Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 25664

 1                           Friday, 4 December 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

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

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

 8     everyone in the courtroom.

 9             This is case number IT-06-90-T, the Prosecutor versus

10     Ante Gotovina et al.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12             While we are waiting for the witness to be escorted into the

13     courtroom, could I address the Markac Defence.

14             The Chamber would like to receive the schedule for the next two

15     weeks, updated, especially also in view of whether the Witness Baric will

16     testify and where we are with the translation of documents.

17                           [The witness takes the stand]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Secondly, the Chamber would like to also how much

19     time we then still needed in January, and the Chamber would also like to

20     know whether your scheduling suggestions would include the two witnesses

21     still pending in the motion as to be added to the witness list.

22             And, third, the Chamber would like to know whether the

23     Prosecution has already developed any ideas about whether or not they

24     would like to call any rebuttal evidence.  The Chamber would like to be

25     informed about this by Monday, Tuesday.  What would be -- I see already a

Page 25665

 1     nodding, yes, Monday.  Monday, close of business.

 2             Good morning to you, Mr. Moric.

 3             Mr. Moric, I would like to remind you, as I did before, that

 4     you're still bound by the solemn declaration that you've given at the

 5     beginning of your testimony.

 6                           WITNESS:  Josko Moric [Resumed]

 7                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay will now continue his cross-examination.

 9             Mr. Kay, are you ready to do so?

10             MR. KAY:  I'm much obliged, Your Honour.  Thank you.

11                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kay:  [Continued]

12        Q.   Yesterday, Mr. Moric, we had called up a document onto the

13     screen, but we didn't deal with it, 65 ter 2D00485, and I'd like you to

14     look at this again.

15             This is a further report, this time from the Split-Dalmacija

16     Police Administration, dated the 1st of September, 1995.  It is a further

17     response to a report requested by you from all the police administrations

18     concerning crimes, as we were discussing yesterday, and we look at this

19     period of the 22nd of August to the 31st of August, 1995.  Page 2 of the

20     English, please.  Mr. Cipci, who has signed this report, then goes

21     through the various issues in response to your request, giving you

22     details.

23             In paragraph 3, we can see he has dealt with an issue of arson,

24     and then removal of mainly deserted movable property, and reports against

25     24 persons for 10 crimes.  Just looking at that issue in paragraph 3,

Page 25666

 1     giving a police perspective, how easy is it for the police to control and

 2     protect people's homes if the people have moved out of the those homes?

 3     Is there a weakening of the possibility to protect because there's no one

 4     there within the property?

 5        A.   Counsel, it is commonly known in the police practice that a thief

 6     will always seize an opportunity where there is one.  Theft will occur

 7     where two conditions are met: that there is something to be stolen and

 8     that there's an opportunity to do so.

 9             Had the inhabitants occupied their homes at the time, the

10     incidents of crimes would have been much lower, not only within the

11     territory covered by this particular police administration, but in all

12     the other ones as well.

13        Q.   So when comparisons are drawn between normal times, before an

14     area has been the subject of conflict, and then abnormal times, would it

15     be right to say that the comparisons have to be carefully looked into

16     before drawing conclusions as to the number of police there may be needed

17     in normal times as against the police that were here at this time?

18        A.   Of course, this is something that needs to be factored in as part

19     of preparations, and assessment has to be made of possible developments

20     and expectations.  Under normal circumstances, when citizens occupy their

21     homes and when there is normalcy to life, guarding citizens, and that's

22     to say their lives and their property, in an inhabited area requires

23     normally one police patrol cruising the area and reacting where

24     necessary.

25             However, under the circumstances prevailing at the time, it was

Page 25667

 1     almost necessary for every house to be guarded by one policeman.  That's

 2     the difference between work in normal conditions and work in the context

 3     we are referring to.

 4        Q.   And in your planning, had you realised or the Ministry of

 5     Interior realised that people would be deserting homes, so that private

 6     property would be left unguarded and more of a target for thieves and

 7     criminals?

 8        A.   As part of our planning, we did envisage that a certain number of

 9     citizens from the area would leave for various reasons.  Unfortunately,

10     this is the usual course of events in wartime circumstances.  However, we

11     did not think that the numbers would be that high.  There was no rational

12     reason, from our point of view, for this to happen en masse.  Besides,

13     when we were preparing our tasks in the area, we felt that the appeal

14     issued by the president of our state and the prime minister, which had

15     been repeatedly broadcast over the media and which called upon the local

16     citizens to stay, we felt that that was very relevant.  Therefore, there

17     was no reason why we should have predicted that as many people would

18     leave as did.

19        Q.   Thank you.  If we just look at this passage in paragraph 3 at the

20     end, where Mr. Cipci states:

21             "According to information gathered so far, none of the liberated

22     areas stand out as particularly affected by the aforementioned crimes,

23     and the perpetrators are for the most part from these areas or from the

24     immediate vicinity."

25             Did that sentence convey any particular meaning to you?  What did

Page 25668

 1     you conclude from that, when that information was given to you?

 2        A.   The chief of the Police Administration reports herein that the

 3     perpetrators were persons hailing from the area or from the immediate

 4     surroundings.  This should indicate, and this was proved right by the

 5     subsequent developments, that these were isolated crimes which evidently

 6     occurred, and unfortunately so, from base instincts such as gain or

 7     revenge.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Looking at Mr. Cipci's report in paragraph 4:

 9             "Except in the case of fire, where civilian personnel carried out

10     an on-site investigation alone, these were not performed in other cases

11     since the cases concerned the removal of items from an open and

12     unprotected area, where there were no characteristic traces as a result

13     of the acts themselves."

14             So there Mr. Cipci appears to be given a reason for not

15     performing on-site investigations in certain cases.  Could you comment on

16     that as to whether that was right or wrong in the context of the time?

17        A.   This is not at all wrong, in view of the police practice.  If we

18     have the crime of theft, of misappropriation of property of another, the

19     owner, however, not being present at the scene of the crime and not being

20     able to help the criminal investigation in any way, and where no trace

21     evidence is left at the crime scene which would allow to identify

22     perpetrators, and where there are no eye-witnesses who might help with

23     the identification, in other words, if there is nothing left to do but to

24     make note of the fact that the property of another went missing, then, as

25     is customary in policing work, it is necessary to wait for a period of

Page 25669

 1     time until the owner of the stolen property reports the crime and

 2     provides the necessary information for the identification of the property

 3     stolen and possibly identify potential perpetrators.

 4             In other words, Mr. Cipci reported here that, for instance, there

 5     had been cases where there was reason to suspect that livestock had been

 6     stolen from estates and nearby fields, but there is little in the way of

 7     traces that one can find in such cases of theft.  This, however, does not

 8     mean at all that the police would desist from attempts to solve such

 9     cases of crime as well.

10        Q.   Thank you.  We've no need to look at 5.

11             If we look at point 6, and the report here from Mr. Cipci, next

12     page in the English, please - thank you:

13             "Appropriate criminal investigations are planned and underway

14     into all the recorded crimes."

15             What did you understand that part of the report to mean?

16        A.   Counsel, the key word in this sentence is "recorded."  It is

17     being reported that the police is engaged in a criminal investigation

18     into all the crimes that it was put on notice of; in other words, of all

19     the crimes that it is aware of having happened.  "Crimes recorded" means

20     that the police are aware of the crimes based on all the sources which it

21     can possibly rely on in elucidating crimes, be it an eye-witness who

22     reported it, be it the injured party who reported it, or be it the

23     police, themselves, through witnessing it on the ground, or be it some of

24     the representatives of international organisations or personnel of other

25     state and local services who may have reported the crime.  The fact that

Page 25670

 1     the crime was recorded refers to all the crimes that the police had been

 2     put on notice of.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Turning now to paragraph 7.  We know from paragraph 3

 4     that reports were received against 24 persons for 10 crimes, and we see

 5     in paragraph 7 five perpetrators known wearing Croatian Army uniforms

 6     during the commission of the crimes in relation to which the VP was

 7     informed.  Now, that figure of 5 perpetrators out of 24 persons

 8     concerning 10 crimes, what were you able to conclude from that figure?

 9        A.   Unless I'm mistaken, and I can't see the beginning of the

10     document, I think the document was sent on the 1st of September.  Is it

11     possible, perhaps, to see the beginning of the document.

12        Q.   It is the 1st of September, yes.

13        A.   In view of that, it can be concluded that unfortunately

14     individuals wearing military uniforms are still found to be perpetrating

15     crimes, on the one hand.  On the other hand, this particular formulation

16     leads to conclude that the military police were informed, just as the

17     sentence goes on to say that they are in the process of identifying them,

18     which is an initial stage in the criminal inquiry.  They are to identify

19     the potential perpetrators and then commence a criminal investigation.

20             A more precise answer to your question would be that it can be

21     concluded that by that time, unfortunately, there was still perpetrators

22     to be found wearing military uniforms.  However, evidently co-operation

23     with the military police improved.

24        Q.   It's that issue of wearing the military uniform that I want to

25     look at more specifically.  The fact that someone was in a military

Page 25671

 1     uniform at this time did not prove that that person was in the military

 2     at that time; would you agree?

 3        A.   Correct, it does not prove.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I think this question has been put to 50 witnesses

 5     70 times.  If it's an introduction, then I think that is a matter which

 6     is so obvious in this case that the one is not a proof of the other, that

 7     it was a superfluous question.

 8             Please proceed.

 9             MR. KAY:  Your Honour headed me off too early.  It was, in fact,

10     a stand-alone question because this formulation of words is being sent to

11     Mr. Moric, which is why I wanted to put it to him, so that we had him

12     dealing with it without being controversial to the Court.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I wouldn't expect anyone to say, Well, of course,

14     that's perfect proof, someone wearing a uniform, he must be at least a

15     colonel in the army.  That's something that -- but please proceed.

16             MR. KAY:  I'm grateful for the Court's comment.  Thank you very

17     much.

18             May this document be made an exhibit, please.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1857.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

23             MR. KAY:  And there are two more of these documents I want to go

24     through with you, Mr. Moric, in the interests of time, to make them

25     exhibits of the Court.

Page 25672

 1             Can we have 2D00354.

 2        Q.   This is a similar report in relation to your earlier

 3     instructions, documents we have seen in evidence, of the 22nd of August,

 4     30th of August, requiring reports from your police administrations.  This

 5     one is from Glina Police Administration, implementation of measures.  You

 6     can see that the information follows what we have seen before.

 7             Can we go to page 2 of the English, please.

 8             We see there that this particular police administration has

 9     broken it down into the police stations within the Police Administration,

10     and giving particular details there.

11             May we go to page 3 of the English and looking at number -- the

12     next page in the Croatian.

13             We see further details there, as well as details of on-site

14     investigations.

15             If the English can be turned over, please.

16             We can see the types of crimes; burnings, one explosion, other

17     details.

18             If we may turn over and go to paragraph 6, please.

19             On this page here, we see as well identification of perpetrators.

20     We see it broken down as to how it is expressed in this document in

21     paragraph 7, that there is the specific identifying factor of people

22     being members of the HV and how that is expressed.  Again, this follows

23     the previous pattern of reports to you; is that correct, Mr. Moric?  I

24     don't need to go into any further detail.

25        A.   Yes, that is correct.  It follows the previous pattern, and as I

Page 25673

 1     said, specific details were needed so that I could take any decisions on

 2     management on the basis of specific data and information.

 3             MR. KAY:  Thank you.

 4             May this document be made an exhibit, please, Your Honour.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit D1858.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 9             MR. KAY:  Thank you.

10             The next document is 2D00166.  A further report, 2nd of

11     September, from the Lika-Senj Police Administration in Gospic, sent by

12     Mr. Dasovic, the police administration chief, to you, in response to your

13     request for reports, of the 30th of August, giving us details that we can

14     see.

15             If we turn to page 2 in the English, we can see the breakdown of

16     information, including, in paragraph 3, perpetrators of crimes from

17     Gospic Police Station turn out to be mainly members of the HV, but cases

18     where civilians involved, giving details of the investigations in

19     paragraph 5.

20             If we go to the last page in the English to paragraph 7, on the

21     same page in the Croatian, 14 civilians, 8 members of the Croatian Army,

22     were recorded as perpetrators.  Again, a similar report to that which

23     we've seen before; is that correct?

24        A.   Yes.  But if you allow me, I wish to point out a formulation in

25     item 3 which I find to be relevant.

Page 25674

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             MR. KAY:  If we could go back to paragraph 3, which is the second

 3     page in the English.

 4        Q.   Continue giving your evidence.

 5        A.   Under item 3, the chief of the Police Administration says that

 6     cases of burning of houses and removal of movable property still occur,

 7     but to a lesser degree.  So this is relevant for managing the activities.

 8     This still occurs, but to a lesser degree.  So a gradual decrease of the

 9     occurrence of these crimes is something that is noted here.

10             MR. KAY:  Thank you very much.

11             Your Honour, may this document be made an exhibit, please.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1859.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  D1859 is admitted into evidence.

16             MR. KAY:

17        Q.   If we go to the next document, the last in this series, 2D00087.

18     This is a report by Mr. Dasovic again on the 12th of September, but in

19     response to your original request for reports of all the police

20     administrations on the 22nd of August, and so it covers the period from

21     the 22nd of August until the 10th of September, as we see in paragraph 5

22     when we get to it.

23             If you could just look at paragraph 1, and now if we could turn

24     over the English, it gives the same information that we have seen before.

25     Military police are not sufficiently present, military police not paying

Page 25675

 1     enough attention to the problems.  When acting on their own, military

 2     police do not investigate perpetrators thoroughly, which impedes the

 3     uncovering of crimes, resulting in a number of them remaining unsolved.

 4             Is there any comment you can make as to whether there is a

 5     disparity between the professional competence of the military police

 6     officers as compared with those officers from the Ministry of Interior,

 7     the civilian police officers?

 8        A.   Yes, unfortunately there was disparity at the time.  As I already

 9     mentioned during my testimony, while establishing the state, its

10     mechanisms also needed to be set up.  So as the military was being

11     formed, so along the way the military police needed to be formed as well.

12     The civilian police supported this process of setting up military police

13     by expert training and by educating the management and the command

14     structures of military police.

15             At this time, the military police, as an institution, was two or

16     two and a half years old, so it is clear that there was a disparity, but

17     the difference in the professional level and competence is one issue and

18     one problem; and another issue, another problem, is the difference in

19     terms of the level of organisation and readiness for rapid reaction.  It

20     is obvious that at that time the military police infrastructure was not

21     good enough so as to be able to follow civilian police in their

22     activities, but we also had a legal issue there because the military

23     police was supposed to discharge duties from its area of responsibility,

24     and that was why we constantly insisted on this co-operation.

25             So the military police certainly had difficulties and problems.

Page 25676

 1     We also had great problems within the civilian police, for sure, but we

 2     had to co-operate.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  The Court can see the rest of the document.  If we

 4     just turn quickly to page 3 in the English, page 2 in the Croatian, to

 5     note 33 on-site investigations for the types of crimes ranging from

 6     burning of houses, mining of housing facilities, illegal possession of

 7     weapons, ammunition, explosive devices, 66 perpetrators, 57 civilians,

 8     9 HV.

 9             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, may this document be made an exhibit,

10     please.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1860.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  D1860 is admitted into evidence.

15             MR. KAY:

16        Q.   For the final part of my questioning of you, Mr. Moric, I want to

17     turn now to the issue concerning any restrictions of movement there may

18     have been imposed upon people.

19             If we could first turn to the document Exhibit D28, and this is a

20     document dated the 6th of August, 1995, and it concerns an agreement

21     between the state of Croatia and the UNCRO forces for Sector North and

22     Sector South.  This document was signed by Mr. Sarinic and Mr. Akashi.

23             Firstly, have you seen this document before?

24        A.   I do not remember this specific document at present, but I could

25     say with certainty that I must have been aware of it.  But at the moment,

Page 25677

 1     I cannot remember whether I ever had it before me.  However, I'm almost

 2     certain that I had to have seen it.

 3        Q.   Because you were in the position of being in charge of the

 4     fundamental civilian police, this agreement between UNCRO and

 5     Mr. Sarinic, what would that have represented to you in terms of legal

 6     status of the document?

 7        A.   I would have to read the document now.  But -- so that we

 8     wouldn't lose time, I think that nothing could be agreed by this document

 9     that was not already a part of the national legislation.  I believe that

10     the Secretary-General's envoy, Mr. Akashi, was potentially concerned

11     about the freedom of movement and the security of the mission's

12     personnel, and that the purpose of this document was probably to

13     emphasise, on the one hand, from the international perspective, the

14     obligation to protect human rights and freedoms of all citizens in the

15     Republic of Croatia, and, on the other hand, to reach an agreement about

16     not restricting the movements of the personnel of the international

17     mission of UN, and guaranteeing support for their security.

18        Q.   I'm interested in the transmission of this document.  From its

19     date of the 6th of August, are you able to say if you received a copy of

20     this document on that date or any later date, as a document for you to

21     study and take into account?

22        A.   Counsel, in my answer to your previous question, I said that I

23     could not say with any certainty whether I had this document before me

24     and whether I had seen it previously, but I suppose that I ought to have

25     been aware of it.  I have heard about it, so I cannot exclude the

Page 25678

 1     possibility that I received it.  But also I cannot exclude the

 2     possibility that I did not receive it.

 3        Q.   Why I ask this question is for this reason:  This Court has heard

 4     from various international witnesses, from UNCRO or the European

 5     Monitoring Mission and others, about cases of civilian police officers

 6     obstructing the passage or preventing the passage of internationals from

 7     those organisations at various check-points.  And, firstly, were you

 8     aware of cases where that happened?

 9        A.   I think that it is relevant to say at the beginning that such

10     instructions to restrict the movements of the personnel of any of the

11     international missions or organisations is something that I never issued.

12     If it did occasionally happen on the ground, I do not remember that I

13     received any specific reports on that or, more precisely, that I received

14     such reports and that I did not react.

15             It is true that I'm talking about a period when there were so

16     many events that it is possible I do not remember any such reports, but I

17     am certain that if I was informed about such incidents, that I would have

18     reacted in the sense of issuing instructions that they have to be allowed

19     freedom of movement.  And if there were any sporadic incidences of

20     vehicles being stopped and the personnel controlled, then it could have

21     happened due to the specific circumstances in the area, such as, for

22     example, once or twice vehicles with marks of international

23     organisations, such as UNPROFOR and UNCRO, and later on UNHCR, were

24     stolen, and it is possible that upon receiving their local tasks, that is

25     to say, to search for this equipment and the people who had stolen it,

Page 25679

 1     the regular police could have stopped such vehicles and tried to check

 2     who was in them.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, could we try to keep the witness talking

 4     about facts.  Of course, it's possible, nothing can be excluded, that if

 5     a UN car is stolen, that you start investigating it by stopping UN cars.

 6             Do you have any knowledge of what happened, because your answer

 7     suggests that the only purpose for which you are aware of for which

 8     vehicles from international organisations were stopped would have been to

 9     search for stolen vehicles?  Is that how we have to understand your

10     answer?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the police did not

12     have any other valid reasons.  That is how I would state that.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not asking whether they had valid reasons to do

14     so.  My question was whether that was the case, yes or not, with or

15     without valid reasons.  Could you tell us what you know about this, even

16     from reports?  But knowledge about facts; not about what should have

17     been, but about what happened.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honour.

19             Yes, that was the reason for them to be stopped.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it to say that whenever a vehicle of an

21     international organisation was stopped, that that would have been the

22     only reason for doing so, never for any other reason?  If you don't know,

23     tell us.  If you do know, tell us as well.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I know that, and I

25     said so in one of my previous answers.  The reason was their own security

Page 25680

 1     and also a search for stolen vehicles.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  You've told us that you didn't go through the

 3     document you said you must have been aware of at the time.  Who decides

 4     on whether or not the security of members of the international

 5     organisations is at stake?  Is it they, themselves, who decide whether or

 6     not to freely move around, with all the risks, or is it the Croatian

 7     government who is entitled to say, Stop, it's too dangerous for you?  If

 8     I say "Croatian government," I mean Croatian authorities.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in principle, yes, but

10     this is not what I had in mind.  I had in mind the specific developments

11     in local areas because of which the police would have to stop anyone,

12     including the peacekeeping mission's personnel or personnel of

13     international organisations, until the reason for stopping them did not

14     exist anymore.  But, generally speaking, the Croatian government was in

15     the position to say, Yes, you can move freely in certain areas, or, You

16     cannot go into specific areas until such and such a date.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  So the master of the freedom of movement was finally

18     the Croatian authorities?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And you told us that you had not looked at the

21     document, the agreement.  Is there any -- would there be anything in the

22     agreement you said you did not re-read, but as you told us you were aware

23     of at the time, which would confirm that or contradict that, or was there

24     any clause in that agreement which would be relevant for the answers to

25     the last questions I put to you?

Page 25681

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sorry that I

 2     cannot say with any certainty whether I did receive this document or not.

 3     Only if I were to read all of it, then I could answer with more certainty

 4     to your very precise question.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not inviting you to do so at this very moment.

 6             Please proceed, Mr. Kay.

 7             MR. KAY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 8        Q.   In looking at the documents in this case, Mr. Moric, we've seen a

 9     large number of orders.  We've been through quite a few, you and I, in

10     the last day.  The Court has even more.  We haven't seen an order from

11     you to the police administrations setting out the Akashi-Sarinic

12     agreement so that the police administrations were aware of it.  Do you

13     know if you drafted any such order at the time?  We haven't got one in

14     this case.

15        A.   I don't remember doing anything in relation to one such document,

16     though I do understand the idea behind the document, as I explained in my

17     previous answer.

18        Q.   I'm interested in what happened at the time, which is why I asked

19     whether this document had ever been transmitted to you, because again I

20     found no evidence anywhere of anyone sending it to you.  And you're a

21     person dealing with freedom of movement at the time, and that is why I

22     asked whether the document was transmitted to you at that time.  So I'm

23     very concerned to know what was sent to you at the time, what you knew at

24     the time, and what you did at the time, because there is this issue of

25     the civilian police being recorded as having stopped various

Page 25682

 1     international representatives.  Do you understand?  Are you able to give

 2     any further information concerning the situation at the time?

 3        A.   Counsel, I can only repeat that I'm sorry that I don't remember

 4     having been given the document or hearing of it.  I do understand the

 5     point it makes and why it was written.

 6             As for the freedom of movement of personnel of international

 7     organisations is concerned, I understand that it could have been

 8     restricted to a locality for a limited period of time, such as an area or

 9     a brief dangerous operation close to a roadway, and other reasons that

10     would deal with the security of international personnel in general of all

11     the various missions, de-mining operations.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, your question was answered at page - what

13     is it? - 17 or 18, line 23.  Could you make sure that the witness

14     refrains from telling us what could have been the case, or what he could

15     imagine that would have been the case, not having looked at documents, so

16     as to leave the realm of speculation, unless there is a very good basis

17     for it.

18             MR. KAY:  There is, actually, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please.

20             MR. KAY:  It's the next question.

21             Can we go to Exhibit D499.

22        Q.   And it's a document dated the 17th of August, 1995, and in fact

23     it does concern UNCRO, UNCIVPOL, European Union Monitors.  It was written

24     by you.  I'd like you to look at it.  You sent it to all the police

25     administrations.

Page 25683

 1             Page 2 in the English, please.

 2             It doesn't refer to the Akashi-Sarinic agreement or any agreement

 3     between the Croatian government and the UN, which is why I'm interested

 4     about who received this agreement, where it went to, who knew about it,

 5     what the efficiency of the system was, whatever.  But we see here, on the

 6     17th of August, that you issued this order to the police administrations

 7     concerning no longer to need restriction of movement in areas because of

 8     the return and normalisation of life, and consequently do not restrict

 9     the movement of European Union Monitors, UNCIVPOL, UNCRO members,

10     "movements and itineraries of UNHCR convoys must be announced in

11     advance."

12             Now, just before we look at that document, was there any plan or

13     policy from the Ministry of Interior that had been issued or sent to the

14     civilian police on the ground saying, Restrict the movement of

15     internationals, prevent them from going to places?  Was there a plan or

16     policy in relation to that?

17        A.   There absolutely was not.

18        Q.   And the reason, on the 17th of August, of you sending this to all

19     the police administrations concerning the international monitors, can you

20     recollect why you put that in this document on the 17th of August?

21        A.   In the preamble, the document refers to the general state of

22     security which allows for free movement of persons and goods, as well as

23     a gradual normalisation of life.  In other words, there is no need to

24     restrict the freedom of movement for security reasons.  This was to state

25     that if anyone was still in doubt, there was no need to restrict the

Page 25684

 1     movement of members of international organisations.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  I want you now to look at a document dated the 8th of

 3     August, Exhibit D1769, please.

 4             This was an order issued by you again to all the police

 5     administrations.  Its subject is the arrival of reporters and public

 6     figures in the liberated areas.  We can see in paragraph 1 it refers to

 7     accredited reporters.  We can see, in paragraph 2, about:

 8             "... distinguished and generally-known public persons entering

 9     the liberated area, consult the duty operations of the Ministry of

10     Interior operation return staff, and for all other persons access to the

11     liberated area is prohibited until further notice."

12             If you could inform the Court about the purpose of this order

13     issued on the 8th of August, please, Mr. Moric.

14        A.   Counsel, always in all my documents, since I'm in charge of

15     prevention, the purpose of all my documents is security and safety.

16        Q.   Thank you.  If we can now go to the Akashi-Sarinic agreement, as

17     I would like you to look at it to see its context, what it says, and then

18     I'll ask questions about it to you.

19             So can we have Exhibit D28, please.

20             Please have a look at this, Mr. Moric.  An agreement between the

21     Government of the Republic of Croatia, the United Nations peace forces,

22     temporary measures in the areas formerly known as Sector South.  If you

23     could just read it to yourself.

24        A.   If you were referring to the title of the document only, I've

25     read it.

Page 25685

 1        Q.   No, sorry, the whole document.  It concerns the effects of

 2     hostilities on the lives of civilians.  It's committed to minimising loss

 3     of civilian life from hostilities, full protection of civilians and human

 4     rights, humanitarian needs.

 5        A.   Excuse me.  May we move further down, because in Croatian I can

 6     only see item 1.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Perhaps if we turn to page 2 in the English.

 8        A.   Can we turn to the next page in Croatian, please.

 9        Q.   Have you finished it?  Thank you.

10        A.   I have, yes.

11        Q.   Right.  First of all, would this agreement, signed by Mr. Sarinic

12     with Mr. Akashi, have been relevant to the business of the Ministry of

13     Interior, to the work of the Ministry of Interior?

14        A.   It could have been relevant, in the context of items 4 and 5, if

15     I've read them correctly, where security reasons are cited, and in

16     relation to them, the issues of movement and security guarantees.

17        Q.   If this had been transmitted to you at the time --

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I object to that question.

19             The witness has reiterated that he cannot --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's first hear what the question is.  At the same

21     time, Mr. Kay is put on notice that speculating on hypothetical

22     situations is not what at least the Prosecution expects him to invite the

23     witness to do.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. KAY:  Well, it's not speculation, Your Honour, because I

Page 25686

 1     asked for any evidence that there may be that the Prosecution has that

 2     this was transmitted at the time.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I did not say that you were asking for speculation.

 4     I said that you were on notice that you would not ask for speculation.

 5     And, therefore, not having heard your question, I have no opinion about

 6     whether you would or would not ask for speculation.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. KAY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 9        Q.   Mr. Moric, if you had received this document at the time, would

10     you have issued an order to all your police administrations, telling them

11     about their rights and obligations under it?

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I object, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Ms. Mahindaratne, of course what Mr. Kay is

14     asking, of course, he's asking a hypothetical situation.  If he rephrases

15     his question slightly, then the question remains the same and your

16     objections would not be valid anymore.  That is, If you would have seen

17     this at the time, was it or had it been your duty...  And then he tells

18     about what his duties are, and that comes down to exactly the same.  So

19     let's refrain from semantic discussions.

20             At the same time, Mr. Kay, you're asking what he would have done

21     under different situation, whereas I do understand you wanted to ask him

22     what he felt his duty would have been to do, which is slightly different

23     but comes down to the same considerations when answering the question.

24             MR. KAY:  Yes, Your Honour.

25        Q.   Mr. Moric, if you had received this document, would you have had

Page 25687

 1     any duty or responsibility to take any action upon it in relation to the

 2     police administrations beneath you?

 3        A.   Counsel, in my previous answer I said that I thought the document

 4     was relevant in items 4 and 5, which came within the competence of the

 5     Ministry of the Interior.  I believe that under the circumstances, I

 6     would have drafted instructions which I would have sent to police

 7     administrations in order to let them know of the existence of the

 8     document and of the obligations they had arising from it.

 9        Q.   Because I note that when we looked at Exhibit D499, there is no

10     mention there of the agreement between the Republic of Croatia and the

11     United Nations peace forces, is that any indication to you as to what

12     information you had at that time between the 6th of August and 17th of

13     August?  Are you able to give a comment on that, the absence of reference

14     to this agreement in any of those orders?

15        A.   It could have happened this way only because I evidently was not

16     aware of the document and did not have any obligations with regard to it.

17        Q.   I want to now consider the process, because we have here, on the

18     one hand, an agreement signed by Mr. Akashi, on behalf of the

19     United Nations peacekeeping forces, and we have Mr. Sarinic, who had a

20     particular job, signing on behalf of the Republic of Croatia.  What

21     should have been -- or was there any legal route that needed to be taken

22     for this to be acted upon by you at that time?

23        A.   From my experience dating from that time, and from the standard

24     practice, I can tell you which route it should have taken.  Mr. Sarinic

25     was the head of office of the President of the Republic.  He should have

Page 25688

 1     sent it to the Government of the Republic of Croatia, a member of which

 2     was the minister of the interior.  The government could have set out some

 3     of its positions with regard to how the agreement would be implemented.

 4     The positions thus set out would be taken on board by the minister of the

 5     interior, who would, in turn, inform one of his assistants about it and

 6     give his obligations about it, the one assistant who was charged with it,

 7     and that would have been me.  So that would have been the proper route.

 8        Q.   Are you able to comment upon it, its status in law, then, as it

 9     is just signed by Mr. Akashi and Mr. Sarinic?  What was its legal status,

10     this agreement between Mr. Akashi and Mr. Sarinic?

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I object to this question.

12             I don't know what the foundation for this question is, whether

13     this witness is in any position to express an opinion of the legality of

14     an agreement of this nature.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, in view of the position of this

16     witness at the time and the fact that he may have had to consider the

17     legal validity of this document, it is certainly interesting to know not

18     what a legal status of this agreement was, as Mr. Kay asked him, but how

19     he understands such a document, in view of its legal validity.  Then it

20     is about his own relevant opinion he may have formed on it.

21             At the same time, Mr. Kay, we've heard from this witness first

22     that -- with certainty, that he was aware of the document.  Two pages

23     later, he certainly was -- he apparently was not aware of the document.

24     So let's try to keep it short.  He says he may have seen the document,

25     but he cannot say with certainty that he has seen the document.  So in

Page 25689

 1     order to explore his understanding of this document, which he may have

 2     seen, may not have seen, certainly may not have seen, certainly may have

 3     seen, is a risky exercise, but let's ask, now that he has read it,

 4     whether he remembers whether at the time he formed an opinion about any

 5     agreement, for example this one, being concluded between Mr. Sarinic and

 6     Mr. Akashi.

 7             MR. KAY:  With respect, Your Honour, I've dealt with the issue of

 8     whether he had seen it at the time, and --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you have dealt with it.  I'm just noting that

10     there are some -- the answers are not in every respect consistent.  I

11     don't want to revisit that whole matter, but I --

12             MR. KAY:  Which is why I took him to the other exhibits, and the

13     content of those exhibits and what is written in them.  We're now very

14     familiar with --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and then he concludes from the documents that

16     he has not seen it.  That is a conclusion, and if three minutes before

17     that, without having seen the documents, he has a different recollection,

18     then at least it's something the Chamber will have to consider, what the

19     basis is for the testimony of the witness in this respect.  Not to say

20     that it's one or the other, but certainly a matter to pay proper

21     attention to.

22             As I said before, it may be relevant to know whether the witness

23     formed any opinion about this kind -- the validity of this kind of

24     agreement, because that is apparently what you are looking for.

25             MR. KAY:  Yes.

Page 25690

 1        Q.   Give me just a straight single answer.  This agreement we've been

 2     looking at, at that time between the 6th and 17th of August, can you say

 3     that you saw this document and acted upon it by informing your

 4     subordinates?

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I object to that question.

 6             I think the witness has answered this question twice, and I could

 7     take --

 8             MR. KAY:  I'd be happy with the answers, but there seems to be

 9     uncertainty about it.  But if I'm the only one who's happy with the

10     answers, then --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, answers, Mr. Kay.  The Chamber will consider --

12     the evaluation of the evidence, of course, is for the Chamber to -- but I

13     just pointed at the various questions and the various answers we received

14     in relation to having seen at the time the document, yes or no.  I'm not

15     going any further.

16             MR. KAY:  I am surprised the Prosecution objects.  I mean, a

17     large portion of their case is based on this.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but whether you're surprised or not on what

19     Ms. Mahindaratne does, that's --

20             MR. KAY:  Well, we were searching --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's proceed.

22             MR. KAY:

23        Q.   I'm on my last minute, Mr. Moric.  In your position, as assistant

24     minister of interior for the fundamental police, we have seen you have

25     issued orders to your subordinate police administrations concerning

Page 25691

 1     freedom of movement.  In fact, the Court has seen other documents on the

 2     same matter from you, and we have also seen comments on documents from

 3     you.

 4             This document, signed by Mr. Sarinic, could you have acted upon

 5     it if it had just been given to you by Mr. Sarinic, or would it have had

 6     to have gone through another procedure for you to have issued lawful

 7     orders in the Republic of Croatia?

 8        A.   Counsel, in answer to your earlier question, I described the

 9     procedure that was in place in the time and that this should have gone

10     through in order to reach the government and, consequently, the minister,

11     and then the assistant minister ultimately.

12             MR. KAY:  Thank you.  I have no further questions.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kay.

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

15                           --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Moric?

18             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Moric, you'll now be cross-examined by

20     Mr. Kehoe.  Mr. Kehoe is counsel for Mr. Gotovina.

21             Please proceed.

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

23                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:

24        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Moric.

25        A.   Good morning.

Page 25692

 1        Q.   Mr. Moric, I'd like to ask you a few questions from your

 2     statements and maybe further questions based on the questions asked by my

 3     colleagues Mr. Mikulicic and Mr. Kay.  I'll do my best not to repeat

 4     those matters, but if I happen to jump between subjects, it's just that

 5     I'm trying to use the time as efficiently as possible.  So bear with me

 6     if you can; okay?

 7        A.   Yes.  Please go ahead.

 8        Q.   Mr. Moric, during the examination by my learned friend

 9     Mr. Mikulicic, he discussed with you the operation return plans, and we

10     don't need to bring that up, but it is embodied in your document D1845.

11     And in that plan, Mr. Moric, you had envisioned working with the UN as

12     part of the peaceful integration, and it was also contemplated that the

13     people who resided there were going to continue to reside there while

14     this peaceful reintegration was taking place; is that a fact?

15        A.   Yes, that is correct.  They were the citizens of the Republic of

16     Croatia, and it was envisaged that they would continue to reside there.

17        Q.   Now, of course, we know, based on the facts of this case and what

18     transpired, that things became much different than this morning.  You

19     were asked some questions by Mr. Kay, and for reference, Mr. President

20     and Your Honours, it's page 3 and 4 of today's transcript, concerning the

21     Serbs leaving the area, and while you expected some Serbs to leave, you

22     didn't expect as many to leave.  And my question, I would like to ask

23     you -- I want to expand on a few items touched upon by Mr. Kay and talk

24     about -- in addition to the looting issues that you talked about, can you

25     talk on all levels how your policing job became more difficult when there

Page 25693

 1     were no people left in the area?  I don't want you to just limit it to

 2     just looting.  How, in toto, did it become more difficult?  And,

 3     likewise, could you include as part of that, did it become more dangerous

 4     for your police officers?

 5        A.   Counsel, it was much more difficult to do the police work in such

 6     an area because of the fact that, as I have already mentioned, in the

 7     wake of Operation Storm a time of confusion followed, as is typical for

 8     such periods, that is to say, a postwar period.  The policemen discharged

 9     their duties in a complex security situation which brought them in danger

10     as well, because a group of paramilitary and para-police had remained in

11     the area and because there were a lot of mines and other explosives

12     devices and weapons left behind in this area, as well as because of the

13     fact that houses and private property had been abandoned in such great

14     numbers, and also because from the neighbouring Bosnia-Herzegovina, from

15     the parts that were under the control of Republika Srpska, groups

16     returned to the area liberated in Operation Storm with some specific

17     goals, and also because of the fact that this was a vast area.  We talked

18     about how big it was yesterday.  And these are all the elements that show

19     how difficult were the conditions under which the police work was

20     supposed to be done, and the scope of duties was increasing from day to

21     day so that around the 15th of August, we were faced with a spate of

22     negative events.

23        Q.   So if I was to ask you the precise question, did the fact that

24     there were very few people left in the area make your job more or less

25     difficult?

Page 25694

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, if I would repeat what the witness said

 2     earlier is that he said that since people were not there, that reporting

 3     took place rather late.  Apart from that it's obvious that if there's no

 4     one there, it may be very difficult to observe that a crime is committed,

 5     apart from those who commit the crimes.  And of course you wouldn't

 6     expect any reports to the police in that respect.  That is what the

 7     witness explained at quite some length.  If there's anything else you

 8     would seek in your answer -- and I'm making this observation because the

 9     previous question resulted in an answer which was, for 85 per cent, a

10     repetition of what the witness said already before; confusion, large

11     territory.  The only thing that was new, I think, was the groups that

12     returned from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska.  So, therefore,

13     if you're seeking anything apart from what is either obvious or already

14     in the testimony of the witness, I would invite you to focus on those

15     specific matters and not after lengthy introductions, but let's go to the

16     core right away.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. KEHOE:  I appreciate Your Honour's guidance.  My specific

19     question, just so Your Honour knows, and I'll move on to another topic,

20     was that during the examination of Mr. Kardum, the Prosecution took a

21     different position.  But I will focus my questions based on Your Honour's

22     guidance, but I just wanted to bring that to Your Honour's attention so

23     you had an idea of why I was going into that in a little more depth.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  As may appear from my observation, I carefully

25     listened to the testimony of the witness, which covered 90 per cent again

Page 25695

 1     of what you asked him.  So let's try to find that final 10 per cent

 2     immediately.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Thank you.

 4        Q.   Now, Mr. Moric, yesterday in your testimony you talked about the

 5     number of police officers that you would have needed to secure the area,

 6     and at page 25647, lines 16 and 17, you said that not even 40.000 men

 7     would have been enough.  And there were serious problems for the

 8     fundamental police in manning check-points, and I'm talking about

 9     manpower concerns and their ability to prevent people coming into the

10     area, were there not?

11        A.   That's correct, Counsel.  And in addition to that, we did not

12     have a legal valid basis to prevent freedom of movement, except in

13     exceptional micro-local situations and locations.  So the answer to your

14     question is, yes, that's right.

15        Q.   Let's talk -- and I would like to go through a sequence of the

16     problems facing the military police.  And let's just, for a starting

17     point, go into some check-points, to a degree, and some of the

18     difficulties that the police were facing.

19             And I would like to bring up 65 ter 1D3013.

20             Now, Mr. Moric, I don't suspect that you've seen this document

21     before, but I trust that you recognise the format of this document, given

22     your many years in the Police Department in the Ministry of the Interior.

23     And as you can see, this is a 9 August 1995 report from the Benkovac

24     Police Station.

25             And if we could move to page 2 in the English, and stop me if you

Page 25696

 1     you need more time to examine the document.

 2             Now, if we look at -- this is a report from 1400 hours to 2200

 3     hours on the 9th of August, and I'm interested in the first paragraph on

 4     the reporting that came in:

 5             "After being informed of new events in the police station,

 6     Cunjak, Zivko, Pecirovic, Midhat, patrolled all the check-points in the

 7     town several times, as well as the officers on patrol, at which point

 8     there was no particular new events aside from the fact that the officers

 9     at the Smilcic check-point informed us that civilian persons dressed in

10     military uniforms were coming to the village Biljane Donje and burning

11     houses.  The same were arriving to the village on traffic and side

12     roads."

13             Now, obviously this document indicates that the MUP was receiving

14     reports of civilians in military uniforms conducting burnings as early as

15     the 9th of August.

16             My question for you, Mr. Moric, is:  Reports back concerning the

17     effectiveness of check-points and the difficulty in those check-points,

18     given the fact that people, who may have known the area, knew the side

19     roads, did that present a difficulty for your men?

20        A.   In this report, police officers precisely point out that people

21     are using traffic and side roads to get to certain points, and of course

22     this presented a great difficulty because of the great number of such

23     roads.

24        Q.   And obviously all these side roads couldn't be patrolled

25     continuously by the civilian police, could they?

Page 25697

 1        A.   This was an operative and technical request at the level of

 2     commanders of police stations, and I believe that whenever they could

 3     meet the request, they did do so.  But generally speaking, it's certain

 4     there were more side roads and traffic roads than they had police patrols

 5     at their disposal.

 6        Q.   I ask you that question because several witnesses for the

 7     Prosecution have come forward to say that the only thing that the

 8     civilian police had to do to prevent people that were interested in

 9     committing crimes is to just put up more check-points and make sure these

10     people weren't coming into the area.  What's your comment on that?

11        A.   Unfortunately, that is not correct.  If that was the mechanism

12     that would have prevented such development, we would have used it.  But

13     even if these traffic roads and side roads were blocked, the perpetrators

14     who were from the area were well-acquainted with the area, and they moved

15     around it in various ways mostly on foot in order to avoid any police

16     check-points or control.

17             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, at this time we will offer into evidence

18     1D3013.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1861.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  D1861 is admitted into evidence.

23             If you would allow me, Mr. Kehoe, to seek a bit of clarification

24     on this same report which is still on the screen.

25             Mr. Moric, the first paragraph about persons coming to the

Page 25698

 1     village and using traffic and side roads, if I read that, I get the

 2     impression, but please correct me or at least give me your impression,

 3     that apparently these people going to the village were escaping the

 4     check-points and, therefore, not checked before they went to such a

 5     village, that is what I'm inclined to understand what is reported here.

 6     Do you agree with that, or do you have a different understanding of what

 7     is said in this report?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is also how I

 9     understand it.  That was a way to avoid police check-points.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I also read this document as reporting that

11     for these reasons, they could not be arrested or that they escaped

12     further action from police officers.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct, and that is

14     precisely the conclusion that can be drawn from this.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, if we read it this way, do you have an

16     explanation how, under those circumstances, you could establish, first of

17     all, that persons were dressed in military uniforms, but if you could

18     already observe that perhaps from a distance, how you could establish

19     that these were civilians.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is a report

21     drafted by police officers, and they are reporting to the commander of

22     the police station that through their colleagues, that is to say, someone

23     who is a member of the Ministry of the Interior and discharging some

24     duties within the MUP, informed them of the arrival of persons dressed in

25     military uniforms.  So this is local knowledge and local familiarity with

Page 25699

 1     certain persons.  This is how I understand it.  And I conclude that those

 2     who had seen these men recognised that these citizens were dressed in

 3     military uniforms, but they knew that these same persons were not

 4     soldiers and were not from the ranks of the Croatian Army.  This is how I

 5     would interpret this report.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So, therefore, it is your understanding this

 7     must have been based on observations by persons from this village,

 8     Biljane Donje, and that they would have recognised those persons as being

 9     civilians and, at the same time, being dressed in military uniforms, in

10     which case I would expect - but please correct me when I'm wrong - that a

11     police officer would report those details, saying, I recognise Mr. X, Y,

12     or Z, whom I know to be a civilian, although he was dressed in a military

13     uniform, of which we do not find further details in this report.  Is that

14     also -- is that what you would expect as well, as an experienced police

15     officer?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, your conclusion is

17     correct because the report contains certain indications that would incite

18     the crime police to collect the facts, and they would very quickly

19     establish who these citizens were, because it is clear from this

20     formulation that the people who had seen them had also recognised them as

21     citizens dressed in uniforms.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, you started thinking in terms of assumptions,

23     that is, I assume that they had been informed about this and this and

24     this.  And now in this step of your answer you say it's easy to define

25     them because they had been observed.  So you make -- what you earlier

Page 25700

 1     assumed to be the basis for these findings, you now make them facts.  I'm

 2     not yet at that point, without further verification.  But you would say

 3     if that is what happened and if this knowledge was brought to the

 4     attention of the crime police, then that would have created a situation

 5     in which it may have been relatively easy to identify the perpetrators.

 6     I think, then, if that is how I can understand your answer, then we can

 7     move on.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

10             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.

11        Q.   If we can go back to the first page of this document, I'd like to

12     ask you some clarifying questions based on the questions asked by the

13     Presiding Judge.

14             Now, this is a work order, is it not, that the individual shift

15     presents, and he presents this back to his supervisor for additional

16     steps to be made based on this information; isn't that right?

17        A.   Counsel, I wish to correct your conclusion.

18        Q.   Please do.

19        A.   It is not a shift.  It is not a shift, because there are several

20     police patrols in one shift and more policemen.  This is just one patrol,

21     and there's a number of these within one shift.  This is a work order

22     with listed tasks that they need to carry out, and previously we saw

23     their report that in connection with the tasks that were issued to them,

24     they carried out certain activities, including the information they

25     gathered.  After that, this is forwarded to other services within the

Page 25701

 1     police station, and from that report each of these services can see what

 2     is relevant for it and what it needs to do.

 3        Q.   Now, just to follow up on that, you mentioned the crime police.

 4     If information like this is passed to this police officer's superior, it

 5     could be sent to the crime police for further investigation; is that

 6     accurate?

 7        A.   In case of this fact, when the policemen entered something

 8     specific that they learned in their report, I do not agree that they

 9     could pass it on to the crime police.  They would have to pass it on to

10     the crime police within the police station to conduct further

11     investigation about that.

12        Q.   So when we look at this work order and these comments, if this is

13     going to continue to be investigated, this matter -- this information is

14     not the end of the investigation; it could be the beginning of the

15     investigation that leads to the crime police conducting interviews or

16     doing anything that they have to do to investigate the matter?

17        A.   That's right.  This is just the initiation of the procedure.

18        Q.   Let me shift to some of the other difficulties facing the

19     civilian police, and you alluded to several of them this morning, and one

20     of them that you alluded to was the issue of being confronted with

21     ammunition and mines in the liberated areas.  And I'd like to show you a

22     serious of documents and ask you if this is the type of information that

23     you had in mind.  And I'll go through several of them in sequence and

24     then just ask you for your assessment of them at the end.  And I do that

25     in the spirit of time, because some of them are similar, they're just in

Page 25702

 1     different places at different times.

 2             If we could go to the first document, which is 1D3018.

 3             And just so you know, Mr. Moric, while this is coming up, they're

 4     all virtually two-page documents, so we'll go through the two pages.  And

 5     when you tell me you're completed reviewing them, we can go to the next

 6     one.

 7             Now, this is a work order for the 6th Benkovac Police Station for

 8     the 13th of August.

 9        A.   Could we please move on to the next page.

10        Q.   Yes.

11             MR. KEHOE:  I will say, Mr. President, I do believe this is

12     mis-dated, because it's 1994.  I think contextually, it would appear to

13     be 1995.

14             If we can look at the next page, and focusing most of our

15     attention on paragraphs 4, 5, and 6, which deals with the issue of

16     ammunition and mines.

17             Have you completed reviewing it?  Let's look at another one

18     which is 1D --

19                           [French interpretation on English channel]

20             MR. KEHOE:  I'm sorry, Mr. President, I think I was getting

21     French there.

22                           [French interpretation on English channel]

23             MR. KEHOE:  I'm getting the French on Channel 4.  I know the

24     language myself, but --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I didn't notice it.  I'm used to listening to

Page 25703

 1     several languages.  Usually, if it's observed, it's immediately repaired.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  Okay.

 3        Q.   If we can turn, Mr. Moric, to 1D3020, another work order from the

 4     Benkovac Police Station, 14-15 August 1995.  Again, if you view the first

 5     page, I think it's self-explanatory.

 6             In the English, if we can turn to the second page, I believe we

 7     can -- it goes two pages in B/C/S, yes.  And we're interested in the

 8     bottom paragraph, concerning the finding of explosives.

 9             And, again, just let me know when you're finished reading that.

10        A.   Counsel, we can move on.

11        Q.   Let me turn to another one, 1D3021, another 14-15 August

12     document.

13             Excuse me, I apologise, not that document.  If I can turn to

14     1D3023.  My apologies.  And this is dated 16 August.

15        A.   We can move on.

16        Q.   Can we turn to the next page in this document, please.  This is

17     -- the pertinent paragraphs being paragraph 1 and 3 for the purposes of

18     my question.

19        A.   You can move on.

20        Q.   Now, Mr. Moric, I'm just using these three as an example, and all

21     three of them talk about the finding of plastic explosives, weapons,

22     ammunition, explosives, et cetera, in houses throughout the liberated

23     area.  Were these the type of reports that you were receiving back from

24     people in the field that they were finding throughout the liberated area

25     once the police were moving through?

Page 25704

 1        A.   I didn't receive this sort of reports, but I did receive reports

 2     through my daily contacts with chiefs of police administrations which

 3     made it quite clear that they, having received such reports from the

 4     field, were aware of the problem.  And it was clear that the problem

 5     required special involvement on the part of the police because the

 6     ammunition, which ranged from regular ammunition to anti-aircraft

 7     rockets, had to be safely evacuated from the area, and this undoubtedly

 8     required special engagement on the part of the police.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, we'll offer into evidence 1D3018,

10     1D3020, and 1D3023.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, those documents become

14     Exhibit D1862 up to D1864, respectively.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

16             One second.  D1862 up to and including D1864 are admitted into

17     evidence.

18             Could I ask one question in relation to the last documents we

19     saw.  Was there a general duty to report to the police for every citizen

20     in that area?  And if so, where is that duty to be found?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, is my understanding

22     correct that you asked me if the citizens were duty-bound to report that

23     they were in possession of such weapons?

24             JUDGE ORIE:  No, not in possession of weapons, but just ordinary

25     citizens.  We find in this report that three elderly people were found,

Page 25705

 1     and people of 60 years and over, among them a woman of 65 years old, and

 2     apparently there's an issue of whether they had already reported to the

 3     Benkovac Police Station.  Therefore, I ask you whether there was any duty

 4     and whether it was -- what was the reason to verify whether they had

 5     report it already.  I do not see in this report that they were in any way

 6     related to any weapons, but if I misread, please correct me.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You did not misread it,

 8     Your Honour.  They were not tied in with the weapons.  That's not the

 9     point.  The point is that they had the duty to report because the duty

10     stems from the law governing residence of citizens.

11             Following the liberation of the area, the legal system of the

12     Republic of Croatia was restored to the area.  And under the legislation

13     of the time the citizens were still not in possession of what were the

14     legal identity documents, so they were still duty-bound to report their

15     residence if they stayed in the area before the conflict and renewed

16     their documents, because what they had previously were para-documents.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Even those who were born in that same village would

18     not have had any of their original documents dating from, well, before

19     1991?  Because it appears that all three were born in that same village

20     where they were found.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, such clear-cut cases existed.

22     However, the problem lies in the fact that they do not have the relevant

23     documents of the Republic of Croatia.  In the meantime, they had a set of

24     different documents, and what they needed to do now was to reapply for

25     new documents of the Republic of Croatia.

Page 25706

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that explanation.

 2             Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

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

 4        Q.   Now, before we move off this topic, let me ask you, Mr. Moric:

 5     Did the availability of all these weapons impact on the crime problem

 6     that you were facing?

 7        A.   Of course, it did have an impact.  In addition to the efforts put

 8     in by the police to collect the remaining weapons and the left-over

 9     ammunition, including the anti-armour rockets, which was heavy ordnance,

10     there were individuals who were prone to criminal conduct and who wanted

11     to arm themselves as soon as possible.  To add to the general chaos,

12     there were -- there was arms trafficking rife in the area.  You'll

13     understand that it was relatively easy to come by weapons at the time,

14     and one could expect for individuals to get hold of weapons and hold on

15     to them for a while, waiting for their price on the market to go up.

16        Q.   Let us shift to another problem facing the civilian police that

17     you referred to in the questioning to date, and that refers to looting.

18     And I'd like to use some exhibits to take us through this and have

19     explain some matters.

20             And if we could bring up first 1D3049.

21             Now, this is a criminal report that was filed 12 September 1995.

22     If we can go to the second page, you can see that it's signed by

23     Mr. Kardum of the crime police.  And I'm interested in the entry for

24     31 August 1995, where it discusses the activity of a Mate Kulusic, and he

25     was accompanied by an Alen Marin.  Do you see that, sir?  And reading

Page 25707

 1     after the name of "Alen Marin," it says --

 2        A.   It's a bit difficult, but I can make it out.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Okay, let's see if we can -- if you have any difficulties,

 4     I think we can get you a hard copy.  But it said this individual:

 5             "... accompanied by Alen Marin, benefitting from the inability of

 6     the unknown persons to protect their property, took several items from

 7     the abandoned house, i.e., the garage, with the intent of transporting

 8     the same to his own house in Kljuc, Drnis municipality, and thus gain

 9     illegal benefit of the property."

10             Now, during your testimony, you were talking about looting and

11     thievery that was just for outright gain for the individual.  Now, was

12     this the type of scenario that you were talking about?  Not this

13     specifically, but this type of scenario, was this what you were talking

14     about when you said that?

15        A.   Correct.  When I talked about the crime committed for gain, I

16     meant theft and aggravated theft.

17             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, at this time we'll offer into evidence

18     1D3049.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1865.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  D1865 is admitted into evidence.

23             MR. KEHOE:

24        Q.   Now, just staying with the types of people that were doing this,

25     we just categorised those who did it for gain.  And in your statement to

Page 25708

 1     the Prosecutor, D1842, and this is at 4893, 93 of 107, and you were

 2     talking about motivation of people to take property.  You noted at

 3     line 27:

 4             "So we had people who would come back to their village and

 5     recognise their property in the neighbouring house, so they would put

 6     it -- take that, but they wouldn't take it back to their house, but would

 7     take it back to the house where they used to live, where they lived for

 8     the last three years."

 9             Going to the next page:

10             "You had people who would -- who took other people's property,

11     but said that they recognised that this -- that this is their property

12     and that they recognised.  So you had such a huge area which was

13     impossible to physically control, you had such a situation."

14             So first we were talking about looters for personal greed, and

15     then you had information, as you discussed with the Office of the

16     Prosecutor, people who fell into this category, that took their property

17     that they said was theirs.  Can you just elaborate on that to a degree

18     and tell me the overall situation as it was relayed back to you, and the

19     consequences of that.

20        A.   Counsel, examples such as this one, and various versions thereof,

21     were plentiful.  As is commonly known, many or almost all non-Serbs had

22     previously been driven out of the area; not only Croats, but others as

23     well.  In 1990 and 1991, their property was looted and homes destroyed.

24             After the liberation of the territory, it would happen that

25     individuals would recognise certain items as their own.  However, in that

Page 25709

 1     event the police resorted to reasonable suspicion; was it indeed the case

 2     that the citizen had recognised any items that he stole -- his own

 3     property, or whether he was only using this as a subterfuge, as a

 4     justification.  It depended on the policemen involved.  It was down to

 5     his assessment and to his options to check on that.  It would be highly

 6     unlikely for these individuals to actually be in possession of the bills

 7     that they had once, indeed, bought the items concerned, and there was no

 8     other way of verifying their allegations.  So it was a very difficult

 9     choice or situation that the policeman manning the check-point was faced

10     with.  But it was more of a problem in legal and professional terms,

11     rather than his own discernment of what the situation was.

12             Most often, the police manning the check-points proceeded from

13     the presumption of culpability, rather than the presumption of innocence,

14     as should have been the case according to our jurisdiction.  In

15     principle, this meant that the policemen wanted, through whichever way

16     was possible, to check whether this was, indeed, a matter of ownership or

17     only a camouflage for theft.

18        Q.   Let me just change the motivation of some of these people just a

19     bit through another document, and I'd like you to examine it, because in

20     the document there are some comments that I would like to explore with

21     you.  And that is 1D3029, a criminal report again filed on behalf of

22     Mr. Kardum by his subordinate, dated 31 August 1995.

23             MR. KEHOE:  If we could bring that up on the screen.  Again, that

24     is 1D3029.

25        Q.   This is a report to the municipal public prosecutor.  If we could

Page 25710

 1     move to page 2 of the document, and if you can just -- actually, it's

 2     page 3 in the B/C/S, I'm being told.  Thank you very much.  Thank you,

 3     that's it.

 4             Just tell me, sir, when you've finished reviewing that page.

 5        A.   I've gone through it.

 6        Q.   You see that this is an aggravated theft case.  It does involve

 7     an individual employed by the HV, and we'll take that at a -- I'll get

 8     into that in a little bit.  But I would just like to stay with the

 9     content -- the rest of the content of this document.

10             If we could move ahead to page 4 in the English, and 4 in the

11     B/C/S.  This is a receipt for these items.  If we could turn the page in

12     both English and B/C/S, there's another receipt.  And if we could do that

13     just one more time, there's yet another receipt.  Now, if we could go on,

14     and we have an Official Note by the crime police in the next page, page 7

15     in the English.  And if we could go to the next Official Note concerning

16     this individual, Mile Serdar.  And I'm interested -- this is the

17     individual who was a driver for the Croatian Army, and I'm interested in

18     the justification that was given to the crime police for this theft.

19             Do you see that, at the bottom of the page, there should be --

20     there's one last line.  But the paragraph right before the last line, it

21     said:

22             "Given that during the occupation of Sveti Rok, they left

23     everything behind which has now been stolen or burnt, he thought that he

24     had every right to take now what he took, and therefore he didn't talk to

25     anyone about this before."

Page 25711

 1             Now, that type of mentality and psychology, were you receiving

 2     information back from your police administrations that many of these

 3     looters were justifying their actions because they had lost all their

 4     items during the occupation from 1991 to 1995?

 5        A.   Of course, in their day-to-day work the police was faced with

 6     explanations and justifications such as this one.  But as you can see in

 7     this particular example at hand, this did not prevent the police from

 8     doing its police work.  There was no solidarity in that sense, although

 9     you will see that there were quite a few members of the uniformed police

10     or the crime police who had suffered the same or similar fate, or whose

11     families had suffered the same or similar fate.

12             With your leave, I would like to draw your attention to another

13     relevant piece of information in the document.

14             In paragraph 3, it is stated that the gentleman worked as a

15     driver at the Logistics Base of the Croatian Army, but the relevant piece

16     of information which would indicate the scale of the problem we were

17     faced with was that he had been living for four years in Hotel Laguna, in

18     a hotel room in Zagreb, which is roughly 180 kilometres away from the

19     place where he committed this crime.

20        Q.   Now, sir, just going through the rest of the document - we will

21     go into this - if we just page through, just for the purposes of the

22     Chamber, I don't want to say that this is the last document, there are

23     two more Official Notes from the suspects.  And if we go to page 11, it

24     notes a referral by the state prosecutor to the Military Prosecutor's

25     Office because Mile Serdar is employed by the Croatian Army, and also a

Page 25712

 1     referral to the Karlovac.  One goes to the Split Military Prosecutor's

 2     Office and another one to the Karlovac Prosecutor's Office.  Excuse me,

 3     then the last one is from Ivan Simic, as the military prosecutor.

 4             And we will talk about those issues in one moment.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  But at this time we would like to offer into evidence

 6     1D3029.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1866.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  D1866 is admitted into evidence.

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

12        Q.   You talked, Mr. Moric, about decisions that individuals at

13     check-points have to make and what has to be done at that particular

14     time.  And the Chamber has received evidence that if a check-point -- a

15     police at a check-point perceives that items are stolen, that he has to

16     seize those items from the individual.  Now, let me just change that

17     circumstance just a bit through another report and ask you if this is yet

18     another problem that causes a police officer at a check-point to have to

19     use his own judgement.

20             And let me bring up 1D3017.

21             Now, this is another work order from the Benkovac -- 6th Benkovac

22     Police Station, 13 August 1995.  If I could turn to the second page and

23     if we could look at the paragraph beginning at 1620.  And this paragraph

24     talks about the transportation of cattle, cows, calves, and sheep, loaded

25     on in Gracac, and taking it through a check-point.

Page 25713

 1             And tell me after you read that last paragraph, when you have

 2     completed it, and I will talk about it a bit.

 3        A.   Only that paragraph, or should I read through to the end?

 4        Q.   I think you could read through the whole document.  It's just one

 5     page.

 6        A.   I've read it.

 7        Q.   Now, this raises a problem concerning -- or an issue concerning

 8     cattle.  Now, we know based on prior evidence that the civilian police

 9     would take stolen property or what they thought was stolen property from

10     people coming through check-points, but here we have a situation of

11     individuals that at least were suspected of transporting cattle that

12     might have been stolen.  Now, under those circumstances - and here we

13     have cows, calves, and sheep - what is a police officer at a check-point

14     supposed to do?  And does he have the facilities at his disposal at some

15     rural check-point to seize cows, calves, and sheep to take care of them?

16     And the reason I ask you this question by way of background, Mr. Moric,

17     is this:  There have been items of evidence coming in from internationals

18     where they perceived people who were transporting stolen livestock moving

19     through check-points --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I know leading questions are

22     allowed in cross-examination, but then to explain to a witness why a

23     question is asked, and the background, and the purpose, I think, is

24     perhaps --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  It's inappropriate.

Page 25714

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  -- inappropriate.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I do agree with you.

 3             You may put the question --

 4             MR. KEHOE:  That's fine, Judge.

 5        Q.   I'll go back to my initial question.  Do you remember it,

 6     Mr. Moric, or do I have to repeat it for you?  And I'm talking about the

 7     problem facing an officer at a check-point.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  What to do with cattle, that was the question.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's keep matters short.

11             Mr. Moric, what to do with the cattle.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in this example,

13     cattle is potentially evidence.  In general, in police practice at the

14     time, police would submit evidence together with criminal reports, so as

15     long as the investigation is being carried out, the evidence is under

16     police care.  And then upon completion of the criminal investigation,

17     together with the criminal report and the possible suspects, the evidence

18     is to be presented at court.  Of course, in cases like this one, it is

19     technically difficult to organise.  Therefore, in cases like this one,

20     and I must say that these colleagues of mine were lucky that in the

21     immediate vicinity there was a farm, so that they could register that the

22     cattle was seized and that it would be temporarily accommodated at the

23     farm.  But my colleagues in other areas, who did not have any farms in

24     their vicinity, had serious problems with this, how to -- how to keep the

25     evidence, how to have it fixed, and then how to physically preserve it

Page 25715

 1     once it has been registered.

 2             MR. KEHOE:

 3        Q.   And how do they solve it, Mr. Moric?

 4        A.   One of the solutions was quite unusual.  Namely, we are talking

 5     about the fact that they would use an exception to what the law provides;

 6     namely, that a perpetrator or a possible perpetrator of the crime of

 7     theft would be obliged to preserve himself cattle or other evidence,

 8     which is difficult to preserve physically, until the proceedings against

 9     him are initiated.  And previously the evidence would be recorded in the

10     usual way and the receipt would be issued to this person, saying that

11     such evidence, in this case cattle, were seized from the person who is

12     suspected of having committed the crime, but physically would be left

13     with the person, and the person would be legally obliged to take care of

14     this evidence.  All of that under the assumption that the person who is

15     the suspect is interested in preserving such evidence, in particular if

16     the person considers himself or herself not guilty and is convinced that

17     he or she would prove innocence.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic.

19             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour, a slight intervention into the

20     transcript.

21             Page 52, line 2, after -- or before the word "seized," the

22     witness mentioned another word which is, I think, quite important to be

23     introduced into the transcript.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll check that.  Although I find the word in a

25     different line, but I take it that we're looking at the same.

Page 25716

 1             You said that, "... the evidence would be recorded in the usual

 2     way and a receipt would be issued to this person, saying that such

 3     evidence, in this case cattle, were..." and then we read, "seized from

 4     the person who is suspected of having committed a crime."  Did you add

 5     anything where you said that the cattle were seized from that person?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said that the

 7     evidence would be preserved in the usual way, and on the receipt it would

 8     be stated that in the legal sense of the word, the evidence would be

 9     seized, but physically it would be left with this person, with the

10     obligation to take care of it.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I understand this to be that although the cattle

12     were seized, immediately the person under whom it was seized was

13     appointed the custodian of that seized cattle.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you have understood that

15     properly.  That is right, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

17             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

18             At this time, we will offer into evidence 1D3017.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1867.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  D1867 is admitted into evidence.

23             Perhaps one follow-up question.  What you described as what

24     happened with cattle, did this occasionally happen with other seized

25     objects as well?  For example, if I would have a truckload of

Page 25717

 1     refrigerators, not having an opportunity to store them right away, that a

 2     similar procedure would be applied; that is, that it would be recorded

 3     what was formally seized, but then the person who transported these

 4     objects or -- that it would be left in his hands and that he would be

 5     responsible for preserving those objects as evidence?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the practice at the

 7     time was such that, with a refrigerator as an example, that wouldn't have

 8     been the case.  Judging by examples of TV sets and similar, it would also

 9     not be the case.  But it would be the case if someone had a great

10     quantity of firewood, or of building materials, or similar items which,

11     because of their volume and quantity, would simply be too big for any

12     police facility.  So if the police were to seize and preserve this as

13     evidence, then very soon around the police station there would be a space

14     that would seem like a public depot.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  My example was not about a refrigerator, but

16     about a truckload of refrigerators, and perhaps I should say a truckload

17     of household appliances, where the police may not have had a truck to

18     transport them.  Could a similar thing -- could a similar procedure be

19     followed under those circumstances?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Possibly it could, and there could

21     have been a case or two like that, but I think that according to the law,

22     an exception of this kind is envisaged only for cases that are not

23     typical, such as when it is physically impossible to preserve such

24     evidence.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

Page 25718

 1             Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

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

 3        Q.   Mr. Moric, I just want to shift gears and talk a little bit about

 4     the authorities of the civilian police and the military police.  And I'd

 5     like to show you a couple of items in evidence, starting with D1626,

 6     which is the statement of Mr. Mladen Bajic, who's now the chief state

 7     attorney for the Republic of Croatia, but during the war was a military

 8     prosecutor, and I'd like to just show you a sequence of statements or

 9     pieces of evidence and then ask you some questions.  And this is all in

10     the spirit of moving through this quickly.

11             And if we could move to paragraph -- excuse me, point 6 or

12     paragraph 6.  It's page 3 in the English and -- paragraph 6, and there it

13     is in the B/C/S.

14             If you could take a quick look at that question in the first

15     paragraph, and I'm interested in the area where Mr. Bajic says:

16             "Thus," and this is in the second -- third sentence in the

17     answer:

18             "Thus the general jurisdiction was assigned to the public

19     prosecutor, and if, in the course of a previous procedure or after the

20     commencement of a criminal procedure, it was established that an offence

21     falls within the scope of the work of the military justice system, the

22     procedure would be taken over by the military prosecutor."

23             If we can turn our attention ahead to paragraph 14, and I'm

24     interested in the last paragraph in 14, which is page 7 in the English

25     and page 6 in the B/C/S.  And it notes:

Page 25719

 1             "In general terms, the role of the military police in the

 2     detection and perpetrators of criminal offences is as follows:  After

 3     determining that a criminal offence has been committed, the civilian

 4     police from the composition of the Ministry of the Interior conducts

 5     criminal proceedings of the case.  If, in the course of processing of the

 6     case, it would be established that the perpetrator was a member of the

 7     military, the military police would then take over the criminal

 8     processing.  Therefore, the minister of the interior had general

 9     jurisdiction for conducting criminal processing, and in cases where, in

10     the course of processing, it was established that the offence was under

11     the jurisdiction of the military justice system, criminal processing

12     would be taken over or conducted from the beginning by the military

13     police."

14             I want to ask you a sequence of these, sir, just in the spirit of

15     time, because there are several witnesses that have committed on this,

16     and I just want to give them all to you.

17             The next one is Judge Zoran Matulovic, who is now a judge in the

18     County Court in Split, was a judge in the -- of the military courts, and

19     that would be D1613.

20             If we could bring that up on the screen.  If we could turn to

21     paragraph 9 in the English.  That's on page 7 of the English.  And in the

22     B/C/S, it is page 7 in the B/C/S as well.

23             Reading under the question -- under the question -- the

24     paragraph 9, it notes:

25             "When the civilian police or military police notified the duty

Page 25720

 1     investigating judge of the District Court (now County Court) on any

 2     incident or perpetration of a criminal offence when the perpetrator is

 3     unknown at the time, the investigation is always conducted by the

 4     investigating judge of the District Court.  The investigating judge of

 5     the Military Court is autonomous.  The Military Court has its own duty

 6     service, and the duty military investigating judge does not participate

 7     in the work of the Investigating Centre."

 8             Number 10.

 9             "Q.  When does the investigating judge of the Military Court -"

10     it should be have, it says having - "having territorial jurisdiction,

11     i.e., venue, join the investigation?"

12             We can turn the page in the English.  I think we're okay in the

13     B/C/S:

14             "At the moment, it has been established beyond doubt that the

15     perpetrator of the criminal offence is a soldier, i.e., when it has been

16     established that the offence falls under the jurisdiction of the military

17     judiciary, for instance, when military equipment has been damaged,

18     et cetera."

19             The point there is at the moment it has been established beyond

20     doubt that the perpetrator is -- that the perpetrator of the criminal

21     offence is a soldier.

22             One last piece of evidence before we go into this, and that would

23     be D1553, and this is the evidence -- statement by a Mr. Galovic, the

24     county state prosecutor in Zadar.  And if we could turn to the next page

25     in both the English and the B/C/S, and I'm interested in the second

Page 25721

 1     question asked.

 2             "Q.  Could you describe the role of the civilian police in the

 3     prevention and discovery of the perpetrators of criminal offences?

 4             "A.  According to the criminal procedure law, the police take

 5     necessary actions aimed at the prevention and discovery of criminal

 6     offences, and the perpetrators in the interim, a pre-investigative

 7     procedure.

 8             "When there is reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence has

 9     been committed which is prosecuted, the police has the duty to take

10     measures ex officio to find the perpetrator of the criminal offence, to

11     prevent the perpetrator or the accomplice from hiding or escaping, to

12     find and secure the traces of the criminal offence and objects that might

13     serve as evidence, and to collect any information that might be useful to

14     conduct a successful criminal procedure."

15             If we could move ahead to the next page, and that would be the

16     page -- the next page in English, and let me check on the B/C/S.  And I

17     believe that's right at the top of the page:

18             "Q.  Could you describe the role of the military police in the

19     prevention and the discovery of perpetrators of criminal offences?

20             "A.  While performing military duties, the military police is

21     authorised to take actions towards:  Military persons serving at the

22     Ministry of Defence and the armed forces; state officials and employees

23     serving in the armed forces; state officials and employees of the

24     Ministry of Defence who perform duties from the scope of the work of the

25     Ministry of Defence and the armed forces; civilians located in military

Page 25722

 1     buildings that serve for defence purposes."

 2             Moving down several paragraphs in this page in the English to,

 3     "Accordingly ...," it's under the next question, same page in the B/C/S:

 4             "Accordingly, the discovery of criminal offences and perpetrators

 5     of those criminal offences was in the jurisdiction of the police, or the

 6     military police respectively, when the criminal offences fell under the

 7     jurisdiction of the military judiciary."

 8             Now, Mr. Moric, these items in evidence before the Chamber from

 9     Mr. Bajic and Judge Matulovic and Mr. Galovic concerning the law in this

10     area, is that your understanding of how these matters were to be

11     investigated and who had jurisdiction, either the civil element or the

12     military element, under the various circumstances as described by these

13     three gentlemen?

14        A.   Counsel, even though I'm neither an expert for criminology, nor

15     did I manage crime police, I will try to answer as precisely as possible

16     to your question.

17             In general, this was how the distinction of jurisdiction was made

18     between civilian and military police.  But I would ask if we could please

19     return on the screen the document of Mr. Bajic, because it seems to me

20     that we should have a look at an information that is relevant in this

21     context, if you would allow that.

22        Q.   Absolutely, sir.

23             If we could go back to D1626, and I actually read from two

24     entries, and I'll show them both.  One is larger than the other, but we

25     can look at both of them.

Page 25723

 1             In page 3 in the English, under Question 6, I read for you the --

 2     under the answer in 6, having looked at first paragraph -- I read for

 3     you:

 4             "Thus the general jurisdiction was assigned to the public

 5     prosecutor."

 6             Do you see that, sir?

 7        A.   Yes, I can see that.  But if we could please move on to the

 8     section that talks about the jurisdiction of the military police.

 9        Q.   Yes, and that would be on page 7 in the English, right above

10     paragraph 15.  And again my memory is not completely accurate as to where

11     this is in the B/C/S.  Page 6 in the B/C/S.  Thank you.

12             I believe that is the other section that I read for you from

13     Mr. Bajic, where it notes in general terms --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, the witness asked whether he could see a

15     certain portion of the document.  Let's first allow him to read --

16             MR. KEHOE:  I am, Judge, I'm just trying to make sure that we get

17     the right place, that's all.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, well, you started -- the previous section, you

19     started reading it, whereas I think the witness is in a perfect situation

20     to read the portion he asked for.

21             Is this the portion, Mr. Moric, you wanted to have in front of

22     you?  Please read it and make your observations.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

24             I wanted to point out the formulation used in this sentence,

25     which is the second in the passage beginning with the words:  "In general

Page 25724

 1     terms ..."  So the second sentence.  It says here that if, in the course

 2     of the processing of the case, it would be established that the

 3     perpetrator was a member of the military, the military crime police would

 4     then take over the criminal processing.

 5             However, at the time that we are talking about, and considering

 6     the problems at the time, the situations that we were faced with most

 7     often were such that it was clear from the very beginning that these were

 8     military persons, so we didn't need the criminal processing to establish

 9     that these were military persons.  And in that context, I wanted to say

10     that in such situations, it was clear that the military police would be

11     in charge of that from the start.

12             MR. KEHOE:

13        Q.   With that clarification and the other items that I read to you,

14     do you agree that that was your understanding as to how the system would

15     work, and the processing of suspects, depending whether or not they were

16     military or civilian?

17        A.   Yes, that is correct.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, as I'm looking at the clock.  Could you

19     find a suitable moment.

20             MR. KEHOE:  This is a suitable moment, Mr. President.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  This is a suitable moment.

22             MR. KEHOE:  I was just going to go into some other exhibits on

23     this, but we can do that.  That will take a few minutes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we will have a break, and we will resume at

25     10 minutes to 1.00.

Page 25725

 1                           --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.

 2                           --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

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

 5        Q.   Mr. Moric, we'd like to just develop this issue with the military

 6     police and the civilian police just a little bit more, and I'd like to

 7     direct -- just expand it past some of your comments about joint

 8     check-points, and singular check-points, and difficulties, and just to

 9     turn our attention to some work orders that are similar to what we looked

10     at before.

11             The first one I'd like to talk to you about is 1D3019, which is

12     again a work order for 15 August 1995.

13             And if we could -- if we could just take a look at that front

14     page briefly.  And when you finish, just let me know, Mr. Moric, and we

15     can turn to the next page.

16        A.   Turn to the next one.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Turn to the next page.

18             And I'm most interested in the entry towards the middle of that

19     page, Fitoma Jurosevic [phoen], with the seizure of the Zastava truck.

20     It notes that the same was handed over to the military police because he

21     was transporting a cow and 10 sheep in his trailer, on which he picked up

22     in the village of Oklaj, and didn't have any documents for the mentioned

23     cattle.  And it notes in parenthesis "(member of the Croatian Army)."

24     You note the first line is "handed over to the military police."

25             And let's just look at 1D3025.  This is another work order for

Page 25726

 1     the civilian police of the 18-19 August.  Just let me know when you've

 2     glanced through that and we'll turn to the next page.

 3        A.   You can turn to the next one.

 4        Q.   Yes, thank you.  Turn that page in English.

 5             If we could just read this, I'm actually interested in the

 6     paragraph beginning:

 7             "At 20.40 hours, we stopped a vehicle with license plate ZD-535-u

 8     which is operated by a member of the Croatian Army, Bozidar Mikulic, and

 9     the same vehicle, with no certificate of ownership, the same was

10     transporting two lambs and were behaving in an unbecoming and arrogant

11     manner towards officer, policeman; Marin, Darko.  The duty service was

12     informed of the same, and they sent the military police, who then took

13     over the aforementioned person."

14             If we can turn to the next one, 1D3048.  This is another work

15     order from the Knin District Police from 4-5 September 1995.  If you'll

16     glance at that page and tell me, and we'll move to the next page.

17        A.   Next, please.

18        Q.   Yes.  Turn to the next page.  I'm actually interested most

19     specifically in the bottom portion of that page at 2110 hours.  It notes:

20             "... an army truck with registration HV-743-PF arrived at the

21     check-point, and the same was filled with objects and the driver had a

22     receipt which we thought was suspicious, and we requested the operative

23     duty officer within the administration of the arrival of the military

24     police.  Upon arrival, the military police took over and removed the

25     truck from traffic."

Page 25727

 1             Just moving again quickly through, 1D3050.  Again, it's another

 2     work order from 20 September 1995 from the Knin Police District.

 3             If we can move to the second page.

 4             Sorry, if I could just -- thank you.  If I can go back to the

 5     prior page just one moment.

 6             I note for your review point 5 in the special tasks, that:

 7             "If the person stopped and checked is an HV member, inform the

 8     military police through operative duty."

 9             If we could turn to the next page for the particular factual

10     events, and I'm interested in the facts concerning the 1610 entry.  It

11     notes:

12             "At 1610 we stopped a vehicle with no registration plates; make,

13     Warburg, green in colour; with a trailer with two uniformed persons

14     inside without military passes.  And the same also didn't have a receipt

15     for the goods they were transporting and no registration card."

16             "The police station operative duty was notified, and the same

17     sent a military police patrol.  At 1650, Corporal Loncov," and I'm not

18     even going to attempt the next name, "Domagoj from the 72nd Military

19     Police Battalion took over the persons."

20             One last entry, and this is 1D3024, and this is again from the

21     Benkovac Police Station, 17 August 1995.

22             And if we can turn to the next page -- is that okay to turn to

23     the next page, Mr. Moric?  Yes, so we turn to the next page, and I'm

24     interested in entry 14, which is at 1750, describing a vehicle ZD-521-B,

25     Zastava, 640-D, blue, Marinko Ledenko, Sonja, and Martin Ledenko, and

Page 25728

 1     Vuka Sava [phoen], and Sime Bobic, they were transporting two beds, a

 2     wood stove, kitchen tables, mattress.  Persons and items were taken over

 3     by the Benkovac military police, due to the fact that the driver was a

 4     member of the Croatian Army 4th Brigade.

 5             Now, Mr. Moric, looking at these documents, your men in the field

 6     properly executed what they were supposed to do, i.e., if they saw

 7     something suspicious or possible of criminal activity, they were stopping

 8     these people at check-points and calling the military police so the

 9     military police could take custody of the matter; isn't that right?

10        A.   That's right, Counsel.  They did what the order told them to do.

11     In all these documents, we were able to see on the first page, save for

12     the last document, I believe, that the policemen specified what the

13     specific duties were, that the vehicles had to be pulled over, and that

14     those items in respect of which ownership could not be ascertained should

15     be impounded.

16             In one of the reports, mention was made of individuals

17     transporting goods for which they had a certificate of ownership.

18     However, the police found the certificate suspicious and asked that both

19     the individuals and the goods concerned be taken care of, taken over.

20        Q.   Now, let us -- that is probably the good example to talk about,

21     and that would be 1D3048.  If we could bring that one back on the screen,

22     the second-to-last one, because I think that's the one that you were

23     referring to, where your officers noted that the receipt was

24     "suspicious."

25        A.   Yes, that could be on page 2 of the document.

Page 25729

 1        Q.   If we could go to page 2.  If we could go down to the 2110 entry

 2     towards the bottom.  That's it.

 3             Now, Mr. Moric, in this scenario here we have an HV truck coming

 4     through with suspicious paperwork, that your officer thinks is

 5     suspicious.  As opposed to letting this suspicious action take place or

 6     possible crime take place, he had the responsibility of keeping that

 7     individual there and then calling the military police to have them take

 8     over; isn't that right?

 9        A.   That's right, your conclusion is correct.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, since you've called this back --

11             MR. KEHOE:  Oh no -- Mr. President, please do.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We also see in this document, and it

13     apparently was once attached to this document, that persons arrived in a

14     vehicle and that they had a receipt for exporting certain items, but that

15     the police officers were informed later on that such receipts were no

16     longer valid.  And they apparently have attached a copy of that receipt.

17             Now, could you shed some light on what kind of receipts these

18     were and why such receipts were not valid anymore on the 4th or the 5th

19     of September?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the case in point

21     in this particular report, my understanding is that the individuals who

22     were in the vehicle had some sort of a receipt indicating that the items

23     there were owned by them, but that the police found it suspicious.

24             MR. KEHOE:

25        Q.   Mr. Moric, I think you're looking at the wrong entry.  If we can

Page 25730

 1     go to the entry at 2000 hours.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm talking about the entry at, yes, 2000 hours.

 3     Could you please read that portion of the document.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honour.  I have

 5     obviously misunderstood your question.

 6             This may have been one of the cases where some of the government

 7     commissioners or representatives of civilian authorities tried to issue

 8     citizens with receipts for the items that they recognised as theirs in

 9     order to be able to certify that they were, indeed, their belongings.  As

10     soon as we realised, "we" being the police, that this practice is open to

11     abuse, we asked that the government ban the government commissioners and

12     representatives of local authorities from resorting to such practice.  We

13     informed the police structures that they should not consider such

14     documents as valid.  I think that this is what the particular example

15     here might be about, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.  We would like to offer into

19     evidence 1D3019, 1D3024, 1D3025, 1D3048, and 1D3050.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, those will become Exhibit D1868 up

23     to and including D1872.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  D1868 up to and including D1872 are admitted into

25     evidence.

Page 25731

 1             MR. KEHOE:  May I proceed, Mr. President?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             MR. KEHOE:

 4        Q.   Mr. Moric, we're going to shift gears just a little bit and talk

 5     about the actual planning of check-points and your discussions with

 6     General Lausic both prior to Operation Storm and after.  And we know,

 7     based on the exhibits that we have seen and presented to the Chamber and

 8     you discussed, that check-points -- joint check-points were scheduled to

 9     be established, and you ordered that to your men as early as the 3rd of

10     August, 1995.  And for the record, that's P493.

11             And we also know, in our discussions with my learned friend

12     Mr. Kay, that you had expressed displeasure about the lack of

13     co-operation with the military police at these check-points, and we saw

14     that yesterday in your examination with Mr. Kay, of 10 August 1995, which

15     would have been D46.

16             Now, you also noted for us that as you were going through these

17     very difficult days, you were in daily communication with

18     Major General Lausic, weren't you?

19        A.   Correct, Counsel.  It was necessary for us to be in frequent

20     communication.

21        Q.   And that communication obviously took the form of both oral

22     conversations and written correspondence, as we've seen.  But my question

23     comes to your discussions with Mr. Lausic, both in person and in writing.

24     When you were talking to him about the problems in the liberated areas

25     and the problems that you were having with the military police, did

Page 25732

 1     General Lausic ever say to you that he didn't have the authority to

 2     correct those problems?

 3        A.   In the frequent daily contacts, Mr. Lausic and I were frustrated

 4     by the state of matters in the area.  However, he never said that he

 5     lacked competence, and he never referred me to any other authority for a

 6     specific or a general case, so he was the only relevant counterpart for

 7     me on this issue.

 8        Q.   Now, Mr. Moric, you noted, in your statement to the Office of the

 9     Prosecutor, D1842, at e-court number 4893, line 17, that you never spoke

10     to General Gotovina; is that correct?

11        A.   I think that we were specifically discussing the period before,

12     during, and after Storm.

13        Q.   My apologies, Mr. Moric, and my question was not as exact, and

14     your interpretation of my question is 100 per cent correct.  So if you

15     can answer it in that context, that would be fine.

16        A.   Yes.  Before, during, and after Storm, I never contacted

17     Mr. Ante Gotovina because I didn't have any professional reasons to do

18     so.

19        Q.   Now, Mr. Moric, when you were having discussions with

20     General Lausic about problems in the liberated areas, did he ever tell

21     you that he needed to go back and discuss this matter with

22     General Gotovina in order to get this matter resolved?  Did he ever tell

23     you that?

24        A.   He didn't tell me that he would need to refer back to

25     Mr. Gotovina on any score, and Mr. Gotovina never actually featured in my

Page 25733

 1     conversations with Mr. Lausic.

 2        Q.   Now, shifting gears once again, I want to go back to the order

 3     that we've discussed at some length.  And if I can just reference you to

 4     it, and this has to do with your order on the 18th of August of 1995,

 5     D49.  If we could bring that up on the screen.

 6             Now, the item that I'd like to talk to you about is item 4, and

 7     you ordered, in item 4 -- can you turn to that?  It would be the next

 8     page in English, thank you.

 9             "It should be agreed as of today an on-site investigation and

10     forensic and operative processing will be conducted after every case of

11     torching houses and illegal taking away of people's movable property."

12             Now, yesterday, in your discussions with my learned friend

13     Mr. Kay, and the President of the Chamber was asking you some questions

14     about arson investigations, you ordered this, sir, as part of your

15     overall plan to bring this torching of houses and looting to an end,

16     didn't you?

17        A.   Correct.  Given the sequence of tasks that I set out in this

18     letter, number 4 relates to co-operation with the military police -- or,

19     rather, number 3 relates to the co-operation with military police, and

20     that they, too, would have to play a role in the forensic examination and

21     criminal inquiries.

22        Q.   Well, let's just briefly go through the results of your order,

23     sir, and let's look at some of those results in the field.

24             And if we could turn our attention to a sequence of documents,

25     and we'll do this in a similar fashion as we've gone through some of the

Page 25734

 1     prior documents, and begin with 1D3031.

 2        A.   My apologies.  Can we stay with this document for a moment still?

 3        Q.   The floor is yours.

 4        A.   Thank you.  I wanted to draw your attention to item 5 in the

 5     context of what I've just said.  Item 4 specifically related to

 6     co-operation with military police, that they were supposed to get

 7     involved in the process as of that date.  In item 5, I allow for the

 8     possibility that should the military police be unable to carry out its

 9     duties as per item 4 -- in other words, I do want to make sure that their

10     engagement in the process becomes greater.

11             So we can move on.  I'm sorry for the interruption.

12        Q.   Mr. Moric, taking you up on that, your intention was, whether the

13     military police was going to participate or not, you wanted your officers

14     to make sure that an on-site investigation was done so you could bring

15     this burning and looting to an end; isn't that right?

16        A.   The intention behind the entire document is prevention and

17     investigation into the events that already happened, but the emphasis is

18     on the prevention together with the military police, prevention and

19     investigation.

20        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Let us turn to a sequence of documents, and I'm

21     turning to the actual fire documents or torching documents.

22             And if we could go to 1D3031.

23             Again, as I mentioned, Mr. Moric, in the interests of time I'd

24     like to show you a sequence of documents.

25             This is an Official Note from the Gracac Police Station, on

Page 25735

 1     27 August 1995, concerning the reporting of an unknown person starting a

 2     fire in a house.

 3        A.   Could I point out relevant information from this document,

 4     please.

 5        Q.   Absolutely, sir.

 6        A.   At the end of the third paragraph, the third one from the top in

 7     this document, it is mentioned that due to detonations of ammunition

 8     heard from within the house which was torched, they couldn't come there

 9     immediately, and I believe that this tells us something about the

10     contexts within which this kind of work had to be done.

11        Q.   Thank you for that, sir.

12             If we could turn to the next document, which is 1D3032, which is

13     on the same day, later on that day at 1710.  Again, we're looking at an

14     investigation by a duty officer sending a patrol.  In the second

15     paragraph:

16             "Upon arrival at the site of the incident, information was

17     obtained that an unknown perpetrator had intentionally set fire to seven

18     family houses ..."

19        A.   In this document as well -- in this document, we can also see the

20     information about the specific attitude -- the personal and professional

21     attitude of the police officers to the incident, because it says here

22     that they managed to extinguish one of the fires.

23        Q.   Let me just turn to another document, again from the Gracac area,

24     1D3033.

25             This is an information from the 27-28 August 1995 on reporting of

Page 25736

 1     two fires.

 2             If we can turn to the next page.  Stay on that page in the B/C/S.

 3             It notes:

 4             "At 1755, the Knin Police Administration Duty Service was

 5     informed of the same, and after consulting with Bugojno, it was agreed to

 6     conduct an on-site investigation in the morning on 28 August 1995.  The

 7     cause of the fire is unknown."

 8             If we can continue on to another matter, 1D3034.

 9             Again, we are a series of fires being reported.  For instance,

10     looking at 1550, the front page:

11             "The fire on one of the houses was put under control; however,

12     the remaining four houses burnt down entirely.

13             "After consulting the operative officer, Pogarelic, it was agreed

14     on to conduct the on-site investigation in the morning of the 31 August."

15             And if we can turn to the next page in English.  I'm not sure if

16     that's the next page in B/C/S.  It's that same page.  We again see the

17     reporting of additional fires.

18             Now, staying with this sequence, I mean, if we just move on.

19     After this is reported back, you mentioned during the course of your

20     testimony with my learned friend Mr. Kay, that the crime police becomes

21     involved.  And let us just look at a sequence of those documents,

22     beginning with 1D3035.

23             And while I'm doing that, Mr. President, it might be best to just

24     tender these as we move ahead, and that would be offering 1D3031 through

25     1D3034.

Page 25737

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, those documents become

 4     Exhibit D1873 up to and including D1876, respectively.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  D1873 up to and including D1876 are admitted into

 6     evidence.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, if I could just seek your guidance at

 8     this point.  I know that I said two sessions.  I do have a series of

 9     Crime Department reports on arson that go through here.  I know that I

10     said I'd finish by quarter of.  I do have several brief areas just to

11     cover.  If I could ask the Court's leave for some short period of time on

12     Monday, or I suppose that I could put these in through some Bar table

13     submissions.

14             The reason I'm interested in this, of course, Your Honour, is I

15     pulled these yesterday because we had some discussions about arsons and

16     times and on-site investigations, and I have a dossier of any number of

17     investigations, so I'll be guided by how Your Honour wants to proceed.

18     I can certainly put these in through a Bar table.  Of course, we'll miss

19     the opportunity to have this individual's comment thereon.  Or I could

20     just keep going through these and take a very short period of time on

21     Monday.  But my apologies to the Chamber about my mistaken in time claim,

22     but I do not think, if given some additional time on Monday, that I will

23     be running over very much.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I suggest the following, Mr. Kehoe:  If you would

25     proceed now without these documents, if before Monday you try to agree

Page 25738

 1     with Ms. Mahindaratne on a meaningful Bar table submission of those

 2     documents that is pointing at the most relevant entries.  And then if

 3     that would not have a positive result, we still can decide on Monday

 4     morning what to do.  So prepare for Bar tabling, seek the assistance of

 5     Ms. Mahindaratne for that purpose, and try to finish in the next

 6     15 minutes on the other matters you had on your mind.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  I will.  Thank you, Mr. President.  I will do that.

 8        Q.   Mr. Moric, we're going to move to another item, and that had to

 9     do again -- but it's yet similar.  If we can go back to D49, which is

10     your 18 order.

11             Now, if we go to paragraph 2, this is the item that we've talked

12     about before that talks about the operative investigations prior to the

13     18th of August, then you noted, in response to questions by my learned

14     friends, that you didn't have the authority to grant immunity, but those

15     items were going to be investigated after the area had been brought under

16     control.  And I'd like to bring an exhibit to your attention, which is a

17     spreadsheet from the Municipal State Attorney's Office.

18             MR. KEHOE:  D568, if I can put that on the screen.  D568.

19             Now, this, of course, is in English.  Do we have this in B/C/S?

20     No?  Excuse me.  I do not believe -- I've been told, it's in B/C/S.

21        Q.   But nevertheless, sir, I can tell you that these are entries of

22     crimes.  And if you look at -- and this is just on the front page, having

23     to do with the Benkovac State Attorney's Office.  We can see any number

24     of items towards the bottom of that page where crimes are committed prior

25     to the 18th -- and if we look at column 5, prior to the 18th of August;

Page 25739

 1     reported, for instance, in number 20, in September of 1995, and the

 2     decision by the State Attorney's Office was in September of 1995.

 3             Now, this particular document is replete with those examples of

 4     burning and looting charges being filed for events that took place prior

 5     to the 18th of August, 1995.  Now, again, was it your understanding, as

 6     you moved through, that those items would continue to be processed once

 7     the area was brought under control?

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, if I could just -- the 27th,

 9     I think Mr. Kehoe mentioned the date 27th of September.  It's not

10     reported, the date of the indictment.

11             MR. KEHOE:  No, no.  If I may.  If we can go through the

12     left-hand column and go down to, say, the 20th entry, the Benkovac police

13     station, it notes in column 5:  "Date and criminal offence was committed,

14     August 5th, 1995.  Date it was reported, 15th of September, 1995.

15     Decision by the State Prosecutor's Office, 27 September 1995," with the

16     Court decision in 2001.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it that this resolves your problem?

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

20             MR. KEHOE:

21        Q.   Again, Mr. Moric, going back to my question, was that your

22     understanding, that these matters would continue to be pursued after your

23     preventive measures had taken hold?

24        A.   Counsel, that was the idea, that was the intention, that we

25     should focus on prevention.  And as for what had already happened, we

Page 25740

 1     would clarify that once we checked the spate of negative events, as I

 2     described it.  And this is what actually did happen, in practice.

 3        Q.   And you say "in practice."  Is that -- based on your knowledge as

 4     the assistant minister, was that how the police administrations, to your

 5     knowledge, interpreted your order of the 18th of August of 1995?

 6        A.   There is not a single document, and no one from police

 7     administrations asked what this was about.  And if they believed that

 8     this was incorrect, professionally or legally, they were duty-bound to

 9     warn me that I was requesting something that was not professionally or

10     legally proper.  So it was clear, from our daily communication, what this

11     was all about and what the intentions were.

12        Q.   Let me go through the last subject on this score, and not on this

13     issue but just generally what I would like to talk to you about,

14     Mr. Moric, with the caveat that we may address some issue on Monday

15     morning.  But I would like to address to you certain allegations made by

16     the Prosecution that involves the civilian police, and it involves the

17     crimes that you have talked about over the past several days.

18             And I'd like to read to you some of the statements being made by

19     the Office of the Prosecutor in their pre-trial brief.  And I would, for

20     the purposes of this, focus the Prosecution and my learned friends on

21     paragraph 51 and the allegations concerning the joint criminal

22     enterprise.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I don't think it is proper to

24     read to a witness off the pre-trial brief.  Mr. Kehoe could just ask the

25     questions on a factual basis.

Page 25741

 1             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I'm putting the Prosecution's case to

 2     the witness.  This is the Prosecution's case concerning the participation

 3     of the civilian police.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that putting the Prosecution's case or

 5     putting evidential material is not the same, Mr. Kehoe.  Even if in a

 6     pre-trial brief you refer to some evidential material, witnesses are

 7     expected to testify on the basis of the questions put to them and not, at

 8     least not in first instance, comment on what other evidential material

 9     may bring.

10             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, I will be guided by what Your Honour

11     would like me to do.  My only point with this is there are specific

12     allegations made by the Prosecution concerning the participation of the

13     civilian police in the joint criminal enterprise.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but let's avoid that one witness starts

15     commenting, at least to start with.  I'm not saying that under no

16     circumstances you could put to a witness what someone else has said, but

17     let's first hear the testimony of that witness not in the form of a

18     comment on what other evidence may bring us.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. KEHOE:  I understand, Mr. President.  And I will not read

21     this for Your Honour's clarification.  We can move on.  I was going to

22     refer to paragraph 51 of the Prosecutor's pre-trial brief as well as

23     paragraph 29 of the indictment.  So I won't read those.  I will move on

24     from there.

25        Q.   But I need to ask you this question, Mr. Moric:  Based on your

Page 25742

 1     experience and your years in the Ministry of the Interior, both in Zagreb

 2     and in the field, did you ever participate, or do you know anybody that

 3     participated in some agreement to allow actions to take place and allow

 4     crimes to take place in order to ensure: one, that the Serb population

 5     was driven out of the Krajina and, two, to ensure that they never

 6     returned?  Did you ever know of anyone participating in that in the

 7     Ministry of the Interior or anywhere else; did you?

 8        A.   Counsel, I never heard nor felt an atmosphere in the Ministry of

 9     the Interior which would go in that direction.  No one who was

10     discharging any duty within the Ministry of the Interior at the time

11     thought that in any context whatsoever the development and the number of

12     crimes were not something bad.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. Moric, I have no further questions of you.  Thank

14     you very much.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.

16             I think, Ms. Mahindaratne, it doesn't make much sense to invite

17     you to start your cross-examination.  We'd rather leave that until

18     Monday.

19             Could I already invite Madam Usher to escort Mr. Moric out of the

20     courtroom.

21             Mr. Moric, I instruct you again in the same way as I did the

22     previous days; that is, that you should not speak with anyone about your

23     testimony, whether already given or whether still to be given.  And we

24     would like to see you back on Monday, 9.00 in the morning, in this same

25     courtroom.

Page 25743

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Before adjourning, the Chamber would like to express

 4     its appreciation for the work that Mr. Monkhouse has done for us for

 5     quite a long time.  His accuracy, his energy, and his commitment will for

 6     the future to be benefit of Chambers, although not this Chamber, from

 7     what I understand.

 8             Initially, I thought that I would say I would speak on behalf of

 9     all of you, but I know that there are various instructions.  In an

10     orchestra, the violin players would tick their bows on their orchestra

11     lecterns.  In school rooms, often the knuckles are used by ticking them

12     on the tables to express the joining in the praise.  Even, I think, in

13     the House of Commons they use yelling now and then as a tradition to

14     express that one joins in what has been said.  I all give you 30 seconds

15     to express, in your own way, that you join.  And for those who have not

16     brought their violin bows, we could try to find some, but I give you

17     30 seconds to express that, and we'll then adjourn.

18             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, well, I think I haven't been

19     elected, but I'll take the floor here on behalf of us all to agree with

20     what Your Honour has said.

21             We do have a memento for Mr. Registrar.  I will say that it

22     hasn't been looted, and I don't know how to jump-start it.  We're all

23     wearing black because Mr. Registrar is leaving us, but one moment and

24     I'll pull it out here.

25             We have a microphone here for Mr. Registrar.  We know you're

Page 25744

 1     going to miss the microphone, so we just thought we'd give you an old one

 2     for a keepsake.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I take it from the hand-clapping that everyone joins

 4     in the expression of appreciation, and of course the Chamber is very

 5     happy to have Mr. Monkhouse among their ranks.

 6             We adjourn.  Accurately, guided by the little yellow note given

 7     to me by Mr. Monkhouse, we'll adjourn until Monday, the 7th of December,

 8     9.00, Courtroom I, which will not be the same as it is today.

 9                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.,

10                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 7th day of

11                           December, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.