Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 24058

 1                           Friday, 6 November 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

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

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

 9     everyone in and around the courtroom.

10             This is case number IT-06-90-T, the Prosecutor versus Gotovina et

11     al.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

13             Mr. Albiston, I would like to remind you that you're still bound

14     by the solemn declaration that you've given at the beginning of your

15     testimony, that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

16     the truth.

17             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Mr. President.

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

19     cross-examination?

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

21                           WITNESS:  CHRISTOPHER ALBISTON [Resumed]

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

23        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Albiston.

24        A.   Good morning, Ms. Gustafson.

25        Q.   Yesterday, just before we ended for the day, I was asking you

Page 24059

 1     some questions about the practice of not investigating killings after

 2     Operation Storm, and yesterday you agreed that the killings that were

 3     taking place were one of the most serious and immediate problems of crime

 4     in the aftermath of Operation Storm, and, therefore, that it should have

 5     been a focus of police resources.  And then I asked you if the practice

 6     of not investigating killings was inconsistent with your view of what the

 7     policing priority should have been, and you mentioned certain

 8     post-conflict obstacles, such as a lack of territorial control.  And then

 9     I asked you about whether -- if a sanitation team could collect bodies,

10     whether that indicated an investigation could take place.  And I'd like

11     to hopefully clear this up by asking this in a more concrete way by

12     reference to an example that you're aware of, which is Grubori.  And you

13     stated yesterday that you were aware that there was no investigation into

14     the killings in Grubori and that the bodies were sanitised, and that was

15     at page 91.

16             Now, in relation to that incident, there was no obstacle to

17     investigating those killings relating to the post-conflict situation, was

18     there?

19        A.   I'm certainly aware of no obstacle from the position of civilian

20     policing, no.

21        Q.   So that was an example where the Croatian authorities could have

22     investigated, but did not, based on your review and assessment of the

23     evidence; is that right?

24        A.   Insofar as I can see, I can see no reason why.

25        Q.   Now, I would like to ask you a question about whether, in

Page 24060

 1     reviewing the material you were provided, whether you saw evidence of an

 2     attitude of tolerance or indifference on the part of the Croatian

 3     authorities towards the crimes of looting and burning and killing, and

 4     I'd just like to review a few examples so that you know what I'm

 5     referring to.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, the previous answer of the witness

 7     was:

 8             "Insofar as I can see, I can see no reason why."

 9             The question was that it was an example that they could have

10     investigated, but they did not.

11             Now, it's not entirely clear, but I understood your answer to be

12     that you did not see any reason why they had not investigated.

13             THE WITNESS:  That's correct, Mr. President.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

15             Please proceed.

16             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17        Q.   And the first example is from an HRAT report for the

18     12th of August, and this is P32, and it refers to a meeting with

19     General Cermak, and the report states that:

20             "In a meeting with the sector commander, Cermak stated that life

21     in Knin and in the sector was getting back to normal.  He responded to an

22     inquiry for information concerning the rash of fires throughout the area

23     by insisting that the phenomenon had no official sanction and that action

24     is being taken by authorities to stop it."

25             It's at the bottom of this page:

Page 24061

 1             "The position appears to be belied by the substantial number of

 2     HV military personnel and Croatian civilian police, who are observed

 3     passing areas of major conflagration without stopping or, indeed,

 4     appearing to take notice of the ongoing destruction."

 5             Another example is the evidence of Mr. Jan Elleby, who was the

 6     deputy chief then chief of UN CIVPOL in Sector South, and he stated that

 7     some attempts were made to stop the looting, but in his view, it was not

 8     very persistent, nor did the police seem interested.  And he recalled an

 9     example of observing a soldier carrying a stereo out of a building and

10     walking past a police officer, who did nothing.  That's at P215, page 3.

11             Another example is an ECMM report for the 4th of September,

12     describing the killing of an old lady in the village of Palaca.  The

13     report notes that the ECMM team had found a lot of blood and one bullet

14     shell in the house of the killed lady, and the answer of Croatian police

15     concerning this case was that the old woman died because she had low

16     blood pressure.  And that's at P2157, paragraph 4.

17             And an ECC monitor named Mr. Eric Hendriks gave evidence of what

18     he described as an unwillingness on the part of the authorities to stop

19     the criminal acts, and he based this, in part, on his observation that he

20     saw policemen hanging around the center of Knin or manning check-points

21     with five to seven men, just stopping the cars of international

22     organisations, while trucks and civilian cars would pass without being

23     checked.  And that's at D820, page 3.

24             And the last example is a UN CIVPOL weekly report for the

25     21st to 26th of August, and the report states on page 5 that:

Page 24062

 1             "On the 23rd of August, at a meeting with the chief of police for

 2     Drnis, UN CIVPOL learned that no one had been booked for arson up until

 3     that point, and the chief of police stated that, in his opinion, most of

 4     the houses were burning because of electrical faults."

 5             And that's at P230, page 5.

 6             Now, my question is:  Did you see evidence like this, and do you

 7     agree that it's evidence of an attitude of tolerance or indifference

 8     towards crimes?

 9        A.   There's an awful lot in the question, and I certainly do not

10     intend to try to address and dismiss each of the things that you've

11     raised, because when I read the documents, I saw the examples and others

12     of the sort which you have mentioned, and taken as a whole, they present

13     a very unsatisfactory picture of police efforts and, indeed, efforts of

14     many people.  I think there are other factors to take into consideration,

15     and I don't say what I'm about to say by way of excusing bad behaviour by

16     individuals.

17             Policemen, in my experience, are not very good at putting out

18     fires.  Policemen, when told to stand on check-points and check vehicles,

19     are reluctant to undertake other duties which might result in them

20     failing to discharge the duties to which they have been allocated.

21             There are, as I suggested yesterday, many things which make

22     civilian policing in these sorts of conditions problematic.  I don't, for

23     one moment, try to excuse or dismiss the sort of problems to which you

24     alluded in your question.  I think that it is extremely likely, on my

25     reading of the evidence, that some of the civilian policemen who were

Page 24063

 1     engaged in this area at this time had a problem with attitude.  Maybe

 2     that's an expression which we use in our job which doesn't translate

 3     particularly well, but let me put it this way:  Their attitude towards

 4     the efficient discharge of their duties may not always be what it should

 5     be, and their attitude towards the impartial discharge of their duties

 6     may not always be what it ought to be.  Those problems exist in policing

 7     worldwide, and they come to the fore in periods of violence and,

 8     particularly, inter-communal or ethnic or religious violence.  I think

 9     that's fairly well known, and I don't doubt that there were instances of

10     it here.  And the sort of examples which you cite in your question may

11     well be that.

12             If we look at whether that was organised or tolerated, well,

13     I think you would have to examine the conduct of individual supervising

14     officers.  In this case, in the lower ranks, some of the supervising

15     officers may not have been performing their duties particularly well if

16     the policemen under their command were not performing their duties very

17     well.

18             But so far as the documents relating to policy are concerned,

19     I think they show a rather different story, and we went over that ground

20     yesterday.

21        Q.   There's quite a bit in that answer.  I'd just like to pick up on

22     one thing you is said, which is:

23             "I think it's extremely likely, on my reading of the evidence,

24     that the civilian policemen who were engaged in this area at this time

25     had a problem with attitude."

Page 24064

 1             Now, based on your review of the evidence, did you consider this

 2     likelihood of a problem with attitude to be something that may have

 3     affected the performance of the Croatian authorities in addressing crime?

 4        A.   No, because I think the problems to which you have alluded,

 5     they're not generic, or from my reading of the documents they are not --

 6     they don't permeate the entire civilian police.  There are examples of

 7     poor policing, which I would expect to find, and I make no attempt to

 8     excuse that.  In fact, quite the contrary.  From my professional

 9     perspective, of course, I take a very dim view of it.

10        Q.   So, for example, when the HRAT report states that the position of

11     General Cermak that action is being taken by authorities to stop the

12     crimes is belied by the substantial number of HV and civilian police who

13     are observed passing areas of major conflagration without stopping or,

14     indeed, appearing to take notice of the ongoing destruction, that's not

15     something that, in your view, would permeate the entire civilian police

16     or the entire system at the time?

17        A.   Well, I don't know whether that observation by that witness

18     carries all the implications which I feel that are conveyed in your

19     question, because the people concerned, who were identified passing by,

20     may well have had other priorities that they were being directed to

21     attend to.  I don't know the answer to that on the basis of the document

22     which you cite.

23        Q.   Well, when I read a number of examples to you, you confirmed that

24     you had seen examples like that and --

25        A.   Oh, yes.

Page 24065

 1        Q.   -- many more?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And in light of the clear number of times you've seen similar

 4     observations, I'm wondering how you can conclude that that's not

 5     something that permeated the system at the time, if monitor after monitor

 6     is saying the same thing based on similar observations.

 7        A.   Well, I think what monitor after monitor is seeing is significant

 8     disorder.  They're seeing looting and burning, which they report, because

 9     that's what monitors do, that's what monitors are looking for.  And

10     I think in this circumstances, that's -- in these circumstances, that's

11     what monitors are expecting to find.  I don't think it necessarily

12     follows that a failure of the police to address all these issues quickly

13     and effectively can be attributed to the sort of reasons which I think

14     you're suggesting.  I think there are many more reasons which are also --

15     it's also necessary to bring into the equation, including shortage of

16     resources, the need to perform other directed duties, the need to

17     establish control over the situation, and so on.  I think there's

18     sometimes -- there's sometimes a danger, when people are making comments

19     on these situations, that they don't appreciate the level of chaos, the

20     difficulty with communications, with effective command and control, and

21     so on, that all large organisations experience in their day-to-day work

22     and especially in situations in which they're deployed operationally to

23     deal with difficult problems.

24             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Mr. Albiston.  I have no further

25     questions.

Page 24066

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Higgins, are you ready to re-examine the

 2     witness?  In view of what I said yesterday as far as cross-examination is

 3     concerned, Ms. Higgins, do you consider it -- and I'm also addressing

 4     you, Mr. Kehoe.  Do you consider it the proper sequence that you'll now

 5     re-examine or that first an opportunity would be given to Mr. Kehoe to

 6     address the matters he apparently had on his mind and which could be

 7     considered as a matter which is a matter being raised in

 8     cross-examination rather than in re-cross?  I'm asking your view on what

 9     would be the proper order, and I'll give an opportunity to Mr. Kehoe as

10     well to address that question.

11             MS. HIGGINS:  In my submission, Your Honour, I have discussed

12     with Mr. Kehoe the area of questioning that he wishes to undertake this

13     morning, and given that they do not overlap, it would, in my submission,

14     be appropriate for me to re-examine Mr. Albiston and then for Mr. Kehoe

15     to address the issues he has.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I wanted to raise the matter, but, Mr. Kehoe,

17     I take it that since Ms. Higgins is reporting on the result of your

18     conversations, that you would agree.

19             MR. KEHOE:  I do, Mr. President.  Thank you.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic.

21             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I know yesterday we talked about

22     cross, and I wanted to raise that issue, but we're done.  I may have one

23     or two questions in re-cross related to the testimony that was

24     forthcoming from Ms. Gustafson's cross.  So it may be covered by --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 24067

 1             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  -- Ms. Higgins, it may not, just for

 2     Your Honours' knowledge.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's -- if Ms. Higgins has no problem, even

 4     not knowing what the areas are you'll cover --

 5             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  We did discuss --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, you did discuss it.

 7             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, then, Ms. Higgins, please proceed.

 9             MS. HIGGINS:  I'm grateful.

10                           Re-examination by Ms. Higgins:

11        Q.   Now, Mr. Albiston, I want to raise with you, first of all, a

12     matter that was raised this morning.  You were asked the question, in

13     reviewing the material you were provided, whether you saw evidence of an

14     attitude of tolerance or indifference on the part of the Croatian

15     authorities towards the crimes of looting and burning and killing.  And

16     then Ms. Gustafson referred to a few examples which she put to you.

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Now, when you wrote your report, Mr. Albiston, you refer to what

19     can only be described from paragraph 3.63 as a ream of documentation

20     between Mr. Moric and Lausic, and also police administrations.  And if

21     you can go to that section of your report, what I intend to do, rather

22     than pulling all these documents up, is to go through them briefly and to

23     see if you recollect these documents, which might enable you to give a

24     fuller answer to the question that was posed to you this morning.

25             Are you with me, Mr. Albiston?

Page 24068

 1        A.   Yes, certainly.

 2        Q.   The first document, for the record, is D50, which was a Moric

 3     order to police administrations in which he referred to asking to be

 4     informed about whether or not there was cooperation between the police

 5     administrations and the fact that he had ordered linking with the

 6     military police in order to stop houses being burnt and other people's

 7     movable property being taken away unlawfully in the liberated territory.

 8     And that date was the 22nd of August, 1995.  You may also recall in that

 9     document that he asked whether or not on-site investigations were being

10     carried out and whether or not crimes were being investigated.  Do you

11     recall the tenor of that document?

12        A.   Yes, I do, and others like it, in particular where Mr. Moric is

13     lambasting his junior officers for the reports not being up to the

14     standard or in the timeliness that he required.

15        Q.   Indeed.  Now the next document, D49, again, just to put the tenor

16     for your recollection, a document from Josko Moric, dated of the

17     18th of August, to police administrations, referring again to the

18     torching of houses and illegal taking away of people's movable property,

19     and he refers to:

20             "In order to put a stop to this problem, I order, inter alia,

21     on-site investigations, forensic and operative processing."

22             And he goes on to state that:

23             "If the military police cannot perform the task of investigation

24     and forensic and operative processing, the civilian police will do it

25     alone, irrespective of whether the perpetrator wears a Croatian Army

Page 24069

 1     uniform or not."

 2             Do you recall that document?

 3        A.   Yes, I certainly do.

 4        Q.   Next document, D574, for the record, document from Josko Moric to

 5     the police administrations, which again refers to the fact that:

 6             "We requested a report on linkage with the military police in

 7     order to prevent further torching of houses and illegal taking of movable

 8     property," dated the 30th of August.

 9             Do you recall that document?

10        A.   Yes, ma'am.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly slow down when reading.  Thank you.

12             MS. HIGGINS:  Sorry, I apologise.

13        Q.   The next document that you cite, Mr. Albiston, is a document from

14     Josko Moric again to the police administrations, dated the

15     11th of September, ordering the supply of joint data concerning the

16     burning of houses, illegal appropriation of other people's movable

17     property, cooperation with the military police, and implementing measures

18     for the period between the 22nd of August and the 10th of September.

19             Familiar?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Next document, D594, dated the 13th of September, another

22     document from Josko Moric which again refers to this, the need for a

23     joint operational meeting in order to assess the situation and problems,

24     which included the level of public law and order and the level of

25     protection of lives and property for all people.

Page 24070

 1             Familiar to you, Mr. Albiston?

 2        A.   Yes, yes.

 3        Q.   One more, D597, dated the 2nd of October, again from Josko Moric

 4     to the civilian police administrations:

 5             "Submit combined information for the period between the

 6     22nd of August and the 2nd of October on murders, arsons, explosions,

 7     property seizure.  Conducted on-site investigations.  Perpetrators known.

 8     Unknown perpetrators, and abuse of uniform."

 9        A.   Yes, yes.

10        Q.   A document you cite, Mr. Albiston?

11        A.   Certainly.

12        Q.   And then you also cite a collection of documents from within the

13     civilian police authorities concerning reports back to Josko Moric, which

14     include:  D7 -- sorry, D573, dated the 24th of August, from Drago Matic;

15     D575, another report back from Drago Matic, dated the 1st of September;

16     D580, another report back, dated the 12th of September, Drago Matic

17     again; and there are also references in your report, a number of them,

18     concerning joint meetings to stop crime.

19             Do you remember that collection of documents --

20        A.   Certainly.

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 24071

 1   (redacted)

 2             One more, D584:

 3             "More joint meetings in respect of law and order."

 4             That is just a mere flavour of the documents you cite in your

 5     report.

 6             Now, you have been asked that question, and Ms. Gustafson relied

 7     on three examples -- three or four examples that she cited to you.

 8     Please answer the question in the round, taking into account the evidence

 9     that you have cited in your report as to whether or not there was an

10     attitude of tolerance or indifference on the part of Croatian authorities

11     towards crime of looting, burning, and killing.

12        A.   Well, the short answer is, No.  And I think to the list of

13     documents, we might usefully add D595.  What I was trying to convey in my

14     answer to Ms. Gustafson was that whilst an examination or my examination

15     of the documents did not reveal any high-level behaviour of the type

16     which I think Ms. Gustafson is suggesting, it is nevertheless frequently

17     the case, and appears to have been the case in these particular

18     circumstances, that in times of significant violence and disorder, there

19     will be failings in individual police operations and in the behaviour of

20     individual police officers, and I don't think that that would be disputed

21     on the basis of the evidence.  That's not the same thing as saying that

22     this behaviour or these failings were in any way tolerated by the

23     authorities.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Higgins, I heard a question put by Ms. Gustafson

25     about evidence of an attitude of tolerance or indifference, not

Page 24072

 1     authorities.  So you changed the question a bit.  I look at page 5,

 2     lines 6 and 7, where Ms. Gustafson, at least in that instance, is not

 3     primarily referring to authorities.  Therefore, in order to then later

 4     say, Well, you gave an answer to this question, where you put a different

 5     question to the witness, and of course it's perfectly clear that the

 6     examples given by Ms. Gustafson are reports of what was observed on the

 7     ground, and the witness explained to us what he expected monitors to look

 8     for.  But you are citing, if I could say, a different type of evidence;

 9     that is, how the -- those on a higher level, responsible for the

10     functioning of the police, what they put on paper.  And, therefore, it's

11     difficult for me to understand why you rephrase the question by

12     Ms. Gustafson in the way you did.

13             MS. HIGGINS:  With all due respect, Your Honour, I refer you to

14     page 3, where the question reads:

15             "... whether you saw evidence of an attitude of tolerance or

16     indifference on the part of the Croatian authorities towards the crimes

17     of looting and burning and killing."

18             I accept the examples that Ms. Gustafson has put --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  They were all -- and then the question was again

20     phrased without the authorities being mentioned.

21             MS. HIGGINS:  Well, the two questions are there, Your Honour, on

22     the record, and in my submission, I'm entitled to ask Mr. Albiston about

23     the examples that he has cited.  The question is broadly phrased.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but you referred to the second question because

25     you were referring to the three examples only given by Ms. Gustafson.  So

Page 24073

 1     I expect then that you would refer to the question that was at that

 2     moment put by Ms. Gustafson.

 3             But let's -- let's continue, and let's clearly keep in mind that

 4     apparently, from the questioning, it appears that two levels are

 5     addressed in the questions and in the documents as to indifference and

 6     tolerance.

 7             MS. HIGGINS:  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson.

 9             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I apologise for the interruption.  If we could

10     just move briefly into private session.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We move into private session.

12                           [Private session]

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 24074

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6                           [Open session]

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

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 9             Please proceed, Ms. Higgins.

10             MS. HIGGINS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11        Q.   Now, Mr. Albiston, you have been asked to distinguish clearly

12     between three concepts, in fact.  One is de facto command and control,

13     one is de jure command and control, and the other which we've referred to

14     is a concept of influence.  Do you understand?

15        A.   Yes, I do.

16        Q.   Now, at various places during the course of your testimony,

17     leaving aside your report for the moment, you have stated that Mr. Cermak

18     had no de facto command over the police.  For the record, transcript

19     pages 23948 to 9, and 23837 to 8; transcript 23992; transcript 24021.

20     These are examples, Mr. Albiston.

21             You've also said in your evidence that Mr. Cermak had an

22     administrative function rather than an operative command.  Do you recall

23     that?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   For the record, transcript 23766 to 7.  That Mr. Cermak was not

Page 24075

 1     within the policing hierarchy; is that a fair representative of --

 2        A.   Certainly that is my reading of the documents, ma'am, yes.

 3        Q.   Examples, transcript 23786, transcript 23825.  And you've also

 4     addressed that officials of the MUP did not believe that Mr. Cermak had

 5     authority.  Transcript 23807, transcript 23808.

 6             And you've referred to a relationship of cooperation, not

 7     subordination, in terms of Mr. Cermak's role with the civilian police.

 8     Do you recollect that?

 9        A.   Yes, certainly.

10             MS. HIGGINS:  Transcript page 23923, as an example to assist the

11     Bench.

12        Q.   Now, just so that it's clear, Mr. Albiston, I am interested in

13     whether or not Mr. Cermak -- at this stage in our questioning and

14     answering during this part of the evidence, I'm interested in whether or

15     not Mr. Cermak had de facto command and control over the civilian police.

16     All right?

17             Now, again, it's not in dispute, and if it is my learned friend

18     will indicate so, that in your review of between 2.000 to

19     4.000 documents, and in the writing of your report, and in the selection

20     of documents you looked at, is it right that the document collections

21     included, for example, internal MUP communications between Moric and the

22     police administrations?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Documents between police administrations and police stations?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 24076

 1        Q.   Internal police administration memoranda?

 2        A.   Certainly.

 3        Q.   Internal police station memoranda and notes of meetings between

 4     the military police and the MUP?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Documentation between the military police and the MUP concerning

 7     coordination of activities?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And documents relating to, for example, the staffing of police

10     and the sending of separate police units?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Documents relating to passes, freedom of movement?

13        A.   Certainly.

14        Q.   Some articles from the local press?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Criminal reports addressed to the higher echelons within the MUP?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Documents which you say show Mr. Cermak passed on information to

19     the police about crimes?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Communications with members of the international community that

22     Mr. Cermak had?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Documents within the international community network sent between

25     their various bodies?

Page 24077

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And minutes of meetings that were held with the international

 3     community, between them and Mr. Cermak?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Now, when you were considering these different collections, did

 6     you consider these collections in terms of de facto, or de jure, or both?

 7        A.   Both, certainly.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Now, yesterday you were asked in detail about several

 9     of Mr. Cermak's orders to the police.  Do you recall that?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Is it right that you have reviewed all seven of Cermak's orders

12     to the civilian police?

13        A.   Yes, I have.

14        Q.   Now, it was put to you that they spanned between August to

15     October, and I want us to look a little bit more closely at them, please,

16     as a collection in the round.

17             MS. HIGGINS:  Now, to assist the Bench, I'm going to call them up

18     one by one relatively speedily, but I would ask, just to assist

19     Mr. Albiston, if I could hand him a hard copy collection of the orders

20     that I'm going to refer to.  Thank you.

21             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

22             MS. HIGGINS:  And if Madam Usher could assist me by calling up

23     P512, please, onto the screen.

24        Q.   And for the record, as it's coming up, Mr. Albiston, you have it

25     in front of you.  It's an order dated the 8th of August, and it concerns

Page 24078

 1     UNCRO helicopters and their inspection.  Do you recall that document?

 2        A.   Yes, I do.

 3        Q.   And it was addressed to the military police and the Knin police

 4     station?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Next document, please, P --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  We just spent attention -- we paid attention to the

 8     P502.

 9                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I was misinformed.  I apologise.  Please proceed.

11             MS. HIGGINS:  Thank you.

12        Q.   The next document on the screen, please, P53, which you have,

13     Mr. Albiston?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   An order addressed to the MUP and the military police, dated the

16     8th of August.  And you will recall that it refers there to all UNCRO

17     elements with clearly-displayed insignia may move freely in the areas of

18     Knin and Drnis?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   You see that one?

21        A.   Yes.

22             MS. HIGGINS:  The next document, please, is under seal, so if it

23     could not be put on the public screens.

24        Q.   You have it in front of you.  It's D501, and I'll simply refer to

25     it being of the date of the 10th of August, and the fact that it went

Page 24079

 1     to -- it's CC'd, it states, to the commander of the MUP and the

 2     headquarters, Administration of the MOHV.  Do you see that?

 3        A.   I see that one, yes.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Another August order, which is D303, 9th of August:

 5             "Immediately set up a team, members of military police and

 6     personnel from the Knin Police Administration with the task of finding

 7     the UNCRO vehicles."

 8             A document very familiar to you, Mr. Albiston?

 9        A.   It is.

10        Q.   Sent to the commander of the Knin police station and the

11     commander of the Knin -- commander of the Knin police station and the

12     commander of the Knin military police?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   I'm going through these rather speedily, but the next document,

15     please, is D503, 12th of August, and a similar sort of order here.

16     Again:

17             "Immediately form teams consisting members of the MUP ..."

18             Again, teams from the MUP and teams from the military police with

19     the task of finding and returning the stolen UNCRO vehicles?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   The sixth order, which is still dated the -- in August, which is

22     the 15th of August, P509?

23        A.   Yes, I have it.

24        Q.   Yes, sent to the Knin police station and Knin military police,

25     referring to the unhindered entry into the town of Knin at all

Page 24080

 1     check-points of the military and civilian police.  Again, an order

 2     familiar to you?

 3        A.   Yes, certainly.

 4        Q.   We have it on our screens there.  I know the Bench is familiar

 5     with it.

 6             The seventh order is the only one, in fact, which is not in

 7     August, and it's dated the 11th of October, and it concerns there the

 8     temporary transfer of a part of MUP officers within the Knin police

 9     station to the old grammar school, sent to the Knin police station?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Now, my question in respect of these orders is the following:  In

12     terms of the seven orders, looking at the documents in the round, in your

13     opinion, do they or do they not show de facto command and control by

14     Cermak over the civilian police?  And if you could give your reasons in

15     your answer, Mr. Albiston, please.

16        A.   Well, the short answer is, No, and the reasons are as follows:

17     If General Cermak had any genuine de facto command over the police in

18     this area over this period of time, a period when certainly for part of

19     the time, as we have discussed this morning, there were significant

20     policing problems, I would expect to see a significant volume of orders,

21     instructions, requirements for reports as to what exactly was being done

22     about it.  And I was questioned yesterday as to whether I examined both

23     de facto and de jure concepts in my report.  I think my report addresses

24     the concept of de facto authority, but it was suggested to me that I had

25     failed to address the possibility that General Cermak had or may have had

Page 24081

 1     some additional authority outside the legalistic approach, which it was

 2     suggested that I took to his authority; namely, some personal authority

 3     which had been granted to him by President Tudjman.  And, of course, I

 4     have given some thought to this concept, and I think it's right that I

 5     should say to this Chamber that in all the documents that I saw, I do not

 6     see any evidence that this transaction whereby General Cermak was granted

 7     this additional authority outside the rules and regulations which I

 8     addressed, other than the suggestion which Ms. Gustafson put to me which

 9     arises from a meeting sometime later between President Tudjman and

10     Mr. Cermak, and one other document which I think might conceivably be

11     prayed in aid of that document, and I'm not sure of its number, but I'm

12     sure that the OTP or the Cermak Defence team may be able to lay hands on

13     very quickly, but there is a document in which President Tudjman says,

14     and I think it may be he's addressing the press or more likely a private

15     meeting, but he says words to the effect that either Brigadier Forand, by

16     name, or the Canadians have some problems in South Sector, but I've sent

17     Ivan Cermak, or General Cermak, who is a serious man, and these problems

18     will be addressed.

19             Now, in all the documents that I have seen, and I am quite

20     certain that it well exceeds 2.000, I have seen no other indication of

21     any informal or ultra vires authority over anything being granted to

22     General Cermak.  And if that authority had been granted, I cannot

23     conceive how the police would have been expected to recognise and

24     implement that authority unless someone had told them about it.  And

25     there is no indication that I've seen that anyone did tell them about it.

Page 24082

 1             Now, I have served in different police organisations and worked

 2     with many different police officers, and none of us take authority unless

 3     we recognise it and we've been told about it.

 4        Q.   Just to go back -- I'm going to ask you some questions about that

 5     in a moment, leading on from what you've said, but can I just go back,

 6     for the moment, to the orders?

 7             What observations do you have on the number of orders Cermak gave

 8     to the civilian police and the nature of their subject matter in relation

 9     to the issue of de facto command and control, please, Mr. Albiston?

10        A.   Well, some elements of the orders are matters which most police

11     officers would consider to be administrative rather than operational, and

12     I think I addressed this Chamber previously on what I saw the distinction

13     as being.  Some of them are clearly related to problems arising in

14     relation to the international community or matters which need to be

15     addressed in relation to that.

16        Q.   Now, in relation to the document you referred to, which was a

17     transcript concerning Tudjman stating that he'd sent a serious man down

18     there, which is a document you draw our attention to --

19        A.   Yes, it's the only one I could think of which might -- which I've

20     read that might give substance to this concept of some sort of informal

21     authority or authority which falls outside the documents which I studied

22     which relate to the legal position for controlling the MUP.

23        Q.   Well, Mr. Albiston, nowhere -- you've read that document.

24     Nowhere in that document does it state that Tudjman gave authority to

25     Mr. Cermak over the civilian police, does it?

Page 24083

 1        A.   No, it certainly doesn't, but it -- I quote that document because

 2     I was trying to think, in fairness, from the point of view of balance,

 3     had I seen anything which I might have thought would support the argument

 4     which was put to me, and that's the only one I could think of.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson.

 6             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Your Honour, I'm not sure where the line of

 7     questioning is going.  But if it is going where it appears to be going,

 8     in the direction of the assignment of tasks by President Tudjman to

 9     General Cermak, then I have objections and submissions I'd like to make

10     in relation to that, and it would be best -- be done outside the presence

11     of the witness, I think.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, now there's a problem, Ms. Gustafson.  You say

13     if it goes in this and this direction --

14             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Well, perhaps --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  -- then I would like to -- because I would then have

16     to establish whether the line of Ms. Higgins would go in a certain

17     direction.  Would it be good that either you're convinced that that's the

18     way it will go, then we'll ask Mr. Albiston to leave the courtroom; if

19     not, please verify with Ms. Higgins in which direction her line of

20     questioning will further continue?  Which of the two would you prefer?

21             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I would prefer it would be verified with

22     Ms. Higgins.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Why not you verify it?  Why should this

24     Chamber -- you apparently have an idea of what line of questioning would

25     cause you some problems.  Why would -- why not verify that with

Page 24084

 1     Ms. Higgins?

 2             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Well, Your Honour, I just don't think it's

 3     appropriate to direct [sic] her directly across the courtroom.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, perhaps not --

 5             MS. GUSTAFSON: [Overlapping speakers] -- I'm happy to wait until

 6     she asks more questions and then I can object.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I do understand that you would not, microphone

 8     switched on, start a conversation with Ms. Higgins.  At the same time, I

 9     do not see any problem in, microphone switched off, that you verify with

10     Ms. Higgins, whether you could expect a problem to arise or not.  But if

11     you would prefer to wait and see in which direction it goes, then we'll

12     invite Ms. Higgins to proceed.

13             Please do so.

14             MS. HIGGINS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15        Q.   I'm going to come back to some questions in a moment concerning

16     the topic that we've just been discussing, but I now would like to move

17     into private session, please, to raise another matter with you,

18     Mr. Albiston.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, could we move into private session.

20                           [Private session]

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 24085











11  Pages 24085-24093 redacted. Private session.















Page 24094

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5                           [Open session]

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

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 8             MS. HIGGINS:

 9        Q.   I'm now dealing with the issue of freedom of movement,

10     Mr. Albiston, so you know where I'm going.

11             At some point yesterday, you were asked the question:

12             "How did you come to the conclusion that it was Mr. Moric rather

13     than General Cermak who was the man responsible for freedom of movement,

14     in light of the fact that each of them had issued an order in this

15     respect?"

16             Do you recall that series of questions?

17        A.   Yes, I do.

18        Q.   Now, in your answer, you referred to the 3rd of August document

19     from Josko Moric --

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   -- which is, I don't think there's any dispute about, P493, as

22     you referred to Tolj and Rebic --

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   -- and that document refers to an order, in fact, by Josko Moric

25     stating that journalists, foreign statesmen and so on can enter the

Page 24095

 1     liberated the territory at the said check-points in the operations area

 2     only by producing a passed signed jointly by Tolj and Rebic.  Do you

 3     recall that?

 4        A.   Yes, I do.

 5        Q.   I'd like to just ask you to take a look at D1769, please, and ask

 6     you whether this would assist you or not in answering more

 7     comprehensively the question you were asked about Moric or Cermak in

 8     respect to freedom of movement and why you said it was Mr. Moric.

 9             The first page here in front of us, dated the 8th of August,

10     refers to the arrival of reporters and public figures in the liberated

11     area.  It was a document that I referred you to during my

12     examination-in-chief.

13        A.   Yes, I see it.

14        Q.   If we can just go over the page, please.  It refers to:

15             "... without necessary permissions in the area of Petrinja and

16     the Plitvice lakes, but permission from the Ministry of Defence of the

17     Republic of Croatia and the MUP is needed for other liberated areas."

18             And if you refer paragraph 2 as well, towards the end, please.

19             Now, does this document provide you with any assistance,

20     Mr. Albiston?

21        A.   Yes.  It's the assistant minister in the interior issuing a

22     direct instruction on the 8th of August.  It does mention, actually, in

23     the second paragraph, Operation Povratak, the return operation, and

24     I think there are other documents in the case which show that Mr. Moric,

25     in particular, was concerned with this operation, and there would be

Page 24096

 1     implications for freedom of movement and authority to move in the area in

 2     relation to the management of Operation Povratak.  So I think that would

 3     be an indicator, perhaps, of Mr. Moric's authority in this area.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Now, one last area that I wish to deal with with you.

 5             It was put to you yesterday that there was no evidence that

 6     anyone in the MUP thought that Mr. Cermak didn't have authority to issue

 7     P509, which was the order.  You have it there in front of you in the

 8     orders collection.  It was the order, if you recall, of the

 9     15th of August, where the writing states:

10             "From the 15th of August onwards, allow civilians unhindered

11     entry into the town of Knin at all check-points of the military and

12     civilian police on all axis roads to the town."

13        A.   Yes, I see it.

14        Q.   Do you recall that?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   What I'm interested in -- I'm grateful.  Bearing in mind the

17     question that you were asked by Ms. Gustafson --

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   -- what I'm interested in and what we have looked at is the

20     documentary background to this order, and I'd like us to look very

21     briefly at the chain of documents in the series looking at the issue of

22     whether or not anyone in the MUP thought that Mr. Cermak didn't have

23     authority.  I'm going to pull them up quickly onto the screen, the

24     documents which you're familiar with, and ask you whether or not they

25     assist you in answering that question more fully in the round.

Page 24097

 1             MS. HIGGINS:  Now, the first document, please, is D1014.

 2        Q.   As it's coming onto the screen, you will recall this document.

 3     It's a document from Ivo Cipci, dated the 8th of August, and it refers to

 4     there being great pressure to visit the liberated territories.  It's

 5     addressed to the Povratak section of the Ministry of the Interior, and

 6     the text refers to him asking to be provided with precise instructions as

 7     well as your opinion on the aforementioned problem, i.e., who to give

 8     passes to.  Do you recall that document?

 9        A.   Yes, I do, yes.

10             MS. HIGGINS:  The next document is D494, please.

11        Q.   Now, again, as it's coming up, a document from Ivo Cipci, dated

12     the 15th of August.  And you'll recall, Mr. Albiston, this is a document

13     whereby Ivo Cipci submits to the Povratak staff a copy of the pass for

14     entering the garrison issued by Cermak, and it states:

15             "Please reply and confirm the validity of the passes for civilian

16     persons in question."

17             You recall that document?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And you've seen there the writing at the bottom that we looked at

20     in detail in examination-in-chief?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   "Cermak will issue an order on the annulment of travel passes?

23     And freedom of movement"?

24        A.   Yes.

25             MS. HIGGINS:  D495, please.

Page 24098

 1        Q.   Again, this was the pass that was submitted with the writing at

 2     the bottom, which you've looked at before, handwritten.  It states:

 3             "According to the MUP staff announcement, it is valid only for

 4     military personnel and civilians working in the Croatian Army.  I will

 5     inform the staff of the MUP that all passes be revoked until further

 6     notice," et cetera.

 7             And that document should be just coming on your screen now.

 8        A.   Yes, I see that.  Thank you.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             MS. HIGGINS:  And just before we come on to P509, could I have

11     D496 on the screen, please.

12        Q.   A document dated the 15th of August.  Ivo Cipci again:

13             "Please give us urgent directions as to how we should act."

14             And the handwritten part, which you've looked at, in the top

15     right section of the document, which states:

16             "Call the Split-Dalmatia PU and say that Cermak will annul the

17     passes today."

18        A.   Yes.

19             MS. HIGGINS:  The next document, then, is P509, please, which is

20     the order from Ivan Cermak.

21        Q.   And this was a document collection you looked at in that order,

22     Mr. Albiston, in your report?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Yes?

25        A.   Yes.  I have the paper copy here, yes.

Page 24099

 1        Q.   Now, do these documents which I've shown to you assist you in

 2     answering the question more fully as to whether or not anyone within the

 3     MUP was challenging Mr. Cermak's authority?

 4             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Sorry, Your Honour, just the question that

 5     Ms. Higgins was seeking clarification from cross-examination was whether

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

 7     to issue P509 at the time.  I'd just like to clarify that.

 8             MS. HIGGINS:  Well, if Mr. Albiston could bear that question in

 9     mind as well and answer in the round, I'd be grateful.  Thank you.

10             THE WITNESS:  Well, in relation to the question of which I have

11     just been reminded by Ms. Gustafson, I think the original answer I gave

12     was, No, and I think that answer makes sense.

13             This is a permissory dictum, if I can put it that way.

14             To address Ms. Higgins' question about "in the round," I think

15     the answer in relation to what the MUP at the time thought about

16     Mr. Cermak's authority iis that so far as the MUP chain of command was

17     concerned, going down to Mr. Cipci and looking at these documents, they

18     did not believe that General Cermak was playing a role in

19     Operation Povratak insofar as it related to the issue of passes.

20             MS. HIGGINS:  Mr. Albiston, I'm grateful.  I have no further

21     questions for you.

22             And I'm grateful to the Bench for the indulgence of an extra ten

23     minutes or so.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Ms. Higgins.  I think it would be best,

25     unless you'd finish within ten minutes, Mr. Kehoe, that we first have a

Page 24100

 1     break.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I do appreciate it.  I will finish

 3     quickly.  However, I think, in the interests of speed, I have a document

 4     that I'm not sure if the witness has seen or not seen.  It is on the

 5     65 ter list.  It is an 18-page document.  I'm not going to go through the

 6     whole document, Mr. President, but it may be easier, when the questioning

 7     begins, if the witness has the opportunity to take a look at this

 8     65 ter document.  It is 65 ter 2561.

 9             I did not consult with my colleagues yet on this score, but if,

10     with their indulgence, they think this is a proper way, I would

11     appreciate it.  And, again, I think we might be able to move more quickly

12     in that fashion.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson.

14             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No objections to that, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.

16             Then we'll first have a break, Mr. Albiston, not until I've given

17     Mr. Kuzmanovic an opportunity to address the Chamber.

18             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I similarly would -- it

19     would be more expeditious.  I have a document, which is a Defence

20     exhibit, D692.  It would make my cross-examination probably even much

21     shorter if Mr. Albiston would have a chance to review that document.

22     It's very -- it's not very long, Your Honour.  It's a quick read.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Albiston, you've informed us about the

24     number of documents you've looked at.  From now on -- you said 2.000 to

25     3.000, or 2.000 to 4.000.  It will now be 2.001 to 4.001, or even 2.002

Page 24101

 1     to 4.002.  You'll be provided with the documents.

 2             We'll take a break, and we'll ask you to work during that break

 3     and read those documents.

 4             We'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, are you ready to -- well, to further

 8     examine Mr. Albiston?

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President, I am.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Albiston, you'll now be further examined by

11     Mr. Kehoe.  Mr. Kehoe is counsel for Mr. Gotovina.

12             Please proceed.

13                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:

14        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Albiston.

15        A.   Good morning, Mr. Kehoe.

16        Q.   Just a couple of issues.  The first issue I would like to clarify

17     is a series of questions that you were asked by Ms. Gustafson yesterday,

18     and this would be at page 24.033, line 25, going on to 24.034.  And I

19     read those numbers out for the purposes of the Chamber and parties,

20     Mr. Albiston, but I'll read you the question and answer.

21             "Q.  So when you said, 'An examination of the documents in the

22     case reveals that responsibility for the prevention of crime lay with the

23     MUP,' would it be better to clarify that to be civilian crime?"

24             And your answer is:

25             "Yes, the investigation of crime, until such time as it is

Page 24102

 1     demonstrated that, in fact, it doesn't involve elements over which the

 2     civilian police can exercise that authority."

 3             If I could just clarify that a bit and put it in practical terms.

 4     The MUP has primary responsibility for crime until it is demonstrated

 5     that, for instance, a member of the HV was involved, and once it is

 6     demonstrated that a member of the HV is involved, primacy then turns to

 7     the military police; is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Now, the next issue I would like to address with you is -- and

10     these are meshed to some degree, but it has to do with the burial

11     procedures, the pathological examinations, the autopsy examinations, that

12     you referred to in the round with Ms. Gustafson.  And did you have a

13     chance to take a look at that document that I referred you to, that

14     18-page document, 65 ter 2561?

15        A.   Yes, I did, sir.

16        Q.   Okay.  We don't need to bring that up, but we're going to get to

17     that, so -- it's an 18-page document, and I'm sure you understand why it

18     was beneficial to take a look at it.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Had you seen that document before today, sir?

21        A.   No, I had not, sir.

22        Q.   Okay.  Now, you were asked a series of questions by

23     Ms. Gustafson, and why don't I just go through these very quickly, your

24     response.  And if we could break it up a little bit, and please break-in

25     at any point if I'm either moving too fast or -- which I tend to do, or

Page 24103

 1     you want to explain something.  And this -- I would like to begin this

 2     questioning and your answers at 24.040, beginning at line 22.  And

 3     Ms. Gustafson asked:

 4             "Now, on the issue of the procedure to be undertaken with dead

 5     bodies, you are aware, are you not, based on the evidence that you have

 6     reviewed, that a procedure was implemented after Operation Storm whereby

 7     dead bodies were treated as if they were combat victims, no on-site

 8     investigations were carried out in most cases, and the corpses were

 9     collected, identified where possible, and buried without conducting an

10     investigation to determine the cause of death; is that right?  Did you

11     learn that?

12             "A.  It seems clear to me, from the documents, that that happened

13     on a significant number of occasions, yes."

14             Just turning -- Ms. Gustafson further clarified that, and we're

15     going to break that question up a little bit, Mr. Albiston, when we get

16     to the documents.

17             MR. KEHOE:  But if I can refer the Chamber and my colleagues to

18     24 -- excuse me, 24.043 at line 11.

19        Q.   "Q.  And would you agree now that not investigating killing

20     victims is a defect in that system?"

21             Answer at line 13:

22             "Well, as I stated in evidence, in ideal circumstances every

23     death which does not have a certificate and an explanation should be

24     treated by the police as a suspicious death and investigated accordingly,

25     until such time it is found to be otherwise.  I am not sure that was

Page 24104

 1     entirely practical in these circumstances, but I do accept your

 2     suggestion that there were bodies buried in circumstances which I, as a

 3     police officer, would wish had not happened, because I think even bodies

 4     with some element of decomposition may yield information to

 5     investigators."

 6             Now, if I can go through --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  You were reading, Mr. Kehoe.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.  I'm sitting here in the back

 9     row, out of practice, so my apologies to the interpreters.

10        Q.   Mr. Albiston, let me take this one by one and go into the alleged

11     procedure that was presented by the Office of the Prosecutor on the

12     examination of bodies.

13             And if I can have you look at D235.

14             Now, Mr. Albiston, well, the other document that I gave you was

15     much more lengthy.  This is only a two-page document.  Again, I'm not

16     sure if you've seen this before, dated 7 August 1995.

17        A.   Yes, I have seen this document, Mr. Kehoe.

18        Q.   Yes.  Now, in the first full paragraph after the agenda and the

19     numbers, it notes that:

20             "Since in the area of army activity war operations are being

21     conducted, it is crucial to carry out clearing up the terrain in that

22     area, and it is our task to carry out the identification of persons in

23     the prescribed manner, and it is not necessary to conduct on-site

24     investigations."

25             Now, you know, based on your examination of the documents,

Page 24105

 1     Mr. Albiston, that this was a decision that was made virtually on the

 2     heels of Operation Storm, where there was concern about bodies on the

 3     terrain, wasn't there?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And obviously it was August, which adds to decomposition and also

 6     adds to possibilities of disease, et cetera, prior to bodies being

 7     properly buried?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And I may have misspoke with regard to the date, itself.  This on

10     the 7th of August, when military operations are still ongoing, isn't it?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Now, you described, during the course of your testimony with my

13     colleague, Ms. Higgins, and with my colleague, Ms. Gustafson, about a

14     period of chaos and disarray which ofttimes is present both during combat

15     operations and after combat operations?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Now, with regard to this policy that Ms. Gustafson refers to on

18     page 24.040, about not examining dead bodies that were found, that was

19     not a continuous policy of the Croatian authorities as we moved through

20     August of 1995, was it?

21        A.   It doesn't appear to be, no.

22        Q.   Well, let us bring up on the screen a document that --

23             MR. KEHOE:  65 ter 2561, a Prosecution document.  If we could

24     bring that up on the screen.

25             And, Mr. President, this document, and I say this for the

Page 24106

 1     clarification of the witness, itself [sic], we are -- from time to time,

 2     as we take them off e-court, there are documents with highlighting on

 3     these documents, and I do believe that as we see from the document on the

 4     screen, not so much on page 1, but certainly it begins on page 2, there

 5     is highlighting, and I just want to tell the Court we did not put that --

 6     I certainly did not put that on there.  It was just on there when I took

 7     it out of e-court.

 8        Q.   I believe, Mr. Albiston, you can see some faded highlighting in

 9     the document that you have.

10        A.   Yes.  Mr. Kehoe, I read this document during the break.  I didn't

11     pay any attention to which areas were highlighted and which were not.

12        Q.   That's fine, sir.  Now, just looking through this document, this

13     is -- tell us about this document, Mr. Albiston.  I mean, what did you

14     see in this document, what did you conclude from this document about the

15     procedures that were employed in this document, which is a 31 August 1995

16     report concerning the discovery of dead bodies in the territory liberated

17     during Operation Storm in the Sibenik Police Administration?

18        A.   The first thing I can say is that I have not seen this document

19     previously.  From a professional police point of view, it's quite an

20     impressive document.  I would say it increases my professional esteem for

21     those who were conducting the operations which are described in the

22     document.

23        Q.   Now, if we could just look at a couple of items, and certainly I

24     don't intend to go through 18 pages of this document with you,

25     Mr. Albiston.  But in the preamble paragraph, it -- in the first page,

Page 24107

 1     this document is being sent, as you can see, by the crime police, and

 2     I think you can see it on the upper right-hand corner in the stamp that

 3     it's being sent to the District Public Prosecutor's Office in Sibenik.  I

 4     don't know if that's abundantly clear, but you see the stamp in the upper

 5     right-hand corner.  There it is, there it is, that stamp.  It's being

 6     sent by the crime police to the District Public Prosecutor's Office, and

 7     this, we see in the preamble paragraph, it talks about these are bodies

 8     discovered during Operation Storm in both Sector North and Sector South.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Now, the next -- if we can turn to the next page, again in the

11     preamble paragraph -- in the first paragraph, excuse me, they are

12     bringing to the pathology wards both civilians and combat casualties, are

13     they not, sir?

14        A.   Absolutely.

15        Q.   If we can turn to page 7 of the document -- excuse me, page 6.

16     Apologies.  Now, these are bodies just globally found between -- the

17     document reflects between the 4th of August and, I believe, the last one

18     is -- in this report, in any event, is the 19th of August of 1995.  And

19     just if we go through the 16 and 17, we highlight civilians, or they're

20     certainly identified of a civilian age, and they come from Kistanje.  Do

21     you see that?  They're taken from the pathology department in Kistanje?

22        A.   Yes, I see that, yeah.

23        Q.   Now, if we can turn to the next page, and I'm interested in

24     entry 22.  Now, this is a report of 8 August 1995 involving a member of

25     the ARSK named Nikola Vranjkovic.  Now, it notes that he was wounded, and

Page 24108

 1     I'm talking about the last paragraph in 22, he was wounded by several

 2     projectiles fired during the night of 5 and 6 August, 1995, while combat

 3     actions in the Skradinsko Zaledje - pardon my pronunciation - were

 4     ongoing.  He was transferred to the hospital by HV members in an

 5     ambulance on 6 August 1995.  An external examination of the body and the

 6     autopsy were performed by Dr. Boris Brkic.

 7             If we can turn to the top of the next page, and this is the

 8     question I want to ask you about, the top of the next page, Mr. Albiston:

 9             "We have already informed the Military Public Prosecutor's Office

10     of this incident in a special report," it gives the number, "dated

11     10 August 1995."

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Now, that indicates quite clearly from the document that these

14     entities of the crime police are conducting these autopsies and providing

15     information to the appropriate authorities as they see it, be it the

16     public prosecutor, which is a civilian arm, or the military prosecutor,

17     which is a military arm; is that right?

18        A.   That's certainly the inference I would take from this.

19        Q.   In your assessment of that as a professional police officer of

20     many years' experience, how do you conclude?  Is that a proper way to go,

21     proper thing to do under the circumstances, as we find ourselves

22     post-Operation Storm, August 1995?

23        A.   Yes, absolutely.  I think in combat, it's physically impossible

24     to treat all casualties of combat as potential crime scenes or anything

25     of the sort, but this document, which as I said earlier I haven't seen

Page 24109

 1     before, strikes me, in view of the dates to which it relates, as being

 2     quite impressive.

 3        Q.   And you did note in this document of other instances where

 4     information was passed on to the Military Public Prosecutor's Office?

 5        A.   Yes, yes, I read the whole document.  Thank you.

 6        Q.   Now, let me address with you, if I may, your comment about the

 7     practicalities.  And I'm referring to what -- the quote that I had before

 8     of you saying regarding the burial of these bodies was not entirely

 9     practical under the circumstances, and I want to address that issue with

10     you.

11             MR. KEHOE:  But before I do, I would like to offer into evidence

12     65 ter 2561.

13             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No objections.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D01783.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

17             Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

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

19        Q.   If I could just show you a -- several documents which are similar

20     to some of the documents you saw before, especially the map --

21             MR. KEHOE:  And if I could bring up on the screen D806.

22             And, Mr. President, just by way of clarification, I use this

23     document -- and if we could have the English translation.  I believe it

24     is the -- my colleague, Ms. Higgins, introduced a similar map with

25     basically similar lines under 65 ter 2D00789.  I was looking in e-court.

Page 24110

 1     I didn't see an admission on that.  I may be mistaken, but as I was

 2     pulling it up from the records, was it just given an MFI number of 1778

 3     or -- but this document, itself, was --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, could you assist us?

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  65 ter 2D00789 was given

 6     Exhibit D01778, marked for identification.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  I'll use this document, Judge, but therein was my

 8     confusion.  And I can just use this for the purposes of this examination.

 9     The point will be the same.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we'll have to check why it was marked for

11     identification.  I don't remember, but perhaps you could assist us,

12     Ms. Higgins.

13             MS. HIGGINS:  I do.  I gave the Prosecution an opportunity to

14     check the contents of the map, and I understand Ms. Gustafson said she

15     had no problem with it.  So, of course, that can be on the record and the

16     exhibit number corrected in due course from MFI.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then the status of this document could already

18     be changed now into an exhibit.  That is, it is admitted into evidence.

19             Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

20             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. President.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps for the record, I should clearly state that

22     D1788 is admitted into evidence.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I think -- is it 1788 or 17 -- excuse

25     me, I'm sorry, 1788.  My apologies.  Yes.

Page 24111

 1        Q.   Now, Mr. Albiston, this is a map quite similar to what you looked

 2     at, and what we have on the left-hand side is the Zadar-Knin

 3     Police Administration, with the green line in the middle being the

 4     liberated territory post-Operation Storm.  And I believe, from the maps

 5     you had before, that virtually within 24 hours, the Zadar-Knin

 6     Police Administration Crime Police Section had another almost

 7     6.000 kilometres to -- square kilometres to take care of; is that right?

 8        A.   Yes.  I think on one of the maps I saw the figure was a little

 9     over 5.000 square kilometres, but I wouldn't quibble about the exact

10     magnitude.  Very large, I would say.

11        Q.   And --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, sorry to interrupt you again.

13             Where I sought to avoid confusion, I may have created confusion,

14     because we now have D1778 and D1788, and I picked the wrong one to be

15     admitted into evidence.  It is D1778 which is now admitted into evidence.

16     There was some confusion on the record.  I interrupt you because

17     otherwise if it comes a few pages further down, then people might be

18     misled by that.

19             Please proceed.

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

21        Q.   Now, I want to talk to you about some of the practical

22     circumstances here and highlight those.

23             The Trial Chamber had the testimony of the public prosecutor,

24     Mr. Galovic, who told us at page 19.677, line 5, to 19.678, line 4, that

25     there were three investigative judges for the Zadar-Knin

Page 24112

 1     Police Administration prior to Operation Storm and after Operation Storm.

 2     Mr. Kardum, who you've referred to previously on occasion, noted for us

 3     that, and this is at page 9.325 to 9.326, line 6, that -- I'll just read

 4     the question to you.  Question on page 9.326:

 5             "Q.  Mr. Kardum, I think it's abundantly clear now on the record,

 6     but just to be certain, you had only 12 crime scene examiners

 7     subordinated to you during August of 1995; correct?  And if you could

 8     answer yes or no, that would be very helpful.

 9             "A.  That is correct."

10             On the prior page, this is 9.325, line 16, at line 16:

11             "The 12 crime scene examiners that I had in my police force prior

12     to the Oluja were taken over -- they took over -- in addition to the

13     regular duties which they normally did, they also took over assignments

14     in the POW holding centre and partly also supported the sanitation

15     effort."

16             Now, as we go through the clearing up of these bodies, as an

17     expert, consider for us and discuss with us, Mr. Albiston, the fact that

18     the same three investigative judges now had well in excess of

19     5.000 square kilometres to take care of.  I think you talked about the

20     geographical distances.  And then you had the same 12 crime police

21     investigators who had that same area, while also having to deal with

22     prisoners of war and other matters.  I mean, what is the practical effect

23     and the strain on a police department to have to cover that type of area

24     while also crossing their T's and dotting their I's with you, if you

25     will, with every body that may be found in August of 1995?  Could you

Page 24113

 1     tell us and help us with that?

 2        A.   I think the level of work generated, the distances to be

 3     travelled, the potential difficulties which would be involved in routing

 4     day-to-day travel at this period, and the numbers of persons involved

 5     measures against the numbers of jobs which they were being asked to do,

 6     is, by itself, a problem, and I think it doesn't need me to make a

 7     professional judgement or a guess.  I think it comes through the

 8     documents that these people were extremely busy.

 9             And I think it may be worth remembering that when we're talking

10     about crime scene examination, it's something rather more than going and

11     taking photographs of a physical place or a body in a place.  If we take,

12     for example, the case of a suspected unlawful killing, the scene of the

13     death will be a crime scene.  The body of the victim will be a crime

14     scene and will continue to be a crime scene as it is in transit.  And

15     when it is in the hospital or the -- whatever other place a post-mortem

16     examination is carried out, the suspect or suspects will themselves be

17     crime scenes that need to have forensic examination.  And if the police

18     officers and the forensic investigators are not very careful about how

19     they behave, they will, themselves, become potentially crime scenes.  So

20     it's a very elaborate and difficult procedure, and it requires sufficient

21     resources to address the numbers of cases which it's being asked to

22     address.

23        Q.   So if we talk about this in very practical terms, using the map

24     that's on the screen, hypothetically we have a body in Korenica in the

25     north, a body in Donji Lapac -- the "D. Lapac" is Donji Lapac, a body in

Page 24114

 1     Kijevo, a body in Kistanje, assume that the sanitation teams found these

 2     bodies in these various locations, and you have three investigative

 3     judges with 12 crime scene -- excuse me, 12 members of the crime police

 4     who have all these other duties, what, as a practical matter under these

 5     conditions are the sanitation teams supposed to do under the

 6     circumstances?

 7        A.   Well, I think you're asking your senior officers to exercise good

 8     qualities of leadership and to establish priorities.  And I notice, from

 9     the document which you showed me, Mr. Kehoe, that one of the questions

10     which is addressed in the official form for setting out the response to

11     this, it comes towards the back of the document which you gave me, gives

12     an opportunity to explain why an investigating judge was or was not

13     present at the scene of an on-site investigation, and, you know, the

14     judge was not available or could not attend is one of the explanations as

15     to why the on-site investigation can be carried on in his or her absence.

16     I imagine that in these circumstances, that might be invoked from time to

17     time.

18             If you're discussing all the different areas in which the bodies

19     can be found in the month of August in Croatia, then these people would

20     have been very busy and, I hope, moving very quickly from place to place,

21     but it would still have been a big task.

22        Q.   I'm not presenting to you, Mr. Albiston, that the police did

23     everything -- crossed all their T's and did everything -- crossed all

24     their T's and dotted all their I's perfectly in this.  I'm not presenting

25     that to you.  But I submit to you, is it practical, in this situation,

Page 24115

 1     with all of the problems that you raise, command and control,

 2     communications, chaos, getting control of the area, was it practical to

 3     conduct a crime scene investigation for every body that a sanitation team

 4     found with only three investigative judges and twelve members of the

 5     crime police?

 6        A.   Well, in my judgement, no, that wouldn't be possible.

 7        Q.   Mr. Albiston, thank you very much.  I have no further questions.

 8     I appreciate it.

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.

11             Mr. Kehoe, as far as this document is concerned, which the

12     witness read during the break, we see that there are brief descriptions

13     of situations where bodies were brought to a place where they were

14     examined.  Is there any underlying material available?

15             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I will look.  We took this from the

16     Prosecutor's 65 ter list.  I will consult with my colleagues across the

17     well to see if there's additional documentation.  I know that Mr. Misetic

18     was scouring through our database yesterday to see if we could find

19     additional documents.  We did not find any.  That being said, I'm not

20     saying that they're not there, but we will take -- make additional

21     efforts to find supporting documentation for this.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic.

23             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  You'll now be further examined, Mr. Albiston, by

25     Mr. Kuzmanovic.  Mr. Kuzmanovic is counsel for Mr. Markac.

Page 24116

 1             Please proceed.

 2                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Kuzmanovic:

 3        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Albiston.

 4        A.   Good morning, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

 5        Q.   Page 55 of your report describes your experience in Kosovo as

 6     United Nations police commissioner from 2001 to 2002 --

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   -- where you were responsible for the command and control of

 9     4500 police officers and the development of a multi-ethnic police force;

10     correct?

11        A.   That's correct.

12        Q.   Now, you had obviously, then, some experience in formation of a

13     police force and the implementation or the attempts to continue the

14     implementation of law and order in a post-conflict area; correct?

15        A.   Absolutely, yes.

16        Q.   The -- you had mentioned during the course of your

17     cross-examination and re-examination by Ms. Higgins the

18     Operation Povratak; correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   You are familiar with what Operation Povratak is, are you not?

21        A.   Well, insofar as it relates to the documents which I've seen,

22     yes.

23        Q.   Yes.  And Operation Povratak was the Croatian Ministry of

24     Interior's attempt to set forth and establish law and order on the newly

25     liberated territories; correct?

Page 24117

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And is there anything that you saw about Operation Povratak which

 3     would lead you to believe that there was any flaw or anything wrong,

 4     obviously other than the limitation in resources, in its implementation?

 5        A.   No.  Limitation of resources, that's a matter for a government.

 6     That is -- that is the only way that I could see that improvements could

 7     have been achieved through -- from civilian policing perspective.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's request:  Could we slow down a

 9     little, please.

10             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I apologise.  It's been a while.

11        Q.   So in essence, Operation Povratak, from your review of the

12     documents that you saw, represented to you, at least, a legitimate

13     attempt by the Croatian government to restore or create a situation in

14     which there could be law and order in the post-conflict situation?

15        A.   Certainly insofar as it relates to civilian policing and the

16     establishment of civilian law and order, the documents which I saw

17     indicate that there was a thorough attempt to achieve that, yes.

18        Q.   Now, over the break you had a chance -- or we gave you the

19     opportunity to review what has been marked and previously admitted into

20     evidence D692.  Did you have a chance to review that, Mr. Albiston?

21        A.   I did, yes, sir.

22        Q.   Had you had a chance or were you familiar with the contents of

23     D692 before looking at it today?

24        A.   I'm not sure whether I actually -- well, I certainly didn't read

25     it as a Chamber document for this Chamber.  I may have read it in my

Page 24118

 1     previous work.  I'm certainly familiar with the subject matter which it

 2     deals with.

 3        Q.   Okay.  And just for the benefit of the Chamber and the record,

 4     this is a December 1999 report prepared by Mr. Bernard Kouchner, relating

 5     to the situation of the attempts to restore law and order to Kosovo prior

 6     to your coming there in 2001; correct.

 7        A.   That's correct.

 8        Q.   If we look at page 6 of that report --

 9             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  And if we could pull that up on the screen,

10     please.

11        Q.   The third paragraph that starts, "We are deeply concerned ..."

12     The paragraph begins:

13             "We are deeply concerned about the situation of minorities.  A

14     close look at the trend in crime shows a clear improvement.  A drop from

15     50 murders during each of the first weeks to 3 murders last week cannot

16     be ignored."

17             Now, at the particular time that this report was written,

18     Mr. Albiston, the -- Kosovo was essentially being administered or policed

19     by an international police force; correct?

20        A.   That's correct, yes.

21        Q.   So during the time of an international police force's activities

22     inside Kosovo, at least at some point there were 50 murders a week that

23     had eventually dropped to 3?

24        A.   That's correct, yes.

25        Q.   Now, you had a chance to review a great deal of documentation,

Page 24119

 1     and obviously you were not in Sector South or in the liberated

 2     territories immediately after Operation Storm, but at least from the

 3     documents was it your observation that the situation had improved after

 4     the restoration of the civilian police authorities or the implementation

 5     of Operation Povratak within the former Sector South, there was an

 6     improvement in the situation in terms of the nature and extent of the

 7     killings and crimes?

 8        A.   Insofar --

 9             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Sorry, Your Honour.  I don't --

10             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I'll rephrase it.

11             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Improvement from what --

12             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  It was a confusing question, and I'll repeat the

13     question.

14        Q.   Mr. Albiston, I think you probably understood the gist of my

15     question, but I'll try to make it a little less confusing.

16             It's obvious that -- or you can tell me.  Did you detect an

17     improvement in the situation, the crime police, the level of crime, the

18     amount of crime that went on within Sector South, after

19     Operation Povratak?  Was there an improvement, or did the amount of crime

20     increase, did it decrease?  Can you tell me that, from your review of the

21     documents?

22        A.   Yes, I can say that the situation during the period which I

23     reviewed improved.  And if you're drawing my attention to comparisons

24     with Kosovo, I think it would be fair to say that it improved more

25     quickly in the area which this Chamber is considering than it did in the

Page 24120

 1     area for which I had responsibility subsequently.

 2        Q.   And can you explain that briefly?

 3        A.   Well, yes.  The killings, despite the presence of a significant

 4     KFOR military operation and a gradually increasing civilian police

 5     operation, continued in Kosovo for some time after what might be

 6     considered the watershed of June 1999.  The nature of the killings

 7     changed, the nature of the criminality changed, and there was a steady

 8     reduction, but the difficulties, in my assessment, persisted longer than

 9     the difficulties in the area which the Chamber is considering after

10     Operation Storm.

11        Q.   Mr. Albiston, if we look at page 6 again, toward the bottom of

12     this document, if we could -- the last paragraph, please.  The first

13     sentence, and this is referring to Kosovo, it says:

14             "It took 15 years in Lebanon to achieve reconciliation.  It

15     cannot be done here," meaning Kosovo, "in six months."

16             After your experience in Kosovo, and having dealt with

17     implementing a policing system, and being responsible for the operational

18     control and command of police officers, can you compare and contrast the

19     situation relating to reconciliation in Kosovo to the situation in

20     Sector South, if you can do so with respect to the documents that you

21     reviewed?

22        A.   I'm not sure that I'm in a position to comment on community

23     relations in the Sector South area on the basis of the documents that I

24     have seen.  My knowledge of that would be very scant by comparison to my

25     knowledge of the other theatre.

Page 24121

 1        Q.   Okay, fair enough.  The last question I'd like to ask you --

 2     actually, the second-last question relates to the last page of this

 3     particular report.  Under "Conclusions" -- we'll wait for it to come up

 4     on the screen.

 5             Before we get to that, you had seen -- you had been to the area

 6     of Sector South; correct?

 7        A.   I have, yes.  I was there during April for a few days,

 8     April 2008.

 9        Q.   And Mr. Kehoe had showed you on the map, I think it was D806 and

10     there's no need for us to call it up right now, but the extent to which

11     the increase in size had happened for the Zadar-Knin

12     Police Administration; correct?  You had seen that on the map?

13        A.   Oh, yes, I've seen the map, yes.

14        Q.   And one of the factors, in terms of policing and investigations

15     and processing of crime, has to do with the nature of the terrain, does

16     it not?

17        A.   Oh, certainly.

18        Q.   And you had an opportunity to experience that terrain, did you

19     not?

20        A.   I did, yes.

21        Q.   Can you describe for the Chamber, as -- I assume you'd never been

22     there before.

23        A.   I'd been in Croatia before, but I'd never been to the Knin area

24     before.

25        Q.   Can you describe for the Chamber the nature and extent of the

Page 24122

 1     terrain and what difficulties it would present from a policing

 2     standpoint?

 3        A.   Well, certainly.  The terrain is mountainous.  The quality of the

 4     roads, when I visited them, was not good, and I have no reason to suppose

 5     that the quality of the roads was any better 13 years previously,

 6     certainly at the end of a military campaign, in view of the use of mines,

 7     shells, and the presence of heavy armoured vehicles and so on.  It's

 8     unlikely, in my view, to have been better.  So movement by road would be

 9     comparatively slow, and I think I've alluded earlier in my evidence to

10     what problems that might generate.  It also is not just a question of how

11     quickly you get to a scene because of what we talked about in relation to

12     crime scenes, suspects, witnesses, and so on, but it also inhibits the

13     amount of work that you can get done during the working day.

14        Q.   Now, Mr. Albiston, I'll go back to the conclusion in this

15     document, D692.  The last -- the first paragraph of the conclusion

16     states, and this is in December of 1999:

17             "It is clear that the deficiency in the law enforcement

18     capability provided by the international community and the lack of

19     sufficient assistance in the administration of justice has fostered the

20     climate within which human rights violations documented in this report

21     have taken place.  Impunity for the acts committed has resulted from

22     failures to conduct serious investigations, and this impunity, in turn,

23     has perpetuated the violence."

24             Now, I wanted to ask you, specifically, in that paragraph, in

25     relation to your experience in Kosovo and trying to relate that

Page 24123

 1     experience to what you've reviewed for your expert testimony in this

 2     case.

 3             It's true, is it not, that at the time this report was written,

 4     and you've testified that it was the international community that was,

 5     for lack of a better term, responsible for the policing at that time --

 6        A.   Oh, it certainly was, yes.  It's provided by the United Nations

 7     resolution.  It's set out in 1244 of 99 that the responsibility for the

 8     administration of the province of Kosovo fell to the United Nations, and

 9     responsibility for policing it fell to civilian police provided by

10     contributing countries of the United Nations.

11        Q.   And it's true, is it not, that in your experience, at least in

12     your review of the documents, that once the territory in Croatia was

13     expanded for the Zadar-Knin Police Administration, there were many, if

14     not the majority of those officers, that were not familiar with the new

15     expanded territory, and the roads, and the places, and the -- where the

16     events occurred; correct?

17        A.   Yes, certainly, there is evidence which I reviewed which shows

18     precisely that.

19        Q.   And the same situation that you had in Kosovo, people who were

20     not familiar with the roads, were not familiar with the places, you had

21     that same situation there?

22        A.   Oh, we were all -- we were all foreigners, yes.  Well, all the

23     internationals, obviously, were foreigners.

24        Q.   Mr. Albiston, I don't have any further questions.  Thank you very

25     much.

Page 24124

 1             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

 3                           Questioned by the Court:

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Albiston, you read, during the break, this

 5     report, and you said you were -- let me find it.  I think you said you

 6     were impressed.  Let me find your words exactly.  Apparently, you did not

 7     use that word.

 8             THE WITNESS:  I think I said, Mr. President, it increased my

 9     esteem.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             THE WITNESS:  Professional esteem.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll find you.  Yes.  You said:

13             "From a professional police point of view, it's quite an

14     impressive document."

15             So "impressive" was on my mind.  And you said:

16             "I would say it increases my professional esteem for those who

17     were conducting the operations which are described in the document."

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I saw the document only after the break for the

20     first time.  Could you further explain what increased your esteem?  From

21     what I see in this report, that it's mainly bodies brought in for an

22     autopsy were identified, and we find some description of what most likely

23     and sometimes expressly is considered to be the cause of death.  I do not

24     see much police work in that, apart from autopsies and trying to find out

25     or establishing what the identity of that person is.  Could you explain

Page 24125

 1     to me what the -- how impressive this document is without knowing what

 2     other police activities have taken place?

 3        A.   Well, Mr. President, this document was new to me.  It shows

 4     police work being carried out or work which will assist police

 5     investigations being carried out in many cases on dates which are

 6     relatively early during the period which we're considering.  It was, as I

 7     said, one that I haven't seen before, and it's reassuring to know that

 8     these basic procedures are being -- not only being carried out, but being

 9     documented here.

10             There's a case in which a wounded man is taken away, who

11     subsequently dies, but he appears to receive correct treatment.  There

12     are other examples of where the police are trying to describe what the

13     circumstances of the death are, and this seems to me to indicate, in some

14     cases at quite an early stage, attempts to run normal policing, and that

15     is despite the difficulties of achieving that which I suggested in my

16     evidence yesterday.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you agree with me that in many of the reported

18     cases, we do not find that much detail which you would wish to know about

19     the circumstances under which that person died; seeing elderly people

20     being brought in, 75, 80 years, bullet wound, that's it?

21        A.   Yes, but, Mr. President, I don't know from this document whether

22     what we are reading is intended to be a full forensic report on each

23     individual case.  I read it as a summary of a number of cases, I think

24     19 in number or is it -- maybe it goes up to 26, but, anyway, a good

25     number of cases, and that this document doesn't purport to be a detailed

Page 24126

 1     rehearsal of all the evidence in every case.  But maybe I'm wrong.  It's

 2     the first time I've seen it, and I don't know what background material

 3     there may be which enables the author of this document to submit it for

 4     information.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So would you then agree with me that without

 6     knowing why the forensic pathologist comes to the conclusion that someone

 7     was killed -- committed suicide by hand-grenade, what would have been the

 8     reason to believe that it was not someone else throwing a hand-grenade

 9     rather than --

10        A.   Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  -- the person who is, well, considered to have

12     committed suicide, would you agree with me that without knowing the

13     background, that it's rather difficult to give a fair assessment of how

14     sound the police work was and perhaps follow up on what was reported.

15        A.   Well, I would certainly like more information to give a better

16     judgement, but I wouldn't necessarily expect to find that information in

17     this document.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but you say it's quite an impressive document,

19     and you say:

20             "I would say it increases my professional esteem for those who

21     were conducting the operations."

22        A.   Yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  The question that came to my mind is:  I'd like to

24     know more before I could assess the quality of the police work either

25     prior to bringing in the bodies or as a follow-up of what apparently is

Page 24127

 1     established, including elderly people being apparently killed by shot

 2     wounds.  Would you agree with me that for a good assessment, that you'd

 3     wish to know more?

 4        A.   Certainly I would like more information, Mr. President, yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but that's not an answer to my question.  We

 6     all always want to have more information.  Of course, I asked you

 7     whether --

 8        A.   Well, yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- for a sound assessment of the quality of the

10     police work, whether you would need such information.

11        A.   I understand the distinction.  I am impressed that this document

12     exists at all in the circumstances in which we are describing.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And could you explain why that surprises you?

14        A.   Because --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Why it impresses you?

16        A.   Because we discussed yesterday, when Ms. Gustafson was asking the

17     questions, about the quantity and the quality of investigations, and I

18     agreed with Ms. Gustafson that, in my view, some of the achievements of

19     the police -- the civilian police left something to be desired, this

20     document seems to me to -- as the balance goes, it sits on the side of

21     the balance which gives credit to the police, rather than the opposite.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's -- I do understand that.  That's your

23     appreciation of this document.

24             I have no further questions.

25             Ms. Gustafson, you are last in line.

Page 24128

 1             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No questions, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  No questions.

 3             Then, Mr. Albiston, this concludes your testimony in this court.

 4     I'd like to thank you very much for coming and for having answered all

 5     the questions that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench.  And

 6     I wish you a safe journey home again.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Thank you, Court.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Albiston

 9     out of the courtroom.

10                           [The witness withdrew]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I see that the -- yes, Ms. Higgins.

12             MS. HIGGINS:  Sorry to interrupt, Your Honour.  It's just one

13     administrative matter which I'd like to clear up in respect of

14     Mr. Albiston's testimony and a document.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16             MS. HIGGINS:  Your Honour referred yesterday to D505, and we were

17     looking at, firstly, the first letter of that document, and we undertook

18     that we would upload a corrected version.  The Croatian version, as you

19     will remember, said the 19th of September.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MS. HIGGINS:  We have had the document checked, and it will be

22     uploaded today, the English version, so that's corrected.

23             The second-page letter that went with that document, we found is

24     already, in fact, D1041 and bears the correct date in both versions, and

25     again those documents have been checked, if that assists the Court.

Page 24129

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, thank you very much for that.

 2             I nevertheless suggest that we keep the whole of the second page

 3     together with the other documents.  It's -- unless all of it is already

 4     under that other number available.  These were two documents, two

 5     different dates.

 6             MS. HIGGINS:  I agree with Your Honour's --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  So D1041, I think you said.

 8             MS. HIGGINS:  D1041, yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Is that -- apart from that, it bears the

10     correct date, is it also the two-document exhibit or is it just the

11     second one?

12             MS. HIGGINS:  Just the second letter.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Just the second letter.  Then I suggest that for

14     D505, that the correct version of the first page, that is, with the right

15     date on it, as you said was uploaded, and then for the second document,

16     that we have the correct version, as you say, as we find it already in

17     D1041, it will be uploaded again --

18             MS. HIGGINS:  Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  -- will be uploaded as well in D505, so that at

20     least we have proper translations.

21             MS. HIGGINS:  Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And then we have -- at one point we have a double,

23     but I think it's better to leave it that way rather than to change it and

24     to create a puzzle for those who are perhaps at a later time reading the

25     transcript.

Page 24130

 1             MS. HIGGINS:  I'm grateful.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Then is the Cermak Defence -- I see, Mr. Cayley, you

 3     have changed positions.  Is the Cermak Defence ready to call its next

 4     witness?

 5             MR. CAYLEY:  We are, Your Honour.  If I could just raise briefly

 6     two housekeeping matters.  One is relatively straightforward.

 7             This witness has to return to the United Kingdom this weekend, I

 8     told the Trial Chamber, and I just wanted to respectfully remind you.

 9     It's Remembrance Sunday this weekend, and he has to leave sharp at 13.45.

10     He will return on Sunday night to be with the Court again on Monday.  And

11     he simply asked me to respectfully ask you that.

12             The second matter is, and I've spoken to Mr. Hedaraly about this,

13     the witness produced a corrigendum this week in respect of the report

14     that was filed by us in September, and he incorporated the corrections

15     that he made into a version of the report.  We would like to exhibit that

16     version as opposed to the first version because, in essence, it

17     incorporates the corrections.  I've told Mr. Hedaraly that the witness

18     has told me that the only corrections within the new version are those

19     that are referred to in the corrigendum.  It may be that Mr. Hedaraly

20     wants some time to check that.  And if so, it can be marked for

21     identification and then admitted when the Prosecution is content.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

23             MR. HEDARALY:  That's fine, Your Honour.  I think we have started

24     checking, and I don't think there will be a problem, if that's the

25     witness's representation.  We'll just make sure that those are the only

Page 24131

 1     changes.  But I have no objection, in principle, to the corrected report

 2     replacing the report that is now on file, to the extent that the changes

 3     will not result in substantial changes to the -- to also where the --

 4     where the sentences are in the report for the sake of referencing.  And I

 5     understand that the right pages now have been -- there was some issue

 6     with the wrong pages in the corrigendum, but I understand from Mr. Cayley

 7     that that has been fixed, so we should not have any problems with that.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then the revised version, if that's uploaded,

 9     then we'll have that marked for identification until Mr. Hedaraly has

10     finished his part of the job.

11             MR. CAYLEY:  I'm obliged, Your Honour.  Thank you.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Usher, could you please escort the next

13     witness into the courtroom.  I do understand that it's Mr. Deverell.

14             Meanwhile, I do understand that the parties were provided with

15     the new court schedule for early next week, in which more detailed times

16     are given, and that the commitment by the parties, that the evidence of

17     Mr. Deverell will be concluded by Wednesday, is on the basis of this new

18     scheduling scheme.

19             MR. CAYLEY:  Yes, Your Honour.

20                           [The witness entered court]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon.

22             THE WITNESS:  Good afternoon, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon, Mr. Deverell.

24             Mr. Deverell, before I'll invite you to make the solemn

25     declaration, I'd like to explain to you that I commonly address witnesses

Page 24132

 1     by "Mr.," and that's not in any way to be understood as disrespectful for

 2     rank, academic qualifications, et cetera.  It's just the way in which we

 3     address witnesses, the Bench does, address witnesses who are supposed to

 4     give their evidence or their expert evidence, as all other witnesses.

 5             Mr. Deverell, Madam Usher will now hand out to you the text of a

 6     solemn declaration, and I would like to invite you to make that solemn

 7     declaration.

 8             THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

 9     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Deverell.  Please be seated.

11             Mr. Deverell, you'll first be examined by Mr. Cayley, who, as I

12     take it you know, is counsel for Mr. Cermak.  And in order to avoid

13     whatever nervosity, this Chamber will adjourn at a quarter to 2:00 sharp.

14             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

16                           WITNESS:  JACK DEVERELL

17                           Examination by Mr. Cayley:

18        Q.   Just for purposes of the record and before we begin,

19     General Deverell, I have told you this before, but just to remind you,

20     between us our interpreters, who are translating into the French and

21     Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian language, so it's helpful, one, if we both try

22     and speak slowly, but steadily, and, secondly, if you take a break

23     between my question and your answer, and that way they'll keep up with

24     us.

25             Just for the purposes of the record, your name is

Page 24133

 1     General Sir Jack Deverell, and you are a retired British Army general; is

 2     that correct?

 3        A.   That is correct.

 4             MR. CAYLEY:  If, please, we can have in front of you 2D00790,

 5     which is your updated report.

 6        Q.   Am I correct in saying that you incorporated, within this version

 7     of the report, the matters you identified in your corrigendum this week?

 8        A.   I did.

 9        Q.   Is this the report?

10        A.   Yes.

11             MR. CAYLEY:  If, Your Honours, that could be marked for

12     identification.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D01784, marked

15     for identification.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

17             MR. CAYLEY:  And the next document, if we could have 2D00791, and

18     if the witness could be shown the second page and the third page.  And

19     the next page, please.

20        Q.   Is this the corrigendum that you produced for your report this

21     week?

22        A.   Yes, it is.

23        Q.   And they are largely corrections to footnotes; is that right?

24        A.   That is correct.

25        Q.   And there are some textual changes in there, too; is that right?

Page 24134

 1        A.   That is correct.

 2             MR. CAYLEY:  And if I could apply for that to be admitted into

 3     evidence, please.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

 5             MR. HEDARALY:  Maybe I got confused, but if the new report

 6     incorporates all of these changes, I thought that was the reason why we

 7     would admit the new report -- or discuss the new report into evidence, to

 8     obviate the need to have a report and a corrigendum into evidence.  So if

 9     we have the new report which incorporates the corrigendum corrections, I

10     just don't see the purpose in having the corrigendum into evidence.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley.

12             MR. CAYLEY:  I think the purpose of the corrigendum, Your Honour,

13     is to identify the changes that the witness has actually made.  It's in

14     the interests of transparency so that everybody knows what has happened,

15     so I would like it to be admitted into evidence, please.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly, no objections, I take it.

17             MR. HEDARALY:  No.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D01785.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And that document can already be admitted.  It

21     doesn't -- there's not a need to be MFI'd first.  Therefore, it is

22     admitted into evidence.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. CAYLEY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

25             And the last document is 2D00792.

Page 24135

 1        Q.   General Deverell, do you recognise this document?

 2        A.   Yes, I do.

 3        Q.   And what is this document?

 4        A.   It is an additional note which discusses my involvement with the

 5     Cermak Defence team, and also covers some of my other commitments that I

 6     have been involved in during my time whilst I'd been involved in this

 7     particular trial.

 8        Q.   Is this an accurate reflection of all of the contact that you've

 9     had with the Cermak Defence team?

10        A.   Unfortunately, it's not, because I'm afraid, by my own stupidity

11     and inefficiency, I failed to translate from my notes onto the -- onto

12     the actual document one other visit, which I would like to ask the

13     Chamber to allow me to insert, and that is between the 21st and

14     25th of April, 2008, I visited The Hague and attended some court

15     proceedings.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley, this now on the record, so therefore --

17             MR. CAYLEY:  Perfect, Your Honour, yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  -- I don't think that we need a new additional note

19     to be drafted.  May I take it that you want to tender this additional

20     note?

21             MR. CAYLEY:  I would like to tender that document, yes, please,

22     Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly, no objections.

24             Madam Registrar.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D01786.

Page 24136

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 2             Please proceed.

 3             MR. CAYLEY:  If we could just briefly look at the second page.

 4        Q.   This is a fairly self-explanatory document.  What I'd like to

 5     briefly ask you about are the issues related to the original report that

 6     you filed and the work that you were requested to do on the report after

 7     that initial presentation to the team.  Could you explain exactly what

 8     you did?

 9        A.   Yes.  I was asked, because it was felt that the report was too

10     long and contained too much repetition and, therefore, was not as

11     focussed as it -- as it should have been, and I was very happy to accept

12     and agree to that criticism, and therefore I did change the sequence of

13     the report, and I also, as a result, managed to, I hope, remove some of

14     the unnecessary repetition, although some is still there.  And that was

15     really -- that was really it.  It was a removal of repetition and a

16     change in the sequence.

17        Q.   And you specifically refer, in your note, to the discussion about

18     Grubori.  What were you asked to do there?

19        A.   I was asked to remove what you could call my -- my précis of what

20     happened at Grubori, my workings, almost, which was, Mr. Kay said, would

21     be dealt with elsewhere.  I was happy to do that.  It didn't change my

22     conclusions about Grubori, which remain in the report, and neither did

23     it -- clearly did it change my view of that particular incident.  And I

24     was -- I was willing to conform with that request.

25        Q.   And you state, at the end of that particular section on that

Page 24137

 1     page, that the team made it clear from the outset that it was your report

 2     and that you had a duty to ensure that the views represented were yours

 3     and yours alone.  I'm putting it in the sense of referring to you.  Can

 4     you just expand on that a little bit?

 5        A.   Yes.  I was -- I was constantly righted by the team that it was

 6     my duty to reflect my views in my report, and I had no difficulty with

 7     that.  Quite obviously, I knew that was to be my -- that was my duty.

 8     But the team were -- took great pains to make sure that whatever --

 9     whatever discussions that we had, whatever things might have been

10     mentioned, that I had to be -- it had to be my view and I had to be

11     confident that it was entirely my view and it had not been influenced by

12     them.  And as I said, at the end, and it is quite clear, and I mean what

13     I've said, this I have done.

14        Q.   And lastly in this document, on the last page, if we could have

15     the last page, in terms of your other professional obligations, I don't

16     want to go through them with you, but is that an accurate representation

17     of the other activities that you'd been involved in?

18        A.   Yes.  There's the odd smaller thing I'm involved in, but it's

19     insignificant and doesn't influence what I've done in this -- this

20     particular part of my -- my work.

21        Q.   Thank you, General.  In the first part of your report -- do you

22     have your report to hand?

23        A.   I do.

24        Q.   And you also have, I think, the bundle next to you of the

25     footnotes.

Page 24138

 1        A.   I do.

 2        Q.   And what I'm going to do, in order to try and accelerate the

 3     process, is to show you documents on the screen, as opposed to having you

 4     try to go through that bundle of footnotes and trying to find the

 5     documents, which I think is going to take a lot of time.

 6             If you could turn, please, to part 1 of your report, these are

 7     your biographical details.  I do not intend to go through all of the

 8     details of a long and distinguished career.  I simply would like to ask

 9     you some questions that are relevant to this particular evidence that

10     you're giving here today.

11             Is it right that you've commanded at every level in the

12     British Army, up to and including a brigade?

13        A.   Yes, it is.

14        Q.   And it's right to say that between 1997 and 2001, you were the

15     deputy commander of the UK Field Army; is that right?

16        A.   That is true.

17        Q.   And how many men were within the UK Field Army at that time?  And

18     women, I'm sorry.

19        A.   Approximately 75.000.

20        Q.   Between 2001 and 2004, what position did you occupy?

21        A.   I was Commander-in-Chief, Allied Forces, Northern Region, which

22     is a NATO appointment.

23        Q.   And can you very briefly tell the Court what that particular

24     position involved?

25        A.   I was a subordinate commander to the supreme allied commander,

Page 24139

 1     Europe, an American full general.  There were two subordinate commands,

 2     Allied Forces North and Allied Forces South, and I was responsible for

 3     the northern half, which is essentially from the Alps to the North Cape.

 4     It was a command which had no soldiers.  Those soldier-sailors and airmen

 5     would have been assigned to us in the event of a conflict, in the event

 6     of the security of Northern Europe being -- being affected, and it would

 7     have been in the probably hundreds of thousands, the low hundreds of

 8     thousands, as a force.  And I was responsible for three subregional

 9     headquarters, Norway, Denmark and Germany, and two what were called

10     component headquarters, a maritime headquarters in the United Kingdom and

11     an air headquarters in Germany.

12        Q.   And during that period of time, I think you were the operational

13     commander of the first NATO force in Afghanistan.  Is that right?

14        A.   That is correct.

15        Q.   And you commanded that operation from Brunssum, in the

16     Netherlands, from your headquarters in Brunssum --

17        A.   I did.  There was a lieutenant general in Kabul who was

18     conducting the day-to-day operations.  I gave him what was termed

19     operational direction from Brunssum, where my headquarters was located.

20        Q.   Just to go back in time a little bit to talk about operations in

21     which you'd been involved, I think, as a young infantry lieutenant, you

22     served in Aden in 1966.  Is that right?

23        A.   That's correct.

24        Q.   And can you just briefly tell the Court what you were doing

25     there?

Page 24140

 1        A.   Aden was an area of South Yemen, at the end of the

 2     Arabian Peninsula, and we were involved in counter-insurgency operations

 3     against a political -- a series of political militias who were trying to

 4     ensure that the British left the British colony of Aden, and it was

 5     essentially internal security.  It was low-level violence from militias

 6     involving small arms, grenades, et cetera, and more serious violence in

 7     the rural areas.

 8        Q.   From 1969 to 1986, I think you spent a total of six years in

 9     Northern Ireland.  Again, very briefly, can you tell the Court what you

10     were doing and the positions that you occupied?

11        A.   I started off in Northern Ireland commanding a platoon of about

12     30 men, and I finished in 1986 commanding a battalion of some 600 men.

13     The situation in Northern Ireland was extremely confused, especially in

14     the early days, and it was an internal security issue.  There had been a

15     breakdown of law and order.  There was an attempt to change the political

16     structure through violence, and there was a religious -- a religious

17     interface problem as well.  That developed and changed throughout the

18     time.  And in the border areas there was a different form of violence.

19     It was not public violence, it was not public disorder, but it was

20     attacks on security forces, police and soldiers, and also civilians from

21     different religious and political groups.

22        Q.   What experience have you had of dealing with the United Nations

23     during your career?

24        A.   I was once, for four months, the commander of a company of about

25     120 men who had a role on the Green Line in Cyprus, wearing Blue Berets,

Page 24141

 1     as part of the United Nations operation to monitor the cease-fire

 2     arrangements between the Turks and the Greeks.

 3        Q.   What experience in the former Yugoslavia do you have, if any?

 4        A.   Between September and the end of February/beginning of March

 5     1998-1999, I was the deputy commander operations, so I was responsible

 6     for directing the operations of the NATO sustainment force based in

 7     Sarajevo, in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Our job was to ensure, in particular,

 8     that the two-entity armed forces obeyed the Dayton Agreement.

 9        Q.   Thank you, General.  Now let's move into the meat of your report.

10             I'd like to move around, so I'm not going to be going in any

11     order and I will not be asking you --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley, I'm looking at the clock.  Since you are

13     changing subjects, I wonder whether this would be a good time to have a

14     break so that you --

15             MR. CAYLEY:  Of course, Your Honour, I think it's a very good

16     time.  Thank you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll have a break, and we'll resume at a

18     quarter to 1:00.

19                           --- Recess taken at 12.21 p.m.

20                           --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley, you may proceed.

22             MR. CAYLEY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

23        Q.   General Deverell, one last question based on the prior subject

24     that slipped my mind.  Have you had experience, as a senior officer, in

25     dealing with international organisations such as the UN, the ICRC?

Page 24142

 1        A.   Yes, I have, mostly in -- almost entirely in Bosnia-Herzegovina,

 2     when we had a United Nations high representative out there, and I dealt

 3     particularly with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the

 4     International Red Cross and a plethora of other organisations.  And, of

 5     course, I also had some dealings when, in particular, setting up the

 6     operation in Afghanistan, in Kabul.

 7        Q.   Dealing with the same issue, the interface between military

 8     forces and the international community?

 9        A.   Exactly.

10        Q.   If we could now move, as I said before, into the main part of

11     your report, and if you could turn to part 4.  And here you address

12     general principles of command and control and subordination in the armed

13     forces.

14             Are principles of command and control and subordination fairly

15     common across all military forces or are they not?

16        A.   In my experience, they're common across all military forces in,

17     you know, developed countries, with armed forces that look very similar

18     for clear reasons; that armed forces tend to do a similar job, whichever

19     country they belong to.

20        Q.   Now, you refer in your report to something called military

21     doctrine.  Can you explain very briefly to the Judges what you mean by

22     "military doctrine"?

23        A.   Yes, it's the over-arching philosophy which -- from which

24     everything else flows, your structures, the way you approach things, your

25     equipment, the numbers of soldiers you have, the balance between your

Page 24143

 1     navy, army, and air force.  In some countries, doctrine can be rather

 2     prescriptive.  It can tell people what to do.  In other countries,

 3     Britain, for example, doctrine is very much about telling you how to

 4     approach matters, how to think, how to deal with a complex problem, in

 5     terms of how you approach it, which then leads you to take decisions as

 6     to what you will do.

 7        Q.   Can you explain to the Court what you understand "command and

 8     control" to mean?

 9        A.   It used to be just "command," but -- deemed as just "command,"

10     but really since the Second World War the word "command and control" has

11     come in.  The "command" is this sort of -- how can I describe it?  It's

12     the conceptual activity, it's the analysis of a problem, and it is the

13     way a commander and his staff use their intellect and judgement and

14     experience to come up with solutions to complex problems.  The "control"

15     element is the mechanistic element.  It's, of course, radios, it's

16     telephones, it's satellites, it's computer capability, but it is also

17     process and procedure, how many meetings you have, who is in those

18     meetings, what those meetings deal with.  It deals with something we call

19     battle rhythm; that is, the way the staff actually support the commander

20     in his analysis, his decision-making, his planning, and in the

21     implementation of that plan.

22        Q.   Going to part 4(e) of your report, where you address the issue of

23     unity of command and subordination, what do you understand by the meaning

24     of "unity of command"?

25        A.   Well, it is -- it's fundamental.  One of the principles of

Page 24144

 1     military effectiveness is actually unity of purpose.  When you consider

 2     that war is -- conflict is the breakdown of normal processes, the

 3     breakdown of society, if that's the way you wish to define it, then the

 4     military have to find sort of coherent ways of dealing with that, and

 5     therefore it is very important you have this unity of purpose.  And you

 6     can only -- as far as I'm concerned, you can only achieve that if you

 7     have one person responsible for a task, whether that task is a big task

 8     or a small task, and that one person has to have the unity of command.

 9     He has to know who he is commanding, and those who are commanded by that

10     person must understand that they are commanded by that person.  And it is

11     all about tasking.

12        Q.   When you say "it's all about tasking," can you explain what you

13     mean by that?

14        A.   Yes.  A military mission is -- is divided into specific tasks,

15     and people are allocated tasks, and they are obliged to carry out those

16     tasks.  That is the reason they are in command, whether that is command

17     of a large organisation or the command of a platoon or a section of seven

18     or eight men.  And it is very important that that task is clearly

19     defined.  It is sometimes limited in time and space and duration, and, of

20     course, the essential element of the task is that the person has the

21     resources which enable him to do it, or her to do it.  So there is a very

22     strong resource implication there which the commander, the senior

23     commander, has to take into account.

24        Q.   Talking now specifically about subordination, what do you

25     understand "subordination" to mean?

Page 24145

 1        A.   "Subordination" is quite simply the authority given to somebody

 2     to task a person or a group of people, a group of units, in their

 3     command.

 4        Q.   Did you find that the principles of unity of command and

 5     subordination were reflected in Croatian Army doctrine?

 6        A.   They're laid down absolutely clearly.  It's one of the -- one of

 7     the guiding principles.

 8             MR. CAYLEY:  If, please, we could have P1116 [Realtime transcript

 9     read in error "P1186"] on the screen, and it's Article 49 of that

10     document.  I believe it's on page 21 of e-court.  That may not be

11     correct.

12        Q.   Just while we're waiting, General, for the purposes of your

13     report, did you review both JNA and Croatian Army doctrine from the

14     documents that you were provided with?

15        A.   Yes, I did.

16        Q.   Now, if you'll look at the English version on the left-hand side,

17     and if you look at Article 49 --

18             MR. CAYLEY:  Perhaps the screen, Madam Registrar, could be

19     adjusted so that the witness can see the entire English version.

20             MR. HEDARALY:  I'm really sorry, but I read on the transcript it

21     says "P1186."  It's the right document on the screen, but just for later

22     on, so that there's no confusion.

23             MR. CAYLEY:  Thank you, Mr. Hedaraly.  It's P1116.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Hedaraly.

25             Please proceed.

Page 24146

 1             MR. CAYLEY:

 2        Q.   Now, you've covered much of this in what you've already said, but

 3     now looking at it in the perspective of Croatian Army doctrine, do you

 4     have any comments on Article 49?

 5        A.   I can only see half of it still, but I think I can see the most

 6     important bit.  It says clearly that it shall be based on -- sorry, can

 7     you make it smaller?  Thank you.  I can see that, thank you very much.

 8     Thank you.  It says really what I've just commented, that it's based on

 9     the basic principles of unity of command and the obligation to carry out

10     decisions, commands, and orders of a superior.  And I would find that

11     written in different ways in all sorts of documents in guiding military

12     forces in other countries.

13        Q.   And it refers to one superior.  What is the significance of that?

14        A.   That there is one person who must be responsible for a task.

15        Q.   If we could move on, and I'm afraid we're going to have to go

16     backwards a little bit in your report to part 3, where you deal with the

17     normal training and background of general officers.

18             Now, you retired from the British Army as a full general, I think

19     what is sometimes known as a four-star general in NATO terminology.

20     That's right, isn't it?

21        A.   That's correct.

22        Q.   And what I would like to know is the training and experience,

23     very briefly.  And I know that we dealt with your career.  I don't need

24     to repeat your career details, but the training and experience that you

25     had throughout your career in order to rise to the rank of general.

Page 24147

 1        A.   I'm sorry, I wasn't quite -- I didn't quite catch that question.

 2        Q.   What I'd like to ask you is this:  Obviously, you've referred to

 3     your biographical --

 4        A.   Yeah.

 5        Q.   -- details.  I don't need to go through that again, but what I'd

 6     like you to outline to the Judges is the training and --

 7        A.   I see.

 8        Q.   -- experience that you've had throughout your career to get from

 9     the lowest which you were in the army to a full general.

10        A.   Your Honour, there's essentially three levels of military

11     training, and again these tend to be common throughout certainly Europe

12     and the United States and other similar areas.  The first is the basic

13     level, the foundation training, which is teaching young officers, men and

14     women, how to command their soldiers at the tactical level, and it

15     introduces them to military law, administration, logistics, welfare.  It

16     provides the foundation knowledge they need.  Depending how successful

17     they are in that, you then get, after about ten years, to a third

18     level -- I'm sorry, a second level, which is really preparing you for

19     more important posts up to and including lieutenant colonel, perhaps

20     working in a superior headquarters or a Ministry of Defence, and you

21     start then getting into the implementation of higher-level policy and, of

22     course, command at a higher level.  And then for a relatively few number

23     of officers, there is a third level which -- for which you can be

24     selected, and that takes you into the political-military interface.  It

25     prepares you for senior command appointments, two-, three, or four-star,

Page 24148

 1     to use the NATO terminology.  You will be trained amongst civilians --

 2     with civilians and civil servants, sometimes the police, and it is

 3     focussing you -- focussing on trying to train you in order to create

 4     policy rather than merely implement it.

 5        Q.   How many years' training have you been through during your entire

 6     career, do you think?

 7        A.   I don't know exactly, but I would suggest that probably I've

 8     probably done something like six years' full-time training on courses

 9     over four months in duration in my 40-odd years, including initial

10     officer training.

11             MR. CAYLEY:  If we could please have D1007 on the screen.

12        Q.   Now, I'm right in saying, General, while we're waiting for that

13     to come on the screen, that you were provided with some information, with

14     information that the Cermak Defence team had on Mr. Cermak's background,

15     were you not?

16        A.   I was.

17        Q.   Now, this is a decree, first of all, posting Mr. Cermak to be a

18     reserve officer of the Croatian Armed Forces.  And if we could scroll

19     down, I think there is a second document within that, and this is a

20     decree on appointment.  Do you -- can you see that clearly?

21        A.   I can, thank you.

22        Q.   And you've seen this document before?

23        A.   Yes, I have.

24        Q.   Now, the rank of colonel general, does that rank exist in the

25     British Army?

Page 24149

 1        A.   Not by that name.  It's the equivalent, I believe, of lieutenant

 2     general.

 3        Q.   Now, if we could go back to the first document.  Do you refer to

 4     this document in your report?

 5        A.   Yes, I do.

 6        Q.   Now, the particular part that I'd like to know if you know

 7     anything about is where it says:

 8             "To the rank of colonel general, administrative service."

 9             Does that phrase mean anything to you, "administrative service"?

10        A.   Not specifically, but it says -- what it says to me, clearly, is

11     that General Cermak's future employment should be limited to

12     administration of some sort within -- within an administrative area, no

13     doubt because of his previous experience.

14        Q.   Now, in terms of the study that you made of Mr. Cermak's

15     background, can you make any comment to the Court on how qualified you

16     felt he was for the position of colonel general in the Croatian

17     Armed Forces?  As a military man, I'm speaking here specifically.

18        A.   Well, from the evidence I saw, from the documents I read, I found

19     no evidence that he had ever been in the army in a meaningful way; that

20     he'd been a general because he was the assistant chief of logistics,

21     because that is what the Croatian government did, and that he had had

22     none of the experience that I would have thought would have been required

23     for somebody to be given the sort of -- or to be given an active role in

24     the Croatian military.  I think I say in my report he was uniquely

25     unqualified.

Page 24150

 1        Q.   Sorry, uniquely unqualified for what?

 2        A.   For a military role.

 3        Q.   Can we now please look at part 6 of your report.  Do you have

 4     that in front of you?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And this is addressing the subjects of garrisons, generally,

 7     Knin Garrison and the Croatian Army garrison commander.

 8             General, have you ever been a garrison commander?

 9        A.   I have.  Between 1988 and 1991, when I was commanding a brigade,

10     I was also the garrison commander.

11        Q.   Now, can you explain to the Court what a garrison commander is?

12        A.   I say in my report garrisons to armies are to armies what ports

13     are to navies, and that is true.  They are the sort of -- the static base

14     from which operational units are deployed to train or to conduct

15     operations, wherever those operations might be.  They're the place where

16     the families, if there are families, live and are looked after.  They're

17     the place where they leave their equipment behind to be looked after

18     which they're not taking on operations.  There are a mass of other issues

19     which are required, and other resources and capabilities which are

20     required to maintain those units, to give them the support they require,

21     both administrative and training support, whilst they are there or whilst

22     they are deployed elsewhere.  They are the essential underpinning of your

23     military effectiveness.

24        Q.   Are they peacetime or wartime structures?

25        A.   They are, in my experience, peacetime structures.

Page 24151

 1        Q.   Now, have you looked at Croatian Army doctrine on garrisons?

 2        A.   I have.

 3             MR. CAYLEY:  If we could please have Exhibit D32, and this will

 4     be page 11.  I'm told by my case manager it's page 13.

 5        Q.   Have you seen this document before, General?

 6        A.   Yes, I have.

 7        Q.   And is it referred to in your report?

 8        A.   It is referred to in my report.

 9        Q.   Now, first of all, in terms of comparing the garrisons that

10     you're familiar with to the garrisons at least you saw from the

11     regulations in Croatia, are they similar or dissimilar?

12        A.   No, I think that that represents what I would have expected to

13     see, in general terms, in dealing with other garrisons, and British

14     garrisons, for that matter.

15        Q.   Now, looking at Article 52:

16             "The garrison commander is responsible for placement, order,

17     discipline, and service in the garrison."

18             Now, I want to essentially break this sentence down and then go

19     to the next sentence.  What do you understand by the meaning of the word

20     "placement"?

21        A.   That is a word, I believe, which is used to mean billeting or

22     accommodation, and we would have used the word "accommodation."

23        Q.   Accommodation for what?

24        A.   For soldiers, and their families, no doubt, but essentially for

25     soldiers.

Page 24152

 1        Q.   And then dealing with "order, discipline -- order, discipline ...

 2     in the garrison," what do you understand that to mean in terms of the

 3     garrison commander?

 4        A.   "Order" I take it to mean -- and to a degree it's linked to

 5     service.  "Order" is all about providing the services required in the

 6     garrison, those support services.  For example, it might be eating

 7     arrangements.  It might be refurbishment capabilities, the repair of

 8     vehicles.  And the "order" bit is that those capabilities -- those

 9     resources are properly managed, that they are opened at times when it is

10     convenient to those that are you supporting, the units, to make use of

11     them, and that they are properly organised, that they're properly

12     sustained, and that the units, themselves, know that perhaps their slot

13     is between 9.00 and 10.00 in the morning and another unit goes there

14     between 10.00 and 11.00, so you don't get overcrowding.  That is the

15     meaning, in my mind, of "order."  It is the good ordering of the

16     resources and the people who work for the garrison commander who are

17     responsible for running those resources -- those capabilities.

18             "Discipline" is what underpins it.  It is the capacity of a

19     commander to impose those rules on people and have the ability to

20     sanction them if they break those rules.  "Service," as I've said, is

21     linked with "order," and I think in this instance it means that the

22     garrison is supposed to provide a 24-hour service; for example, a duty

23     officer who can be used to deal with whatever incidents might occur

24     during your 24-hour period.

25        Q.   You've stated in your answer that essentially these terms apply

Page 24153

 1     to eating arrangements, refurbishment capabilities, repair of vehicles.

 2     What kinds of facilities are these?

 3        A.   They're largely static facilities, and they're logistic support

 4     facilities or administrative facilities.

 5        Q.   Now, the next sentence, which states:

 6             "All units and institutions within the garrison are subordinate

 7     to the garrison commander in matters of order, discipline and service."

 8             Can you explain to the Court what you understand that to mean?

 9        A.   I understand that to mean that the unit commander -- I'm sorry,

10     the garrison commander can expect units making use of those facilities to

11     obey his instructions, the instructions of the garrison.  For example,

12     and I've used this example before, that is, timings of the opening of the

13     dining hall, the allocation of timings for units to use refurbishment

14     facilities, or laundries, or any of those other support -- support

15     elements.

16        Q.   Does it -- does this provision apply simply to units moving

17     through the geographical area of a garrison?

18        A.   No.

19        Q.   Why not?

20        A.   Because that would immediately interfere with the unity of

21     command, if the garrison commander could task or impose tasks upon a unit

22     which was not subordinated to him just because it happened to be in the

23     garrison area.  What is expected, as a unit moves through a garrison

24     area, is that it obeys, for example, speed limits imposed by the garrison

25     or route directions put in place by the garrison, and that is an

Page 24154

 1     expectation which is well known.  It is accepted as part of the way you

 2     do your business.  It doesn't have to be laid down.  It is an

 3     expectation.

 4        Q.   Now, without going through them in detail, if you look at

 5     Article 54, and specifically 54(c), do you see that in front of you?

 6        A.   Yes, I do.

 7        Q.   Is that the kind of activities that you would expect a garrison

 8     to be involved in?

 9        A.   Yes, it is.

10        Q.   Does that bear any similarities to British garrisons, those

11     particular activities?

12        A.   It's similar.  I've never known a British garrison to be

13     responsible for bathing in rivers, lakes, or the sea, but the rest -- the

14     rest is pretty accurate.

15             MR. CAYLEY:  Okay.  If we could now please look at D34.  And just

16     one moment.  It's page 2, Madam Registrar.

17             Actually, if the witness, I'm sorry, could just be shown the

18     front page so that he can confirm that he's seen this document before.

19        Q.   General, have you seen this document before?

20        A.   Yes, I have.

21        Q.   And is it referred to in your report?

22        A.   It is referred to in my report.

23        Q.   And if we could turn the page, and if we could please look at

24     paragraph 2, have you considered that particular paragraph, General?

25        A.   I have.

Page 24155

 1        Q.   Now, what I'm particularly interested in is the phrase:

 2             "The garrison commands do not have an operational function or the

 3     right to command HV units, except precisely prescribed authorities

 4     regarding work, order and discipline in the garrison," et cetera.  I

 5     won't read the rest of it.

 6             Can you explain to the Court what you understand that to mean?

 7        A.   Yes, I can, and it goes back to what I said in my -- one of my

 8     previous answers, because it actually says that the garrison commander

 9     does not have an operational function or the right to command HV units,

10     except when they are engaged in using the facilities of the garrison;

11     that is, those facilities which we've previously seen, whether they be

12     laundries, bathing in lakes, training facilities, ranges, or whatever.

13        Q.   Is that what you would expect to find?

14        A.   That's what I would expect to find, absolutely.

15        Q.   Now, if we look at the next paragraph, which is paragraph 3, and

16     I won't read it out, but you can see what it states.  Can you explain to

17     the Court what you understand the meaning of cooperation and coordination

18     of tasks of the garrison with the bodies that are listed there?  And if

19     it assists, you can actually give examples from the United Kingdom.

20        A.   Your Honours, garrisons exist within the civil structure of a

21     country.  That's plainly obvious.  And they rely -- almost certainly they

22     will rely, and in my experience, which I will talk about in a second, you

23     rely on the support of that civil structure, whether it be for your

24     utilities, water, electricity, other fuel, whether it be for welfare

25     services to help you deal with your families, employment services for the

Page 24156

 1     employment of families and relatives, and the police -- the civil police,

 2     for either national disaster, terrorist activity, or the fire service

 3     because you depend upon them for their support in fighting fires, there

 4     are a mass of structures out there which will support that garrison.  The

 5     garrison does not have the capability to do it itself.  That is exactly

 6     my experience when I was a garrison commander, and we regularly had to

 7     cooperate with the police and the -- those who gave us -- supplied us

 8     with our utilities, and to a degree coordinate our activities so that the

 9     garrison could be properly supported.

10        Q.   And in terms of your interpretation of this provision that we're

11     looking at here, can you say anything about that?

12        A.   Yes.  I believe the garrison commander was tasked here to

13     establish levels of cooperation with other government departments in

14     order that the garrison should be able to play its proper role both in

15     the support of the armed forces and as part of, because it existed in,

16     that civil structure.

17        Q.   And when you were garrison commander, that relationship that you

18     had with the police, did that put you in command of the local police?

19        A.   No, it did not.  And if ever one gave the impression that you

20     were about to tell the British police what you would wish them to do, you

21     were reminded very firmly that you were not in charge of the police.

22     They were very much -- they very much had primacy.

23             MR. CAYLEY:  Now, let's look briefly, please, at D33.  And this

24     is, I believe, pages 9 and 10 -- I'm sorry, pages -- it's the last five

25     pages of that document.  If we could just -- this is D33, yes.  If we

Page 24157

 1     could have, please, the last five pages of that document.  The last four

 2     pages, I'm sorry.  Yes, perfect.

 3        Q.   And, again, General, have you seen this document before?

 4        A.   I have.

 5        Q.   And do you refer to it in your report?

 6        A.   I do.

 7        Q.   Now, can you explain what you understand this document to be?

 8        A.   This is -- we would call it an establishment table, and it gives

 9     the total numbers and breaks down those numbers into separate component

10     bits for any particular organisation, military establishment.

11        Q.   And you have them in the UK?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Can you describe to the Judges, based on the actual establishment

14     figures and the manning figures, and we know this is for the

15     Knin Garrison on the 31st of August, can you describe to the Judges what

16     type of headquarters this was?

17        A.   It's a very small headquarters and will not have a great deal of

18     capability.  As we can see, it's only got five officers, three civilians,

19     so -- and nine people, a total of nine people.  It means it's a

20     headquarters that is supporting a commander with very limited tasks and

21     very limited authority and responsibility.

22        Q.   And how large would an operational headquarters be?

23        A.   It depends exactly what the task of that headquarters is.  But as

24     a guide, you would find brigade headquarters in a developed --

25     developed -- the armed forces -- I'm sorry, the armed forces of a

Page 24158

 1     developed country would probably have something in the region of 40 to

 2     50 officers responsible to support the commander, and they would be split

 3     up into -- into disciplines; administrative, logistic, planning,

 4     intelligence, communications, et cetera.  And there's a whole raft of

 5     NATO doctrine which dictates that within a nation, and each one would

 6     have its own head and a certain number of officers, and, of course,

 7     soldiers to support those disciplines.  And they are the people who

 8     provide the specialist advice to help the commander analyse, decide,

 9     plan, and implement, and then monitor the implementation of the plan.

10     They are the people who do the coordination and help with the direction.

11        Q.   Now, just bearing in mind all of the documents that you -- that

12     we've just addressed, the garrison regulations, the size of the

13     headquarters, I want you to consider briefly the following.  Now, you

14     were provided, I believe, with a copy of the indictment in this case at

15     the beginning of the case, weren't you?

16        A.   I was.

17        Q.   And did you read that document?

18        A.   I did.

19        Q.   Now, I just want to briefly put to you a narrative from that

20     indictment, and I would like you to comment on it.  And this is

21     paragraph 7 in the last indictment, and it reads as follows:

22             "In his combined capacities, Ivan Cermak participated in various

23     structures of power and responsibility and possessed effective control

24     over members of the HV units or elements who comprised or were attached

25     to, or operated in the Knin Garrison, and also over civilian police who

Page 24159

 1     operated in the garrison area and areas adjacent to it.  The HV units

 2     comprising or operating in the garrison and adjacent areas included,

 3     without limitation:  The 4th and 7th HV Brigades; the 1st Croatian Guards

 4     Brigade (1 Hrvatski Gardijski Zdrug); the 113th Infantry Brigade;

 5     142nd Infantry Brigade; 144th Infantry Brigade; 126th Home Guard

 6     Regiment" - I'm not going to try and pronounce that - "the 6th Home Guard

 7     Regiment; the 7th Home Guard Regiment; the 134th Home Guard Regiment; and

 8     a combined Military Police Company."

 9             Now, putting aside for one moment the military police, which we

10     will come to later, can you give your comments on that narrative, please?

11        A.   It struck me, when I saw that part of the indictment and I then

12     looked at the size, experience, and skill sets, if I may use that jargon,

13     of Knin Garrison in August of 1995, that it was my judgement that that

14     headquarters was not in the position to exercise any form of control at

15     all of those units that you've just mentioned.

16        Q.   Now, you said earlier in your evidence, and you explained the

17     meaning of the term -- that the garrison commander did not have

18     operational control of HV units.  Does that also affect your position in

19     respect of this paragraph?

20        A.   Well, of course, it is stated quite clearly in regulations that

21     he did not.  But even if he had done, by whatever means, and I saw no

22     evidence of this at all, the size of his headquarters, the experience of

23     the people in it, and his own experience would have made it, to me,

24     extremely difficult, to the extent it was inconceivable that he could

25     have exercised any form of control -- operational control over those

Page 24160

 1     units.

 2        Q.   In the documents that we provided to you, did you see any orders

 3     from Mr. Cermak to those units?

 4        A.   None.

 5        Q.   Did you see any reports from those units to Mr. Cermak?

 6        A.   None.

 7        Q.   Does that have any significance for you?

 8        A.   It does.  I mean, you -- you can't -- you can't control tactical

 9     formations, as these were, which by definition are spread out on a

10     battle-field which was very expansive, without issuing them with orders,

11     and you cannot understand what they are doing.  Therefore, you are

12     incapable of analysing the situation, and, therefore, deciding and

13     planning and then implementing a new plan, unless you receive reports

14     which contain necessary and important information back from them.  And I

15     saw no evidence of either that information being sent by those units to

16     Knin Garrison headquarters, for the attention of General Cermak, nor did

17     I see any orders given by him to those units.

18        Q.   Now, the provisions -- the narrative that I've read to you

19     essentially suggests that Mr. Cermak possessed effective control because

20     these units were -- who comprised or were attached to or operated in the

21     Knin Garrison.  Have you seen any evidence at all that these units were

22     part of the Knin Garrison?

23        A.   I've seen no evidence that they were part of the Knin Garrison.

24        Q.   Have you seen any evidence they were attached to the

25     Knin Garrison?

Page 24161

 1        A.   I've seen no evidence that they were attached to the

 2     Knin Garrison.

 3        Q.   And in terms of operating within the garrison area, would that

 4     have subordinated them to the Knin Garrison?

 5        A.   No, but it would -- because it would have been -- it would have

 6     undermined the whole concept of the unity of command and -- sorry, it

 7     would have undermined the whole concept of unity of command.

 8        Q.   Now, if we could move, please, to part 3(b) of your report.  And

 9     you actually speak of this in a number of parts of your report, but I'm

10     interested in lines 12 to 15 of your report on page 8, where you state

11     that there were three elements to Mr. Cermak's appointment.  And we've

12     dealt with the first one already, that the garrison -- was Mr. Cermak a

13     classical garrison commander, in your view?

14        A.   No, he certainly wasn't, on two counts.  Firstly, he had none of

15     the experience that you would have expected a garrison commander to have.

16     And, secondly, he was a colonel general rather than a major or a colonel.

17     Therefore, he was over-ranked, in my -- in my judgement, he was

18     over-ranked for that particular role.

19        Q.   Now, you say that he had two other roles, and we'll go into these

20     in more detail next week, but you say:

21             "Secondly, he was an ad hoc administrator to facilitate the

22     normalisation of Knin."

23             What do you mean by that?

24        A.   Well, he was sent by President Tudjman with a sort of - can I use

25     the phrase - a general direction to sort out -- I think the phrase I

Page 24162

 1     heard was to sort out Knin, and I know we will be maybe discussing that

 2     in more detail later, but from my point of view, that meant that he was

 3     involved in the urban regeneration of Knin, getting the trains, the

 4     drains working, opening the shops, getting the banks working, getting

 5     civilians back, and starting -- starting the whole process of

 6     regenerating Knin as part of a civil society.

 7        Q.   And have you seen evidence to that effect?  We'll look at some of

 8     that --

 9        A.   Yes, I have, yes.

10        Q.   And, lastly, this last position that you say, as appointed

11     contact for international organisations, can you explain what you mean by

12     that?

13        A.   His direction from the president, I think -- and this again was

14     slightly vague, he said he was told to go and help the Canadians.  He

15     became, I believe, the point of contact really by default, particularly

16     because he happened to be a very senior officer by rank.  And my

17     experience of international organisations, and having been part of one,

18     myself, is that you do tend to look at -- to seek the most senior officer

19     present and make a presumption -- an assumption that he has the power

20     that you would normally associate with somebody of that rank.

21        Q.   Have you actually experienced that, yourself?

22        A.   I have.  I fear that I've done it myself.  It is partly -- it's

23     part of the human dynamic, really.  You're trying to get somebody who has

24     the capacity to deliver and somebody who can deal with you, so that you

25     can do your business as effectively and quickly as possible.  And I think

Page 24163

 1     it's a natural instinct for those who are confronted with a very

 2     confusing and dynamic situation, members of the international community,

 3     to try and seek those they believe provide them with the capacity to

 4     deliver that which they want.

 5        Q.   Now, in terms of his position as garrison commander, these other

 6     two functions that you've identified, urban regeneration, you call it,

 7     point of contact, were they part of the job description of a garrison

 8     commander?

 9        A.   No, they were not.

10        Q.   And do you draw any conclusions from that?

11        A.   Yes.  The appointment of garrison commander gave him none of the

12     authority or responsibility that he -- or none of the authority that he

13     required to do the other two jobs.

14             MR. CAYLEY:  If we could please now look at 2D00632.

15        Q.   Now, there are many documents in this case, and you've referred

16     to this in a number of places in your report, but I'm not going to refer

17     you to all of them, where you address the issue of military governor.

18     Have you seen documents in the case where Mr. Cermak is referred to by

19     members of the international community as the military governor?

20        A.   I have.

21             MR. CAYLEY:  Sorry, 2D00632.

22             MR. HEDARALY:  I think that's 65 ter 2D.

23             MR. CAYLEY:  Sorry, thank you.

24        Q.   While we're waiting for it, did you, in fact, find for the

25     Cermak Defence team a definition in your NATO -- I think it's

Page 24164

 1     US Department of Defence/NATO Dictionary of Military Terms?

 2        A.   Yes, I did.

 3             MR. CAYLEY:  If we could go to the next page of that document.

 4             Just, Mr. President, for explanation, obviously we're not going

 5     to offer the entire dictionary into evidence.  This is just an extract,

 6     and we've provided the parties with the web site so that people can

 7     inspect it.

 8        Q.   Now, this is a definition which you found, General Deverell.  Can

 9     you explain to the Judges what you understand a military governor to be?

10        A.   Your Honours, I -- the military governors appear to me, from

11     this, to be a post and appointment that is only required when you are in

12     a foreign country, a different country, and the civil structure has

13     broken down, that the rule of law is no longer respected, and that you do

14     not get the normal pegs of civilian -- of civilian authority in place,

15     and by default, the army -- the military organisation is seen to be the

16     only one which has the capacity to exercise control, in terms of rule of

17     law, and perhaps to operate the utilities -- the basic utilities of life.

18     And therefore a military governor can sometimes be appointed with a

19     military administration.

20        Q.   Now, you say "when you are in a foreign country."  What do you

21     mean by that?

22        A.   Well, if you're operating outside your own country.

23        Q.   Now, specifically, it states in this definition "in an occupied

24     territory"?

25        A.   Correct.

Page 24165

 1        Q.   Now, can you give the Judges any examples that you know of where

 2     a military governor was appointed?

 3        A.   I believe I'm correct, in terms of Laws of Armed Combat, that all

 4     forces have a responsibility, as they take ground, to provide those

 5     essential support elements for the population that they liberate or

 6     otherwise.  The evidence I will use or the example I will use --

 7        Q.   Can I interrupt you, because I think maybe you didn't understand

 8     my question.  I want you to give an example of a military governor.

 9        A.   Yes, yeah.  The British military governor in Germany at the end

10     of the Second World War is an example of the absence -- with the

11     breakdown of Nazi Germany and the civil authority there, the vacuum was

12     filled by military governments provided by both -- by France, the

13     United States, Russia, and Great Britain.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley, I'm looking at the clock --

15             MR. CAYLEY:  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and in view of the wish of the witness to --

17             MR. CAYLEY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't know whether this --

19             MR. CAYLEY:  It's a good place, yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Deverell, I would like to instruct you that you

21     should not speak with anyone about your testimony, whether testimony

22     already given today or still to be given next week.  And we'd like to see

23     you back Monday morning, 9.00.

24             We adjourn, and we resume on Monday, the 9th of November, at

25     9.00, Courtroom III.

Page 24166

 1                           [The witness stands down]

 2                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.,

 3                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 9th day of

 4                           November, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.