the 17th of August, the two

 3     dates on which he complained to General Lausic about the looting and

 4     burning?

 5        A.   I'm not quite sure that I follow the -- the question.

 6             Mr. Moric had, as I suggested previously, anticipated that there

 7     might be problems and had set in motion arrangements to deal with them,

 8     going back to, I think, the 3rd, possibly the 4th, but I think the

 9     3rd of August.  And the correspondence which I cite here is part of a

10     continuing liaison between Mr. Moric and Major-General Lausic.

11        Q.   I'm asking because you said "when it became apparent that there

12     were serious problems in the area."  And D46, Mr. Moric's

13     10th of August letter to Mr. Lausic, indicates serious problems in the

14     area.  And then there is a letter on the 17th of August, again, to

15     Mr. Lausic, complaining.

16             Again, are you aware of any step Mr. Moric took in between those

17     dates to deal with the serious problem of looting and burning?

18        A.   Well, Mr. Moric had made -- given the directions in the -- in the

19     matter that I -- in the document to which I referred to, to civilian

20     police to cooperate with the military police to deal with issues.

21        Q.   Those are the documents from before the operation.  Is that -- is

22     that right?

23        A.   Well, there is an document from before the operation, the

24     3rd of August, yes.

25        Q.   And there is no evidence that you've seen of Mr. Moric

Page 24036

 1     instructing his subordinates to take steps to deal with the serious

 2     looting and burning that had become apparent in the area after the

 3     operation, until the 18th of August, in D49.  Is that right?

 4        A.   Well, I'd need to look back at the documents again.  But I

 5     thought we had discussed earlier documents.  Wasn't there a mention of a

 6     10th of August document?

 7        Q.   Well, that was a complaint to Mr. Lausic.  But in terms of taking

 8     steps, instructing his subordinates to take steps, your not aware of any

 9     steps he took in that regard until the 18th.  Is that right?

10        A.   Well, I think the 10th of August document indicates that

11     Mr. Moric was familiar, to some extent, with what was going on,

12     presumably on the basis of information that was coming through his chain

13     of command which generated the action which he took on the 10th August in

14     relation to seeking the assistance of Major-General Lausic.  Because, if

15     I recall accurately the document which we were looking at earlier, that

16     discusses some of the problems in the area and indicates that some of the

17     problems are connected with people in uniform and attempts to address it

18     through seeking the VP assistance.

19        Q.   Now, I'd like to go to paragraph 3.82 of your report where you

20     state:

21             "General Cermak had no legal duty or role in relation to the

22     prevention of crime, a matter which clearly fell to the MUP."

23             And my first question, again:  You have not considered or

24     addressed, here, the role of the military police or military justice

25     system in the prevention of crime.  Is that right?

Page 24037

 1        A.   I have left that to the military experts.  My view on it, insofar

 2     as it relates to civilian policing it that it was secondary, that the

 3     primary responsibility for crime matters lay with the civilian police.

 4     Clearly, as I think is understood here, where suspects were in the

 5     military organisations or, indeed, wearing military uniforms and

 6     purporting to be members of the HV, then, of course, yes, there was a

 7     role for the military machinery, the VP, and so on.

 8        Q.   And in terms of General Cermak's duties, it's not expressed here,

 9     but I -- I understand, once again, you're referring to those duties that

10     you consider to have arisen from his position as a citizen and senior

11     representative of a state body, as you've stated in paragraph 3.71.

12             Is that --

13        A.   Yes, that's fair.

14        Q.   And now I'd like to go to the section of your report, titled:

15             "The Garrison Commander and the Punishment of Criminal

16     Behaviour."

17             And that begins at paragraph 3.83.

18             And we've already gone into Cermak's role and ability in relation

19     to the investigation of crimes, so I'm not going ask you any more

20     questions about that here.

21             I would just like to ask you a couple of questions about your

22     conclusions on the Code of Military Discipline that you draw in

23     paragraph 3.84.  And you seem to implicitly conclude here that

24     General Cermak could not impose disciplinary measures under the

25     Code of Military Discipline for incidents that amount to a crime.  And if

Page 24038

 1     I'm correct in my understanding, if you could explain the basis for that

 2     in the evidence and your expertise.  Thank you.

 3        A.   Now, what I'm doing in this paragraph is acceding to the military

 4     expert the responsibility for dealing with the code of military

 5     discipline and alluding to it in passing because I think there may be

 6     parallels with the civilian police, disciplinary mechanisms, and, really,

 7     the point that I'm trying to get across is that the matters which I was

 8     considering were the grave crimes which were taking place in this area at

 9     the time and not really matters which could be dealt with as minor

10     disciplinary matters.  We're not talking about minor instances of

11     drunkenness or falling asleep on duty by either policemen or soldiers.

12             We're talking about completely different matters.

13        Q.   But, again, do you or don't you seek to opine as to whether or

14     not General Cermak could impose disciplinary measures for crimes?

15        A.   Not in relation to the civilian police he couldn't, no.

16        Q.   I'm not asking about the civilian police.  I'm asking generally.

17        A.   Well, I think that question is better for the military expert.  I

18     see that he had powers of discipline, and I put that in this report.

19        Q.   I would just like to be clear that -- on this, you do not seek to

20     opine as to whether or not General Cermak could impose disciplinary

21     measures for crimes under the Military Discipline Code.  Is that right?

22        A.   Well, what I said in my report is that he had powers of

23     discipline, and I take it no further than that.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Now, in various places in your report you have

25     discussed the performance of the Croatian criminal justice system after

Page 24039

 1     Operation Storm in the areas affected by that operation.  And I would

 2     just like to ask you a few questions about that.

 3             And in terms of your -- what you, in fact, looked at, I'd just

 4     like to ask you one question about that.

 5             In paragraph 1.5 of your report, you refer to your -- the purpose

 6     of your report, and you state that you were:

 7             "Invited to comment upon Croatian Ministry of Interior structures

 8     and any difficulties which might have faced the police at this time."

 9             Were you asked to about -- to address any specific difficulties,

10     or were you just asked to look at the documents and see if you saw any

11     difficulties?

12        A.   No.  The invitation was non-specific.  It was based, as I recall,

13     on my experience of policing in circumstances which are outside the

14     normal civilian policing conditions.

15        Q.   And, when you did that, were you operating under the assumption

16     that the police and the Ministry of Interior were genuinely attempting to

17     address the problems of looting and burning and killing after

18     Operation Storm, and then, just look at the obstacles that may have been

19     present in -- genuinely undertaking that task, or did you address whether

20     or not the police and the military -- Ministry of the Interior were, in

21     fact, genuinely attempting to address the crimes in the area?

22        A.   Well, the first invitation to me was, as I indicated a moment

23     ago, very general, to consider the situation.  In -- as a sort of

24     post-conflict reconstruction period, what are the policing issues.  Then,

25     when I was provided with the documents, one of the documents or some of

Page 24040

 1     the documents I was provided with set out the nature of the indictment

 2     and the Prosecution pre-trial brief from which it became clear that the

 3     Prosecution took a certain view about the performance of the criminal

 4     justice system.  So I was looking at documents which might either give

 5     substance to that view or contradict that view.

 6             Later on, I tried to focus more on how the documents, which might

 7     support or contradict that view, actually related to General Cermak and

 8     his dealings with the civilian police, because, obviously, the range of

 9     the documents is quite significant.

10        Q.   Now, just -- I take it from your answer - and correct me if I'm

11     wrong - that you did address or you did consider the issue as to whether

12     or not the Croatian authorities were genuinely attempting to address

13     crime and that if you had seen evidence that they weren't, that would be

14     something that you would have covered in your report.  Is that right?

15        A.   I think that's fair, yes.

16        Q.   Now in paragraph 3.59, you refer to the crime police.  And you

17     state that:

18             "The minutes of the crime police departmental chiefs on

19     6 and 7 August 1995 show the procedures to be undertaken, when dealing

20     with the dead bodies, including finger-printing and the arrangements for

21     the admission of international observers to collection centres."

22             Now, on the issue of the procedure to be undertaken with dead

23     bodies, you are aware - are you not? - based on the evidence that you

24     have reviewed, that a procedure was implemented after Operation Storm

25     whereby dead bodies were treated as if they were combat victims, no

Page 24041

 1     on-site investigations were carried out in most cases, and the corpses

 2     were collected; identified, where possible; and buried without conducting

 3     an investigation to determine the cause of death.

 4             Is that right?  Did you learn that?

 5        A.   It seems clear to me from the documents that that happened on a

 6     significant number of occasions, yes.

 7        Q.   Now, wouldn't that be something that would be significant, in

 8     terms of the performance of the Croatian authorities in investigating and

 9     punishing crime, the fact that large numbers of dead bodies were simply

10     picked up off the ground and buried without an investigation?

11        A.   Well, I think that there are various reasons why that might have

12     taken place to do with health, the heat, and so on.  But as a

13     professional policeman, I would certainly say that it would be highly

14     desirable, in the event of finding bodies where there is a suspicion that

15     the persons died through violence, to be able to conduct an investigation

16     at the scene and a subsequent post mortem examination in controlled

17     circumstances.

18             The presumption in most police establishments is that where

19     somebody has died through an unexplained cause, the case should be

20     treated as a suspicious death and should be handled accordingly until

21     such time as it can be shown to be something else.

22             That is the ideal.  In these circumstances, I think the ideal was

23     not achieved as regularly as, from a policeman's point of view, it ought

24     to have been.  But that is the fact of the matter.

25             There are examples, of course, which we can see where bodies were

Page 24042

 1     found and the procedures of which I, as a policeman sitting in an

 2     armchair hundreds of miles away, would approve; and there are other

 3     examples which seem not to meet the desired standards.

 4        Q.   And in light of your answer, why didn't you mention the fact that

 5     killing victims were not being investigated when you assessed the

 6     performance of the Croatian authorities in investigating and punishing

 7     crime after Operation Storm?

 8        A.   Because when I came to draft my report, I had focused my review

 9     and the areas about which I thought it appropriate for me to write on the

10     direct locus, which I believed, from the documents, General Cermak to

11     have had, in relation to these matters.

12        Q.   Well, you've also mentioned in several places of your report

13     resource constraints on the Croatian authorities.  For example, in

14     paragraph 3.115, you refer to an entry in the Knin police log that the

15     police could not attend a reported fire in a house for want of a vehicle.

16     And you've got a whole section on civilian police establishment and

17     strength and another section on other police resource issues.

18             Now, again, can you explain why you focused on issues such as

19     deficiency of equipment and deficiency of manpower in assessing the

20     performance of the Croatian authorities and didn't mention the fact that

21     they weren't investigating killings?

22        A.   Well, as can you see from those sections which deal with these

23     sorts of general issues, the sections are very short.  I tried to set

24     context for the other areas of the report which I thought were specific

25     to General Cermak's role.  And whilst I haven't gone into significant

Page 24043

 1     detail about the performance of the police, because I think, if I had

 2     gone down that road, there would have been several volumes to this

 3     report.  I think I have tried to provide background information which is

 4     of assistance to the Chamber which shows that, in summary, there was a

 5     system that was gradually being established.  I think I have been fair in

 6     describing some of the ways in which that system achieved successes in

 7     some of the investigations and prosecutions that were undertaken.  And I

 8     think I have also drawn the attention of the Chamber to what I

 9     considered, from my professional perspective, to be some of the defects

10     in that system.

11        Q.   And would you agree, now, that not investigating killing victims

12     is a defect in that system?

13        A.   Well, as I stated in evidence, in ideal circumstances, every

14     death which does not have a doctor's medical certificate and an

15     explanation, should be treated by the police as a suspicious death and

16     investigated accordingly until such time as it is found to be otherwise.

17     I'm not sure that that was entirely practical in these circumstances, but

18     I do accept your suggestion that there were bodies buried in

19     circumstances which I, as a police officer, would wish had not happened,

20     because I think even bodies with some element of decomposition may yield

21     information to investigators.

22        Q.   Mr. Albiston, you said:

23             "In ideal circumstances, every death which does not have a

24     doctor's medical certificate ... should be treated as a suspicious

25     death."

Page 24044

 1             I mean, you've seen the evidence.  We're not talking about people

 2     being found dead in their beds without any sign of visible injury; we are

 3     talking about people on the ground with bullet-holes in their heads.  Do

 4     you think it's a defect in the Croatian system at the time not to

 5     investigate deaths like that?

 6        A.   Yes, I do.

 7        Q.   And another -- at paragraph 3.62 of your report, you've concluded

 8     that:

 9             "... significant and serious crime there was.  There were also

10     significant detections, mostly of ethnic Croats and including soldiers

11     and policemen as well as civilians."

12             Now, just in terms of your -- the phrase "significant

13     detections," you haven't conducted a comprehensive review of the evidence

14     showing the actual commission of crime versus the investigation and

15     punishment of crime that would allow you to make any reliable assessment

16     as to the actual numbers of crimes committed in the area Sector South or

17     the liberated area or the area of the indictment in this case, versus the

18     number of cases that were dealt with appropriately by the authorities and

19     detected, are you?

20        A.   Well, the volume of material which I have seen is such, in terms

21     of its magnitude, that I think it is difficult to make conclusions from

22     it.

23             And, of course, in terms of the more serious crimes, in some

24     cases there is a dispute as to whether deaths were death through combat

25     or deaths which arose after combat clearly had ceased in the area to

Page 24045

 1     which it refers.

 2             So, I think, in relation to these matters, there was difficulty

 3     with figures, which is why I have sought to assist the Chamber by judging

 4     that clearly there was a lot of crime going on, clearly there was a

 5     serious problem.  There were different interpretations of how fires were

 6     caused; there were different interpretations of when and how people had

 7     died; but I don't think anyone is disputing that there was a lot wrong in

 8     what was happening here.

 9             And that, indeed, if we look at the activities of the courts, the

10     prosecutors, the investigating judge, as well as the civilian police, we

11     will see that action was taken in a number of these cases.

12        Q.   And the document you cite in support of that conclusion is P600.

13             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And I'd like to look at that, please.

14        Q.   And this a document produced by Mr. Granic, the minister of

15     foreign affairs, at a meeting on the 2nd of February, 1996.

16             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And if we could go to page 4 of that document in

17     the English and the B/C/S.  And it's at the bottom of both pages of

18     this -- sorry, the bottom of the page in both the English and B/C/S.

19        Q.   And is it states:

20             "The accusations against the Croatian Army, to the effect that it

21     has committed excessive human rights violations, are unfounded ...

22     violations that occurred were not systematic, nor were such violations

23     tolerated by government bodies.  On the contrary, it must be point out

24     that in" --

25             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And the pagination is out of order in this

Page 24046

 1     document, so we have to go to the following page in the English and the

 2     next page in the B/C/S as well.

 3        Q.    "... in accordance with a highly developed awareness of the

 4     importance of the rule of law, criminal proceedings have been instituted

 5     against 80 members of the armed forces of the Republic of Croatia ..."

 6             Now, do you have any idea whether instituting proceedings against

 7     80 members of the armed forces of the Republic of Croatia, in relation to

 8     crimes committed following the liberation of occupied territories up

 9     until January 1996, is either significant or insignificant, in terms of

10     the overall number of violations of crime by HV members?

11        A.   Well, in my judgement, which I suppose is subjective, it's

12     significant.  And I say that because not only does it involve 80 members

13     of the Croatian armed forces, but investigations which would generate

14     that sort of criminal justice activity will compass significantly more

15     people.  And if the argument is about well, Were the Croatian authorities

16     taking this matter seriously or not?  I suppose that must be --

17     ultimately that must be a judgement for this Chamber or even a political

18     judgement.

19             But what I can say from the perspective of a -- from a policing,

20     civilian policing perspective, is that the sort of investigations which

21     would lead to 80 members of the armed forces being tried will produce

22     significant ripple effects, and that means that a lot of investigation

23     must have taken place, a lot of people must have been looked at; and,

24     therefore, in my view, the figure of 80 could be considered to be

25     significant.

Page 24047

 1        Q.   Well, it doesn't say they've been tried.  It says:

 2             "Criminal proceedings have been instituted against."

 3             And I'm wondering how you can conclude that that will produce

 4     significant ripple effects.

 5             What's the basis for that?

 6        A.   Well, you cannot -- if you're going to start criminal proceedings

 7     against 80 people, you have to ask a lot more than 80 people a lot of

 8     questions and conduct significant inquiries to generate the sort of

 9     evidence which you need to start proceedings against 80 people.  There

10     are only three people in the dock in this Chamber, but an awful lot of

11     people have been impacted by the activities which led to the current

12     proceedings.

13        Q.   But you can't say whether these 80 people were just 80 HV members

14     who were stopped at a check-point with looted goods and a criminal report

15     was filed and possibly an indictment issued.  I mean, you don't know the

16     extent of --

17        A.   [Overlapping speakers]... I -- no -- counsel, you're quite right.

18     I don't know the individual circumstances of the cases of these

19     80 people.  That's quite right.

20             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And if we could look at the bottom of this page.

21        Q.   In the last paragraph it states:

22             "With respect to the report by the secretary-general concerning

23     the killings of civilians, the government of the Republic of Croatia

24     should like to point out that, in most cases, these were casualties of

25     military activities.  This has been established by on-site inspection and

Page 24048

 1     the subsequent forensic investigation of corpses that were discovered."

 2             Now, this statement about on-site inspection and subsequent

 3     forensic investigation, that's not consistent with the evidence you've

 4     reviewed and the large volume of evidence received by this Trial Chamber

 5     that, in most cases, there were no such on-site investigations or

 6     forensic investigations.  Is that right?

 7        A.   I would certainly agree that that paragraph, which you've just

 8     quoted, exaggerates the position, significantly, from the perspective of

 9     the government.

10             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And if we could go to the next page of this

11     document.  If we could move down the page a little bit.  That's great.

12        Q.   You can see the paragraph near the bottom of the page that

13     states -- begins:

14             "Regarding the murder of five civilians in the village of Grubor,

15     the site of the crime was inspected by police on the same day on which it

16     was reported by the UN Human Rights Action Team on 25 August 1995.

17     However, the perpetrators have yet to be identified."

18             Now, the evidence that you have reviewed indicated that the

19     police did not inspect the crime scene at Grubori and the victims' bodies

20     were sanitised and no investigation took place.  Right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Now, I'm wondering, in light of the contradictions between what's

23     stated in this document and the evidence you reviewed, why it is that you

24     chose to rely on this document to support your conclusion about

25     significant detections.  What was the methodological basis for that?

Page 24049

 1        A.   Well, there is significant material on the killings at Grubori.

 2     If I had decided to concentrate on that issue as a feature for my report,

 3     I feel it would have required significant detail.  And it was my

 4     judgement, when I was compiling my report, that the Grubori incident did

 5     not impact sufficiently on the issues which I was addressing - namely,

 6     the connections between General Cermak and civilian policing - to warrant

 7     such an examination.

 8        Q.   That wasn't exactly my question.  And I will try to make it

 9     clearer.

10             From what I have read to you - and it appears you agree

11     with me - that there are indications in this document that it's not

12     reliable, on certain issues, in contrast to other evidence that you have

13     reviewed, and I'm wondering, in light of those indicia of unreliability,

14     why you, nevertheless, chose to rely on this document in your report?  It

15     was more a methodological question.

16        A.   Well, I hoped that the answer was a methodological answer, but if

17     not, then let me try to approach it from a different way.

18             If the area that you're asking me about at this stage is

19     contradictions between the pronouncements of the government of the

20     Croatia on its performance in relation to the handling of crime matters

21     and the evidence before the Chamber and the suggestion that there's a

22     contradiction there and that the Grubori incident is related that, I

23     agree with that.  It wasn't something that I thought needed to feature in

24     my report in relation to that.

25        Q.   Yes.  But you have relied on this document as support for

Page 24050

 1     conclusions about the performance of the government of Croatia.

 2        A.   Well --

 3        Q.   I'm wondering why you did that, in light of contradictions

 4     between what they say their performance was and what the other evidence

 5     indicates it actually was.

 6        A.   Yeah, I'm sorry.  I follow that now.

 7             Yes, I rely on this document as I rely on a number of other

 8     documents to make some general conclusions which are that there was a

 9     criminal justice system in operation and that some of the people that

10     were caught up by that criminal justice system were, indeed, ethnic

11     Croats and members of the HV.

12             There are other documents, which I cite, to indicate that a

13     criminal justice process involving the civilian police and the courts was

14     taking place.  I certainly don't want to suggest to this Chamber that I

15     believe everything that the Croatian government would say, because they

16     have political reasons and other agendas operating.  I accept that

17     entirely.

18        Q.   Now, I'd just like to ask you a couple of questions about the

19     civilian police manpower and resource issues which we touched on a few

20     moments ago.  And I'd like to go back to that.  And that's at

21     paragraph 3.104, and following, of your report.

22             And it's my understand that you conclude that the shortage of

23     manpower and other resources is a factor contributing to the level of

24     crime and the lack of a response to reports of crime.  And the example I

25     pointed to earlier was at 3.115.

Page 24051

 1             Is that a fair understanding?

 2        A.   Yes, certainly.  Any discussion of police manpower issues is

 3     fraught with difficulty, and police leaders will always want more

 4     resources than they have in order to deliver a better service than

 5     they're delivering, but I have attempted, in this report, to snap-shot

 6     some indications of what might be some of the problems facing police

 7     commanders.

 8        Q.   And faced with a manpower and resource issues, would you agree

 9     that, after Operation Storm, the police should have focused its

10     resources, in a way, aimed at addressing the most serious and immediate

11     problems of crime in the area?

12        A.   Oh, yes, certainly.

13        Q.   And would you agree that, based on what you reviewed, the most

14     serious and immediate problem of crime in the area after Operation Storm

15     was looting, burning and killing?

16        A.   Certainly.

17        Q.   So in -- going back to the practice we discussed of not

18     investigating killing victims, would you agree that that is something

19     that's inconsistent with what you think the focus of the police activity

20     should have been?

21        A.   Well, yes, it's -- it's a very disappointing outcome.  But I

22     think we have to understand that before you can start investigating crime

23     scenes and carrying out -- not just on-site investigations but follow-up

24     investigations to serious crime, you have to establish control over the

25     territory in which you're operating.  This is not a problem which is

Page 24052

 1     relevant for most civilian police forces, but for police forces operating

 2     either in areas of conflict or in areas which are immediately

 3     post-conflict.  There are significant difficulties in establishing that

 4     sort of control.

 5             This is it why, in many areas, you have this difficulty over who

 6     has the primary responsibility for securing a safe and secure environment

 7     and maintaining civilian law and order.  And in this particular area, the

 8     first necessity for the police is to establish an effective uniformed

 9     branch, civilian policing presence, so that roadblocks and the protection

10     of individuals and buildings and people can be established so that roads

11     can be secured with the assistance of the explosives ordnance people in

12     the military to ensure that can you get from one place to another without

13     driving over a mine.

14             Then, you can seek to establish your control of crime scenes,

15     your control of towns and villages in which you wish to conduct

16     investigations and so on.  I don't, for one moment, suggest that it would

17     be wrong to criticise the performance of police either in individual

18     cases or in some cases overall in terms of the successes that were

19     achieved.  What I say was there was a system which they were gradually

20     establishing and putting in place, and that it's perhaps difficult, in

21     the calm of the aftermath, to empathise with the actual practical

22     difficulties which face people in trying to do this sort of thing.

23             I have some experience of it myself, and whilst, as the Chamber

24     heard earlier, I'm the first to criticise the absence of effective

25     investigation of serious crime, I do have some sympathy with the

Page 24053

 1     difficulties which were facing the police at this time.

 2        Q.   Just to go back to the beginning of your answer which was related

 3     to control of the territory.

 4             If the MUP was able to send a civilian protection team to a site

 5     of a killing victim and collect that body and take it to a cemetery in

 6     Knin or Gracac and bury it, presumably, control of the territory wasn't

 7     an obstacle to actually investigating that crime or performing a forensic

 8     analysis of that body, was it?

 9        A.   Well, actually, I don't think that that is right.  I don't think

10     that does necessarily follow.

11             There are documents which suggest that there was a concern

12     amongst the civilian police, certainly, and maybe in other quarters,

13     about the continuing existence of what are described variously as

14     terrorists, Chetniks, and so on.  Now, I don't attach too much weight to

15     that, because I think that the Chamber may think there are reasons why

16     those sorts of expressions are used and why such documents exist.

17             Nevertheless, I don't think you can entirely dismiss the concerns

18     which the civilian police may have felt about their own security in this

19     region at this time.  This was period of significant disorders, so ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Albiston, I get the impression that

21     Ms. Gustafson is asking you about a specific example in which, due to the

22     fact that MUP was, as she said, able to send a civilian protection team

23     to a site of a killing victim and collect that body, that if you can do

24     this, at that moment, at that place, you could send someone also to do a

25     forensic investigation.

Page 24054

 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes, well, I'm sorry if my answer appears to be

 2     rather longer than it need be.  But what I'm trying to explain to the

 3     Chamber, Mr. President, is that I don't know the example to which

 4     Ms. Gustafson is referring, but it is quite possible that you can get a

 5     team in, do a quick job, and get it out again without threat of violence

 6     to that teem.

 7             What I'm saying is that it would be wrong to extrapolate from a

 8     single instant, in which such an operation was carried out successfully,

 9     that, therefore, you could always do that.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but that is not what Ms. Gustafson asked you.

11     She didn't ask, If this happened, would that mean that you could go

12     everywhere.  She said, If you could go there to do this, couldn't you

13     then have sent another person to investigate the crime.

14             That was the question, at least if I understood you well,

15     Ms. Gustafson.

16             And you're making it -- in your answer you're making it far

17     broader.  That's --

18             THE WITNESS:  Well, I'm sorry.  That does --

19             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]... it's definitely, it's

20     the -- what struck me.

21             THE WITNESS:  I see.  Well, I -- certainly, in that case, I

22     misunderstood the question.

23             I would ask if the question could be put again so that I can deal

24     with it directly in the way that Ms. Gustafson is seeking.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Before I do so, I'm also looking at the clock.  It's

Page 24055

 1     16 minutes to 2.00.  I would like to briefly discuss with the parties

 2     what time would still be needed, as matters stand now.  I think we could

 3     do it in the presence of the witness, because then he knows already what

 4     his fate might be for the days to come.

 5             Ms. Gustafson, how much more time would you need?

 6             MS. GUSTAFSON:  For my part, five to ten more minutes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Five to ten more minutes.

 8             For re-examination, Ms. Higgins?

 9             MS. HIGGINS:  Your Honour, as it stands approximately 50 minutes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm reading -- yes, it's 50.  Yes.

11             MS. HIGGINS:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President, I have a half an hour, maybe

14     45 minutes.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16             And you would need that time to -- for matters that were raised

17     in cross-examination?

18             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  And which you -- and which are not dealt with in

20     examination-in-chief?

21             MR. KEHOE:  There were touched upon in examination --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Because we expect you to cross-examine the witness

23     on matters that have been dealt with in chief.

24             MR. KEHOE:  I think that, in dealing with these issues, and I

25     think great leave has been given, for instance, to the Prosecutor during

Page 24056

 1     their case, when issues have come up that are of some substance that need

 2     clarity, and I believe I will briefly deal with these issues that need

 3     some clarity, that we have been somewhat expansive on those rules

 4     Your Honour.

 5             So I'm not going to cover anything that hasn't been addressed to

 6     some degree, but on cross-examination, certain issues have been left out

 7     there that need some clarification for this witness's testimony to be

 8     complete.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Are you saying that if matters are left in

10     cross-examination by the Prosecution, where you have had an opportunity

11     to cross-examine the witness on whatever, you would like, then, to fill

12     that, what you consider to be a gap, then that should be dealt with in

13     cross then?

14             MR. KEHOE:  I didn't understand your question.  If I can just --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, what I'm say is, of course, the Chamber

16     expects you to cross-examine the witness on any matter you consider of

17     importance dealt with in examination-in-chief or to deal with any matter

18     for which you think the witness could tell us about and which would

19     support your case under Rule 90(H).

20             Now, Ms. Gustafson has cross-examined the witness.  And it's not

21     entirely clear what matters you'd like that deal with in

22     cross-examination.  And my primary question was whether you would deal

23     with any matter which was not addressed in examination-in-chief.  And

24     then you said something that matters that were not addressed in

25     cross-examination.

Page 24057

 1             MR. KEHOE:  No.  I believe Mr. President, I may have misspoke.

 2     But there were issued that were raised in cross-examination that broadly

 3     may have been issued on direct but were specifically addressed by

 4     Ms. Gustafson.  And my questions are related to those particular issues.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll see.  If you would please keep in mind the

 6     concern I just expressed about what should and should not be covered in

 7     cross-examination and give that some consideration.

 8             Which means that, all together, that -- let me just ...

 9             One second, please.

10             That would mean that we finish the re-examination by Ms. Higgins

11     well within the first session tomorrow morning and that we would need

12     another little bit of the next session, then, for you, Mr. Kehoe.

13             Which also requires the next witness to be ready.  He is on stand

14     by, Mr. Kay.

15             Then we will adjourn for the day.  And we will resume tomorrow,

16     Friday, the 6th of November, at 9.00, in Courtroom III.  But not until

17     I've instructed you, Mr. Albiston, that you should not speak with anyone

18     about your testimony, either already given or still to be given.  The

19     same instruction as I gave you before.

20             THE WITNESS:  I understand, Mr. President.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We stand adjourned.

22                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,

23                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 6th day of

24                           November, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.