Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 24345

 1                           Tuesday, 10 November 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 11.07 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

 8     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-06-90-T,

 9     the Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             Mr. Hedaraly, are you ready to continue your cross-examination?

12             MR. HEDARALY:  I am, Mr. President.  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

14             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you.

15                           WITNESS:  JACK DEVERELL [Resumed]

16                           Cross-examination by Mr. Hedaraly: [Continued]

17        Q.   Good morning, General.

18        A.   Good morning, Mr. Hedaraly.

19        Q.   If I can at the outset invite you once again to try to pause

20     between my question and your answer in order to assist me in not speaking

21     too quickly.

22             We left off yesterday discussing page 40 of your report and

23     specifically the order assigning Mr. Jonjic, the order issued by

24     General Cermak.  Do you remember that discussion?

25        A.   Yes, I do.

Page 24346

 1        Q.   Now, I wanted to move to the next paragraph in your report, which

 2     is a paragraph starting at line 28, where you discuss other similar

 3     issues.  First you refer to D761, which is an order from General Cermak

 4     to temporarily assign seven members of the 142nd Home Guards Regiment to

 5     the Knin garrison on 11 August.

 6             MR. HEDARALY:  And maybe we could have that on the screen.

 7        Q.   And in the meantime let me -- in your report at lines 33 and 34,

 8     you state that:  "There appeared to be no response to the order."

 9             General, if this was an order from General Cermak assigning

10     people to the Knin garrison, why would there be a response?

11        A.   I was looking for some evidence that those soldiers had actually

12     turned up and done what they were supposed to do, and I saw none of it.

13     I might have expected to see some further correspondence as you will see

14     later in the next exhibit, which you might be showing me, concerning

15     their sort of welfare, their pay, their -- their overall administration.

16     I didn't see any of that, and, therefore, I question whether that order

17     was ever -- whether that order actually took place, whether those

18     soldiers turned up.  Because I have to say what you know I'm going to

19     say, he had no authority to order those men to be attached to his -- his

20     headquarters.

21        Q.   And you also know we disagree on -- on that.  But going back to

22     your answer, you said that you were looking for some evidence that those

23     soldiers had actually turned up and done what they were supposed to do.

24             Now, with the exception of the two documents that you refer to

25     later on, did you see any other evidence that this -- these soldiers did

Page 24347

 1     not turn up?

 2        A.   I saw no evidence they did not turn up.

 3        Q.   Let's go to the next document, which is D762, which is ten days

 4     later, 21st of August.  And this is a request from General Cermak to

 5     General Gotovina for 65 conscripts, and then we have the response

 6     reference in your letter from General Gotovina.

 7             Now at this time in the order that will come up shortly, which is

 8     D762, this time General Cermak asks for 65 conscripts and does not

 9     identify any specific ones.  Correct?

10        A.   Correct.

11        Q.   So in this sense, this request is different from the previous

12     order in that it doesn't say, "I order A, B, and C, specifically," but

13     rather says, "I asked for 65 men.  Please send them to me."

14        A.   That is true.

15        Q.   Then we have the response from General Gotovina which is D764,

16     where in fact General Gotovina formally subordinates 147 members, the

17     entire 3rd company or the third battalion - I get those confused with the

18     3rd of the 3rd of the 142nd Regiment.  Correct?

19        A.   Correct.

20        Q.   And just to go back to the conversation we had yesterday, these

21     147 soldiers would then be fully subordinated to General Cermak, not only

22     for matters of order and discipline, correct?

23        A.   There -- can I just address -- it looks as if that is true.  No,

24     not quite true.  I'm sorry, I missed the line.

25             Paragraph 2 says:  "The commander of the 142nd Home Guard

Page 24348

 1     Regiment will keep on the payroll the soldiers from the 3rd Company of

 2     the 3rd Battalion.

 3             So the commander, General Gotovina, has authorised the commanding

 4     officer of that regiment to maintain administrative control, in terms of

 5     the payroll.  So there is not a complete subordination.  It is what I

 6     would term limited subordination.

 7        Q.   But this subordination would extent to any other

 8     non-administrative task.  This is the only limitation, this

 9     administrative one.

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   So, in that sense, it goes beyond just order and discipline;

12     correct?

13        A.   Yes.  He has a right to task them.

14        Q.   And there is nothing that you have seen either in the request

15     from General Cermak or the order from General Gotovina which suggests

16     that the previous order regarding those seven individuals was not

17     implemented ten days earlier.

18        A.   No, that's true.  There was no evidence either way.

19        Q.   I want to move now to the UNCRO vehicles orders, and I know we

20     have seen those yesterday, so the Chamber is very familiar with them.  So

21     I will try to deal with the matter as efficiently as possible.

22             And you discuss in your report, General Cermak's authority to

23     issue orders generally, and you refer to a number of these order, D788,

24     D303, D503.  And I think we discussed yesterday, or if we did not, I -- I

25     suspect you will agree with me that at least those documents look like

Page 24349

 1     orders.  Correct?

 2        A.   Yes, they have "order" written on them.

 3        Q.   And they also say that they should come into effect immediately.

 4        A.   Correct.

 5        Q.   And as we discussed yesterday, if we accept your position that

 6     General Cermak did not have that authority, he was acting as if he did or

 7     at least he thought he had the authority; correct?

 8        A.   From the way he wrote it, yes.

 9        Q.   And just to summarise briefly the orders relating to the UNCRO

10     vehicles, and I'm just doing this in the interests of time, and if I --

11     if I don't summarise accurately, please let me know.

12             So General Cermak issued orders, D303 and D503, that he didn't

13     have the authority to issue.  Then he subsequently made a request to

14     General Gotovina, D304, and that following that request, General Gotovina

15     issued an order, D305; and that showed you that General Cermak was

16     beginning to understand the chain of command and the principles of

17     subordination.  That's on page 42 and 43 of your report.

18             Have I summarized accurately your position?

19        A.   I think so, yes.

20        Q.   Let's start with D303 which is an order from the 9 August to the

21     military police and the civilian police to set up teams to find these

22     specific UN vehicles.

23             Right, that's correct?

24        A.   That is correct.  I have seen that one.  It's in my report.

25        Q.   And then the next one is D503, which, this time, is an order from

Page 24350

 1     the 12th of August to the military police and the civilian police to set

 2     up teams to find a total of 12 vehicles, if in counted them properly, or

 3     in that area.

 4             You can wait for it to come up, but if you remember --

 5        A.   Yes, I do remember.

 6        Q.   So the recipient of this order are the military police and the

 7     civilian police; correct?

 8        A.   That's correct.

 9        Q.   And the order that is given to them, accepting our difference of

10     opinion on Mr. Cermak's authority, the order given to them is to set up

11     teams to find the vehicles; correct?

12        A.   That's correct.

13        Q.   Now, on the same day as this order, General Cermak sends a

14     request to General Gotovina --

15             MR. HEDARALY:  If we can have D304.  If we can just scroll down

16     so the witness can see the complete first page.

17        Q.    And if -- can I move to the next page, General?

18        A.   Yes, you can.  Thank you.

19             MR. HEDARALY:  If we go to the second page.

20        Q.   Can you confirm for me that what General Cermak is requesting is

21     not for General Gotovina to send an order to the military police but,

22     rather, asking General Gotovina to inform the HV unit commanders of the

23     Split Military District of the need to urgently return the vehicles?

24        A.   Yes, I can.

25        Q.   And just to be clear, General Gotovina is the commander of the

Page 24351

 1     Split Military District.  He is General Cermak's immediate superior as

 2     the garrison commander, correct?

 3        A.   According to the regulations, that is correct.

 4        Q.   It is therefore normal that he would send a request rather than

 5     an order?

 6        A.   General Cermak would request assistance from General Gotovina,

 7     that is the correct way of doing it.

 8        Q.   Now the resulting order from General Gotovina the next day, D305,

 9     and in this order General Gotovina orders the commanders of all the units

10     of the Split Military District to return the vehicles; correct?

11        A.   That's correct.

12        Q.   And if we go to the seconds page in the English, we can see the

13     list of all the units under General Gotovina's command; correct?

14        A.   That's correct.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

16             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, just one clarification.  I'm sure this

17     is just an oversight by my learned friend.  But the request, I believe,

18     that is in 304, D304, is sent to the Chief of Staff of the Split Military

19     District and not to General Gotovina.  So just for clarity in the record,

20     I think that that's accurate, is it not, counsel?

21             MR. HEDARALY:  I'll look at, but I will take your [Overlapping

22     speakers] ...

23             MR. KEHOE:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

24             MR. HEDARALY:

25        Q.   And, General, just to go back to this order on the screen.

Page 24352

 1     General Gotovina had the authority to issue this order; correct?  To his

 2     own units.

 3        A.   He did.

 4        Q.   Now, General, you will agree with me that the orders issued by

 5     General Cermak were quite of a different nature than the one issued here

 6     by General Gotovina.  General Cermak ordered the military police and the

 7     civilian police - and I know I you dispute his authority to do so - but

 8     he ordered the military police and the civilian police to form teams and

 9     find the vehicles, whereas General Gotovina issued orders to his unit

10     commanders to return those vehicles.

11             Now, those are two very different types of orders.  Correct?

12        A.   Yes, they are.

13        Q.   So in your report, when you are conflating the two and suggesting

14     that General Cermak realised he could not issue an order and that he then

15     asked General Gotovina to issue it for him once he began to, as you say,

16     understand the chain of command and the principles of subordination,

17     based on these documents we've just seen that's not entirely correct, is

18     it?

19        A.   Mr. Hedaraly, we're -- we -- we go round this circle of our

20     different views.  The first point I would want to make is that the simple

21     writing of an order does not demonstrate you have the authority to write

22     it.

23             Secondly, General Gotovina was absolutely correct in producing an

24     order, because he had the command, he exercises the command of all those

25     units that we're looking at now and therefore has the responsibility to

Page 24353

 1     ensure that military discipline, good order and military discipline is --

 2     is properly -- properly carried out.

 3             What General Cermak was doing, I have suggested, is that he was

 4     learning that if he wanted assistance from General Gotovina, then -- or

 5     if he wanted assistance to his headquarters, whether that be manpower or

 6     whatever else, then the proper thing to do was to request that, that is,

 7     in the way that a subordinate commander does.

 8             The orders he wrote to -- the so-called orders he wrote to the

 9     police for which he had no authority, as I have said and we will continue

10     to disagree about that, I'm sure, where in fact in response to demands

11     from the United Nations, from UNCRO, from commander Sector South, and you

12     will know there was a series of meetings in which commander Sector South

13     expressed his concern about this.

14             At this stage, General Cermak had been in place - I'm just

15     looking at my notes - three days, two days, the 8th of August.  You will

16     recall that I've said on many occasions he was a man who was given no

17     preparation time, who came from a completely different background, a

18     commercial background and a political background, who, I think, and my

19     judgement is, that you see here him attempting to meet the demands that

20     were being imposed upon him by the United Nations.  He did it in the best

21     way possible.

22             Could you argue, though I doubt if he knew that he had a

23     coordinating and cooperating requirement in the garrison orders, because

24     I doubt if he'd actually read them by that time.  He might have done, but

25     I question whether he would have done.  But that is another issue.  You

Page 24354

 1     could see this as part of his coordination and cooperation

 2     responsibility, that actually this -- that order - and it should not a

 3     have been written as an order, I would absolutely agree; it would be much

 4     better if he hadn't done it - may have been the subject of coordination

 5     that had already been done between the police and -- and his

 6     headquarters.  I have no evidence of that.  That is a deduction that you

 7     could make, based upon the -- the instructions that are there that a

 8     garrison commander will carry out these coordination and cooperation

 9     functions.  That is a rather long answer to your question, but I'm afraid

10     that I -- I fear that you're trying to simplify and chop things up into

11     packages and take it outside the overall context.

12             I go back to my original point:  That he no authority to wrote

13     those orders.  We will disagree about that, and it will be for the

14     Chamber to decide who they -- who they believe.

15        Q.   Sir, my question was limited to those three or four orders,

16     because you have presented them in your report as suggesting something,

17     as suggesting that, after the first order, which is -- after one of the

18     orders, which is the 11th of August, General Cermak learned the

19     principles of subordination and then asked General Gotovina to issue the

20     order for him.  And that -- this specific question was not about the

21     whole authority of General Cermak or the military police.  It was based

22     on your report, your conclusions, based on those documents, those

23     specific documents, and what I'm telling you, what I'm suggesting to you

24     is that those three documents that have you cited in that paragraph of

25     your report do not actually support your conclusion in that paragraph of

Page 24355

 1     your report.

 2        A.   He did not ask, actually, General Gotovina to write the order for

 3     him.  He was not in a position to dictate what order General Gotovina

 4     gave.  He requested, first of all, for manpower.  It was up to

 5     General Gotovina to decide whether to give him any manpower and for them

 6     to -- for -- then for him to allocate that manpower and give the order to

 7     those soldiers that were properly subordinated to General Gotovina, that

 8     they should be resubordinated for a specific task and for a specific

 9     time, although that was not clear, to General Cermak.

10             The second was requesting that General Gotovina should use the --

11     his chain of command in a disciplinary sense to remind his commanders

12     that it was wrong to steal vehicles, and if they had them they should

13     hand them back.

14             So on neither occasion did -- I would suggest did General Cermak

15     ask General Gotovina to write an order for him.  He merely presented

16     General Gotovina with two decisions to make.  One was, was he going

17     provide the manpower?  Secondly, was he going to write this letter to the

18     chain of command?  And it is a chain of command responsibility.  If I

19     may, just make one other comment.  We have tended to paint discipline in

20     a geographical sense.  Primarily, the application of military discipline

21     is to do with subordination.  It doesn't matter where those soldiers

22     might be geographically.  They remain under the command of their superior

23     commander.

24             We have tended to allow ourselves, I believe, to -- to paint

25     discipline as a geographical issue within the garrison area.  But I make

Page 24356

 1     that as a general point.

 2        Q.   Thank you, General.  I know there is a lot of issues that we

 3     cover, but if you could try to focus on my questions.  I do understand,

 4     and I have not interrupted you all day yesterday or today when the

 5     answers were quite long.  But if you would please try to focus on the

 6     question.

 7        A.   I apologise for digressing.

 8        Q.   Let's then turn to the issue of the military police, which you

 9     discuss --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we do so, Mr. Kehoe, you earlier said you

11     were kind enough to assist Mr. Hedaraly into whom the D304 was addressed,

12     and you said it was addressed to the Chief of Staff.  It is actually

13     addressed to the Military District Command.

14             MR. KEHOE:  Attention.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Attention Chief of Staff.

16             MR. KEHOE:  That's correct.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  But you added something, that it was not addressed

18     to General Gotovina.  To some extent, that may be right.  That is that he

19     was not the person mentioned there.  At the same time you can't say that

20     General Gotovina was not covered, by a rather general expression,

21     Military District Command.

22             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, obviously the next day

23     General Gotovina issued the order which is D305.  So his Chief of Staff

24     made him aware of it.  But just in the spirit of moving these documents

25     through, clearly, the intent in this request in D304 was that it come to

Page 24357

 1     the attention or being sent to then General Ademi.

 2             So it was just in the spirit of clarity on this issue.  And if

 3     you -- on this particular order which is D3305.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not seeking to start this whole discussion

 5     again.  But the most precise correction would have been that it was not

 6     addressed General Gotovina, instead it was addressed to the Military

 7     District Command, attention Chief of Staff.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  And I stand corrected if I was inaccurate in that

 9     regard.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

11             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

12        Q.   In page 20 of your report, there is an organigram that is

13     reproduced there.  There is also a colour version that perhaps may assist

14     everyone if we pull it up.

15             MR. HEDARALY:  It's 65 ter 2D00786.

16        Q.   General, did you prepare this organigram yourself?

17        A.   No, I didn't.

18        Q.   Did you review the sources on the right, or did you just accept

19     this as an accurate depiction of the command relationship between what

20     you call the operational formation and units and the military police?

21        A.   I saw nothing when I was reading the sources on the right, which

22     led me to question the accuracy of that -- that diagram.

23        Q.   And if we go at the bottom of the page, completely at the bottom,

24     there is a -- on top of the name there is a -- the number there is a

25     reference to Zeljko Basic, subordination, 9, 2008.

Page 24358

 1             Can you tell the Court what that is or who Zeljko Basic is, or do

 2     you have any information for us?

 3        A.   I believe Zeljko Basic is somebody who works in the

 4     Cermak Defence team.  I would stand to be corrected, if I've got the name

 5     wrong.

 6        Q.   I'm sure you would be if that was the case.

 7        A.   Silence was a good sign there.

 8             MR. HEDARALY:  And if you can go back a little towards the top.

 9        Q.   In the box "command relationship," here you have also the words

10     "effective control" discussed.  I think we briefly touched on that

11     yesterday.  I understand you when you use effective control in this

12     sense, or, rather, you adopted this diagram.  You did not refer to the

13     legal or technical aspects of effective control under the jurisprudence

14     of this Tribunal.

15        A.   That is true.

16        Q.   And based on that organigram, you stated at the bottom of page

17     20, line 6:

18             "The only relationship shown between the military police and

19     garrison headquarters is through the HQ of the Military District, which

20     itself, has a cooperation and coordination relationship with the

21     appropriate military police unit."

22             So if we can just scroll down a little bit, there is no, you

23     state, from this organigram, no direct link between garrison command and

24     any relationship with the military police, except through the

25     Military District.  Correct?

Page 24359

 1        A.   Yes, I think so.

 2        Q.   Well --

 3        A.   Sorry, could I just --

 4        Q.   Please look at it.

 5        A.   Could I just scroll down once again just to remind myself of the

 6     colours.

 7        Q.   Of course.

 8        A.   Scroll down, please.

 9             Yeah.  Yes, thank you.  Thank you, I'm happy to say that I could

10     see no formal linkage between garrison commanders and the military

11     police.

12        Q.   If we can go to D -- sorry, D34, which I know you are familiar

13     with because you have cited it in your report.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly, am I right or wrong that in the black

15     and white copy the reference to Zeljko Basic is -- at least does not

16     appear in the report?

17             MR. HEDARALY:  You are absolutely correct, Mr. President.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, although we are supposed to look at a

19     colour version of a document, it gives more than just the colour version.

20     It gives subordination, Zeljko Basic subordination, 9, 2008 which does

21     not appear in the report.

22             MR. HEDARALY:  I stand corrected, Mr. President.  You're

23     absolutely correct.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

25             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you.

Page 24360

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we could ask the witness what, apart from

 2     that, he thinks that Mr. Zeljko Basic is someone who works in the

 3     Cermak Defence team, whether he -- what does "subordination 9, 2008" mean

 4     as far as you are aware of?

 5             THE WITNESS:  Absolutely -- no idea, Your Honour.  I have not

 6     idea what that means.  To be honest, I hadn't even actually noticed it on

 7     the coloured copy.  I looked down at that bottom right-hand corner.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now who put the -- the picture in black and

 9     white into the report?

10             THE WITNESS:  I put it in.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             THE WITNESS:  But I -- I didn't check that it was a complete

13     coverage.  So --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  You said you were a computer illiterate from what

15     I --

16             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I'm afraid so.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Nevertheless, you were able to put this document in

18     the --

19             THE WITNESS:  With a certain amount of guidance from the help

20     box.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  The help box, but it takes quite a bit to take out

22     the reference to the Zeljko Basic who guided you in that, or ...

23             THE WITNESS:  Nobody.  I mean, there was no guidance to take out

24     the Zeljko Basic.  I didn't even know it was in there, and I have no idea

25     why, whether I -- when I, actually, sort of focussed on it, whether I

Page 24361

 1     left it off, I have no idea.

 2             But I was not aware, as I said, to Mr. Hedaraly, I was not aware

 3     that that name was even on the bottom.  I had not looked at that

 4     particular part.  I was not conscious of it.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I see that.  But I'm trying to understand the

 6     mechanism through which the colour version finally ended up as a black

 7     and white version in the -- in your report.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Because I think I -- I've squared off, as it were,

 9     to copy it on to my document, in order to put it in, and I guess I missed

10     off that bottom piece.  But as is -- as has been identified, there would

11     have been little point in me trying to do that because it would have been

12     exposed here.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

15             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16        Q.   Let's follow up on Mr. President's question, but let's start with

17     this document.  We have it on the screen.

18             And you are obviously familiar with this, correct, you've cited

19     it?

20        A.   Yes, I am.

21        Q.   And you have cited particularly the second page of this document

22     to support your interpretation of the authority or, in your view, the

23     limits on the authority of the garrison commander; correct?

24        A.   I have.

25        Q.   Now, if we go to the next page, the third page of the document in

Page 24362

 1     English; I believe the second one in the B/C/S.

 2             Did you also review these instructions in this document, or did

 3     you just focus on the first two pages, the organisational order?

 4        A.   No, I looked at those -- I looked at those instructions in a

 5     certain amount of detail.

 6        Q.   Okay.

 7             MR. HEDARALY:  If we can go to the next page, please, instruction

 8     number 4, which is titled: Employing military police units.

 9        Q.   And it says:

10             "The garrison commander is required to arrange a procedure with

11     the closest unit of the military police of calling military police units

12     and having them intervene in the case of unrest, accidents, et cetera,

13     when a military police unit is indispensable to establish order and

14     discipline in the area of the garrison.  Also, arrange for the temporary

15     employment of military police patrols to supervise work, discipline, and

16     conduct of military personnel in public places."

17             General, will you agree with me that this instruction relates to

18     a direct relationship between the garrison command and the military

19     police without going through the Military District, as we had it in the

20     organigram?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And can you tell the Chamber why in all your discussion about the

23     relationship between garrison command and the military police you did not

24     once refer to these instructions.

25        A.   Because this talks about a procedure.  These -- these regulations

Page 24363

 1     are written with peacetime in mind, not in a situation of -- of internal

 2     conflict, of a very complex nature.  And from -- from my point of view,

 3     this is perfectly normal because this actually -- this reflects the

 4     requirement imposed upon the garrison commander to cooperate and

 5     coordinate, which we've seen and actually comes in paragraph 5 as well.

 6             Now, arranging a procedure is a process.  It's an administrative

 7     process, to enable the military police to be used in their daily tasks,

 8     their regular daily tasks, which are all about good order and military

 9     discipline.  And I didn't put it in because I felt that I had made the

10     point that I wanted to make there, and indeed it comes out later where I

11     talk about the contentions between the garrison headquarters and the

12     military police in several parts of the report.

13             But I think that is very important, that one understands that

14     these are procedures.  It's temporary employment.  This does not give or

15     -- and I don't believe it implies any authority of the ZM commander to be

16     able to order the military police to conduct any form of operation.  It

17     is completely focussing on an administrative procedure, in line with his

18     -- those orders and other instructions about coordination and cooperation

19     with other agencies.

20        Q.   I understand your answer.  My question did not say that this gave

21     the garrison commander authority to order.  I simply said this illustrate

22     a direct relationship when in your report you said there were no such

23     direct relationships.

24        A.   I say in that there's no direct relationship, and I -- I question

25     whether -- whether the word "direct relationship" I'm -- you will

Page 24364

 1     understand that I'm concerned that phrases like "direct relationship"

 2     could be taken to mean something else.  I'm very keen that we understand

 3     precisely what we're talking about, as I know you are, Mr. Hedaraly.

 4        Q.   And in that vein, all I am trying to point out is that I

 5     understand your reservations about direct relationship.  But all I'm

 6     pointing out is that there is nothing in this instruction, in that

 7     number 4, about going through the Military District.

 8        A.   Absolutely right.

 9             MR. HEDARALY:  Can we go back to the organigram, please, which

10     was 65 ter 2D00786.

11             And while it comes up, Mr. President, since it has been discussed

12     in court and specific references to differences with the report, I think

13     it makes sense to tender it.

14             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, if I could just make one point which

15     have I noticed in the terminology that is being used, and I think the

16     witness has expressed his reservations.

17             This is a diagram which you can see says subordination --

18             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour --

19             MR. CAYLEY:  Mr. Hedaraly, just let me finish -- [Overlapping

20     speakers] ...

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

22             Mr. Cayley, you may proceed.

23             MR. CAYLEY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24             MR. HEDARALY:  -- if this proper in front of the witness, I'm

25     just cautioning.

Page 24365

 1             MR. CAYLEY:  I think it's perfectly proper because I think the

 2     witness can see what it says.  But the point I'm make is this:  This a

 3     diagram about subordination.  It says it very clearly.  Mr. Hedaraly is

 4     using these words "direct relationship" to try and sort of get around

 5     this word subordination, and I think he should just be clear with the

 6     witness, because the witness has already made the point that is he

 7     concerned about using that phraseology.  That's the point I'm making.

 8             Thank you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And would that be an objection to having admitted?

10             MR. CAYLEY:  I don't object to it being admitted, Your Honour.

11     But what I just request is that the terminology that's being used with

12     the witness is clear, so that there is no confusion in the transcript

13     what the witness is actually talking about.  Because we know that

14     subordination, I think you will understand, has a very specific meaning

15     and relationship has a rather ambiguous kind of meaning.  That's the

16     point that I'm making.  Thank you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I can't dictate Mr. Hedaraly to phrase his questions

18     in the way I or you would like to do that.  At the same time, I think the

19     witness has been very clear where he has expressed his concerns in the

20     use of certain terminology and he explained what he means.

21             Therefore, I would say the -- the warning signs are there, and if

22     would you like to further elaborate on this in re-examination, of course,

23     you're free to do so.

24             MR. CAYLEY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Since there are no objections.

Page 24366

 1             Mr. Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2658.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  P2658 is admitted into evidence.

 4             Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

 5             MR. HEDARALY:  And just for my learned friend's reference, in

 6     page 20 of the witness's expert report, he says:

 7             "The only relationship shown between the military police and

 8     garrison headquarters is through the headquarters of the Military

 9     District."

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

11             MR. HEDARALY: [Overlapping speakers] ...

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we are not, at this moment arguing the matter.

13     We are using the time of the witness to hear his answers to questions.

14             Please proceed.

15             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you.

16        Q.   General, you testified yesterday that you have assisted -- you

17     were present when Mr. Feldi testified; correct?

18        A.   I was present for part of the testimony.

19        Q.   And that you had reviewed Mr. Feldi's report?

20        A.   I have reviewed Mr. Feldi's report.

21        Q.   Did you provide any assistance to the Cermak Defence team for the

22     examination and re-examination of Mr. Feldi?

23        A.   No.

24             MR. HEDARALY:  If I can ask Mr. Registrar to keep this exhibit on

25     the screen, and if we can pull up next to it, D1673, which is the expert

Page 24367

 1     report of Mr. Feldi.  And if we can just pick the English for now so we

 2     have the same language.  And if we go to page 19 of that -- if we could

 3     have the two side by side.

 4        Q.   Now, General, were you present in court when -- when Mr. Feldi

 5     said that he drew most of the diagrams himself sometime back and then

 6     received them later on in an electronic format?

 7        A.   I don't recall hearing that.

 8        Q.   Okay.  So the diagram on the right side of the screen that we see

 9     is -- was prepared by Mr. Feldi and was included in his expert report?

10        A.   Hmm.

11        Q.   And you agree with me that there are some striking similarities

12     between the diagram in your report and the diagram in Mr. Feldi's report;

13     correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And you can further see that there a relationship of cooperation

16     and coordination in Mr. Feldi's report between the garrison command and

17     the military police which is absent in your report.

18        A.   That's correct.

19        Q.   So if Mr. Feldi is correct, then that would also show that it was

20     not the only relationship - as you used in your report, that word -

21     between the garrison command and the military police, was through the

22     Military District; correct?

23        A.   That's correct.

24        Q.   I want to talk more about this relationship, but I want to thank

25     the Registrar for his assistance.

Page 24368

 1             And we have seen and discussed a few orders from General Cermak,

 2     the military police, both with respect to freedom of movement and the

 3     UNCRO -- UNCRO vehicles.

 4             Let me show you P973.  And you will recall there are exchanges of

 5     letters on 10th and 11th of August between General Forand and

 6     General Cermak regarding freedom of movement?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   This here, what I'm going to show you is now, is the log-book of

 9     the duty officer of the 4th Company, Sibenik, 72nd Military Police

10     Battalion.

11             MR. HEDARALY:  If we go to the entry for the 11th of August,

12     which is page 11.

13        Q.   You see the 11 August -- we'll wait for it in the B/C/S --

14        A.   Yes, I have it on my left-hand screen.

15             MR. HEDARALY:  If I can ask the Registrar to find the right page

16     in the B/C/S.  I thought I had written it down, but apparently not.  The

17     entry of the 11th of August.

18             Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

19        Q.   If we go to the next page in the English, there is an entry at

20     1150 stating:

21             "The 72nd Military Police Battalion duty officer informed

22     regarding a command of General Cermak that members of UNCRO have complete

23     freedom of movement."

24             So the duty officer recorded General Cermak's order as a command

25     in his log-book.  Correct?

Page 24369

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Did you see this document before?

 3        A.   No, I didn't.  But I -- I had heard that such documents existed.

 4        Q.   But you had never seen --

 5        A.   I hadn't personally looked at that, no.  I had not seen that

 6     document.

 7        Q.   It was not part the bundle provided to you regarding the military

 8     police?

 9        A.   I'm sorry, I will clarify that.  I knew such documents as in

10     police log-books existed.  But I had not seen that particular document.

11        Q.   Does that mean that that was not provided in the bundle of

12     documents relating to the military that Mr. Cayley provided to you in

13     March --

14        A.   No, I may be that I never actually saw it.  I never, myself,

15     looked at because it was Sibenik and I may have decided that it was not

16     applicable.  Correctly or incorrectly.

17        Q.   So it was either not provided to you, or it may have been

18     provided to you but you didn't review it?

19        A.   One of the two.

20        Q.   Let me show you P1147, which is a letter from General Cermak to

21     Mr. Philippe Augarde, which was the head of the ECMM mission at the time.

22             And you can see in the second paragraph:  "I sincerely regret the

23     cited impermissible behaviour by a person in the uniform of a Croatian

24     soldiers [sic].  I have issued an order to the MP to investigate the case

25     and make every attempt to discover the perpetrator."

Page 24370

 1             Had you seen that document before?

 2        A.   I think I have.

 3        Q.   And you've also seen other documents where General Cermak tells

 4     internationals that he has ordered an investigation --

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   -- or has ordered, in fact, the military police to do things?

 7        A.   Yes.  I have.

 8        Q.   And these documents are not referenced in your report; correct?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   So you -- General Cermak was issuing orders.  He expected them to

11     be followed.  In some cases, the recipient of them recorded them as an

12     order.  And he is also telling people -- it says "issuing orders."

13             General, does that not indicate to you that, if we accept your

14     view that General Cermak did not have the formal authority to issue these

15     orders, it appeared as if he did have that authority?

16        A.   It -- of course, it appears.  I would be foolish to try and paint

17     a picture that General Cermak did not impress some people with his

18     apparent authority.  I mean, he was a General.  He was sent there as we

19     discussed yesterday; he was sent there by the President.  We all know

20     that General Cermak was a successful businessman.  He would have had --

21     he has a personality.  He is a successful man, therefore he will have

22     influenced people.

23             I go back to my original comment that here is a man who was put

24     into this post which he didn't understand.  He thought his -- his -- his

25     real task was the urban regeneration of Knin.  He was there to help the

Page 24371

 1     Canadians but that developed into a much more profound and significant

 2     task of a point of contact.  And I believe that General Cermak did what

 3     many people would do and took on to himself responsibilities which

 4     actually he didn't have.  And did he that for the best possible motives,

 5     because he wished to be helpful.  And there is evidence, as we know from

 6     General Leslie who says that General Cermak was a very helpful and

 7     cooperative person, as General Brigadier Forand says.

 8             So my argument is really that these have got to be taken in that

 9     context and not looked at in a very narrow legalistic way.  I know that

10     is the way the court -- I'm making a presumption, Your Honour, if I may.

11     I know that is the way the Court may wish to do it or the Prosecution may

12     wish to do it.  But I hope you understand my concern is that we look at

13     this wholistically as far as we possibly can.

14             So we understand what was behind this apparent issuing -- this

15     actual issuing of orders and the apparent belief that he the authority to

16     do so.

17        Q.   I'm also happy to report that we're doing much better with the

18     interpreters today, General.

19        A.   Thank you, I'm learning.

20        Q.   I want do stay on this topic of the military police but talk

21     about some of the answers that gave yesterday, both to Mr. Cayley and to

22     Mr. Kehoe.  And a the outset I just want to confirm what you stated

23     yesterday, that you were not sure that you were provided the testimony of

24     General Lausic but that, in any event you did not rely on it in any

25     significant manner in coming to your conclusion.  Correct?

Page 24372

 1        A.   Yes.  I think I added that I looked at lot of the documents.

 2        Q.   Yes --

 3        A.   I may not have done, but I did.  As a matter of clarity, I looked

 4     at a lot of his documents.

 5        Q.   And that's clear from your report --

 6        A.   Thank you.

 7        Q.    -- obviously.  And the same true for Mr. Dzolic, correct, you

 8     may not have reviewed his testimony but --

 9        A.   Yeah.

10        Q.   And also Mr. Simic would be the same?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And that's why they are not referenced in the footnotes because

13     those were not the documents that you relied on mainly?

14        A.   That's correct.

15        Q.   So would it be fair to say that, in respect of the military

16     police, your report is primarily based on the regulations and the

17     documents you reviewed, rather than what these witnesses from the

18     military police testified to?

19        A.   My report is based on looking at the regulations, and based on a

20     certain amount of evidence which I gathered from looking at the documents

21     I did look at, from which I drew those conclusions.  That is -- that is

22     true.

23        Q.   And we discussed yesterday that the significant ones, the key

24     ones are referenced in your report, and the testimonies of those

25     witnesses are not -- I'm just trying to understand that, therefore, you

Page 24373

 1     primarily relied on those sources of information, the documents that you

 2     had and you referred to, rather than the testimonies of those witnesses.

 3        A.   Yes, I did.

 4        Q.   You referred to your report, the rules of the military police,

 5     which is P880, a document that this Chamber is very familiar with.

 6             Now, did you know that General Lausic testified that there was

 7     dual chain of command contemplated in that article, one going to the

 8     military police administration, under Article 8 of the rules, and one

 9     going to the commanders of the Military District or the highest

10     HV commander in the area by function under Article 9.

11             Were you aware of that testimony?

12        A.   I wasn't aware of the testimony, but I'm aware of the two rules,

13     the Article 8 and Article 9.

14        Q.   Well, based on your review would you agree with General Lausic

15     that there was such a dual chain of command in -- at least in P880 in

16     those regulations, one under Article 8 going to the military police

17     administration, and one under Article 9 going to the HV?

18        A.   Before I comment on that, I would just like to see Article 8 and

19     Article 9, if I may.

20        Q.   Of course.  I think it is my mistake, I didn't ask for it to be

21     pulled up.  I apologise; I thought it was there.

22             MR. HEDARALY:  P880, please.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

24             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Mr. President, I don't want to interrupt.

25     If could I have a page cite where Mate Lausic used the phrase "dual chain

Page 24374

 1     of command," I would appreciate it.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  Mr. President, I can look for it at the break.

 4             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...

 5             MR. HEDARALY:  I don't think it's -- I think maybe the words -- I

 6     think the evidence was --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, these words, of course, are not without

 8     importance, especially if you ask someone whether he would be right --

 9             MR. HEDARALY:  I accept that, Your Honour.  And for the purpose

10     of my question, it's not -- I can rephrase it.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Then please rephrase it.

12             MR. HEDARALY:

13        Q.   General, would you agree that Articles 8 and 9 contemplate two

14     separate chains of commands?

15        A.   Yes, I would.  But one is defined by regular -- one is

16     constrained to regular military tasks.

17        Q.   Yes, yes, no, I accept that.  But there are two separate chains;

18     right?

19        A.   There are two separate linkages.  I think we need to be careful

20     before we throw around this word "chain of command" before we quite

21     understand where we are going.

22             It solves the problem.  Perhaps I may just put a little

23     background on this from a military perspective.  It solves the problem of

24     the alternative chain of command which is clearly shown on that, on the

25     organigram, where the military police are commanded by military police

Page 24375

 1     administration which goes into directly the MOD rather than through the

 2     Chief of Staff.  And this enables, Article 9 enables the coordination and

 3     cooperation that General Feldi showed on his -- on his organigram to

 4     exist so that military police units engaged in their regular or daily

 5     military police tasks could be properly integrated into the operational

 6     part of the armed forces.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Let's go to D267.  This is a document you briefly

 8     addressed with Mr. Cayley yesterday.

 9             You were asked questions about and shown some portion of this

10     document.  I want to draw your attention to some others that were not

11     referred to in court.

12             Now, you were shown page 4, paragraph 10.  And the transcript

13     reference which I think could be helpful for everyone to pull up is

14     24175, lines 1 to 4.

15             And, General, you will not have the benefit of that on the

16     screen, so I will read it to you.

17             Mr. Cayley showed you the middle portion of paragraph 10 and

18     said, to refer to the:

19             "I appoint Major Ivan Juric ..." and then skipped straight to the

20     last sentence to elicit your comments and asked you:

21             "The commanders of the 72nd VP battalion and the 73rd VP

22     battalion shall be subordinate to Major Ivan Juric?"

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   An answer to that question, at 24175, 7 to 11, was that

25     Major Juric had been placed in command of those battalions.

Page 24376

 1             Now, General, I just wanted to give you an opportunity to look at

 2     the paragraph more carefully rather than those -- especially the parts

 3     that were skipped because I noticed that Mr. Cayley skipped over the part

 4     where it says Mr. Juric was appointed to assist in commanding and

 5     organising the activities of the 72nd and 73rd --

 6             MR. HEDARALY:  I'm sorry if ...

 7             MR. CAYLEY:  It has just been pointed out that you've just

 8     skipped three words, "group of officers."  "I appoint Major Juric and a

 9     group of officers ..."

10             That's all.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's try to avoid words like "skipping."  Left out

12     is more neutral.  Let's try and keep everything neutral, and let's try to

13     be as precise as possible in quoting.

14             Mr. Hedaraly, would you please --

15             MR. HEDARALY:  My question ...

16        Q.   My question, General, is commanding, and assisting in commanding

17     are two different things; correct?

18        A.   Yes, they are.

19        Q.   And were you aware that General Lausic testified - and I have a

20     transcript reference for my colleagues, it's 15239 - testified that he

21     delegated to Major Juric a portion of his responsibilities under

22     Article 8.  Were you aware of that?

23        A.   I wasn't aware of that.

24        Q.   And used the expression as his "ears and eyes on the ground,"

25     whereas you used the directed telescope analogy.

Page 24377

 1             Now were you also aware that this Chamber has received evidence

 2     from a military police member of the 72nd VP Battalion who rejected the

 3     proposition that Mr. Juric was the commander of the 72nd Battalion in

 4     August 1995 and stated that Mr. Juric was merely a coordinator?

 5             Were you aware of that, because I didn't see it in your report?

 6        A.   Who gave that?

 7        Q.   It was Mr. Simic?

 8        A.   I haven't seen that, no.

 9        Q.   And that's at transcript reference 10348.

10             Now if we now go -- if we're still on D267, I want to show you

11     item 3, which I don't believe you discussed yesterday, which is on the

12     first page.  I'm sorry, the second page in the English.

13             And we see here the last portion of item 3, and you can read the

14     whole item, of course.  I just want to focus on the last sentence.

15              "Within the daily operational chain of command, commanders of

16     VP battalions" - which would include the 72nd and 73rd - "shall be

17     subordinated to commanders of the HV Military Districts."

18             Do you see that?

19        A.   I do.  And who has written that order?

20        Q.   It is written by Mr. Lausic, I believe.  But I will look at the

21     last page.

22             It is by Mr. Lausic.  We can go to page 5, last page in English,

23     if you want to look for yourself.

24        A.   Yeah, thank you.

25        Q.   And I can further tell that you General Lausic testified that for

Page 24378

 1     the purpose of this order, operational chain of command referred to the

 2     same functions as the regular military tasks according to Article 9 of

 3     the rules.  That's at 15257.

 4        A.   And that is what he means by the daily operational chain of

 5     command.

 6        Q.   So would you agree with me that D267 also seems to contemplate

 7     two separate chains of command?  They are subordinated for -- within the

 8     daily operational chain of command to the HV and also in part through

 9     Mr. Juric for other tasks?

10        A.   Yes.  In that he is giving --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

12             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, if I may just go back.  And I just had

14     the opportunity to look at the premise put out by my learned colleague

15     concerning Mr. Simic said.  And in page 31, line 23, Mr. Hedaraly said:

16             "Were you also aware that this Chamber received evidence from a

17     military police member of the 72nd MP Battalion who rejected the

18     proposition that Mr. Juric was the commander of the 72nd Battalion in

19     August of 1995 and stated that Mr. Juric was merely a coordinator?  Were

20     you aware of that because I didn't see it in your report?"

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, now are you challenging that that is what

22     Mr. Simic said?

23             MR. KEHOE:  Well, I think that the Chamber should turn to --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if you would assist us.

25             MR. KEHOE:  If I may, page 10348 the testimony of Mr. Simic, the

Page 24379

 1     question and the answer at line 21 --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  If you would just give me a second to

 3     find it.  You said 10.000 ...

 4             MR. KEHOE:  10348.

 5             JUDE ORIE:  Just one second, please.

 6             MR. HEDARALY:  It starts at page 13, the whole exchange.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  10348.

 8             I am there.  And lines, you said ...

 9             MR. HEDARALY:  13 to 23, would be the full ...

10             JUDGE ORIE:  The answer, at least, gives some more details and

11     also gives some areas where apparently Mr. Simic is not fully aware of

12     certain aspects of it.  And I think it would have been appropriate to

13     summarise it, not just by quoting one or two words but by giving a proper

14     reflection of what the gist of the evidence of Mr. Simic, in this

15     respect, was.

16             Now, very practical question.  Mr. Kehoe, do you want to deal

17     with the matter in re-examination, or would you expect Mr. Hedaraly to --

18     to revisit this issue but now on the basis of a bit more detailed or at

19     least a more nuanced reflection of the testimony of Mr. Simic?

20             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I don't believe that the General has

21     any frame of reference because I'm not sure he actually saw that.  So I'm

22     -- I don't know if -- I'll leave it to the Chamber's discretion if that

23     additional information assists the General in any regard.

24             I just am concerned by this summarisation of something that when

25     I go back -- we go back and look at it simply is not present in the

Page 24380

 1     record.  That's my concern.  But as a practical matter, and, again,

 2     Mr. President, I leave it to your discretion on how to you address it

 3     with General Deverell.

 4             MR. HEDARALY:  Just to alleviate any concern that my learned

 5     colleague has, I -- I apologise for having summarised perhaps not

 6     completely accurately.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I leave it to the parties.  Of course, the word

 8     "commander" and word "coordinator," but there not in general terms, but

 9     coordinator of certain operations or actions that Mr. Simic is not aware

10     of or familiar with appear in -- and so some words appear.  At the same

11     time, it is not a nuanced summary of what the witness said.

12             I leave it in your hands, Mr. Hedaraly, if you want to revisit

13     the matter; and if not, I take it that Mr. Kehoe would be fully capable

14     of dealing with the matter in re-cross.

15             MR. KEHOE:  May I just add one thing, Mr. President.

16             My concern of course on the fullness --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand.  I give an opportunity to

18     Mr. Hedaraly to re-visit the matter in a more nuanced way.  If he doesn't

19     you have an opportunity to do that.  We leave it at that for this moment.

20             Please proceed.

21             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

22        Q.   Really, the only -- the main point I was trying to make, General,

23     is that you did not consider the evidence of Mr. Simic in reaching your

24     conclusions; correct?

25        A.   That's correct.

Page 24381

 1             May I refer back to that -- that order, because I was going to

 2     make a comment.

 3        Q.   I'm still going to discuss other portions of it.

 4        A.   Thank you.

 5        Q.   Do you want to make that comment now, or ...

 6        A.   Well, if I may.

 7        Q.   Is it related the last question, or is it a general --

 8        A.   It's a general comment which perhaps may be helpful at this

 9     moment before we go on to other questions.

10        Q.   Go ahead.

11        A.   If I could just scroll down, or if the page could be scrolled

12     down, please.  I'm sorry, scrolled up.

13             There is a part in this where he refers to assisting with command

14     and then several lines later he says the units are subordinated.

15             There is an element in all this, Your Honour, and again this is

16     context, if I may.  As a senior officer I would regard that as a very,

17     very badly written order.  Because it is ambiguous.  What he says there

18     is a nonsense.  You cannot assist but be made -- made the commander.

19             He may have been referring to the other people assisting.  I can

20     understand why he would want Major Juric to assist, although quite how

21     that is done, I'm not sure.  But there is a complete contradiction there.

22     And you see that contradiction then come down and the -- the part I'm

23     looking at now, paragraph 3 of the order, where he uses the phrase, line

24     one, two, three, four, five, six, "within the daily operational chain of

25     command."

Page 24382

 1             Now that phrase itself, I believe - and I think people have

 2     accepted - actually talks of or refers to Article 9 which is nothing to

 3     do with a chain of command.  It is to do with the integration of the

 4     military police into the operational -- into the operational organisation

 5     for regular military tasks.  And those are all the standard ones of route

 6     marking, route clearing, minor disciplinary -- dealing with minor

 7     disciplinary problems and general good order of the force which is laid

 8     out in -- in the reference in more -- in one of the other references in

 9     more detail.

10             My point is, that actually it's a very ambiguous order.  And one

11     needs to be very careful before we draw certain conclusions, conclusions

12     as in, I am certain this is what it meant.  That was my point, and I

13     hope, perhaps that might have assisted.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.  Have you another four

15     minutes to go.

16             MR. HEDARALY:  I -- I think we can have the break now.  I think

17     it's a good time.  We will come back to this order after the break

18     anyways.  But now is as good a time as another.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  We will have a break, and we will resume at half

20     past 1.00.

21                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.27 p.m.

22                           --- On resuming at 1.34 p.m.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly, are you ready to proceed?

24             MR. HEDARALY:  Yes, Mr. President.  Thank you.

25        Q.   General, we were discussing D2670 [sic] order on the screen, and

Page 24383

 1     you've provided some commentary regarding how it was ambiguous, in your

 2     view, when we left off.  Do you recall that?

 3        A.   I was.

 4        Q.   If we can go now to page 4, paragraph 12 under the heading:

 5     Commanding and reporting system.

 6             And again the last three lines of that section which appear on

 7     the following page were shown to you.  I don't know if you wish to look

 8     at them again now.

 9             MR. HEDARALY:  Why don't we go to the last page.

10        A.   Yeah.

11        Q.   To refresh your memory.  Mr. Cayley discussed to comment on the

12     last three lines:  "The commanders shall submit their requests."

13             Do you remember that discussion yesterday?

14        A.   Yes, I do.

15        Q.   I want to go back to the previous page, please, and look at the

16     first paragraph under that heading at the bottom of the page.

17              "Within the daily operational chain of command commanders of

18     military police battalions" - which includes the 72nd and the 73rd, as

19     well as the companies listed there - "shall be subordinated to the

20     commanders of the HV Military Districts."  So that's the second time we

21     see that in this document now.

22             And if we turn over the page.

23             "And they shall report to them in writing and at briefings on a

24     daily basis."

25             Now, you were asked to comment on the last three lines.  I wanted

Page 24384

 1     to give you a chance to look at more than that portion of this document.

 2     Do you agree that this document, however ambiguous it may be, seems to

 3     suggest that reports would be sent both to the military police

 4     administrations and to the HV commanders?

 5        A.   Can you just scroll up again to the other page, please?

 6        Q.   Of course.

 7             MR. HEDARALY:  If Mr. Registrar can assist.

 8        A.   It says specifically within the daily operational chain of

 9     command and we've had that discussion, and I would suggest that means for

10     regular police tasks that those reports and returns go to the -- the

11     military headquarters.

12        Q.   And other reports would go to the military police administration,

13     or perhaps the same ones?

14        A.   Or perhaps the same ones.  If it wasn't part of a regular

15     military task, then -- if it was something else which was to do with

16     their administration, pay, whatever, conditions of service, then it would

17     go up the military police administration.

18        Q.   And only -- according to this document, within that chain, right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Okay.  Now, yesterday you will recall Mr. Cayley also showed you

21     two documents which were not copied to General Cermak.  We can look at

22     them again, if you want.  I noted that there were also not copied to any

23     HV commanders.  I don't know if you remember.  If you want to look at

24     them again.

25        A.   I'm sorry, yes, I'd like to look at them again, please.  Thank

Page 24385

 1     you.

 2        Q.   Yes.  The first one was D789, which was an order.  And if we can

 3     go to the last page where the addressees are listed.

 4             Can you see here that that order was not copied to any of the HV

 5     commanders; correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And then the report was D791.  And, similarly, if we go to

 8     the bottom of that page, we see that it's delivered to the addressees.

 9     And if we go up to the top of the page now, we'll see the addressees

10     being military police, various sections or departments of the military

11     police administration.

12             So this report which was not copied to General Cermak was also

13     not copied to any other HV commanders; correct?

14        A.   That's true.

15        Q.   Now you cannot exclude for the possibility that this information

16     was also sent to General Cermak, General Gotovina, or another HV officer.

17     In a different communication, for example?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Before you answer the question.

19             Mr. Cayley.

20             MR. CAYLEY:  Yeah, Your Honour, there's got to be some kind of

21     basis for that question.  I mean, it's a -- it's asking the witness to

22     essentially speculate as to whether or not these documents -- when he's

23     actually asked the witness to point out that they're not copied to any

24     HV commanders, and now asking the witness to speculate about whether they

25     could possibly have been sent to these individuals when they're not even

Page 24386

 1     on the address list.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly, if you would ask the witness whether

 3     he could exclude for the possibility that this document was sent to me at

 4     the time, then I take it that would be difficult for him to exclude a

 5     possibility.  Therefore, I would agree that we need a kind of a basis

 6     which brings the copy to be sent to, for example, General Cermak, as you

 7     said, within the ambit of the real world.

 8             MR. HEDARALY:  Perhaps my question was not clear, and I apologise

 9     to my learned friends --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Then rephrase it, please.

11             MR. HEDARALY:  I was referring to the information contained in

12     that document, rather than the document itself.  That it -- could have

13     been sent in another fashion in another report.

14             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...

15             MR. HEDARALY:  We discussed various possibilities of reporting

16     earlier, looking at D267.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Same would apply as far as the content is concerned.

18             MR. CAYLEY:  That's only -- I mean, I think the point is even

19     stronger, Your Honour, that you're making.  I mean, now, we're in the

20     realms of total speculation.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  By the way, if there would have been no objection to

22     the question and, of course, there are two possibilities, either that the

23     witness says, I can't exclude that.  In that case, the Chamber, of

24     course, would -- we're not a jury.  We would understand that not being

25     able to exclude something is if not at zero probative value, perhaps at

Page 24387

 1     0.001.  The other possibility is that the witness would have told us

 2     something about it, why he would know for sure that it wasn't, or that he

 3     would know for sure that it was.  And then, of course, we would have

 4     listened to what he apparently knows about it.  And, therefore,

 5     Mr. Hedaraly, the question, whether the witness has any knowledge on

 6     whether this document may or the content of the document may have been

 7     brought to the attention of the witness would have been a question to be

 8     preferred, because it would be perfectly clear from the first answer

 9     whether the witness has any knowledge which would assist us or not.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

12        Q.   Yesterday, when commenting on this document, you stated that:

13     "It talks about something they did without informing him."

14             That was based just on the fact that this document was not copied

15     to him; correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   You don't in fact know whether or not he was informed of the

18     information here --

19             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, we're going back again to the same

20     question.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  No, it's not the same question.

22             Do you have any knowledge about this?

23             THE WITNESS:  I have no knowledge about that.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That is clear.  Then there's no need to ask

25     any further questions on that.

Page 24388

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MR. HEDARALY:  No, there is not.

 3             Thank you, Mr. President.

 4        Q.   Did you see any -- any documents from General Gotovina regarding

 5     the reporting from the military police; for example, him complaining

 6     about not receiving reports on time?

 7        A.   I don't recall seeing those documents, but I may have done.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Mr. President.  On that question, and I

 9     don't know if we want to do this in the presence of the witness, because

10     I have a question.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't know what you are going raise Mr. Kehoe --

12             MR. KEHOE:  Well, I'm raising ago issue concerning --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, may I take it you have now considered whether

14     or not when you explain do us what you're going to raise whether it could

15     be appropriately done in the presence of the witness.

16             MR. KEHOE:  That's correct, Mr. President, I think, you know,

17     caution being my guide, it may be best to raise my objection at this

18     point regarding that past question by the Prosecutor to the Chamber

19     alone.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             Then, under those circumstances, I have to ask you, Mr. Deverell,

22     to follow Madam Usher and to leave the courtroom for a second.

23             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Because I'm not going to ask you whether you

25     understand any English.

Page 24389

 1                           [The witness stands down]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  You may address the Chamber, Mr. Kehoe.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.

 4             My concern about this question and there are other questions

 5     that, likewise, fall into this category, but this seems to be quite

 6     salient in page 42, line 18, discussing reporting to the military police

 7     and General Gotovina complaining about not receiving reports on time.

 8             And the issue of whether or not he saw any reporting in that

 9     regard.

10             I would like to know, Mr. President, I submit this is a proper

11     request by the Defence and by the Chamber as to what the good-faith basis

12     is for asking a question like that.  Because I would suspect there is no

13     document in possession of the OTP, and I certainly can be educated on

14     that, but we have not seen it.  And I submit that the Defence hasn't seen

15     it.

16             So if you're asking a question about reporting from

17     General Gotovina regarding the military police, there has to be some

18     good-faith basis for that question as opposed to just throwing it out and

19     seeing what the answer might be.

20             Now I highlight this question in particular, but there are other

21     questions that fall into that category as well.

22             Is there some aspect of this that is unknown to the Defence,

23     i.e., that there was reporting by the military police to General Gotovina

24     during this period of time?  Now, with that query or series of questions

25     in that regard, I turn it over to the Trial Chamber to ask the

Page 24390

 1     Prosecution what the good faith basis is for this line of inquiry.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  I am more than happy to acquiesce to Mr. Kehoe's

 4     request.  My question was regarding any documents indicating the timing

 5     of the receipts of the reports.  And I was specifically on my mind had --

 6     wasn't going to show it to the witness because he said he had no

 7     knowledge, but I was referring to P2194 which, unless I have misread it,

 8     is a warning from General Gotovina regarding the timing of the receipt of

 9     reports because it may be addressed at the wrong place, and, therefore,

10     there is some delay, with the caveat that have I now summarized it, so

11     perhaps not 100 percent right.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let me say the following.

13             We hear the testimony of an expert witness who mainly focuses on

14     documentary material and, to some extent, at least who is also aware of

15     some of the testimony this Chamber received.

16             Now, if a witness says something about a document and says, Well,

17     General Gotovina was not informed about it, of course, this is understood

18     by the Chamber as the witness looking at the documents, seeing that the

19     document reveals no information whatsoever that it would have been copied

20     to.  That's how -- I don't know how a jury functions.  I never was on a

21     jury, so I do not know whether my brain would function in any other way.

22     But that is the context in which this evidence is received.

23             And then if would you say, But you say he was not informed, but

24     do you actually know?  Of course, that question makes only sense if there

25     is any reason, first of all, to believe that what the witness said was

Page 24391

 1     anything more than what he deduces from the document; and, second, that

 2     he would have any knowledge, own observation, et cetera, which would

 3     justify to spend time on additional questions to be put to the witness,

 4     in order to elicit all the information he may have on the case.

 5             That is some general observation.  Well, if you ask a witness

 6     totally without a foundation whether he has any knowledge, where we would

 7     not expect him to have any knowledge, that's a waste of the time, but, at

 8     the same time, also not a reason to -- well, to be too much upset about,

 9     apart from the waste of time, of course, that's certainly a reason for

10     being upset.  But I tried to explain how the Chamber understands and

11     appreciates the evidence in the context of the witness which appears

12     before us.  It might have been totally different if it would have been

13     someone who was there at the time, who's commenting on documents but may

14     have some additional knowledge about what happened in reality as well.

15             Here, it has not been established, apart from what the witness

16     told us about his experience in the former Yugoslavia, that he has any

17     specific knowledge going beyond what he saw in the documents and what he

18     has heard and read, in terms of the testimony given by other witnesses.

19             May this be guidance for you, Mr. Hedaraly, to keep focussed on

20     what we could realistically expect from this witness.

21             And for the Defence not -- well, to -- to save then a --

22             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you for the guidance, Mr. President.

23             I think the Chamber can understand this witness also draws some

24     very broad conclusions sometimes based on documents.  So simply asking

25     him he had considered -- had seen any of that evidence.  And that was

Page 24392

 1     all.  I wasn't going to go into any more detail.  And he answered that he

 2     didn't have knowledge of it, and I was glad to move on, not to waste the

 3     Chamber's time.  But have I kept that --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  You have done that several times, Were you a wear of

 5     this?  Were you aware of that?  And I didn't hear any objections about

 6     that because it enables the Chamber to assess what this expert witness

 7     has considered and what he has not considered in writing his report and

 8     drawing his conclusions.

 9             Then, Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the

10     courtroom again.

11             MR. KEHOE:  If I may, Mr. President, if we are going to go into

12     this exhibit, P2194, it's outside the indictment period.  This is

13     15 November and was not on Prosecutor's witness list either to be used.

14     Exhibit list, excuse me, to be used.  But I trust that -- the nodding of

15     my learned friend across the well is that we're not going to go into

16     this.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

18             MR. HEDARALY:  If I have understood the Chamber' guidance

19     correctly, I will not be going into that document, nor was I planning to.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't know whether you have understood it

21     correctly or not, but apparently you are determined not use it, and

22     that's what -- that was the matter to be considered and determined.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24                           [The witness takes the stand]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Deverell, you earlier said you had nothing to

Page 24393

 1     hide.  The Chamber has nothing to hide either, but if you want to know

 2     what we discussed in your absence, the transcript is available to you --

 3             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- after.

 5             Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

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

 7        Q.   We finished dealing with D267, which were the 2 August order that

 8     we saw that you had claimed was ambiguous, if you remember?

 9        A.   Yes, I do.

10        Q.   Which now takes us to D47, which is the order from

11     General Lausic, cancelling D267.  Were you aware of that -- were you

12     aware that relationship between D47 and D267, because I have not seen it

13     in your report.

14        A.   Let me look, and I'll be able to tell you.

15             Yes, I think I am.  I think I am.  Could you scroll down, please.

16             Yes, I do.  The phrase "the degree of combat readiness shall be

17     maintained," I remember, as a specific part of it.

18        Q.   I'm sorry, maybe I was asking whether you remembered -- were you

19     aware of the relationship between this order and D267.  I'm asking you

20     this question because I didn't see it in your report.

21        A.   No.  I think I am -- I am aware of the relationship.  If I'm not,

22     I'm sure you will tell me.

23        Q.   I was simply asking you a question about whether you knew or not.

24             You can see that "I hereby order" at the bottom of the page in

25     English and --

Page 24394

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   -- it says to invalidate item 1 of the order, strictly

 3     confidential.  And the number that you see there is the one for D267.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And other provisions of this document, you will recall, cancel

 6     various portions of D267.  And if you were not aware of that, well, you

 7     are now.  And so it took us -- so on 14th of August, this went back to

 8     the general situation, having cancelled D267, the general situation under

 9     Articles 8 and 9.

10             The last page of this document, paragraph 14, the last sentence:

11             "In daily operational command, subordinate the commanders of the

12     newly established platoons and company of the Knin military police to the

13     most senior HV commander in the zone of responsibility and send the daily

14     report to them."

15             Were you aware, sir, that General Lausic testified that the

16     Knin Company commander would come under the garrison command, as that

17     would be the highest HV command in the area.  Were you aware of that

18     testimony by Mr. Lausic?

19        A.   I was not aware of that testimony by Mr. Lausic.  Is this -- is

20     it for daily tasks?

21        Q.   Yes, it is.

22        A.   It is for -- right.  And did he say under the command, or ... as

23     I haven't seen the -- the document, perhaps before I comment I should be

24     able to see that document.

25        Q.   I just wonder if you were aware of it or not, that there is some

Page 24395

 1     -- I don't want to show you a statement of another witness.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly, you asked whether the -- Mr. Deverell

 3     was aware that General Lausic testified, and then you touched upon the

 4     content of his testimony.  If you would have asked him, are you aware

 5     that he testified on this matter, then we could have left it as it was.

 6     But since you now summarise what the testimony was, if you want an answer

 7     to that question and the witness already answered it, but then said,

 8     Well, I'd like to verify first, in order to be sure that my answer is

 9     accurate or not.

10             So there are two options.  Either you should say the Chamber

11     should ignore the answer, the question should not have been put by me in

12     this way; or you give an opportunity to Mr. Deverell to look at it, or to

13     summarise it in such a way that Mr. Cayley sits down again.

14             MR. CAYLEY:  Could I make some observations and I'll talk in

15     neutral terms, Your Honour, because I think you'll probably know what I'm

16     referring to.

17             But we also know of course the difficulty in Mr. Hedaraly putting

18     that evidence in that manner is the witness was cross-examined.  And

19     without going into the details of that cross-examination there was

20     actually specific cross-examination on this particular provision by

21     Mr. Kay.  And what I would respectfully submit to the Court is that if

22     the evidence is going to put in this way, and we have been around this

23     buoy before, then the totality of the evidence should be put to the

24     witnesses and not just in isolation.  I know you will probably say to me,

25     Well, do that in re-examination, Mr. Kay.  But the problem with that is

Page 24396

 1     the consequence of simply putting half of the evidence or a quarter of

 2     the evidence is that it ends up with me today or tomorrow having to go

 3     back to that transcript and having to do an extensive re-examination on

 4     the evidence that the witness gave when Mr. Kay cross-examined him.

 5             So my submission would be is that either Mr. Hedaraly puts all of

 6     the evidence to this witness, or he simply asks, Are you aware of this;

 7     no.  And then moves on.  Because asking this witness to agree with what

 8     General Lausic said without actually putting what General Lausic said in

 9     its entirety is unfair and it's misleading and I don't really think helps

10     the Court, Your Honour.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  May I make two observations in this respect.  As I

12     said earlier, you can't ask a witness whether he agrees or not with the

13     testimony on the basis of just a very short summary.  That -- I do,

14     however, not fully agree with you, Mr. Cayley.  I think it's for a

15     cross-examining party can rely on what it considers to be reliable and

16     credible evidence and may choose for that purpose either evidence in

17     cross-examination or evidence given in chief.  And, of course, then for

18     the other party, they still to complete that picture, especially if the

19     evidence is contradictory and not knowing whether -- what the evaluation

20     of the Chamber of that evidence will be.  Under those circumstances, it's

21     not -- it's not prohibited to put not all of the evidence, of course, in

22     a situation where another interested party can put other parts of that

23     evidence to the witness.

24             At the same time, Mr. Hedaraly, if we do not find ourselves in

25     such a situation; for example, if the witness in cross-examination has

Page 24397

 1     not said something different or just clarified, then, of course, it's a

 2     waste of time not to put all of it right away to the witness, because

 3     otherwise we would not -- we would not receive the evidence, which

 4     assists us best in making the determinations we will finally have to

 5     make.

 6             So the situation -- I do not fully agree with you in every

 7     respect, Mr. Cayley, but I would say 70 per cent of it is good enough for

 8     Mr. Hedaraly to carefully think it over, if he does not put all of the

 9     evidence in relation to a certain matter to the witness; but he is not

10     under all circumstances obliged to put it all to him.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. HEDARALY:  Perhaps I can simplify matters.

13        Q.   General, were you aware of General Lausic's testimony regarding

14     the relationship between the Knin Military Police Company and the

15     Knin garrison command?

16        A.   No.  Sorry, no.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly, may I take it from this way in which

19     you followed up the objections and the observations by the Chamber, that

20     you would invite the Chamber to ignore the earlier "yes" by -- as an

21     answer, and I will be very specific there --

22             MR. HEDARALY:  That is correct, Your Honour.  I took the first

23     option proposed to me by the Chamber earlier.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So the Chamber will not consider the evidence

25     by this witness where he agreed with your -- and let me -- if you could

Page 24398

 1     assist me in finding the right page and number so that we are ...

 2             MR. KAY:  49:6.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  49:6.

 4             MR. HEDARALY:  It's actually 49:4 and 5.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I noticed earlier that there is an slight

 6     discrepancy between the line numbering in some of the systems.

 7             Yes, the -- everything else asked from this witness and the

 8     further inquiries he made into what the content of the testimony is, the

 9     Chamber will ignore that, and the Chamber will pay attention only to the

10     fact that this witness was not aware of the testimony of General Lausic,

11     regarding the relationship between the Knin Military Police Company and

12     the Knin garrison commands, where he said that he was not aware of it.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

15        Q.   General, you were also asked yesterday a question by Mr. Kehoe at

16     transcript 24193 where he suggested to that you General Lausic took a

17     significant step in ensuring his personal control and that of the

18     military police over controlling military police criminal investigations

19     by requiring reporting to Major Juric.

20             Do you remember that question by Mr. Kehoe?

21        A.   Yes, I do.

22        Q.   Were you aware of the fact that Mr. Simic, who was a crime

23     investigation police officer, testified that he did not report to

24     Major Juric, that he came under the command of the HV and that crime

25     investigation were part of his daily activity?

Page 24399

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I'd like a transcript reference, page,

 3     line.

 4             MR. HEDARALY:  P --

 5             MR. KEHOE:  I would also like an opportunity to check that.

 6             MR. HEDARALY:  P967, paragraph 16.

 7                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 8             MR. HEDARALY:  Mr. President ...

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Hedaraly.

10             Well, it -- under normal circumstances, I would -- I would take

11     the view that every party is expected to summarise any piece of evidence

12     he wants to put to the witness in a most accurate way, and that unless

13     there's any reason to believe that there might be mistakes there.

14             However, in view of the experience of today on several matters, I

15     think the best way to proceed is, first, to ask the witness whether he is

16     aware of evidence without yet summarizing it, just touch upon what it is

17     about, rather than what it is, and then immediately give the source to

18     the -- to the Defence so that they can immediately check whether any

19     summary they could expect if the witness answered that question by yes is

20     accurate or not.

21             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, if I just can interject.  At this

22     point what the Prosecutor alluded to in the -- with regard to that

23     testimony is not in evidence, and I direct the Chamber to -- and what I'm

24     say something is he just referred to paragraph 16 and P967.  I address

25     the Chamber to the proofing note for the witness at P968, line --

Page 24400

 1     paragraph 4, where he notes in paragraph 16:

 2             "It is stated that the commanders of the units in the field

 3     reported to the Military District command about the committed crimes.  I

 4     cannot confirm that claim because I have no knowledge about it."

 5             So, what he put was -- in paragraph 16 of P967 when he was called

 6     by the Prosecutor, the witness backed off of it in P968, paragraph 4 of

 7     the supplemental witness statement, so ...

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  If there's any -- it's still for the Chamber to

 9     decide.  It is not automatically that everything a witness stays later

10     makes the earlier statement in every respect and under all circumstances

11     not to be used.  It will depend on many circumstances, although we would,

12     as a starting point, accept if a witness -- if a witness corrects his

13     statement.  We'll look at all kind of circumstances, such as under what

14     circumstances the statement was taken, under what circumstances the --

15     the supplementary statement is, or the corrections are made.

16             At the same time, as I said before, it may -- in most of the

17     cases be a waste of time just to put half of the testimony of a witness

18     to a new witness.

19             But again, the first question I would have asked of this witness

20     is whether he is aware of the testimony by Mr. Simic on a certain matter.

21     Because if the answer is no, then we can just avoid all these kind of

22     discussions which lead us to nowhere.

23             So, could you please rephrase your question, just asking this

24     witness, without summarizing the content, but just referring to the

25     subject matter of the testimony, whether he has seen it and whether he

Page 24401

 1     has considered it when drafting his report and forming his opinions.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, just one comment on that regard.  The

 3     statement that counsel read in paragraph 16 of 967 is not in evidence.

 4     It hasn't been 92 ter'd because -- pardon me using Rule 92 ter in the

 5     verb.  But has not been admitted in evidence pursuant to 92 ter because

 6     that portion of the statement he did not acknowledge that he would say

 7     this or attest to were he asked those same questions in court.

 8     Accordingly, that portion of paragraph 16 alluded to by Mr. Hedaraly is

 9     not in evidence.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll have to consider whether it is or it is not --

11     what I see in this document, some portions were specifically taken out.

12     For example, paragraph 17 is not in evidence.  It has been blackened out.

13     And therefore before ever -- but, again, that, we're not discussing at

14     this moment exactly.  I invited Mr. Hedaraly to rephrase his question in

15     such a way that if there is no need to have all this trouble to avoid it.

16             Mr. Hedaraly, could you please rephrase your question.

17             MR. HEDARALY:  Yes, Mr. President.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And, Mr. Kehoe, in addition, you will understand

19     that not on my mind I remember every single detail of what the

20     attestation was about, not being prepared on these kind of details in

21     advance.

22             MR. KEHOE:  And I appreciate that, Mr. President.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

24             Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

25             MR. HEDARALY:

Page 24402

 1        Q.   General, were you aware of Mr. Simic's testimony with regard to

 2     the reporting of crimes -- of crime investigations to Major Juric or not?

 3        A.   No, I was not.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, you're invited to, if we are in a similar

 5     situation, put the first question, as I already asked you before.  I

 6     think my last observation was if you would please introduce the matter in

 7     the way in which you did it now, not in the way you did it earlier,

 8     because that really could, I'm not saying will, but could save quite a

 9     bit of time.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

12        Q.   I want to turn briefly to -- in your report when you discuss the

13     crimes that took place in Sector South and the fact that General Cermak

14     would have undoubtedly been aware of their occurrence and that there were

15     times when there were discrepancy between what the internationals

16     reported and the official version of the Croatian government and that in

17     those cases he was not trying to mislead the internationals but he was

18     simply accepting the version that was given to him.  And you gave the

19     example of Grubori, for example.

20             Do you remember that?

21        A.   Yes, I do.

22        Q.   Were you aware of the portion of the interview General Cermak

23     gave to the Office of the Prosecutor regarding an argument that he may

24     have had with General Tolj regarding those crimes?

25        A.   I'd like to see it before I say that, please.

Page 24403

 1        Q.   Okay.  It's at P2525, and it's page 21.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you also give me the page reference in the

 3     report where the ...

 4             MR. HEDARALY:  Yes.  I think it's towards the end.  I think it's

 5     page 55 -- there's a -- that discussion is at several places.  Page 55 is

 6     one example.

 7             And just for the full context, if we can go to the page before,

 8     just so that we can see the full answer and the question.  Go to bottom.

 9        Q.   You said line 31, there is a question:

10             "Who else were you not popular with in the military?  You mention

11     Mr. Susak.  Who else?"

12             If we can go to the next page, it starts at page -- at line 5.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I don't mean to interrupt counsel, but

14     my client needs to be able to read -- or the accused need to be able to

15     read these things that are being read into the record, if he can.

16             MR. HEDARALY:  The problem that I alluded yesterday, and I

17     checked overnight, is for some reason there is no full B/C/S translation.

18     There is a mixed B/C/S-English, and we're trying to resolve that.  And I

19     do apologise to those following in B/C/S.  I tried to have the video-clip

20     so that they could listen to the original, but there is some technical

21     issues, I was told, and it is not synced properly.  So I didn't want to

22     use it, but the witness asked to look at it, so I really apologise for

23     that.  I will read it slowly so that everyone can follow.

24             MR. KEHOE: [Microphone not activated] I'm guided by Your Honours

25     decision in this.  I'm not quite sure how which should proceed.

Page 24404

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber considers it very unfortunate that we do

 3     not -- cannot give, at this moment, direct access to the accused but

 4     fully accepts that if this is verified or, if on the basis of further

 5     discussions with your client, that you would like to revisit the matter

 6     or that you would claim that Mr. Hedaraly has not appropriately put to

 7     the witness what was in evidence, that you have a full opportunity to do

 8     so.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I certainly don't want to interrupt,

10     but so the Chamber understands, we engage with the clients as all

11     Defence counsel do, and it is simply a matter when something comes up

12     often times they want to give us a note or say something about a

13     particular comment to put it in context.  And it's in that in vein and

14     not to interrupt counsel's line of inquiry that I'm raising this.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and even if during this hearing you would like

16     to further discuss or need a break for that purpose, it will be given to

17     you, because everything that is available to us to -- to counterbalance

18     this unfortunate situation will be -- will be given to you.

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

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

21             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

22        Q.   Let me read from the document for the record and for the

23     translation.

24              "I also had a telephone duel with General Tolj.  General Tolj

25     was in charge of political work and the media as well, and he was also

Page 24405

 1     the spokesperson of the Ministry of Defence during Storm.  Oftentimes in

 2     the media in Slobodna Dalmatia and other papers, I criticised the

 3     situation.  I said that things are happening and it's actually a shame,

 4     that some things for Croatia and for the Croatian state.  In

 5     Slobodna Dalmatia I said that some members of the Croatian military are

 6     to blame for what happened and that some of the blame must be put on the

 7     military commanders because they have to check the military on the ground

 8     and that not everything can be done that people were doing.

 9             "And two days later there was an article in the newspaper where

10     General Tolj was quoted saying that on the ground the Croatian military

11     isn't doing anything, that these were some civilians who were dressed in

12     military uniforms, looting and burning.  And there was a huge article, my

13     article was tiny, his was a huge article, and it said, The crimes in this

14     area are not being committed by the Croatian military according to

15     reports by the military police but that this was being carried out by

16     civilians who were dressed up, which was not true.  And I called him on

17     the telephone.  I told him, saying, You're sitting there in Zagreb, you

18     don't even know what the situation on the ground is.  And the truth is

19     what I'm telling you, I'm telling you now.  Such articles don't really

20     help anybody, they're just negative because hiding and lying won't help

21     anybody.  And I said some nasty things to him, that ... he said, Well,

22     don't be upset with me, you know that ... there are people higher up.

23     So, then he sent me basically ... and that was the last I heard from

24     him."

25             Had you seen that exchange before?

Page 24406

 1        A.   I don't recall that piece.  I have seen several bits of the

 2     transcript of General Cermak being interviewed.  But I don't recall that

 3     one.

 4        Q.   Can I ask you how did you select which portions of the

 5     transcripts to read?  Because I know they're voluminous --

 6        A.   No, I just -- I mean, I selected because I was looking through,

 7     and I was looking for things which interested me.  Clearly, I didn't see

 8     this.

 9        Q.   So you were flipping through the transcripts just generally

10     looking for information?

11        A.   I was looking for particular words, particular things which were

12     of interest.  I mean, that's the way I doing my work.

13        Q.   I'm just trying to understand.

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And I can just tell you that you the date of the newspaper

16     article that is referenced is 7 September.  The article is in evidence as

17     D59.  And I don't know if have you seen the article itself or not.

18        A.   I have seen several articles, but --

19        Q.   Well, it doesn't -- I mean, for the purposes of my question -- if

20     you need to refer back to it, let me know.

21        A.   I'm happy to focus on this particular piece of paper at the

22     moment.

23        Q.   So on that occasion, and I appreciate that's in September, around

24     -- a few days after the 7th, General Cermak is arguing with General Tolj

25     regarding who's committing the crimes; correct?

Page 24407

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   So if, after this conversation, General Cermak told

 3     internationals that crimes were committed by non-soldiers or civilians

 4     dressed in military uniforms, would that change your conclusion regarding

 5     the fact that he was simply accepting a version without knowing really

 6     what was happening?

 7        A.   No.  I don't think this -- I don't think this tells you that he

 8     knew what was happening.  I think this -- this has a very interesting --

 9     you could -- you could look at many countries to find that this sort of

10     conversation was going on and the times of great national crisis and

11     stress of people between those who sit in the headquarters and those who

12     are on the grounds.  And -- and you may have noticed -- well, you were

13     reading that I was smiling while I was reading this because I think, you

14     know, being a soldier we have all experienced this.

15             It -- it highlights the -- the problem that I alluded earlier.

16     And I would just like that make this comment to add context to it.  The

17     problems of having a person who de facto becomes a spokesman and somebody

18     who has command responsibility.  I don't think it, to me, changes the

19     issue that Cermak, who consistently is being given general information

20     about crimes by Brigadier General Forand, and you will remember that he

21     asks for evidence, and we may be discussing that at some stage in the

22     future, where General Cermak asks the letter where he talks about

23     insinuations.  And General Forand and I make a comment in my report that

24     I was surprised that the United Nations or UNCRO, that their staff work

25     was, I would say, not particularly high standard at the time because they

Page 24408

 1     had not provided General Cermak with specific evidence beforehand.  And

 2     that he was dealing in generalities.

 3             It doesn't change my view that at Grubori he chose to give the

 4     version which was that which he felt was the true one.  And because he a

 5     television camera there, I guess he wanted to make the best of what he

 6     felt was actually, at the time, a success.  The capture, killing of some

 7     renegade Chetniks.

 8             Now, the truth of the issue is another matter.  And we may

 9     discuss that later.

10             But what I'm trying to say is that this, to me, doesn't change --

11     the fact that he has had this row on 7th of September doesn't actually

12     mean that what he says afterwards is being influenced by General Tolj.

13     It might do.  It would be a reasonable assumption.  But I -- I guess that

14     there will be another, an alternative view which I might take that he

15     continues to act as the spokesman and he continues to give a view of

16     incidents which reflect his country's view in the absence of specific

17     information which subsequently he gets, as I recall, from United Nations.

18        Q.   And just to go back on your answer because it was quite lengthy.

19        A.   Hmm.

20        Q.   When you talked about this common occurrence between someone on

21     the field and someone in an office in Zagreb, General Cermak would be the

22     one who would have the better information than General Tolj since he was

23     in Knin and General Tolj was in Zagreb.

24             Is that a reasonable interpretation?

25        A.   It is not actually a reasonable interpretation, and this is the

Page 24409

 1     paradox.  Because sometimes the person who is sitting at the heart of the

 2     communication system will have better information than somebody who has

 3     got a relatively narrow view of what he sees in -- in -- within his

 4     precise area.

 5             So one must be careful before we make that -- that distinction as

 6     a matter of course.  In my -- in my personal experience, normally the

 7     person on the ground understands what's happened on ground more clearly

 8     but may not be able to put the -- may not be able to put it into its

 9     context in a way that somebody further back with more information can.

10     But we're in very difficult areas here, and it depends on personalities

11     and your command and control system.

12        Q.   Let me talk briefly about a few topics, and I will address them

13     fairly rapidly and none of those are issues that we necessarily deal --

14     have to deal with in some detail.  Perhaps we may decide to, but at this

15     moment --

16             And the first one is in your report, at page 15, when you are

17     discussing the structure of garrisons generally and what they usually are

18     limited to.  One of the examples that you give at line 9 is that they

19     would be responsible for traffic control.

20             Do you see that?

21        A.   Yes, I do.

22        Q.   Now, would check-points fall under traffic control?

23        A.   They could do.  Although, I'm sorry, just can I clarify that?

24        Q.   Sure.

25        A.   It's -- the exact phrase is within line 9:  "Within their

Page 24410

 1     garrison such as regulations for the use of facilities."  Regulations,

 2     therefore, for traffic control for speed limits.

 3             So it is more about -- that line is more about -- the regulations

 4     is more about having a 30 mile an hour -- or 30 kilometre an hour speed

 5     limit, and where it might be than the physical placing of check-points,

 6     their regularity, when they are to be, what they are to do.

 7        Q.   But check-point would regulate traffic as well.

 8        A.   Well, the check-point might be the means of regulating traffic.

 9     What I refer to here is the instructions, the regulations that that

10     check-point would be monitoring or imposing.

11             So one is -- one is, as it were, procedure, that the -- the

12     production of a procedure; and the other is the imposition of that

13     procedure, the ensuring that that procedure is followed.

14        Q.   And at page 43 of your report, you talk generally about freedom

15     of movement.  And you then cite a few documents, suggesting that

16     General Cermak's granting freedom of movement was unclear.  You refer to

17     one early example from 8/9 August and the one from 7 October as well.

18     Those are the two examples that you use in your report.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   General, this Chamber has also received evidence and reports of

21     internationals which showed that, upon either a phone call to

22     General Cermak or sometimes even a threat of a phone call to

23     General Cermak, they were allowed to go through a check-point when they

24     were initially stopped.

25             Did you review that evidence --

Page 24411

 1             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, could we have some kind of citation for

 2     this.  Can you ground that in an exhibit or a transcript or --

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  Absolutely.  I'll give a few examples from the

 4     ECMM reports P511, P818, P1294 and the testimony is generally of, for

 5     example, Eric Hendriks.

 6        Q.   Did you see any such documentation, General, and if you did, can

 7     you tell us why you didn't reference it?

 8        A.   I -- I did.  I know that freedom of movement increasingly became

 9     a reality.  But to go to my words, if I may, line 12.  "His name and

10     authority did not always carry much weight."

11             Now, implicit in "did not always," I meant to show that sometimes

12     it did.  What I was demonstrating there was that his authority, much as

13     it might have been, did not spread particularly far.  There was still

14     evidence that people didn't know who General Cermak was, or would not

15     accede to a pass or the use of his name.

16             At all stages in this particular part, I'm talking about a

17     situation which was very unclear, and I'm trying to identify that the --

18     that the simple -- the simple assessment that General Cermak had

19     authority because he wrote the order, that even if some people obeyed

20     that order, it did not go very far.  The --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Deverell, would you mind if I took you back to

22     the question.

23             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  The question was whether you had considered evidence

25     to the effect that, when initially stopped at check-point, whether a

Page 24412

 1     phone call or the suggestion that a phone call could be made changed the

 2     attitude of the person who stopped and a phone call to General Cermak?

 3             Did you -- are you aware of, and did you consider it?

 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Excuse me, Your Honour.  I am aware of it

 5     because it rings a bell.  I was not specific -- I can't specifically

 6     quote an example.  And I -- I chose not to produce a footnote, an example

 7     of that.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And that was part of what you said when I said

 9     mainly, that sometimes it did.

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes, absolutely.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, may I just raise one issue.  And this

13     has happened several times.  I mean, we ask for a frame of reference for

14     a particular line of questioning, and our procedure has been throughout

15     this trial to disclose the exhibits that were going to be used in

16     cross-examination.  And P511, P518, P1294 that just were cited in

17     response to the question raised by Mr. Cayley have not been disclosed as

18     documents that are going to be used by the Prosecution.

19             Now, again, maybe I should have raised this when this began, but

20     this is not the first time this has transpired.  If we are going properly

21     prepare --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... to start with.  The

23     factual information Mr. Kehoe is providing is correct, Mr. Hedaraly?

24             MR. HEDARALY:  I was not planning to use them, Mr. President.

25     Until I was asked to provide a reference, I did not show them to the

Page 24413

 1     witness.  I simply asked if he was aware of general information with

 2     respect to that.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  At the same time you are referring to very

 4     specific events, and you are asking about the evidence which shows.  And

 5     therefore under those circumstances even if you would not intend to use

 6     that, the statements or the specific evidence, of course, the first thing

 7     you could expect is that the Defence would say, Where do we find that?

 8             So, therefore, perhaps you would discuss further, perhaps among

 9     the parties, how to deal with these matters.  Because I notice that there

10     is a - and I'm looking in both directions - that the flow of evidence is

11     more interrupted than not interrupted, and we should try to find ways to

12     avoid this.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

15        Q.   You discussed yesterday the order for active defence which was

16     D281, you will recall.

17             MR. HEDARALY:  If we can have that on the screen.

18             THE WITNESS:  Could I have the page reference, please.

19             MR. HEDARALY:

20        Q.   It was in court yesterday you discussed --

21        A.   I'm sorry.

22        Q.   I think you referred to it in your report as well, but --

23        A.   Yeah, I do.

24        Q.    -- I'm focussing on yesterday.

25             And you were shown the organisational chart on the last page, you

Page 24414

 1     will recall?

 2        A.   I do.

 3        Q.   And that organisational chart did not include the Knin garrison,

 4     as the Knin garrison command is not an operational entity; correct?

 5        A.   That's my judgement, yes.

 6        Q.   And you also discussed yesterday, I think Mr. Cayley showed you

 7     two elements in that report about the 4th and the 7th Guards Brigades, to

 8     be resting in Knin?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And I've also noticed that we don't see on this organisational

11     chart the 4th and the 7th Guards Brigade.  Do you have any knowledge as

12     to why they are not included?

13        A.   I believe that is because, of course, they were not part.  They

14     were in reserve, not part of the -- that part of the operation.  I mean,

15     that is a judgement I make.

16        Q.   And you've -- you also noted that this particular order was not

17     copied to the Knin garrison.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And that that surprised you as well.

20        A.   Well, it didn't surprise me.  It -- necessarily that it merely

21     identified -- and I was using this as -- as another part of the proof

22     that Knin garrison was not part of the operational element of Split

23     Military District.

24        Q.   And if we look at P1219.  And we see there at the second

25     paragraph of a report from General Cermak to the Main Staff:

Page 24415

 1             "The Split Military District and the Knin garrison command are in

 2     constant coordination."

 3             Did you see that?

 4        A.   Yes, I recognise that.

 5        Q.   What -- what would it mean to be in constant coordination?

 6        A.   Well, you would expect to find reports and returns or

 7     discussions.  Of course, there may have been discussions on the telephone

 8     which are not recorded here.  There would have been some sign that that

 9     coordination was taking place.

10        Q.   Now, this was a report that was in response to the order that we

11     saw yesterday, the last document that was shown to you by Mr. Kuzmanovic.

12     I don't know if you remember it.  If you want me to pull it up for you so

13     that ...

14        A.   I think can I remember it.  If I need to pull it up, if I may, I

15     will ask you.

16        Q.   Of course.

17        A.   But ...

18        Q.   That was an order to the -- remember that the one of

19     mistranslations of Knin garrison, rather than Knin Military District?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   That may jog your memory.  And that was an order requesting

22     information from all Military Districts and the Knin garrison?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And this is the response to that -- to that order.

25             And it says -- I read the first sentence already about the

Page 24416

 1     constant coordination.  And then it continues:

 2             "The intelligence assessment regarding this order was made by" --

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  If we can turn the page.

 4        Q.    "... by the chief of the intelligence Department of The Split

 5     Military District Command.  If we were do submit the same, I would

 6     consider it a repetition of work."

 7             Now, in your report, at page 30, you said:

 8             "More likely, he" -- being General Cermak, "did not have the

 9     physical means to do it."

10             Can you tell us what's the basis for that statement that more

11     likely he did not have the physical means, rather than what we see on

12     paper which is that they were in constant coordination and, therefore, it

13     was unnecessary?

14        A.   The reason I said that he didn't have the physical means to do it

15     was, Your Honour, quite simply, that it enabled me to identify a time or

16     an example when the lack of numbers in his headquarters and the lack of

17     skill sets -- I'm sorry it's a jargon word.  The lack of relevant skills

18     would have prevented him from, in my judgement, producing what the chief

19     of the Main Staff wanted.

20             That was -- that was a point that I was trying to draw out.  I

21     believe, and I think I -- I said in my report that, of course, there are

22     two interesting aspects here.  One is that I'm not entirely certain what

23     the Chief of the Main Staff was doing writing to a subordinate

24     headquarters, where he should have been actually writing to

25     General Gotovina, and it was for General Gotovina to task General Cermak

Page 24417

 1     to conduct that particular piece of work.  And I -- I suggest that there

 2     is some human element in here, and it is General Cermak trying to find a

 3     reason why he should not do that work because he was not inclined to do

 4     it because he was to busy doing other things.  And as we here from the

 5     commander Sector South in several of his reports or at least one of his

 6     reports, you know, General Cermak is a very busy man.

 7             So that -- that would be my -- my view of that slightly looking

 8     under the surface of it.  I tried to -- to get some reasonable deductions

 9     from that -- from that particular document.

10        Q.   General, thank you very much for answering my questions.

11             MR. HEDARALY:  Mr. President, I have no further questions.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Hedaraly.

13             We were scheduled to have the break at 3.00.  I wonder whether we

14     should take the break first.

15             Mr. Cayley.

16             MR. CAYLEY:  Could I just have a moment to consult with Mr. Kay,

17     Your Honour, if we take the break now.  I would like ...

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we will have a break, and we will resume

19     at quarter past 3.00.

20                           --- Recess taken at 2.50 p.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 3.18 p.m.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley.

23             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, we don't have any further questions for

24     the witness.  Thank you.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Cayley.

Page 24418

 1             Mr. Kehoe.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I have a few, just very briefly.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

 4                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:

 5        Q.   General, I would just like to clarify a few issues that came up

 6     during the cross-examination by Mr. Hedaraly.  And I would first like to

 7     go back to address the active defence order D281.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  If we could put that on the screen.

 9        Q.   And if I could turn to paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5.  Again, that's the

10     active defence order of 9 August 1995.  That's page 6 in the B/C/S, I am

11     told.

12             If could you help -- thank you.  Okay.

13             Now, General, when we were discussing these two units, and you

14     were asked about the non-presence of these brigades on the organigram.

15     You noted on page 68, line 12:

16             "I believe this is because, of course, they were not part.  They

17     were in reserve not part of that operation.  This is a judgement I can

18     make."

19             Now, if wee look at 5.4, 5.4 notes that:

20             "Only a -- if we say -- HV 4 Guards Brigade shall be withdrawn

21     from the front line in order to take a break to be replenished and to get

22     ready for further combat activities."

23             Now, in your experience, General, that's R and R, rest and

24     relaxation for the troops; isn't it?

25        A.   Yes.  Could be considered to be that.

Page 24419

 1        Q.   And the Split Military District commander shall have in reserve

 2     one HV 4 Guards Brigade Infantry Battalion.  And that's the battalion

 3     that was in the Knin barracks.

 4             So with regard to the 4th Guards Brigade, we have one battalion

 5     that's in reserve, and the rest of the battalion is on rest and

 6     relaxation.  Isn't that right?

 7        A.   Whether can you call it rest and relaxation, a break and to be

 8     replenished, technically.  I mean, I don't know what they would have been

 9     doing.  But I guess that they would have been relaxing by default almost

10     because they were not fully employed.

11        Q.   And you were -- were you aware that the 4th Guards Brigade was

12     out of the Split area?

13        A.   Yes, I was.  I -- I know -- I know that one was, as it were,

14     organic to Split Military District and one was not.  I couldn't remember

15     off the top of my head which one was.

16        Q.   Well, let's turn our attention to 5.5 which is the comment on the

17     7th Guards Brigade.  And it notes:

18             "HV 7 Guards Brigade shall be withdrawn from the front line in

19     order to rest and replenish and again to get ready for further combat

20     actions -- activities.  Split Military District commanders shall have in

21     reserve one HV 4 Guards Brigade company."  And I think that should read,

22     if I'm not mistaken --

23        A.   It should read 7.

24        Q.   In the original it is the 7th.

25             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I think in the original we can agree

Page 24420

 1     it says the 7th.  If we look at 5.5.  I don't speak Croatian but the

 2     Arabic numerals are the same, 7 and 7.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  That seems fair to me.

 4             MR. KEHOE:

 5        Q.   In any event, General, again, we have a company of the 7th Guards

 6     Brigade -- excuse me.

 7                           [Defence counsel confer]

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I am also told by Mr. Misetic that

 9     this should be a battalion and should not read company, as we see in the

10     document.  And we will have that changed and share with our colleagues

11     across the well and upload it.

12        Q.   In any event, General --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I think under those circumstances, if there are

14     already two mistakes in one paragraph, that the whole of the translation

15     should be revised, and since it appears as an unrevised translation,

16     proper attention should be paid to it.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.  In any event, General, we yet another element

19     the 7th Guards Brigade, a portion of them is in reserve and the rest are

20     on rest and relaxation.  Yes.

21        A.   Yes, I'm sorry, yes.

22        Q.   And by the way, General, that's something you would expect after

23     combat activities, to send your troops out for rest and relaxation away

24     from the area to get them ready for further combat activities.  Is it

25     not?

Page 24421

 1        A.   That's correct.

 2        Q.   Now, if can I address -- again, I'm going to be jumping around to

 3     some issues here.  And I would like to go back and talk a little bit

 4     about the request by General Cermak of D304, if we can go back and put

 5     that on the screen.

 6             As we see, this is the 12th of August.  It is sent to the

 7     Military District Command, and as the president pointed rightly to the

 8     attention of the Chief of Staff.  And as we turn to page 2 of the

 9     English, staying on the B/C/S, we note that it's termed "we request your

10     assistance."

11             And you noted as we turn to the order, the implementation order

12     of D305.

13             MR. KEHOE:  If we can turn to D305.

14        Q.   This is, as you testified, was the order that came out of the

15     Split Military District, and if we turn to page 2 of the English if we

16     can go up a bit.  It's handwritten and it's signed for General Gotovina.

17             Now, in explaining this sequence, General, you noted - and this

18     is on page 10 of today's transcript, line 25, going on to page 11:

19             "Did he not ask actually General Gotovina" -- and I think you

20     were meaning to say, He did not ask General Gotovina to write the order

21     for him.  "He was not in a position to dictate what -- what General

22     Gotovina gave.  He requested, first of all, for manpower.  It was a

23     request."

24             Now, you say he made a request because he was not in a position

25     to dictate to General Gotovina under those circumstances what he should

Page 24422

 1     do.  Correct?

 2        A.   That's correct.

 3        Q.   Let us turn your attention to D818.  And this is a document

 4     signed by General Gotovina on the 13th of September, 1995, to

 5     General Cermak, subject: Request.

 6             And if I may read this just briefly, General, and I ask for your

 7     assistance in just listening to what I'm going to articulate because I

 8     believe that the translation is not completely accurate as well.

 9             And we went through the discussion on this document and discussed

10     the correct translation at page 13502, line 16 to 25, to 13503, line 6.

11             And it notes in the way that I understand that it reads in

12     Croatian and the way it was put on the record that I just previously

13     discussed on this request, it says:

14             "General, sir, in the future, please" -- so this is:  "General,

15     sir, in the future, please do not issue any authorisation for the

16     movement of members of international military and political organisations

17     and humanitarian organisations like the EC, UNMO, and others, in the

18     direction of Srb-Una railway station and the Bosanski Grahovo-Glamoc-

19     Kupres area, since these areas remain war zones until further notice."

20             Now, in this particular situation as the other was a request by

21     General Cermak to General Gotovina, this is a request by General Gotovina

22     to General Cermak.  And it's not an order because under these

23     circumstances with this remit with internationals, General Gotovina was

24     not in a position to dictate to General Cermak what to with the

25     internationals.  Isn't that right?

Page 24423

 1        A.   I think, Mr. Kehoe, we have a difference here between reality and

 2     theory.  I would say that there was nothing, and I think we've had this

 3     conversation before, there was nothing in -- there was nothing that was

 4     written down, which changed the subordination of garrison headquarters to

 5     a Military District.

 6             I think what we have here, however, is mere courtesy.  There are

 7     two senior Generals.  Funny enough the -- the Croatian sort of guidance

 8     on -- on human relationships makes a great point of being well-mannered

 9     and what I see here, of course, is not an order given.  It is request,

10     and it is partly because he wishes General Gotovina -- I'm sorry, he

11     wishes General Cermak to conform and partly because he wishes to give

12     General Cermak the respect that an officer of the same rank deserves.  It

13     does actually highlight the difficulty of having an officer of the same

14     rank in a subordinative role.

15             So I think you can draw two conclusions from here.  One is that,

16     to my mind, it didn't necessarily change the theoretical subordination,

17     but it actually demonstrates that there was a different relationship

18     between the two of them.  A relationship of equal rank which both

19     General Gotovina and General Cermak had to manage.  And there is a human

20     dynamic here, which I believe, again, if had I been able to give any

21     context during my replies during the past couple of days, I hope I have

22     been able to, and there is that context here.

23        Q.   And you have, General, and we're very grateful for that.  But the

24     reality, as we look through this, is that they were treating each other

25     as colleagues, not as commander/subordinate relationship.  Isn't that

Page 24424

 1     right?

 2        A.   I think de facto, that is it correct.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  If I might just have one moment, Your Honour.

 4                           [Defence counsel confer]

 5             MR. KEHOE:

 6        Q.   If I could just show you one last document on this issue of

 7     dealing with each other as colleagues.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  If we could turn to D1006.

 9        Q.   [Microphone not activated] This document, General, I'm not

10     certain if you have seen this.  But it notes that there's going to be an

11     inspection of the Main Staff, and it's going to inspect, if we can look

12     at the -- all ZP units which would be part of the Split Military District

13     which, of course, would theoretically include the Knin garrison.

14             If we could turn next page.  And if we look at the addressees on

15     this, it has the entities, including - if we look at the bottom portion

16     of the addressee - the other garrisons that we have in there.  But the

17     Knin garrison is missing from that.

18             Could you give us your expert analysis as to why under these

19     circumstances that we would have a separate -- or if there is no

20     inspection of the Knin garrison, or is it something like, again, as

21     colleagues, General Gotovina will take care of these particular

22     garrisons, and his colleague General Cermak would take care of the Knin

23     garrison?

24        A.   Could I scroll up a bit.  Because if I have seen this, I can't

25     remember the detail.  It rings a bell somewhere.  But I'm afraid --  I

Page 24425

 1     would just like to see the detail, what they are inspecting.

 2        Q.   If we could go back to page 1.  I believe they are expecting

 3     [sic] quite a few things.

 4        A.   Thank you.  I can't give a definitive answer, quite clearly.  I

 5     could only offer one possible reason.  I mean, there are several reasons.

 6     It may have been missed off, a simple error like that, of course,

 7     although I doubt it.  It may be, of course, when you go back and look at

 8     General Cermak's resources he had in his garrison and the numbers of

 9     people and the responsibilities of that garrison, that there was no --

10     there was nothing inspect.  That is -- that is a deduction which could be

11     drawn from there, but I -- I would admit that I'm -- I'm looking at that

12     and making some assumptions.  It talks about the compatibility of

13     ZP command and units for command and control.  I'm sorry, he didn't have

14     the command and control function.  It talks about performance of task in

15     defence of the state border and in control of territory.

16             Now, I know the other garrisons will -- had the same -- the same

17     constraints put upon them in terms of their capacity to be responsible

18     for operations and the rest of it.  Whether the garrisons had other

19     resources like a logistics depot of some sort which had to be inspected

20     because of refurbishment equipment, I have no idea.  That is the only

21     logical reason I can deduce from that.

22        Q.   And given the fact that we're in the area of what could be, it

23     could also be that General Gotovina is taking care of those garrisons

24     that has directly got his finger on while allowing his colleague,

25     General Cermak to deal with his particular garrison.

Page 24426

 1        A.   You could put that impression.  You could take that impression

 2     away.  I mean, I would only answer that a inspection is a relatively

 3     neutral thing.  It's for the assistance of the Main Staff to identify

 4     where there are problems, and I would have been surprised that the

 5     Main Staff were -- were happy to have General Cermak dealt with

 6     separately.

 7             So I think it's -- it's difficult to draw a concrete -- concrete

 8     conclusions from this.  It may be as you say.  It may be something

 9     slightly different.

10        Q.   And if -- if in fact the garrison was a de facto subordination,

11     not a de jure, a de facto subordination.  If the Knin garrison was

12     de facto subordinated to General Gotovina, it should have been part of

13     this order.

14        A.   Do you mean de jure?

15        Q.   Excuse me, if it had been de facto in reality, because we have

16     been talking about the different jobs that General Cermak had done which

17     is not part of the pure garrison rules that you discussed during your

18     remit.  But if in fact he had been a de facto garrison under

19     General Gotovina, it should have been part of this orders?

20        A.   I may be misunderstanding exactly how you expressing that

21     question.

22             Could I answer the question I think have you asked me, and then

23     can you come back and tell me whether I have answered it.

24        Q.   Sure.

25        A.   My position is that -- that Knin garrison was de jure

Page 24427

 1     subordinated to Split Military District, because that's what the

 2     regulations said, and I saw nothing which formally changed that.

 3             I believe their that de facto relationship was as two equals of

 4     -- two people of equal rank, and that indeed put an atmosphere into that

 5     relationship.  And indeed as I have said, had I been General Gotovina, I

 6     would have been very happy that General Cermak was dealing with some of

 7     the problems that we've spent -- we've spent time discussing.

 8             I don't believe that the de jure subordination would have enabled

 9     the Main Staff -- I'm sorry, I have to go back on that.  I'm confusing

10     myself now.

11             What we see here, had there been -- assuming there was de jure

12     subordination, which is my assumption because I have seen nothing to

13     change it, I would wonder why there -- that Knin garrison was not

14     involved in it.  I can only come to the conclusion that either there was

15     error in the drafting of the order, which may have been true, or there

16     was some other reason which may have been that actually the Main Staff

17     and General Gotovina knew that there was nothing worthwhile inspecting

18     there, and it would have been a waste of effort.

19             Have I answered the question you asked me?

20        Q.   My follow-up question was, or there was a -- another order going

21     down the Knin garrison where an inspection was done parallel to these

22     other garrisons?

23        A.   Of course, that is it an another alternative.  And if it -- it

24     was, I'm not aware of it.  I didn't see it.

25        Q.   I understand.  Let us shift gears if we can --

Page 24428

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, is there any basis for that?  You earlier

 2     were rather critical about Mr. Hedaraly to speculate that things might

 3     have taken another course without any -- without any basis for that.

 4             Is there any reason that there would be an inspection or another

 5     order?  Or was it just you never know?

 6             MR. KEHOE:  No, I think it is in the spirit of completeness, in

 7     the idea that when a military headquarters says that we are going to

 8     inspect all units of a command, that would include all units of the

 9     command.

10             Now, it could that be this was left out.  It could be that

11     because of the unique relationship there was a separate inspection.  It

12     could be --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, may I cut this short.

14             MR. KEHOE:  Sure.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  You have no specific reason, and we heard from the

16     witness that may be the case.

17             MR. KEHOE:  Well --

18             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...

19             MR. KEHOE:  -- my follow up to that, Mr. President, and my

20     good-faith basis is, of course, and it's a question that -- that

21     General Deverell raised on 1219 concerning the inspection of units in the

22     area pursuant to the 21 August 1995 order of the Main Staff, one was sent

23     to the Split Military District and one was sent to the Knin garrison.

24             Now I appreciate the question raised by General Deverell on that

25     score, but it does indicate that there seems to be -- and that's at

Page 24429

 1     P1219, for the record.  And that does seem to be on the Main Staff level,

 2     dealing with these two entities separately.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MR. KEHOE:

 6        Q.   Now, if I may, General, I would like to go back to the military

 7     police, if we can.

 8             Again, I apologise for jumping around here, but I will try to get

 9     through this as quickly as possible.

10             You were shown D267 by Mr. Cayley and by Mr. Hedaraly.  And you

11     noted some confusion in the language concerning the remit and the

12     authority of Major Juric.

13             MR. KEHOE:  If we could just bring that up very quickly.

14        Q.   This is -- we can just stay on the front page because I know,

15     general, you know the contents of this document with which you expressed

16     some questions.

17             But this is dated the 2nd of August of 1995 from General Lausic.

18     And I'd like to show you another order that was signed by General Lausic

19     of the same day, D268, which this order, General, addresses Major Juric's

20     taskings directly, unlike the prior order, 267, where we have any number

21     of individuals that are being discussed.

22             MR. KEHOE:  So if we could bring D268 on the screen.  If we could

23     just scroll up.

24        Q.   And as you can see, General, this is an order that is signed on

25     the same day as the prior order with which you had some questions.  And

Page 24430

 1     the subject is the order of the chief of the Split Military District --

 2     excuse me, of the Main Staff of the military police, and it notes:

 3             "Pursuant to an assessed and demonstrated need, with a view to

 4     efficient and effective implementation of military police and other ...

 5     military police units' zones of responsibility and an effective system of

 6     commands, supervision, and provision of professional assistance to the

 7     armed forces military police units, I hereby issue the following

 8     order ..."

 9             And he notes that a group is being named included Major Juric.

10     And I'm interested in the tasks that Major Juric is given by his

11     commander, Major-General Lausic.  And if we could go to the -- you see at

12     the bottom, it says Major Ivan Juric's task.

13        A.   Yeah.

14        Q.   And if we can go to the next page.  In the first paragraph:

15             "In the command system he is superior to the commanders of the

16     72nd Military Police Battalion and the 73rd Military Police Battalion

17     with regard to the 73rd Military Police Battalion extending assistance to

18     the 72nd Military Battalion of the Military Police."

19             So he is superior to the commanders there; correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   The next:  "He is responsible for the implementation of all

22     military police tasks in the 72nd Military Police Battalion zone of

23     responsibility."

24             Next paragraph he goes into some coordination that he is

25     responsible for with the MUP and others.  I'm interested in the one right

Page 24431

 1     after that, that is he authorised to undertake all measures to ensure

 2     efficient and effective implementation of military police tasks and the

 3     72nd Military Police Battalion and north OS zones of responsibility.

 4             Now, General, based on these two orders together, to the accident

 5     that there is any question about who is in charge after your reading of

 6     D267, it is clear, is it not, based on the direct taskings given to

 7     Major Juric that we just read, that he is the man in charge that Lausic

 8     is sending down there on the 2nd of August to be his telescope or his man

 9     on the ground, isn't it?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And he, based on your further dealings or further review of the

12     documents, it is he who is reporting back on a daily basis to Lausic

13     telling him what's going on.

14        A.   Absolutely.  That is correct.

15        Q.   Now, with regard to the question of command and control about who

16     has command and control of the military police, I would like to show you

17     a series of documents that spread over approximately, oh, I'm going to

18     say several months, if we can, because we are going back until even to

19     the January of 1996.

20             The first is D292.  This is a report by General Lausic of the

21     15th of August, 1995, to General Cervenko, subject: Report of the

22     engagement of the military police units in Operation Oluja.

23             MR. KEHOE:  If we can turn to page 3 in the English, and I will

24     check to see what page it is in the B/C/S.

25             It is page 2 in the B/C/S.

Page 24432

 1        Q.   And, General, I am interested in the paragraph right above the

 2     bold 2 that reads: The system of preparation.

 3             Do you see that, sir?

 4        A.   Yes, I do.

 5        Q.   "The system of preparation, planning, control and command at the

 6     level of the Split -- excuse me, at the level of the military police

 7     administration and the daily operational ordered issued by the commander

 8     of the HV Military District and the Main Staff made it possible for the

 9     military police to perform all its tasks and for the military police to

10     be engaged in the offensive operations."

11             The initial line, General, says the control and command was at

12     the level of the military police administration.

13             That is the 15th.  Let me move ahead.

14             MR. HEDARALY:  I'm --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

16             MR. HEDARALY:  Sorry, the rest of that sentence.  And the daily

17     operational --

18             MR. KEHOE:  I read that already.

19             MR. HEDARALY:  If I can just repeat it -- [Overlapping

20     speakers] ...  Counsel only mentioned the first -- [Overlapping

21     speakers] ...

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Gentlemen, it is only Tuesday.

23             MR. KEHOE:  I've had a rough day, judge.  It's tough in the back

24     row.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you would rather in the spotlight, Mr. Kehoe.

Page 24433

 1     I understand that.

 2             Could you please read that paragraph which is on your screen in

 3     its entirety so that both gentlemen are happy.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, I have read it.  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  My apologies.

 7        Q.   Let me turn your attention to D -- excuse me, D567.

 8             Again, this is another report, General, by Major-General Lausic

 9     of the 16th of September, 1995, analysing the use of the military police

10     during Operation Storm.  And if I can turn to page 2 in the English.  And

11     it's also page 2 in the B/C/S.  If we can go to the bottom of that page

12     beginning: "The combination."

13        A.   I've got it.  Thank you.

14        Q.   You see that, sir?

15        A.   Yes, I do.

16        Q.   And I will read it in toto:

17             "A combination of the preparations planning, leading, and

18     commanding of the military police administration and the daily

19     operational commanding by the commanders of the HV Military Districts and

20     the HV Main Staff made it possible to carry out all of the tasks within

21     the competence of the military police and use of the military police

22     units in assault operations."

23             One last example on this score, and that is D978.

24             General, I am not sure if you reviewed this document yet, but

25     this is a report on the work of the military police administration for

Page 24434

 1     1995.  Looking back, obviously it is issued in January 1996 under the

 2     command of Major-General Lausic, looking back at the activities in 1995.

 3             And I would like to turn our attention to page 3.  If I can, we

 4     can --

 5             MR. KEHOE:  If we go another page up, please.  And if we could go

 6     to -- keep going, please.  The pagination is a bit off.  Just keep going

 7     to -- page up, please.  It would be the second -- it would be the third

 8     English translation page.  Two more.

 9             MR. HEDARALY:  If I may assist, there are two translations

10     linked.  I believe Mr. Kehoe wants the second translation link, page 3 of

11     that document.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Thank you.  This is the page I want that's on the

13     English screen.  Thank you very much, counsel.  And that's page 7 in the

14     B/C/S.

15        Q.   General, this again reiterates in the bold right above 1.1.4, in

16     the bold, again:  "The control and command system at the level of the

17     military police administration and daily operation [sic] command at the

18     level of the commanders ..."  And we read through that.

19             Now, General, this is a constant theme by General Lausic, is it

20     not, from the very outset of the documents you reviewed until this in

21     January of 1996, that he, as the commanding officer of the military

22     police, retained command and control over the military police throughout

23     all this.  Is it not?

24        A.   It's a constant theme, yes.  I -- you may be about to direct my

25     attention at the words "daily operational commands."

Page 24435

 1        Q.   Now, we move into the area of daily operational commands which

 2     you noted for us are activities that are in support of the operation on

 3     the ground.  Is that right?

 4        A.   That's correct.

 5        Q.   So distinguish those two, what is General Lausic remaining in

 6     command and control over?

 7        A.   General Lausic remains in command and control of the military

 8     police under Article -- I think I'm right in quoting under Article 8, the

 9     military police administration exercises command and control.  This

10     reflects Article 9, if I remember correctly, and I'm sure somebody will

11     tell me if I have got there wrong, which is then supported by the detail

12     of the tasks of the military police, which tasks 3 and onwards, I deduced

13     were the regular tasks.  And those are things like minor discipline, the

14     keeping of good order, things like traffic control, all those relatively

15     minor issues which are so important and an operational force is dependant

16     upon.

17             That I believe is what we are looking at in terms of daily

18     operational command, daily operations command.  To me - and this may be

19     the answer to your question or not - to me, that emboldened paragraph,

20     when put against Articles 8 and 9, fits.  I think it is consistent.  It

21     may be that you would agree with me, Mr. Kehoe.

22        Q.   [Microphone not activated] I do, General.

23        A.   Thank you.

24                           [Defence counsel confer]

25        Q.   Now, what we have here, General - if we can just synopsise this

Page 24436

 1     Article 8 and Article 9 as you just explained - is -- what we have is a

 2     vertical subordination between the military police administration down to

 3     the ground, and a horizontal coordination between the military police and

 4     the, in this case, the Split Military District.  Isn't that right?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   But the subordination remains with the vertical line going up to

 7     the military police administration, doesn't it?

 8        A.   I would say so.  I mean, Article 8 says just that.

 9        Q.   Thank you, General.

10             I have no further questions?

11        A.   Thank you.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.

13             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I have no questions.  Thank you.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  No questions.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Deverell, I may have a few questions, only a few

17     questions for you.

18                           Questioned by the Court:

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Your attention was drawn to P71, the Split Military

20     District diary, General Gotovina says, and I'm now reading the

21     transcript, "that the military police is to take security control, war

22     booty, and take photographs, and make video recordings at the end of the

23     operation.  People will be called before military disciplinary courts."

24             Are you aware of any such photographs and video recordings being

25     produced?

Page 24437

 1        A.   No, Your Honour, I'm not.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  And I am addressing the parties.  Are any of the

 3     parties aware of the existence of any photographs or videos produced as a

 4     result of what we find in P71?

 5             MR. KEHOE:  No, Mr. President.

 6             MR. HEDARALY:  No, Mr. President.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 8             You were asked about, I would say, the advantages, or you

 9     testified about the advantages of an independent military police

10     investigating regime.  And let me read what you said.  You said:

11             "I mean, it's quite simply, really.  It's important to have your

12     criminal investigation capability independent of the chain of command,

13     because it might, at some stage, be investigating the chain of command.

14     The chain of command might have, might feel, that they do not want a

15     proper investigation conducted, and therefore, there is a great advantage

16     in having those two separated."  And I think this was raised in the

17     context of Mate Lausic taking very significant steps to ensure that the

18     military police and he personally stayed in control of those

19     investigations.

20             Now, you have pointed out the advantage.  Have you considered the

21     disadvantage in terms of losing an instrument to fulfil a duty to

22     investigate, if you have reasons to believe that crimes are committed or

23     are about to be committed?  That's my first question, in relation to

24     this.

25        A.   I don't think that the instrument is lost, Your Honour, in that

Page 24438

 1     the military police, as an organisation, are integrated into the chain of

 2     command.  And we have been discussing that recently, just a few moments

 3     ago.  And the investigative steps, as I understand it - and I repeat what

 4     you will know already, that I'm not a military lawyer - the investigative

 5     steps are relatively straightforward.  If there is an incident which

 6     might be a disciplinary offence or, indeed, even worse, a crime, then you

 7     have your military police on hand, part of this procedure, part of this

 8     coordination and collaboration between -- within the chain of command to

 9     take the first step in investigating and then handing that on to the

10     military police criminal branch which exists as part of those companies,

11     those battalions.

12             So I'm not sure there is a particular disadvantage.  I mean,

13     there might be.  But it doesn't seem to me to be -- it seems to be

14     something that can be managed relatively simply.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.

16             Have you also considered that where you said the advantage was

17     that the chain of command might not be happy by certain investigations,

18     that Mr. Lausic might not be -- have been happy with certain

19     investigations either.  I mean, whoever is in control of the police may

20     influence the direction in which investigations are conducted.

21             So I would therefore -- because you said it was a well -- careful

22     separation with the advantages.  And I'm just asking you whether this

23     could be one of the side effects, that then Mr. Lausic's conduct or those

24     around him would not be investigated.

25        A.   There's a Latin phrase which starts "quis custodes" or something

Page 24439

 1     like that, which means who looks after the guards.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3        A.   I think that is a quite straightforward problem, as in any

 4     system, who watches those who have the authority to investigate.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, which would apply both to Mr. Lausic in

 6     command, but also the normal chain of command.

 7        A.   Yes, Your Honour.

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

 9             Yes, my following question is just to avoid that I misunderstand

10     your testimony.

11             You were asked about the focus of an operational commander.  You

12     were asked:

13             "What kind of focus and what kind of energy does an operational

14     commander have to bring to bear to accomplish those tasks?"

15             And you said:

16             "Very substantial, physical and mental."

17             And you went back to the idea of prioritisation, and that:

18             "He will wish to ensure that all those things which can be looked

19     after by someone else are looked after by somebody else."

20             I did not -- the whole issue of prioritisation to mean that it

21     would, in any way, relieve himself from his duty to investigate and/or

22     punish if there were any reasons, not that he does it all by himself, but

23     he would still keep that responsibility, even if he was focussing on

24     operational matters.

25        A.   Yes, Your Honour, I mean, my comments were really on the sort of

Page 24440

 1     physical responsibilities in terms of, for example, looking after a

 2     garrison.  Checking whether the garrison was doing its job.  In terms of

 3     his responsibilities to military law, he has to ensure -- a commander has

 4     to ensure that such things do not get missed because of -- if at all

 5     possible.  I mean, he must take steps to ensure that there is a proper --

 6     there is a proper organisation who can ensure that those elements are

 7     still properly looked at.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I think I did not misunderstand your

 9     testimony.

10        A.   Thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, at least I'm seeking your confirmation on what

12     I said that seems not to be contradicted by your answer.

13        A.   Yeah, you're quite right.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then one matter remains, and that is the part

15     of your report dealing with Grubori, which is not a part of your report

16     anymore.

17             I noticed that -- and I'm also, Mr. Cayley, looking in your

18     direction.  I notice that some of your findings on Grubori and the

19     responsibility of Mr. Cermak still appear in the report.  For example,

20     page 55, you say about General Cermak's role in this affair, being that

21     of a spokesman:

22             "He had no responsibility for the events and lacked authority to

23     influence planning or implementation, even if he had known.  He became

24     involved because he was the point of contact."

25             Well, we find your conclusions in this respect in your report --

Page 24441

 1     therefore, I take it that in that paragraph, which is not part of the

 2     report anymore, that you have explained on the basis of what you reached

 3     these conclusions.

 4        A.    I don't recall my paragraph clearly.  I do recall that it was a

 5     prece [phoen] of the events which led up to it and a description of what

 6     happened.

 7             My comments there were really an attempted explanation -- again,

 8     Your Honour, right or wrong, I was trying to put a context to

 9     General Cermak's actions there.

10             The -- if I remember rightly, there was little -- and you may be

11     surprised at this.  There was -- there was little in my workings, my

12     discussion, which actually directly impinged on that conclusion.  But my

13     -- my memory is not clear of it because it's some time since I have seen

14     that piece.  So I really am -- I would have to go back and look before I

15     could guarantee that my reply was accurate.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  There may have been little, but you present your

17     conclusions in relation to the role of General Cermak.

18        A.   I do.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  And the paragraph being taken out, we do know on

20     what it is exactly based, whether that is little or much.  Might even be

21     interested to know, in order to assess the probative value of your

22     conclusions.

23             Mr. Cayley, you will understand I have to discussed with my

24     colleagues -- we understood that, first of all, that we find some of the

25     conclusions in the report not knowing anymore what the basis for it is.

Page 24442

 1     That's one.  Second, that it was the -- it was not a draft

 2     paragraph which was taken out, but it was a fully developed, at least as

 3     fully developed as the witness said for a report, not a draft report.  He

 4     specifically and spontaneously told us that.  He even corrected someone

 5     who used the words "draft."

 6             Under those circumstances and also taking into account that only

 7     for practical reasons it was taken out, as we understood, the Chamber

 8     wondered whether that paragraph that had been taken out could not be

 9     produced, which, of course, could raise another matter, that is whether

10     further questions should be put to the witness about that paragraph.

11             I would like hear your views on the matter.

12             MR. CAYLEY:  It can be done, Your Honour.  I think the witness is

13     indicating that he doesn't have it.  We've got that particular paragraph.

14     My suggestion would be to present it to the witness, have him read it and

15     confirm, Yes, this is the paragraph that I wrote.  I mean, it's actually

16     more than a paragraph; This is the narrative that I wrote.  And then I

17     leave it in the Court's hands after that.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I'm also looking at you Mr. Hedaraly.

19             Let's not forget that the Chamber has received quite a bit of

20     evidence on the Grubori incident, and the primary focus apparently from

21     this witness from what I understand is the role of General Cermak and not

22     a reconstruction of responsibilities for the -- but perhaps it is, I do

23     not know.  The Chamber is not seeking to go through the whole Grubori

24     evidence again, but the Chamber would like to know, on what the expert

25     witness has based his opinion on these matters which still appear in the

Page 24443

 1     report.

 2             Now, let's be very practical.  Your suggestion is let's give it

 3     to Mr. Deverell, that we should invite him to read it.  Then the other

 4     issue is that Mr. Hedaraly hasn't seen it.  And I wouldn't send you both

 5     into the same room, Mr. Hedaraly and Mr. Deverell.  But an opportunity

 6     should be there for the prosecution to review it, also for the other

 7     Defence teams to see whether there is anything which triggers any need

 8     for further questions.

 9             Now, let's then be very practical.  It's now a quarter past 4.00.

10     We were scheduled to have a break at ten minutes to 5.00 and then

11     continue at ten minutes past 5.00.

12             Mr. Cayley, how many pages is the Grubori part of ...

13             MR. CAYLEY:  It's five pages, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             Does it introduce any sources which are not yet in evidence?

16             MR. CAYLEY:  None.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Hedaraly, just for a -- they call it a

18     quick-scan nowadays, I think.  How much time do you think you would need?

19             And, Mr. Deverell, you may have less problems in going more

20     quickly through what you have written yourself.

21             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not saying that if, for example, you would say

23     20 minutes would do for the quick-scan or half an hour, or I would

24     consult with my Grubori specialized colleagues -- what I would like to

25     know and find out is how much time we need to come at a point where we

Page 24444

 1     would have a sufficient basis to determine how we will further proceed,

 2     if at all?

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  I think I understand the Chamber to be saying not

 4     to gain a full understanding now and decide.  But I think to read the

 5     five pages and discuss briefly with my colleagues, I think an hour would

 6     be reasonable to at least then inform the Chamber as to whether we want

 7     to have questions, whether we want to ask questions, whether we want to

 8     introduce other documents, look for documents.  We may not have any

 9     questions for the witness.  I think an hour to provide that initial

10     information and able to consult would be sufficient.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, how much time would you need?

13             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, I -- with regard to the Grubori matter,

14     I was just talking about questions that I have based on Your Honours'

15     questions.  I have a few questions based on the questions, Mr. President,

16     that you asked.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But the --

18             MR. KEHOE:  I just wanted to put that on the record that in the

19     mix of time, I just ask the Court's leave to ask some follow-up questions

20     to General Deverell.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you do that before you had seen the relevant

22     portion of the report on Grubori or, rather, look at that first and then

23     see whether you have any additional questions.

24             MR. KEHOE:  I could look at the report and see if I have any

25     additional questions, or I could ask the questions that I have now.

Page 24445

 1     Anything Your Honours would like to do, I'm ready to do.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber has not asked yet, Mr. Kuzmanovic, how

 4     much time he would need to read the five minutes.

 5             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I don't know need an hour, Judge, but I would

 6     like to look at it.  I have not seen it before.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand.

 8             We give you, Mr. Hedaraly, until 5.00 to form a provisional

 9     opinion on how to proceed, and if that would be to put further questions

10     to the witness, to put those, unless good cause is shown that you

11     couldn't do it right away and that would you need further investigations.

12     That's the reason why I asked Mr. Cayley whether there is any new

13     evidentiary material on which the expert witness forms his opinion.

14             Since the Chamber is seeking this, we would like to receive a

15     copy as well, so I take it that we will find a way to copy these five

16     pages for every interested party and for the bench.

17             Then if we resume at 5.00, under normal circumstances we would

18     finish at not later than 6.30.  Just for the parties to know, there are a

19     few matters which are still outstanding, some pending issues in which the

20     Chamber is seeking further information from the parties.  If any time

21     remains after we've dealt with the Grubori, the Chamber would like to put

22     those matters -- to raise those matters with the parties.  The Chamber

23     further would like to deal with the MFI list, most likely the second half

24     of tomorrow morning.  For those purposes a list will be given to the

25     parties, provisional list of what MFIs are still outstanding, so that the

Page 24446

 1     parties have at least some time and I will have some time as well to

 2     prepare for a housekeeping session later tomorrow morning.  I'm thinking

 3     at this moment in terms of 11.00 or 11.30.

 4             We'll first have this break, and having read the --

 5             MR. CAYLEY:  Mr. President, could I just interrupt and ask your

 6     permission to give a copy to General Deverell, please.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, of course, we -- I think I followed your

 8     suggestion.

 9             Mr. Kehoe, the questions you had in mind, the Chamber suggests

10     that you keep them until you have read the report and then put them all

11     at the same time.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

14             Then we'll have a break until 5.00.

15                           --- Recess taken at 4.23 p.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 5.06 p.m.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We have read the relevant portion which was once

18     part of the report.

19             I'd first like to briefly inquire into whether -- we said we'd

20     like to see it, and we wanted to know what was the basis on which the

21     witness had based his opinion, an opinion which does appear on other

22     parts of the report.  But the first question is whether anyone would like

23     to have this in evidence.

24             Mr. Hedaraly.

25             MR. HEDARALY:  Your Honour, it would be obviously conditional on

Page 24447

 1     a proper opportunity to cross-examine this witness.  And based on what

 2     you stated earlier that unless good cause is shown, that would have to be

 3     done immediately.  We are not in a position to begin cross-examination on

 4     this portion at this stage.  So if it is conditional on us beginning our

 5     cross-examination now, then we would prefer that it not be admitted into

 6     evidence.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             Mr. Cayley, I know that you were not the one who -- who moved

 9     this.  It was the Chamber curious about the basis that triggered all

10     this.

11             What would be your position at this moment?

12             MR. CAYLEY:  I think we would reserve or position depending on

13     what the Prosecution are going to do now, in essence.  And how they're

14     going to proceed.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16             Mr. Kuzmanovic.

17             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I had a chance to

18     review this.  My position is under 94 bis, we should have had this report

19     obviously within -- we had 30 days within which to object or to find out

20     whether we're going cross-examine this witness, which we did.  We advised

21     the Chamber that we would cross-examine the witness.  This part was not

22     in the initial report.  Obviously just got it now.  I read it.  I'd have

23     some substantial issues to deal with in cross-examination if the report

24     is admitted.  My simple solution is I would -- my suggestion is not to

25     admit this and to remove the conclusion or exclude the conclusions on

Page 24448

 1     Grubori in the report that General Sir Jack Deverell made, and that would

 2     probably be an equitable way to deal with this issue, but otherwise, I

 3     would have some significant cross-examination.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I have no position on this document.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             One of the things the Chamber considered is the following:

 8             First of all, in this document, which once was part of the

 9     report, we find a lot of references to matters that are in evidence.  In

10     addition to that, and, for example, I'm referring to the middle of the

11     third page.  We find, not for the first time, the view of the -- the

12     opinion of the expert on -- on the position of General Cermak.  That's

13     not exclusively here.  That, to some extent, repeats what we find

14     elsewhere in the report as well.

15             A new element is that the expert witness has visited Grubori

16     village.  That is -- of course, that adds to what many of the other

17     witnesses could tell us.  Some of them have visited the village or the

18     area; many have not.

19             As far as the conclusions are concerned, the Chamber

20     provisionally formed an opinion that, in many respects, the opinions are

21     not really within the field of expertise of this witness.  Mr. Deverell,

22     if I would use the word amateur psychology here and there, you would

23     certainly forgive me for that.

24             THE WITNESS:  I would, Your Honour.  I would.  I read it, and I

25     accept the point you make.

Page 24449

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Sometimes you put on paper what you believe;

 2     sometimes you come to conclusions that it seems most likely that there

 3     was an armed man discovered in the hamlet and that the civilians were

 4     killed either by accident, but more probably in the retribution for

 5     giving him sanctuary.  That is all -- well, the basis for that from the

 6     facts, the evidentiary basis we've seen is not fully transparent, to say

 7     the least.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber suggests that we would not receive,

11     among other matters, for at least one of the reasons that we would not

12     receive this document as part of the report in evidence, and that -- and

13     the Chamber would like to know whether the Cermak Defence is willing to

14     strike the now unfounded opinions of the witness about the Grubori in the

15     role of General Cermak.

16             MR. CAYLEY:  I discussed the matter with Mr. Kay, and he agrees

17     with the Chamber that it doesn't actually take us anywhere, this.  And in

18     fact that is one of the original reasons he advised that it shouldn't be

19     part of the main report for the reasons you've said, Your Honour.

20             So we are quite happy to strike the conclusion and for this not

21     to go into evidence.  We agree with the Chamber.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I look at the other parties to see whether they

23     could live with such a solution.

24             MR. HEDARALY:  We could live with it, Mr. President.  And just

25     for my own reference, we're talking page 55 of the report, lines 17 to

Page 24450

 1     26.  I think those are the only parts dealing with the matter.  If I'm

 2     mistaken, either General Deverell or my learned friend, Mr. Cayley, can

 3     indicate if there's any other portions where Grubori is discussed.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the one I spotted earlier.

 5             Is that -- and, of course, I have not read the report

 6     specifically in view of that, and I haven't checked any footnotes, but at

 7     least there seems to be agreement that that is the part where clearly

 8     Grubori --

 9             MR. CAYLEY:  There's no other part, Your Honour.  It's -- the

10     wording, I think Mr. Hedaraly checked -- I, sorry, am checking to see

11     whether the wording is the same, the conclusion in the extract and in the

12     report, so that part can be stricken that he has indicated.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I'm looking at you, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

14             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I am grateful that the Chamber has

15     accepted my proposition.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             Mr. Kehoe, any questions in relation to which is now not even be

18     a part of the report anymore, that is -- [overlapping speakers] ...

19             MR. KEHOE:  None on the Grubori issue, Mr. President, just on

20     your questions, Mr. President, prior to the break.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Although I think they were mainly about -- oh,

22     yes -- you mean entirely apart from the Grubori incident.

23             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, I may have misunderstood you at an earlier

25     stage for which I then apologise.

Page 24451

 1             You have an opportunity to put further questions.

 2             Yes, Mr. Hedaraly.

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  I'm sorry, just when we say stricken, I'm just

 4     wondering logistically if there will be, as we have done before, a new

 5     version of the report with that paragraph redacted that will be uploaded,

 6     or whether it's --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I take it that we'll find ways to make this

 8     effective, Mr. Hedaraly.

 9             MR. CAYLEY:  Because if you recall, Your Honour, it is only

10     marked for identification because of the issue of the page numbering.  So

11     we can actually upload a new version and show it to Mr. Hedaraly, and I

12     think we can --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I take it that before the judgement, we will have to

14     find a version [Overlapping speakers] ...

15             MR. CAYLEY:  Yeah, you will.  You will.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  That would be appreciated, Mr. Cayley.

17             Then, Mr. Kehoe.

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

19                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:

20        Q.   General, I hope this is the last time I'm questioning here, but I

21     do have a few follow-up questions based on your colloquy with the

22     President.  And it had to do with the comment that you made as who

23     watches the people doing the investigations.

24             And -- and in the circumstances of the HV, there was in fact a

25     security and information service attached to the Split Military District

Page 24452

 1     that was in fact there to monitor whether the military police were doing

 2     their job.

 3             Was that not the case?

 4        A.   I would take your word for it.  I'm not entirely certain of the

 5     exact role of -- of the SIS.  But my comment -- my comment was really

 6     specifically on -- based on the principle of the separation of the two.

 7        Q.   I understand.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, my question was also not about the

 9     factual, but about my understanding of advantages and disadvantages of a

10     certain system.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. KEHOE:

13        Q.   And just within the system, do you know that there was a SIS

14     element, Security and Information Service element, attached to the

15     72nd Military Police Battalion?

16        A.   I think did I.  Yes, I would have -- I recognised you -- that you

17     tell me.

18        Q.   Okay.  Let me change subjects if we may and just touch on the

19     questions that Judge Orie asked about the operational commander issues.

20     And I harken back to your testimony yesterday at page 24200 when you and

21     I were discussing what an operational commander is doing in the

22     circumstances where is he planning for and conducting military operation.

23     And you noted in line 12, on page 24200:

24             "My experience is that once you actually confront the reality,

25     then you're planning activity becoming more frenetic and more demanding.

Page 24453

 1     So the commander is absolutely focussed and he doesn't have time to deal

 2     with other matters and has to prioritise very profoundly at times on what

 3     he is to concentrate on."

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, I consulted with my colleagues.  The only

 5     thing I did is to verify whether I understood the answer of the witness

 6     correctly.  Therefore, now going again in factual matters which were not

 7     in any way raised by me is not what the Chamber expects to you do at this

 8     moment.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

11             MR. KEHOE:  -- on that score, I would like to explore the answer

12     that the witness gave to your question, Mr. President, on page 92 today,

13     from line 17 to 24.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  It --

15             MR. KEHOE:  And you were talking about the obligations of an

16     operational commander, starting, if we can, just on line 19:

17             "In terms of his responsibilities to military law, he has to

18     ensure, a commander has to ensure that such things do not get missed, if

19     at all possible.  I mean, he must take steps to ensure there is a

20     proper -- there a proper organisation who can ensure that those elements

21     are still properly looked after."

22             So --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Kehoe, I asked the witness whether I had

24     understood his answer well.  He gave some explanations.  So I -- apart

25     from verifying whether I had understood something not to be part of his

Page 24454

 1     answer, he then briefly explains that I had understood it.  I verified it

 2     with him.

 3             One or two questions, fine.  But we're not going to go into the

 4     whole area again.  Again, the main issue was whether I had well

 5     understood that what he said was not touching upon the responsibility of

 6     a commander.  That's what I asked.  That's what the witness answered.

 7     And that's what I raised, and that's -- if that triggers any question,

 8     you may proceed.

 9             But let's keep it short.

10             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, if I may just consult with you,

11     Mr. President.  Because I will just go to the area of inquiry and if

12     Your Honours want to have that question, then I will ask.  If not --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  As I said, you may proceed, but it's -- I take it

14     that it's clear to you that the Chamber considers the matter that was

15     raised of a limited nature.

16             MR. KEHOE:  I understand.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Please --

18             MR. KEHOE:

19        Q.   And what I would like to explore with you, General, is the

20     comment that you have, that the -- a proper organisation who can ensure

21     those elements are still properly looked after.  Or looked at, excuse me.

22             And if we can -- and I want to ask you just elaborating on this,

23     if this is the type of situation that you are referring to, and this is a

24     transcript of the tape of the video on the 6th of August that you viewed.

25     And this is at transcript page [sic] D979.  And that's -- excuse me, page

Page 24455

 1     4 in the English.  Exhibit D979, page 4 in the English.  We can start

 2     with that paragraph:  "We are faced ..." towards the bottom.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  And page 5 in the B/C/S.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Kehoe, again, for your guidance, I did not

 5     raise the issue whether General Gotovina fulfilled any duty.  My question

 6     was limited to whether I would have to understand the answer of the

 7     witness as relieving a commander from his duty.  I wasn't even talking

 8     about General Gotovina.  It was in general terms.  We're talking about a

 9     commanding -- operational commander.  I did not raise the issue whether

10     or not an operational commander, in the person of General Gotovina, met

11     that obligation, yes or no.  That was not a matter which was raised by

12     me, and I want you to keep this in mind.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I don't want to get crosswise with the

14     Chamber.  Obviously the only operational commander specifically in the

15     courtroom is General Gotovina.  So I thought that's what we were

16     discussing.  And the only thing that I was talking about was just this

17     setting up of a proper support organisation to take care of those

18     elements and then pointing the witness to the elements that

19     General Gotovina talks about in the 6th August 1995 meeting at the -- at

20     the castle.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And then to ask him what, Mr. Kehoe?

22             MR. KEHOE:  To see if those are the types of organisations and

23     elements that would you expect an operational commander to have

24     established in order to ensure that any ill-conduct or any wrongful

25     conduct is looked at and curtailed.

Page 24456

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber's ruling is, Mr. Kehoe, that I did not

 3     raise any factual matter in this respect and that therefore the Chamber,

 4     at this moment, expects you not to revisit the factual basis for an

 5     answer to the question, whether or not General Gotovina met any

 6     obligation in this respect.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  I understand, Mr. President.  I will be guided by

 8     your ruling.

 9             Mr. President, I have no further questions.

10        Q.   General, it's been a pleasure.  Thank you very much.

11        A.   Mr. Kehoe, thank you.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.

13             Mr. Hedaraly.

14             MR. HEDARALY:  I'm sorry, Mr. President.  I had one question from

15     Mr. Kehoe's previous re-direct examination.  I did not want to -- don't

16     know what the proper procedural order was.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, of course, the --

18             MR. HEDARALY:  I was not --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't think that Mr. Kehoe cross-examined the

20     witness, so he did not conduct any re-direct examination.  This, of

21     course, creates all of the problems all of the times, because part of

22     cross-examination could be to raise any matter the witness may have

23     knowledge about and which may -- may support the case of that

24     cross-examining party.

25             I will very carefully listen to your question whether it is

Page 24457

 1     appropriate or not to put it, but you may formulate it.

 2             MR. HEDARALY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 3             If we could have D1006 on the screen.

 4                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Hedaraly:

 5        Q.   And, General, you will see that's the order for inspection that

 6     Mr. Kehoe showed to you.  And I believe it was the last page.  And there

 7     was a suggestion put to you that one of the possible reasons why this

 8     Knin garrison was not listed was because of the special relationship

 9     between General Cermak and General Gotovina.

10             Do you remember those questions?

11        A.   I do.

12        Q.   Now, you will note that this order also is not sent to the

13     Vrgorac garrison, the Imotski garrison, and the Dubrovnik garrison.

14             And my question for you is in your review of all of the documents

15     that have, have you come across anything that suggested a special

16     relationship between the commander of those garrisons and General

17     Gotovina?

18             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, may I interrupt, Mr. President?

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Kehoe.

20             MR. KEHOE:  Is there some foundation that those garrisons are

21     part of the Split Military District?

22             MR. HEDARALY:  D33 and P2656, D33 and P2656.  P2656 being the

23     document we saw yesterday about cancelling the commands of certain

24     garrisons.  And there was a list of garrisons.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  We also can be very practical, Mr. Kehoe, that if

Page 24458

 1     they are outside the scope, then that explains everything anyhow.  So

 2     therefore let's see whether the witness can answer the question, if

 3     would --

 4             MR. KEHOE:  That's fine, Mr. President.  We can go into it.  I

 5     can go through the documentation because there was some changes within

 6     the Split Military District at different time-frames.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And I do not have the details on the top of my

 8     head at this moment.

 9             Mr. Hedaraly, you have asked the witness whether there was any

10     such special relationship of the commanders of those garrisons.

11             THE WITNESS:  Mr. Hedaraly, I saw no evidence to lead me to

12     suppose there was a special relationship between the commanders of those

13     garrisons and the Split Military District.

14             MR. HEDARALY:

15        Q.   Thank you very much, General.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, then I'm looking through the courtroom.  This

17     concludes your evidence, Mr. Deverell.

18             I'd like to thank you very much - usually say for coming to

19     The Hague.  But in your case, I should say coming two times today, which

20     is even more than most witness do.  I would like to thank you for having

21     answered all the questions put to you by the parties and by the Bench,

22     and I wish you a safe return home again.

23             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, thank you very much indeed.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Deverell

25     out of the courtroom.

Page 24459

 1                           [The witness withdrew]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Since we have some time left I would like to deal

 3     with a few procedural matters and leave the MFI list for tomorrow.  I do

 4     understand that the parties have received an updated MFI list.

 5             Mr. Misetic, I'm addressing you.  There is still this motion to

 6     enforce the Trial Chamber's previous Rule 54 bis order that's in relation

 7     to Brussels, to say so.

 8             Now we know that you travelled to Brussels, and we -- you more or

 9     less promised us that you would provide us with a list of still sort

10     documents.  We do know that you refer to some of them as very important,

11     but as far as the Chamber is aware of, we never received that list.

12             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Mr. President.

13             There is one document in particular that we're looking for, and

14     so to that extent, I did -- I have followed up and intended to file that

15     with the Chamber.  But I think the Chamber has been made aware of what

16     document that is.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I think you mentioned that on the 25th August if I

18     am correct.

19             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, it's the RC Knin log-book.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that's the only one you, at this moment,

21     would you want the Chamber to take further action on.

22             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  That's clear.  Then the list is rather short.  But

24     that is clear.

25             Then for the information of the parties, the Chamber will

Page 24460

 1     consider on short notice whether we'll seek further explanation or not

 2     from CLSS in relation to the translation of D970; that is, the fire or

 3     the strikes translation, two documents where we had different

 4     translations and where you had already submitted it to CLSS, Mr. Misetic.

 5     You -- then one of the translations of the word, I think it was "udara,"

 6     was then changed.  You asked for an explanation and that explanation was

 7     given at the time as being the best one or the good one.

 8             The Chamber will consider whether we will seek any further

 9     explanation from CLSS.  We are still considering that.

10             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Mr. President.  I think from our perspective

11     the critical issue is that the word be translated the same in the two

12     exhibits.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I think, as a matter of fact that in response

14     to you, that they had chosen for -- but I would have to check that then

15     on my ...

16             I'm afraid I don't have it here, although I recently saw it.  I

17     think there was -- that a choice was made, but let me just check for one

18     second.

19             I think I have it, but I have it on my computer rather than

20     anywhere else.

21             If I would summarise what appears on the transcript, is that the

22     Gotovina Defence asked CLSS for a check and that CLSS gave a new

23     translation of D970, translating "udara" as fire.  That it is the

24     Gotovina Defence position that the proper translation should be strikes,

25     as it was used in P1272.  And that you had asked for an explanation and

Page 24461

 1     that the response by CLSS was that the essence of the translation is

 2     accurate.

 3             I'm now just summarizing very briefly my information.  And is

 4     that ...

 5             MR. MISETIC:  That is my understanding as well, Mr. President,

 6     but I confess I must check.  And if I could get back to you tomorrow

 7     morning on this.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we'll consider the matter further, but we might

 9     wait until we have heard from you tomorrow morning before we would take

10     any action, if we would, in the direction of CLSS.

11             Yes.  Then I move to my next item.  Yes, the next item is

12     Cermak's motion for admission of witnesses from Milosevic and Martic

13     under Rule 92 bis, and there is a related matter, the motion for the

14     admission of evidence pursuant to 92 quater, and there is a disclosure

15     issue.

16             Mr. Kay, last time we were informed that --

17             MR. KAY:  I can tell Your Honour that the final typographic

18     errors have been done so that is ready now as a document to go before the

19     Trial Chamber and deal with that part of the disclosure issue, if I can

20     put it that way, concerning the -- the evidence that goes to the Rule 68

21     issues that the Trial Chamber decided upon.

22             The outstanding disclosure of the Rule 68 issues has still to be

23     dealt with, and I flagged this up with the Trial Chamber a couple of

24     weeks ago --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The 5th of November, I think, was the last

Page 24462

 1     time where Ms. Higgins explained to us what was dealt with and that the

 2     disclosure issue was still not settled.

 3             MR. KAY:  Yes.  In the sense that we know what we're talking

 4     about and the Trial Chamber ruled upon it, but we have not had the

 5     information yet that needs to be disclosed and then managed in a way that

 6     is appropriate to the evidence, without overburdening the process.

 7             There are four to six, I'm informed.  Really it comes down to

 8     this, Your Honour.  I have looked at this material.  And it's striking

 9     we've had nothing from Civljane, Cetina, Kijevo, Drnis, all these places

10     we know about.  And we know that there is stuff there that has not

11     surfaced in the disclosure process.  And in these circumstances we have

12     had so far 250 documents in 13 batches or so.  Numbers don't help.  It's

13     the information that -- that we want.  I know it's there because I was

14     involved in another case some years ago where these areas were known

15     about me when I came to this case, and that's only there had been a

16     disclosure of it.

17             That still has to be dealt with.  I don't think that this is an

18     issue that prevents closure of the case, because what we're effectively

19     talking about is the paper acceptance of evidence by the Court, the

20     documentary form of evidence rather than viva voce or witness evidence.

21     We are essentially talking about evidence that finds its way to the

22     Trial Chamber in sufficient time for people to deal with it in their

23     final briefs.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Kay, I appreciate your observations.  At

25     the same time, we are looking at it at this moment for housekeeping

Page 24463

 1     purposes primarily.

 2             MR. KAY:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And I do understand that it needs intensified

 4     attention to settle this matter at this moment.

 5             And it really is important that the -- that clarity is achieved

 6     as quickly as possible from our --

 7             Mr. Hedaraly.

 8             MR. HEDARALY:  Mr. President, we are trying very hard.  I think

 9     the Chamber can appreciate the volume of material that is needed to be

10     reviewed.  As my learned friend had said, 13 batches have already been

11     produced.  There are four to six outstanding, and we are going

12     municipality by municipality, so perhaps that the reasons that the ones

13     that Mr. Kay now says are missing are still not there.  That being said,

14     we are doing our best and we are working very hard behind the scenes to

15     get all this material to the Cermak Defence pursuant to the Court's

16     order.

17             On the related matter of the motion for admission, that is almost

18     ready to be submitted.  And that is correct.  As well, there are a few

19     qualifications that the Prosecution would like to make, and those have

20     been agreed and discussed with the Cermak Defence.  So hopefully we will

21     be able to finalize this very shortly, and it shouldn't be something

22     that, I think, would take an unreasonably long amount of time.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So we have the disclosure issue, we have the

24     92 bis admission of witnesses from the Milosevic and the Martic case.

25     Now there is also, and seems to be related, the Cermak's motion for the

Page 24464

 1     admission of evidence pursuant to Rule 92 quater.  Is that related, and

 2     is that settled already or ...

 3             We -- I do remember that the Gotovina Defence did not object.

 4             MR. KAY:  That's in the schedule, Your Honour.  That's something

 5     that we've dealt it.  I think we have managed all this material into the

 6     single document which is the way we're going forward.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Fine.  That's -- I just wanted to verify that it

 8     being a --

 9             MR. KAY:  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- a distinct motion to see whether this was covered

11     by what has been achieved until now as well.

12             MR. KAY:  We're a little bit disjointed on it because we have

13     been heavily struck down by illness in the last two weeks, and the back

14     room people who have been looking at this have been unavailable.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I move to the submission of two

16     Rule 92 ter statement, the one witness IC-32; the other one, IC-24.

17     These witness will not be called from what I understand.

18             Could I seek confirmation that the -- that they will not be

19     called, and that therefore that the 92 ter -- the submission of the

20     92 ter statements is withdrawn.

21             MR. KAY:  Yes.  We have called our witnesses now.

22     General Sir Jack Deverell was the last one, Your Honour.  The outstanding

23     matter is the 92 bis and other documentary-type evidence.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we knew already that witnesses IC-1 and

25     IC-2 would not be called, but may I then take it that also the submission

Page 24465

 1     their 92 ter statements are also withdrawn at this moment?

 2             MR. KAY:  Yes.  That is implicit, Your Honour, in our

 3     announcement.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  But it should be on the record somewhere.  That's

 5     the reason why I raised the matter.

 6             Then I have one other matter.

 7             On 9 October of this year, for transparency reasons, the parties

 8     were invited to the review the record and submit no later than the 6th of

 9     November a list of bar table submissions in this case and attach any

10     informally communicated spreadsheets in order to appropriately put

11     certain matters on the record.

12             The Chamber has not received such a filing, and, therefore, I

13     would like to inquire with the parties whether this silence means that

14     they consider the record appropriately be transparent in this regard.

15             MR. HEDARALY:  Mr. President, if -- on behalf of the Prosecution

16     I can go first while my learned friends consult.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Still working, yes.

18             MR. HEDARALY:  On the Prosecution side, it turned out that what

19     we thought was going to be initially a very simple task turned out to be

20     little more complicated because it involved a lot of e-mail

21     communications back and forth with the Defence teams, not necessarily

22     just spreadsheets but also in the context of exhibits saying we'll bar

23     table this document, we'll bar table that one, and there was not always a

24     formal discussion or objection.  So going through all the e-mails of

25     18 months or more of trial turned out to be a task that was more onerous

Page 24466

 1     than we had thought initially.

 2             So if we could ask the Court until next weeks to provide that, we

 3     are working on it, and we will try to have it by then.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The Chamber was actually informed about -- by

 5     Mr. Waespi, at least the Chamber staff was informed, that the joint

 6     filing we asked for, that it would take some more time.  But the Chamber

 7     would like to know how much more.  And I fully understand that the matter

 8     turns out to be more complex than it looked at at first instance, but

 9     we'd like to --

10             MR. HEDARALY:  Out of a abundance of caution, if I say Friday of

11     next week, then I think that should be sufficient.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we expect not later than -- let me see.

13             Yes, we expect not later than Friday next week, the joint

14     submission by the parties.

15             Yes.  The next issue is the following.  The Chamber staff went

16     through the MFI list, and it appears - I usually refrain from looking at

17     it too early - but it appears that there are 16 MFIs on that list.

18             Now we could schedule a hearing tomorrow which would perhaps good

19     for the Markac Defence so that they could start their case with a clean

20     slate on Monday morning.  At the same time, it also takes your time,

21     Mr. Kuzmanovic, tomorrow.  We would have to schedule a session for that

22     purpose only.

23             I would like to hear from you whether would you prefer to have a

24     bit contaminated the start of your case by first dealing with MFI lists,

25     which is not perhaps the thing you would --

Page 24467

 1             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honor, it really doesn't matter to us.  I

 2     think if the MFI list is short.  I noticed that there are no exhibits

 3     that relate to our defence on the MFI list.  I don't have a problem if we

 4     start that on Monday and get it done with.  And start -- and have the

 5     rest of the week free.  But we're more than willing and able to

 6     participate tomorrow for a short session if Court wishes to do so and get

 7     that done with.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I would like to hear from the other

 9     parties whether they would prefer not to have a session tomorrow and deal

10     with the MFIs on Monday or whether they would prefer to have this from

11     the table before we start hearing the Markac case.

12             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, for our part we've only got two documents,

13     one of which is General Sir Jack Deverell's report which is being dealt

14     with, so that's a matter.  And the other one was just a document that has

15     a translation already uploaded and is already linked.  So the rest

16     concerns my learned friends for Mr. Gotovina's Defence.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             Mr. Misetic or Mr. Kehoe.

19             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Shall we meet tomorrow, or --

21             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Are we going meet tomorrow?

23             MR. KEHOE:  Judge, we can meet Monday morning; it's fine.  If

24     Your Honour wants to meet tomorrow, I know that my client would prefer

25     not to be here for an MFI session.  And I suspect that -- I don't want to

Page 24468

 1     speak for the other gentlemen, but I suspect they don't want to come

 2     either.

 3             With that being said, Monday is fine, and we will be guided by

 4     Your Honours' wishes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly.

 6             MR. HEDARALY:  Well, we certainly would not want to be the only

 7     ones to cause a hearing tomorrow, so we will postpone till Monday as

 8     well.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I will consult with my colleagues.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber decided that there's no need to have a

12     special hearing tomorrow for MFI, although the accused would have been

13     allowed not to be present.  But it's perhaps also for counsel not the

14     thing you're looking forward to, to come back to this Tribunal.

15             So, therefore, we'll deal with the MFIs on Monday.

16             Is there any other matter to be raised at this moment?

17             MR. KAY:  Yes, Your Honour.  Monday is a witness scheduled for

18     the Markac Defence as well as this administrative matters, which the

19     Cermak Defence have no great interest in.  Mr. Cermak has had a pressing

20     request for a personal visit on that day.  I've discussed the matter with

21     him this afternoon.  And with the Court's leave we ask that he not be

22     present for the hearing on Monday.  The evidence does not concern him and

23     it's not intended to concern him in relation to that witness, and his

24     interests will be covered by counsel, with the Court's approval.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 24469

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber accepts that Mr. Cermak prefers not to

 2     be present, which means that he does not exercises his right to be

 3     present for this one morning hearing, his right to be present --

 4             MR. KAY:  Yeah.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  -- at trial.  And since he is always there, it meets

 6     no problems whatsoever.

 7             MR. KAY:  Thank you, Your Honour.  And he is extremely grateful

 8     for that, as well as the reason for the visit.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             Any other matter to be raised?  If not, I established that apart

11     from the housekeeping matters that this concludes the presentation of the

12     Cermak Defence case apart from decisions still to be taken on admission

13     of the report and some minor matters, but as far as witnesses are

14     concerned ...

15             MR. KAY:  Effectively closed.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, therefore, the presentation of the Cermak case

17     is closed.

18             We will adjourn, and we will resume on Monday, the 16th of

19     November, 9.00, Courtroom I.

20                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.54 p.m.,

21                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 16th day of

22                           November, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.