1 Tuesday, 8 October 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning to everyone in and around the
7 Madam Registrar, would you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is the case IT-04-75-T, the Prosecutor versus Goran Hadzic.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
11 May we have the appearances, please, starting with the
13 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours.
14 For the Prosecution, Matthew Olmsted, Sarah Clanton,
15 Thomas Laugel, and two of our interns, Damir Glas and Kriti Trehan.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. For the Defence.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For the Defence of
18 Goran Hadzic, Zoran Zivanovic and Christopher Gosnell. Thank you.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
20 Could the witness be brought in.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning, Mr. Witness.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: You were sworn in yesterday, and I remind you
25 that you are still under oath.
1 WITNESS: GH-169 [Resumed]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, please proceed.
4 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 MR. OLMSTED: And unfortunately may we go into private session
6 for my first series of questions.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Private session, please.
8 [Private session]
11 Pages 8786-8788 redacted. Private session.
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
2 MR. OLMSTED:
3 Q. Sir, were you aware of any killings that took place at Ovcara
4 after the fall of Vukovar?
5 A. At the time when that happened, we did not know. We received our
6 first information perhaps eight or ten days later. In this particular
7 conversation with the regional prosecutor, I heard that on Croatian TV
8 there was a reference to Ovcara and that some kind of mass killing had
9 been -- had taken place there. At that time, we didn't even believe it.
10 However, if we did talk about it, it was in the context of us
11 thinking that it was something stupid, that it could harm our negotiating
12 capacities greatly and that it shouldn't have been allowed to happen.
13 That something really had happened in Ovcara is something that we
14 realised only when UNPROFOR showed up and when the area was sealed off.
15 That is to say, when the scene, if you will, was sealed off.
16 Q. And according to this information that you -- that was heard over
17 the radio -- well, first of all, who over the Croatian TV made a
18 statement that there was this incident at Ovcara? If you remember the
19 name of the person.
20 A. According to what I heard, Ivan Zvonimir Cicak was the person who
21 spoke about that. I never heard about that on the radio but I heard
22 about that from our regional prosecutor.
23 Q. And who was Mr. Zvonimir during this time-period?
24 A. In that time-period, I'm not sure exactly what his position was,
25 but I think that afterwards he became the president of the Croatian
1 Helsinki Committee or something like that.
2 Q. And you said that the information that there were -- some kind of
3 mass killing had taken place at Ovcara. Mass killing of who?
4 A. Their soldiers. I really did not hear that speech and therefore
5 I'm not sure. If I can put it this way, this is free interpretation of
6 something that happened more than 20 years ago. However, at the time, it
7 was my understanding that tens or hundreds of Croatian soldiers were
8 killed at that location and that that was the information that was heard,
9 from their side.
10 MR. OLMSTED: If we could go into private session, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Private session, please.
12 [Private session]
11 Page 8792 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
9 MR. OLMSTED:
10 Q. Besides the crimes of violence that you've testified about, what
11 was happening to the remaining non-Serb population from October 1991
12 onwards, in the Eastern Slavonian area. So I'm not limiting to just
13 Vukovar but Eastern Slavonia?
14 A. I assume that what is meant here are forcible removals of the
15 population. The first case I am aware of was at the end of October. I
16 was already in Dalj.
17 I was sitting in a cafe with two friends from Dalj, and we heard
18 some rumours; namely, that on that day, the Croats of Dalj would be moved
19 out, that they would cram about 50 of them onto a bus, or buses, and move
20 them to Croatia. I've already mentioned yesterday that the population of
21 Dalj was mixed in terms of families themselves, and the people who were
22 in the cafe that day, were very upset, and they prevented that kind of
23 thing from happening on that day, moving people out.
24 At that point in time, I also thought that it was a mistake, that
25 this was some kind of excessive behaviour, but from these people that I
1 was sitting with, I found out seven or eight days later that, indeed,
2 people were moved out. People were crammed onto buses and driven to
3 Croatia. I heard of similar events later as well, several times, in
4 Vukovar, Dalj. I cannot say about any other locations, but I know that
5 it did happen in Vukovar and Dalj.
6 Q. And was it -- you mention that the population at least on this
7 one occasion stood up against this expulsion. Can you tell us, was it
8 well-known that these expulsions were occurring?
9 A. Yes, it was known.
10 Q. Were the police aware that these expulsions were happening?
11 A. I assume they did know. It would be very hard for someone to get
12 a bus-load of people without the police knowing anything about it. So
13 they either had orders not to interfere at all, or they took part in it
15 Q. And you mentioned that these -- that there were several incidents
16 of these expulsions. Did they occur past 1991?
17 A. Yes. The last one I know of was in August or September 1995, in
18 Vukovar. I just happened to learn of that because, at the time, my
19 brother had been married to a Croatian woman. Her mother and sister had
20 been captured and prepared, if I can put it that way, for being expelled.
21 And then they called me to try to prevent that. And I did manage to
22 prevent that, after this big quarrel with a gentleman wearing a military
24 And when I asked why they were doing that, what was said was that
25 that was being done because refugees from Dalmatia needed someplace to
1 settle down, people who had been expelled by the Croats during
2 Operation Storm.
3 Q. And now I want to return really to the period of 1991 and 1992.
4 Were these expulsions occurring spontaneously or in an organised
6 A. I don't know how expulsion can be spontaneous. If you round up
7 50 or 100 people and pack them into one or two buses, that requires quite
8 a lot of logistics. Something like that cannot happen spontaneously. It
9 doesn't mean that the highest levels were aware of it but some lower
10 bodies certainly had to be involved or at least had to tolerate it.
11 Q. And when you refer to lower bodies, what are you referring to?
12 A. I mean the police, I mean local communes. Perhaps even
13 municipalities, military bodies.
14 Q. And after these expulsions what, if anything, happened to the
15 property that the non-Serbs left behind?
16 A. I cannot say anything with any certainty, considering that my
17 property was looted too. I suppose that all the property that was left
18 unattended was also looted.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may we go into private session.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Private session, please.
21 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
15 MR. OLMSTED:
16 Q. Sir, an issue has come up with regard to the transcript. And I
17 want to ask you again. I asked you about whether the expulsions occurred
18 spontaneously or in an organised manner and you explained that -- and
19 this is around page 11. That you don't know how the expulsions could
20 have been spontaneous and you explained that it requires quite a lot of
22 And then you -- you actually made a statement about the highest
23 authorities and whether they were aware of the expulsions. Can you
24 please explain that again so that we can have a clear record?
25 A. I said that some authorities had to be involved in it. And when
1 you asked me to clarify, I said police bodies, local communes, and
2 perhaps some military bodies, and I said the highest authorities were not
3 necessarily aware of it. Out of the highest authorities, practically
4 from the level of municipal authorities and up. That is to say, the
5 municipal authorities did not know necessarily that in some local commune
6 people were rounded up and put on buses. On the other hand, I suppose
7 that a few days later, they must have found out. They must have at least
8 been informed.
9 I don't believe that some very high-ranking authorities
10 authorised this. Because it was obvious these things were
12 Q. And you say you don't believe this. Do you have any personal
13 knowledge that -- that it wasn't orchestrated by higher up?
14 A. No, no, no. I don't have knowledge. It's just my assumption
15 based on what I was working on at the time and what I knew at the time.
16 Q. To your knowledge, did the SBWS or RSK government take any action
17 to prevent these expulsions from occurring?
18 A. I don't know that anything was undertaken to prevent it.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, if we could go to private session.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Private session, please.
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 8798-8801 redacted. Private session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. I had occasion to read also your statement where you said, among
2 other things, that guards were formed in Serbian villages in one period.
3 Do you know what was the reason for setting up those guards in
4 Serbian villages?
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] Microphone off, please.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure anymore what the
7 specific reason was.
8 The first guards were set up when some of the Serb policemen left
9 Vukovar and dispersed around those villages, avoiding the new Croatian
10 coat of arms that they were supposed to put on their uniforms. There
11 were several incidents that occurred at the time. But there were a lot
12 of things going on then. I don't remember the details anymore.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. You also said that after that incident in Borovo Selo on the
15 2nd of May, you fled to Serbia with your family a couple of days later,
16 across the Danube in a boat.
17 Tell me, why did you choose that way? Why didn't you take the
19 A. We believed that it was very risky to take the road because
20 Vukovar was practically blocked. Armed men controlled all exits from the
21 city. And even while we travelled by boat, we decided to do that because
22 somebody phoned us or let us know on the radio that that was safer.
23 We -- we didn't have a boat ourselves, but we wanted to take the boat
24 service, a line that existed already and we found there loads of people
25 waiting in line to take that boat. And the Croatian police saw us off
1 from Vukovar that day with their guns trained at us. We also didn't take
2 the road because some sort of passes were being issued and that that was
3 a prerequisite for taking the road. But I did not find out in any more
4 about that.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: May we -- may we move to the -- to the private
6 session, please.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Private session, please.
8 [Private session]
11 Pages 8805-8814 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. According to the information we have here now, all the
24 authorities in the former SFRY - that means the authorities of Serbia,
25 Montenegro, and the authorities in the provinces - considered Slavonia,
1 Baranja, and Western Srem as part of Yugoslavia until this new
2 constitution that I just mentioned was adopted on 27 April 1992. In
3 other words, they did not view Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem as a
4 separate state?
5 Do you agree with me?
6 A. I am not sure about that. I'm not sure that they really viewed
7 us as a part of Yugoslavia, considering the problems we had in
8 communication. But that they should have viewed us as part of
9 Yugoslavia, they should. It's another matter whether they accepted the
10 validity and the existence of our organisations, including the judiciary,
11 the government, the parliament.
12 Q. If I understand you correctly, from the legal point of view, the
13 SBWS was treated as part of Yugoslavia in 1991 and until 27 April 1992?
14 A. It would have been logical if it had been treated that way.
15 However, that did not always happen --
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, and Mr. Zivanovic, we have a problem
18 Mr. Witness, you should pause before answering Mr. Zivanovic's
19 question for -- for one important reason is the protective measures.
20 Because, as long as Mr. Zivanovic's microphone is on and you see -- you
21 see that by the red light on the microphone, as long as that red light is
22 on, your voice, Mr. Witness, is leaking out to the public. So you should
23 pause between -- before answering the question, and Mr. Zivanovic has to
24 switch off his microphone.
25 Please continue, Mr. Zivanovic.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. [Interpretation] I understood you as saying that you believe
3 that, in practice, in that period, you were not sufficiently treated as
4 part of Yugoslavia, in that legal way.
5 Am I right?
6 A. To some extent. As far as I remember, the authorities that we,
7 in our district, had established were not always treated by the Yugoslav
8 authorities as valid. So we came up -- across situations where the court
9 in one Yugoslav municipality recognises you, wants to assist you, wants
10 to co-operate, and the court it another municipality does not. It
11 doesn't have so much to do with legal issue. These are facts.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I see the time, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.
14 Mr. Witness, we take our first break of the day. Thirty minutes.
15 We'll come back at 11.00. The court usher will escort you out of the
16 courtroom. Thank you.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Court adjourned.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: While the witness is brought in, there's a very
22 short oral ruling.
23 On the 23rd of September, the Prosecution filed a motion in which
24 it seeks to withdraw from the official record of the proceedings three
25 exhibits that were admitted through Witness GH-063. The exhibit numbers
1 are P03006.3000, P03018.3000, and P03019.3000.
2 The Defence has indicated that it does not take a position on the
3 motion. The Trial Chamber hereby grants the motion and the Registry
4 shall take any necessary action to implement the decision.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic, please proceed.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. [Interpretation] I'll continue where we left off.
9 Can you confirm that practically the war began and went on in
10 1991 about whether Baranja, Slavonia and Western Srem would continue to
11 be part of the SFRY or would become part of Croatia?
12 A. That's how it started, yes.
13 Q. You probably remember that a constitutional law was adopted
14 defining SBWS as Yugoslavia, as the SFRY?
15 A. By the Great National Assembly, yes.
16 Q. I'm asking this in the context of what I said at the beginning.
17 In fact, you said in responses to a question from the Prosecution about
18 the federal court; namely, there was no grounds to transfer a case to the
19 court of another state. At that time, however, in 1991 and until
20 mid-1992, SBWS was within the framework of the SFRY, was it in fact one
22 A. It's not easy to answer this question. Because basically it
23 concerns the application of the constitutional law, and I'm not expert
24 enough in that area to be quite sure. It's not a question of known or
25 unknown facts. It's about knowledge of the law and legal rules. The
1 formation of the district of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem was very
2 difficult to reconcile with its status as part of the Federation. It's
3 very questionable whether these bodies could be formally considered part
4 of the SFRY, but I'm sure that at least part of the federal authorities
5 had a basis for considering even that territory part of their state. But
6 the district organs that were newly formed did not fit in with the
7 federal framework of authorities.
8 But this is not a proper question for me. I don't have enough
9 qualification and knowledge to answer this question.
10 Q. Thank you. I won't ask you any more about this.
11 I'm interested in something else. You spoke about the
12 competencies or the jurisdiction of the federal court. Do you remember,
13 there was a provision in the Law on Criminal Procedure that applied at
14 the time under which the federal court decided on appeals from republic
15 and provincial courts involving the death penalty?
16 A. Yes. The federal court had very narrow jurisdiction, but this
17 fell within it.
18 Q. And do you remember that the federal court was also competent to
19 decide on exceptional legal remedies in cases where the federal law was
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. You told us yesterday which laws were applied in the territory of
23 the SBWS while you were there, and, among other things, although I
24 believe it's not properly recorded, you said that there was a republican
25 federal law on criminal procedure?
1 A. No. I said there was a Law on Criminal Procedure of the SFRY and
2 the Law of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Serbia. There were also
3 republic laws -- I'm sorry - organising the judiciary, the
4 Law on the Organisation of Courts, or whatever it was called, across the
5 republics. However, it was not a procedural law.
6 Q. In other words, if the Law on Criminal Procedure was violated in
7 a certain case, a party in that case could apply to the federal court for
8 exceptional legal remedy?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You also said yesterday that trials of prisoners of war were the
11 exclusive competency of military courts. In that context, the Prosecutor
12 showed you Exhibit 2518; that's the Law on Military Courts. And I should
13 like you to look at it again. Article 13, paragraph 4.
14 It's the last part of that paragraph where it says:
15 "Prisoners of war shall be tried by military courts for all
16 criminal offences committed as prisoners of war, as well as for crimes
17 against humanity and international law (under Articles 141 through 146 of
18 the Criminal Code of the SFRY)."
19 First of all, I would like us to clarify, if you remember and the
20 extent to which you remember, these crimes against humanity and
21 humanitarian law. Does that include genocide, crimes against the
22 civilian population, crimes against prisoners of war, against wounded
23 persons, sick persons?
24 A. Basically those are the crimes involved, yes.
25 Q. As far as I can remember, I know that these provisions were
1 included in the federal criminal law because Yugoslavia took it upon
2 itself by signing international agreements and treaties to exercise that
3 throughout its territory and that's why it was not included in its own
5 Do you know that?
6 A. Yes. This -- these provisions are part of the international
7 obligations taken over by the SFRY, and even without such provisions,
8 they would have been part of the legal system. However, this has just
9 been reinforced in such a way, if I can put it that way.
10 Q. Also you certainly remember, say, the crime of murder. It was
11 regulated by republican laws?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. That also pertains to robbery, looting and the like?
14 A. All ordinary crime was regulated by republican laws.
15 Q. Now that you look at this provision, Article 13, subparagraph 4,
16 where it says that the military courts shall have jurisdiction, do you
17 see that this does not include those crimes that are regulated by
18 republican laws, that the military courts do not have jurisdiction in
19 such a case?
20 A. Just -- let us just spell something out very precisely.
21 It's very important who commits a crime and under which
22 circumstances. One and the same crime can be qualified in one law or in
23 another law. If a military person during an operation commits murder,
24 that is certainly not the ordinary crime of murder -- murder that is
25 referred to in the republican laws, and the person will not be prosecuted
1 on that basis. So it is the federal law that can regulate this and the
2 republican law.
3 If it is a civilian person who committed the crime of murder,
4 certainly that person is not going to be prosecuted on the basis of
5 federal law. In order for me to be able to give a specific answer, I
6 would have to know who it was that committed the crime and under which
7 circumstances, and so on and so forth.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot hear anything.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I shall repeat the question. I'm
11 Q. You said that if a civilian commits murder, that person will not
12 be prosecuted for war crimes.
13 A. If there is not a context of war. I said that in order to be
14 able to give a specific answer, I would have to know all the other
15 circumstances under which the crime was committed.
16 Q. At any rate, if we look at only this provision that has to do
17 with prisoners of war, the way I interpret it, they cannot be held
18 accountable before military courts. At least not on the basis of this
19 article, lootery -- looting, robbery, rape, and so on, if I interpret
20 this correctly?
21 A. Unless they can fit into one of the articles. If, say, that
22 murder is within the context of genocide, for instance. So, in some
23 cases, it could be qualified as one or the other. Or even both one and
24 the other.
25 Q. Does that mean that there were legal grounds for that, say, that
1 a prisoner of war could be tried for the crime of murder or robbery or
2 some violence that this person committed?
3 A. Yes, there were grounds for that too.
4 In that case, practically, there would be a clash of
5 jurisdictions. If one crime would have the characteristics of a war
6 crime and an ordinary crime, civilian, if I can put that way, then there
7 could be an overlap of jurisdiction, so both military courts and ordinary
8 courts could have jurisdiction. However, if this crime would
9 specifically be connected to a war crime, then it would be the military
10 judiciary that would have supremacy. However, if something happened
11 during the war, it has nothing to do with the reasons why war is waged
12 and so on, but simply something happened during the war, irrespective of
13 war operations and so on, then, in that case, it would certainly be
14 civilian courts that would be in charge.
15 Q. I appreciate your opinion. However, it is not based on this
16 legal provision that we looked at a moment ago.
17 Do you agree with that?
18 A. I don't know what you mean. I'm not sure what it is that you
20 Q. Throughout, the question has been jurisdiction of civilian courts
21 over prisoners of war who committed a crime that is regulated by
22 republican law.
23 A. If it is just regulated by republican law, then, yes, it is the
24 civilian court that has jurisdiction.
25 Q. Thank you. Do you remember that the JNA and the government
1 organs in Yugoslavia in general considered Croatian armed forces -- then,
2 in 1991 and 1992, considered them paramilitary units?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you know that, at the time, the JNA did not recognise their
5 status as being that of prisoners of war. They were considered to be
6 persons who were deprived of their liberty in interethnic conflicts?
7 A. I'm not aware of that.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: May we see P2921, please. [Microphone not
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Microphone, please.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. This is an order that invokes the order of the
13 Federal Secretariat of National Defence of the 14th of September and
14 where there is a reference to various matters that has to do with persons
15 captured in interethnic conflicts in the territory of the
16 Republic of Croatia.
17 Do you know that, at the time, that is how these persons were
19 A. No, I did not have any such knowledge.
20 Q. Yesterday the Prosecutor showed you a statement made by
21 Goran Hadzic and put certain questions to you with regard to this
23 Your answer was that there weren't any material pre-conditions
24 for carrying out investigations and trials for people at that point in
1 Tell me, how did you understand that question put by the
2 Prosecutor concerning prisoners of war? What figure did you have in mind
3 when you were answering this question?
4 A. I thought that it had do with trials of tens, at least, or
5 hundreds of prisoners of war.
6 Q. Let me remind you. In that statement, Goran Hadzic mentioned
7 imprisoned Ustashas who had blood on their hands.
8 Do you think that that pertained to several hundred persons or a
9 relatively small number?
10 A. I am not a mind-reader. I cannot be sure. However, in view of
11 the stories that were bandied about at the time, war propaganda from both
12 sides, I thought that it was not a very small number of persons who were
13 involved. There were references to mass violations of human rights,
14 numerous killings and so on. So I thought that it was not a small number
15 of persons.
16 Q. When you said that it was not a small number of persons, are you
17 referring to prisoners or those who had blood on their hands? Do you
18 make a distinction between them?
19 A. Yes, of course, I'm referring to those who have blood on their
20 hands. In order to get final information, say, about ten persons with
21 blood on their hands, you'd have to deal with at least 30 potential
23 Q. As far as I can remember, yesterday you said that the higher
24 court in Beli Manastir had certain capacities roughly to work with ten or
25 15 -- or, rather, on 10 or 15 cases of that type.
1 A. Yes. That would be my free estimate, knowing the persons who
2 worked in this court and knowing what they did beforehand, and what the
3 technical facilities were. So I thought that a certain number of cases
4 could be handled by them, that they had the right kind of equipment and
5 that they had all the necessary capabilities.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Microphone, and please wait for the interpreters
9 to finish the interpretation. Thank you.
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. That statement was made just after Vukovar was liberated or
12 taken, whichever way you look at it.
13 Now this is what I'd be interested in. According to the laws
14 then in force, was it envisaged that someone who was a crime suspect
15 would be brought before a court immediately, the next day, or two or
16 three days later, in order to be tried? Was that possible at all,
17 according to the law?
18 A. Of course it was not possible.
19 Q. You said that during investigations, pre-trial detention could go
20 on for six months before an indictment was issued; is that correct?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Can it be concluded, for instance, that such trials that would
23 possibly take place could not start perhaps before that kind of deadline
24 of at least --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not hear the end of
1 the sentence.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let us say that a proper time-frame
3 would be three months, four months. Six months, after all, would be the
4 ultimate deadline. Certainly certain investigations should take place,
5 certain procedures should be followed. It's not short. It would
6 probably go on for 90 days and even up to this limit of six months.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. I will show you one more statement that we have here. It was
9 published in newspapers.
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It's P2922. [Interpretation] P922
11 [as interpreted].
12 [In English] May we zoom in B/C/S text, please. The first
13 paragraph -- or the second paragraph. Yeah. Thanks.
14 Q. [Interpretation] Here, in paragraph 2, the B/C/S version, we see
15 the statement made by Goran Hadzic given on 20th November 1991. Among
16 other things, he says on the condition, of course, that he was properly
17 quoted, he is reported as saying that the issue under discussion was the
18 treatment of the worse criminals.
19 A. Yes, yes.
20 Q. And if you look through this text, you will see that he is
21 talking about torture and later killing of children.
22 Take your time, if you need to look through this.
23 A. I know about this.
24 Q. In this context, do you believe that these worst criminals
25 referred to here were so numerous?
1 A. What I know today is one thing. What I thought and believed
2 while all this was happening amidst intensive propaganda is quite another
3 thing. I know today that there were many, many such criminals, and,
4 unfortunately, many of them will never be tried, although they are not
5 that obscure or unknown.
6 However, as far as the killing of children is concerned, I'm not
7 aware that this actually happened, although the war propaganda wrote much
8 about it. In hindsight, I am not aware that such things did happen, but
9 I know of other crimes that were real. Civilians were taken away from
10 their homes and executed. Very few survived. Civilians were also taken
11 away from their homes and thrown into the Danube. There were cases of
12 torture of prisoners of war. These cases are not few. The perpetrators
13 are known. Some of them were pronounced insane, just to avoid criminal
15 Q. You said yesterday that you have heard about this meeting held in
16 Velepromet on the 20th November 1991, and you knew even then that
17 Milos Vojnovic attended.
18 A. No. What I said is that I didn't know. At the time, I was not
19 aware of that meeting. I found out many years later reading. If that
20 meeting was held, it's beyond any doubt that Milos Vojnovic attended. He
21 had to.
22 Q. Did you also hear that, at that meeting, the army was asked to
23 turn over civilian affairs to civilian authorities?
24 A. I've already told you I didn't know about that meeting, so I
25 could even less know what was asked at the meeting.
1 I learned many years later some of these things reading up on the
3 Q. That's precisely what I'm asking you. Did you find out later?
4 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Counsel Zivanovic, excuse me, I
5 could ask this question later but I want to clear up this issue now.
6 Witness, on page 44 of the -- of the transcript, line 9, you said
7 that certain persons, in order to avoid criminal liability, were declared
9 Declared by whom? By a tribunal? By a court of law? Or by the
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I misspoke. They were not formally
12 legally declared insane or of diminished capacity. At this moment I
13 cannot remember any names but I know exactly who I am talking about and I
14 can get you the names.
15 Those were some repentant members of Tomislav Mercep's units who
16 had admitted to murders, described in detail how they tortured people and
17 killed them. One of them died in the meantime but at the time when he
18 wrote about it and gave numerous interviews, the officials of Croatia
19 said about him that he is a man of poor character who had -- who was
20 driven by financial motivations to write such things. He was actually
21 sentenced to some term of imprisonment but he was never tried for the
22 crimes that he himself described. The crimes concerned are of
23 Pakracka Poljana and some crimes in Vukovar. And there were also reports
24 by Mr. Bili, who informed Franjo Tudjman about what their units were
25 doing in Vukovar.
1 So there is an official effort to avoid prosecuting these things.
2 Tomislav Mercep is still not finished with prosecutions and trials.
3 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for this
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. What I wanted to ask you is, did you hear later -- I know you
7 were not aware of it at the time of the meeting, you heard about it
8 later, did you also hear later that the demand was made to re-establish
9 civilian authority and that the military bodies did not allow it?
10 A. I'm not sure. I'm not sure I heard that.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]
12 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I object to any further examination
13 on the Velepromet meeting. The witness already said that he didn't know
14 about -- there was even a meeting until many years later and he learned
15 about it from the Internet.
16 So there is really no foundation for this line of questions.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: The witness stated that he didn't know about the
19 meeting at the time but subsequently he -- he learned about it. And I
20 just put him the question, did he had the -- some specific information
21 about the content of this meeting, about discussion at this meeting. And
22 I think that he answered the question.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Please proceed.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. You see, we have information that on 20th November 1991,
1 Milos Vojnovic, through the mediation of another person asked the
2 commander of the 1st Guards Brigade that these suspects not be sent to
3 Serbia but, instead, that they be tried in Slavonia, Baranja, and
4 Western Srem?
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Page 7085 for the transcript.
6 Q. [Interpretation] I'd like to know, considering that
7 Milos Vojnovic was a judge and was very well conversant with the
8 regulations, did he know which regulations provided a legal basis for
9 these suspects suspected of very grave crimes to be brought before the
10 courts of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem?
11 A. Basically Milos Vojnovic was a good lawyer, so if he made a
12 motion for something, he knew exactly how to do it. And, if the
13 regulations did not provide enough basis, Milos Vojnovic had enough clout
14 to effect a change on the regulations. So, if Milos Vojnovic asked for
15 this, he knew both how and why - on the condition, of course, that he
16 really asked for that - because at that time, I was in frequent contact
17 with him, we talked very often and he never mentioned it.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Microphone, Mr. Zivanovic.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 [Private session]
11 Pages 8833-8843 redacted. Private session.
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
17 MR. OLMSTED:
18 Q. Sir, I have a few questions to ask you that have arisen out
19 Defence counsel's cross-examination and the first issue I want to touch
20 upon was raised by Defence counsel at, I believe, transcript page 22
21 today, where Defence counsel asked you whether you knew if from 1991 and
22 up until the mid-1992s there was a military government, he used that
23 term, "military government," in the SBWS.
24 Sir, can you tell us what your understanding of a "military
25 government" is?
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I think it was an issue of translation. I didn't
3 tell "military government," but military rule. Military authorities as
4 to civilian -- civilian -- town commands and organs for a civilian
5 organs. I thought about this kind of government, not about military
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: It perhaps be good if you repeat the term you
8 used in B/C/S. So that we could hear eventually a new translation.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It is "vojne vlast," [Interpretation] "military
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
12 Mr. Olmsted.
13 MR. OLMSTED:
14 Q. So let me revise my question slightly and state that Defence
15 counsel used the term "military authority" from 1991 until mid-1992.
16 What is your understanding of a concept of "military authority"?
17 A. My understanding. Every military unit in similar situations has
18 something that we called the area of responsibility. The area of
19 responsibility of a battalion, depending on the layout of the terrain,
20 would be 8 to 10 kilometres in length on the front line, and about 8
21 kilometres in depth. In this territory, in this area, the military unit
22 is responsible for everything that's going on inside that area, whether
23 it involves civilians or militaries. Larger units have larger areas of
25 In a war-time situation a unit like a corps division, or army,
1 also controls the civilian life and civilian affairs in its own area of
2 responsibility. I understood Mr. Zivanovic's question in this sense. So
3 there must have been some sort of military organs that also dealt with
4 issues of security, supplies, et cetera, in that territory.
5 Q. Now, you said that must have been. Can you tell us, did you
6 know, in fact, that there was such a military authority operating in the
7 SBWS in 1991 or the first half of 1992?
8 Do you personally know that?
9 A. I did not know the people doing that work. Counsel also asked me
10 if I saw military police in the field. I saw them. They had their
11 characteristic white belts and ... across the -- the straps across the
12 chest. But I didn't know the specific military policemen whom I saw.
13 I could recognise the military organs. But who specifically in
14 the area of responsibility of Nova -- the Novi Sad Corps dealt with
15 issues of security, et cetera, I didn't know these people. I assumed
16 that such an organisation is in place, but I didn't have contact with
18 Q. And what's your understanding of the relationship between the
19 Novi Sad Corps or the other JNA units that were functioning in the SBWS
20 during this period? And the SBWS government.
21 A. I really don't know. It's much easier for me to define
22 relationships between -- inside the army. If there were other military
23 units in SBWS apart from the Novi Sad Corps and if the chain of
24 subordination were -- was not transferred, the co-ordination would be in
25 the hands of a higher-ranking military structure. As for the army of the
1 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, from where I was sitting, I was not
2 able to know anything about that.
3 Q. Is it your assumption that the SBWS government was subordinate to
4 the army operating throughout the SBWS?
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Calls for speculation.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: And asked and answered Mr. Zivanovic --
7 Mr. Olmsted, sorry.
8 MR. OLMSTED:
9 Q. Now you were aware that the civilian police, the civilian courts,
10 and the civilian prosecutor's offices were functioning in the SBWS. To
11 your knowledge, were they reporting to the military? Were they
12 subordinate to the military?
13 A. No. Nor was the government of the district subordinate to the
14 army, as far as I know.
15 I believe there was some strange relationship of mutual tolerance
16 where the two authorities tolerated each other and had an understanding,
17 to a limited extent. The organisation of government in our district is
18 something that went beyond the legal framework as we knew it until that
19 time. That's why I said that, as far as the legal constitutional status
20 of the district is concerned, some expert in constitutional law should be
21 heard before I venture any of my assessments.
22 Q. I'd like to switch topics to another one raised by Defence
23 counsel today. This is at around transcript page 39 to 40.
24 You were shown the SFRY Law on Military Courts.
25 MR. OLMSTED: And we might as well have this on the screen; this
1 is P2518.
2 Q. And you were asked a number of questions again about the fourth
3 paragraph of Article 13, which relates to prisoners of war. I believe
4 this is on page 3 of the law.
5 And, in particular, you were asked about the situation where a
6 prisoner of war commits what could also be classified or classified as an
7 ordinary crime such as murder, rape, et cetera and you responded and I --
8 I'm quoting your testimony:
9 "In that case, practically, there would be a clash of
10 jurisdictions. If one crime would have the characteristics of a war
11 crime and an ordinary crime, civilian, if I could put that way, then
12 there could be an overlap of jurisdictions, so both military courts and
13 ordinary courts could have jurisdiction. However, if this crime would
14 specifically be connected to a war crime, then it would be the military
15 judiciary that would have supremacy."
16 And Defence counsel disagreed with your interpretation but I
17 would like to draw your attention to the next article, Article 14 of this
18 law. And if you could look at the first paragraph of Article 14 and read
19 that. And it states:
20 "If a civilian has committed a criminal offence falling within
21 the jurisdiction of a military court and that of another regular court,
22 the military court shall have jurisdiction in hearing those cases."
23 Is that consistent with what your recollection of the law was?
24 A. Yes, that's basically what I said.
25 This here relates to a civilian person. Perhaps not the same
1 would apply to a military person who committed a regular crime that would
2 also be qualified as a war crime.
3 In a war-time situation, it's difficult for me to understand that
4 somebody would commit a murder that would not qualify also as a war crime
5 under this article of the law. Maybe we could discuss situations
6 concerning minor crime, such as theft, et cetera, that would not fall
7 within the context of war crimes, then civilian courts would have
8 jurisdiction. But I cannot imagine a situation where a prisoner of war,
9 a person who has the status of prisoner of war, had to have been a
10 military person before being captured, that person committing a murder
11 without that being a war crime.
12 Q. Now back in 1991 and 1992, if a criminal case was filed by the
13 police with the military prosecutor's office, who ultimately determined
14 whether the perpetrator of that crime fell within the military court's
16 A. At that time? At that time?
17 Q. Yes. Back in 1991 and 1992. We have a criminal report being
18 filed by the police with the military prosecutor's office. Who
19 ultimately decided whether the perpetrator of that crime fell within the
20 jurisdiction of the military courts?
21 A. In that specific situation, there is no mechanism that could
23 If it were a normal situation, a normal legal framework, where
24 you have a clash of jurisdictions where both -- where two bodies believed
25 they're competent to deal with a case, the issue is resolved by a higher
2 Q. Before you go on, I want to move away from the situation we just
3 talked about, which is under this military court law. I'm actually
4 talking about a different scenario. There is no clash necessarily in
5 jurisdiction at this stage. We have simply a criminal report filed
6 against a perpetrator of a crime and -- but it's filed with the military
7 prosecutor's office, the military court. And my question simply is:
8 They have a perpetrator -- well, first of all, let me ask you does there
9 have to be a determination that the perpetrator falls within the military
10 court's jurisdiction? Does someone have to make that determination?
11 A. It has to be determined by the court that will be dealing with
12 it. Or the prosecutor's office. The first issue to be resolved is the
13 issue of jurisdiction.
14 Q. And if the perpetrator in this hypothetical case is determined by
15 the military court or military prosecutor's office to not fall within the
16 military court's jurisdiction, what is done with the case?
17 A. They will cede the case to the competent court, together with the
18 entire case file and all the evidence collected thus far. For instance,
19 after conducting an investigation, the military court finds that it's not
20 competent, and it will transfer the case to the competent court for
21 further procedure.
22 Q. Now, at transcript page 30, Defence counsel mentioned that the
23 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia adopted a new constitution in April 1992.
24 Can you tell us: How did this new constitution affect the JNA's
25 jurisdiction over crimes committed prior to April 1992?
1 A. It's a -- a difficult question, legally speaking. The
2 constitution changed so that the territory covered is smaller.
3 And if I understood your question, it's what happens with the
4 criminal cases in the territories that are no longer covered by the new
5 organisation. Cases that originated before the new constitution.
6 I believe that it would not be erroneous for military courts to
7 continue prosecutions whenever all the elements exist for them to proceed
8 within the framework of military law. If the case that originated before
9 this new constitution had all the elements necessary to be judged by a
10 military court, then they would -- should continue. If, however, the
11 case was more appropriate to be dealt with by a civilian court, then they
12 should have ceded the case to the civilian court.
13 Q. And let me give you just another hypothetical. If a JNA soldier
14 committed a crime in a foreign country, let's say, Bulgaria or Romania,
15 did the JNA have jurisdiction over that soldier's crime?
16 A. I'm not sure, but I think it did. Depending on the capacity of
17 the perpetrator. If the perpetrator was a military person, then they
18 would have jurisdiction, if the crime also exists in our law.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I would like to ask some questions
20 now about this -- this Dusan Boljevic case. The questioning was done in
21 private session. I don't think there's a need for me to do my
22 re-examination in private session though.
23 Q. Sir, you were asked a number of questions about this case in
24 Baranja against Dusan Boljevic.
25 First of all, do you have any knowledge of this case back in 1991
1 or 1992?
2 A. No. And until this trial, I knew very little.
3 I think I saw a note on the Internet, but I certainly didn't know
4 the details. At that time, I didn't know anything at all.
5 Q. Let's look at D103. This is the special report from the
6 Baranja SUP that you had a look at briefly during cross-examination. And
7 I'd actually like to draw your attention to the last page of the
8 document. And if you could look at the penultimate paragraph, we see
9 that the -- the SUP writes in this report:
10 "During the commission of the aforementioned crimes, the first
11 reported person was a member of the Bilje TO staff and was therefore
12 military personnel. As a result of this, the case is being forwarded to
13 the military prosecutor's office, and the reported person is handed over
14 to the military organs for further action."
15 Sir, does this explain why the SUP at least believed that this
16 case should be before the military courts?
17 A. Yes. That's certainly a good reason for the military court to
18 deal with it. Judging by what I saw on the first page, I thought it was
19 a civilian person concerned. However, if he was a member of the
20 TO Staff, he would not be a civilian person, and the report was properly
21 addressed to the military prosecution authorities.
22 Q. Well, I'd like you to hold judgement on that. If you could look
23 at D104. And, again, you were shown this document during
24 cross-examination and this is the ruling to extend remand in the same
25 case. And if we look under the statement of reasons, we see that the
1 accused or the perpetrators were -- well, in theory, in remand custody of
2 the military courts until 25 June 1992 under the assumption that they
3 served the entire 30 days of the extended remand.
4 And then if we look at the next paragraph, it states that the
5 higher public prosecutor in Beli Manastir issued an indictment against
6 the accused on 6 July 1992 and then provides a number of remand orders
7 that were pursuant thereafter.
8 So as of at least 6 July 1992, who was exercising jurisdiction
9 over these accused?
10 A. After the issuing of the indictment by the public prosecutor's
11 office in Beli Manastir, it would be the higher court in Beli Manastir.
12 That is to say, the civilian judiciary.
13 Q. I'd like to show you another document, which was not shown to
14 you, and this is 1D943.
15 MR. OLMSTED: No, that's not the one I want. I'm sorry, it's --
16 it's 1D906. Yeah, 1D906. I apologise for that.
17 Q. So what we have in front of us here is the 6 July 1992 indictment
18 against these perpetrators filed by the higher prosecutor's office in
19 Beli Manastir.
20 And if we could turn to page 2 of this document, we see under
21 item 1, it states that Dusan Boljevic as a member of the Bilje TO Staff,
22 and then it goes on and says "committed these various crimes."
23 So looking at this, at the time of his indictment he was still
24 considered a member of the TO when he committed these crimes; is that
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Now based on your legal experience, what must have happened
3 between the military court in Belgrade and the higher court in
4 Beli Manastir during this period between June 1992, when he was in remand
5 custody of the military courts, and the beginning of July 1992, when this
6 indictment is filed against the very same persons alleged to be members
7 of the TO and the very same crimes. What would have had to have happened
8 between the military court and the civilian court for this to have
10 A. What happened here is that the case was ceded to the civilian
11 judiciary by the military judiciary. What the reasons were and whether
12 they were good reasons is a matter of judgement.
13 Q. I'd like to show you one more document --
14 MR. OLMSTED: Well, we might as well tender this into evidence,
15 Your Honours.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3023, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
19 MR. OLMSTED: And now if we could have on the screen,
20 65 ter 6499.
21 [Prosecution counsel confer]
22 MR. OLMSTED:
23 Q. What we have in front of us is a -- a report from the military
24 court Belgrade. It's dated 14 February 2003. And it states that this
25 report is in relation to FMM's request for delivery of data on criminal
1 proceedings necessary to reply to the charges by the Republic of Croatia
2 to the International Court in The Hague. I want to draw your attention
3 to page 6 of this document, that's in the original. Page 5 of the
4 English. And we see under item 3, again, this case against
5 Dusan Boljevic and Jagoda Boljevic, members of the TO Staff Bilje and it
6 goes on and listed the charges against them for these various killings
7 they committed back in 1991.
8 Do you see that, sir?
9 A. I see that.
10 Q. Now, towards the end of the paragraph under item 3, it states,
11 and this is on page 6 of the English:
12 "The case was handed over to the higher court, competent court,
13 in Vukovar on 22 June 1992, because the accused persons didn't have the
14 status of ... servicemen ..."
15 Sir, how do you interpret that?
16 A. Oh, how I interpret that. Obviously there was a certain change
17 in political positions towards the Territorial Defence -- or, rather, up
18 until a certain point in time, the Territorial Defence that this person
19 belonged to was considered to be military personnel in some part of the
20 armed forces. In order for this kind of decision to be made, the
21 Territorial Defence of Bilje, on whose staff this person was, was no
22 longer considered to be a part of that army, not because some actual
23 change had taken place and that they were demobilised or whatever.
24 Rather, there was a change in political attitudes towards that staff.
25 So the army no longer considered the Territorial Defence of Bilje
1 to be a body of its own.
2 Q. Well, let's -- let's -- let's reflect back on the documents we've
3 looked at so far.
4 We had the first document which was a special report by the
5 civilian SUP in Beli Manastir, and they're the ones, as you recall,
6 suggested that these two persons were military personnel because they
7 were members of the TO.
8 Now, looking through the other documents, was there any assertion
9 by the military that, in fact, these persons were within the JNA's
11 A. Yes. And, finally, the last document, where they assert that
12 they no longer are or, rather, they say that these are not military
14 So there was a certain change, if I can put that way, in
15 interpretation, in the interpretation of the concept of military
16 personnel. And that was under the influence of politics, not because of
17 an actual change that had taken place. They were members of the
18 Territorial Defence when the crime was committed. At the time, the army
19 said that the Territorial Defence was part of the armed forces of the
20 army, and they should be held accountable before our judiciary. And,
21 ultimately, the position was taken that the Territorial Defence was not
22 their integral part. That's probably what they needed at that point in
23 time, although nothing had changed, in actual fact. It was only the view
24 of the legal nature of the Territorial Defence had changed. It -- that
25 is to say, of the Serbian region, in respect of military organs.
1 Q. Now, none of the documents we had in front of us suggested that
2 the military court filed an indictment against these individuals; is that
4 A. The military prosecutor, yes, that is correct. Actually, not an
5 indictment, no. I'm sorry. It was an investigation that was launched,
6 as far as I managed to follow that.
7 Q. All right. We'll have to look back on the documents for that.
8 Just to clarify, though, you were getting this perspective that the
9 military court had this political change as a result of what's said in
10 this document that's in front of you right now. Is that the basis of
11 your assumption?
12 A. Yes, yes. How else to explain it?
22 [Private session]
11 Page 8858 redacted. Private session.
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Let us just wait for the English translation
16 because I think that was a mistake in the English translation that could
17 be of significance.
18 Q. Could you please take a look at Article 14 of this text. And it
20 "If a civilian has committed criminal offences falling within the
21 jurisdiction of a military court and that of another regular court, the
22 military court shall have jurisdiction in hearing those cases."
23 I'm saying that because in the translation it says "committed a
24 criminal offence," one criminal offence. However, the original says
25 "criminal offences," in the plural, that is to say, two or more and
1 jurisdiction belongs to different courts, military or civilian.
2 So I wanted to clarify whether this article speaks about that.
3 If there are two or more criminal offences involved, some of which are
4 under the jurisdiction of the military court and others under the
5 jurisdiction of the civilian court. In that case, it is the military
6 court that is in charge?
7 A. You mean concurrence? Yes, basically this would be a situation
8 when the same person had committed several crimes so in order not to have
9 two different trials and to have two different courts, pronounce two
10 different judgements and mete out a sentence, it is the military court
11 that is going to have supremacy.
12 Q. That would be all.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Microphone not activated]
14 [Defence counsel confer]
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness?
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, I -- I thought that the document 6499 --
19 yeah, yeah.
20 Just one more question related to the document 6499.
21 [Defence counsel confer]
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: It is admitted and marked, yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: A little misunderstanding in Defence -- among
24 Defence counsel. Thank you. We have no further questions. Sorry.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
1 Mr. Witness, this is the end of your testimony. We thank you
2 very much for coming to The Hague to assist the Tribunal. You are now
3 released as a witness, and we wish you a safe journey back home. The
4 court usher will escort you out of the courtroom. Thank you.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. And good-bye.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Court adjourned.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.31 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 16th of October,
10 2013, at 9.00 a.m.