1 Monday, 12 June 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 12.34 p.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon. Judge Van Den Wyngaert is

6 unfortunately ill and not able to sit today. Judge Thelin and I will

7 continue sitting under the rule.

8 Mr. Moore, you were on you feet.

9 MR. MOORE: Your Honour, yes. It's a small matter, or two

10 matters, actually. Your Honour may remember that I had broached the topic

11 of the defendants being interviewed in Belgrade at the courts. And they

12 giving accounts to the either investigating judge or to the judge at that

13 time. I was certainly intending to put them in as evidence, not for the

14 truth of their content, quite the reverse, but the fact that they should

15 be admissable and part of the case.

16 Your Honour, I've had an opportunity of looking at the

17 jurisprudence. If one looks at it simply, I was concerned about the

18 doctrine of estoppel. If the defendants give evidence, I would wish to

19 use those documents potentially for cross-examination, and that being the

20 case if the court took a preliminary view that those documents were prima

21 facie admissable, subject to argument, if any of the defendants give -- if

22 any of the defendants give evidence, then I would not seek to produce a

23 motion or present a motion to the Court, but to leave it until such times

24 as it may become necessary. So, in simple terms, I would seek to use the

25 documents for cross-examination if the defendants gave evidence.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Do we understand that they have -- copies of them

2 have been provided to the Defence.

3 MR. MOORE: Yes, they've got copies.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Thank you.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic, I don't that the Chamber needs to hear

7 you. The position is one that's fairly clear. The Prosecution is

8 confirming that although it will be closing its case without tendering

9 some statements said to have been made by the accused, that should they

10 give evidence it would or may seek to rely upon those for the purposes of

11 cross-examination. This is essentially one of notice and avoiding any

12 suggestion of surprise in the tendering of the -- or use of the documents

13 during cross-examination. And given that the existence of these has been

14 disclosed to the Defence, that they've been provided copies, and that

15 Mr. Moore has indicated that he has them and his intention, I think, there

16 can be no question but that the Defence is fully on notice of their

17 existence and it may be that they will be used and no possibility of the

18 Prosecution being estopped from their use could properly arise.

19 So, Mr. Moore, it is sufficient, I think, if it was left on that

20 basis.

21 MR. MOORE: Thank you very much. May I deal with a second topic;

22 it's simply this: We have the witness P-002, we had served on us, I

23 believe this morning, 10 documents which have been compiled by that

24 witness. Two of them at the moment have been translated, the other eight

25 we have not yet any translations for them. That being the case, I would

1 make application that either we adjourn the case so that we can have some

2 form of translation and the witness have an opportunity at least of seeing

3 them, or secondly, and this is what concerns me, is that the witness

4 himself is in personal difficulty time-wise, and there may be difficulties

5 if the Court were minded to grant an adjournment, it may create

6 difficulties for him. If that were the case, and I will speak to the

7 witness, then I would make application firstly for an adjournment, if the

8 witness is not able to adjourn for that period for him to commence his

9 evidence today and the documents that have not been translated to be

10 removed or excluded by way of cross-examination because they have not

11 conformed in any way whatsoever with the either directive given by the

12 Court or the spirit of the Court in relation to disclosure of

13 documentation. But I need to speak to the witness to see whether he would

14 be able to stay an extra day, if that was necessary.

15 I'm very aware of the Court timetable, I am very aware that I have

16 three experts next week who are on firm timetables. Fortunately we have

17 no other witness, apart from P-002 this week, and if there was a short

18 adjournment then it would mean still that we would be able to stick to the

19 timetable as we had proposed next week.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Is it possible, while we hear from counsel on the

21 submission that inquiries could be made now whether the witness is able to

22 stay another day and what the problem is?

23 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. He has gone back to his hotel to change, he

24 was here for proofing for a short period this morning. He is not well.

25 He has had a part of his foot amputated, and things are difficult for him

1 health-wise. He will be coming back in, I think, about the next half

2 hour, and I will be able to speak to him then.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Very well, yes.

4 Mr. Vasic.

5 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Good

6 afternoon to everyone. I think that what my learned friend has said,

7 first of all, relates to the Defence team, I assume, to Mr. Radic. I am

8 not going to speak about that. I would just like to remind everyone that

9 perhaps this week on Friday, if all of the Defence agree, can start with

10 the evidence of the expert Theunens. I think that we agreed last Friday

11 that, if it suits everyone, Mr. Theunens could begin his testimony on

12 Friday.

13 I would just like to mention one more thing, briefly, now that I

14 do have the floor, and that is a fact concerning the indisputable facts

15 which, as we have heard, have still not reached Their Honours. You will

16 recall that we insisted earlier that those facts that we did reach

17 agreement on with our learned friends on the other side should be

18 submitted to Their Honours possible. And we agreed on those facts and

19 signed them on the 16th of March, 2006. After that on the 27th of April,

20 2006 we received notice that Their Honours were seeking some

21 clarifications in relation to those facts and on the 10th of May, 2006, we

22 responded positively to five questions from this motion. And we believe

23 that on the 10th of May the final version was agreed and signed by the

24 parties. On behalf of all of the Defence teams I must say that we are all

25 concerned that this has still not reached Their Honours and I think that

1 my learned friends would need to submit that to the Trial Chamber

2 immediately. If there are some additional facts that we can discuss, the

3 Defence is always prepared until the end of the proceedings to discuss

4 them, but I believe that the number of facts that have already been agreed

5 should be submitted as soon as possible to the Trial Chamber. As I have

6 said we have reached agreement on them over a month ago. Thank you very

7 much.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Tapuskovic.

9 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. We

10 see that there is a problem now in relation to Witness P-002. The witness

11 testified before, before this Trial Chamber -- actually before this

12 Tribunal as well as before the Belgrade court, and there were never any

13 problems before during the testimony. We know about the health problems

14 of this witness from earlier, but we believe that the request to delay his

15 testimony has nothing to do with that, but it's more related to the

16 problem of some new documents appearing. This is not the first time that

17 the Prosecution is having a problem in relation to documents that

18 witnesses bring documents shortly before they are proofed by the

19 Prosecution. This has obviously happened again in this case, and that can

20 make the cross-examination more difficult in a certain way. I believe,

21 though, that regardless of the fact that my colleague Borivoje Borovic

22 will be questioning the witness, the position of the Radic Defence is that

23 the examination-in-chief of this witness can begin and then we will see

24 whether the documents will be translated in time and then it will also be

25 up to the Trial Chamber to decide whether the documents would be

1 acceptable, if the Prosecution should wish to tender them into evidence.

2 This is all that I have to say so far, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Does this concern you, Mr. Lukic?

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Everything that limits the scope of my

5 cross-examination is of concern to me, but I would just like to move into

6 private session, because of the witness, if possible, please.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

8 [Private session]

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 10297 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 [Open session]

6 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. The issue is -- arises because of

8 non-compliance with the orders that have been made for the notice of

9 materials to the opposing party. In this case the consequences of that

10 are not such that in the Chamber's view it is necessary to go so far as to

11 exclude the proposed documents from evidence, as Mr. Moore ventured as one

12 solution. So that -- in the Chamber's view that should not be the

13 consequence. However, it is clear that Mr. Moore should have time to

14 secure at least quick, working translations, be able to understand himself

15 the nature of the documents, and that the witness should have an ability

16 to review those articles and in the course of proofing be able to discuss

17 their content with counsel for the Prosecution. In our view, that would

18 require that his evidence start on Wednesday rather than tomorrow.

19 There is one further possibility to allow a little further time,

20 because if we started him on Wednesday we would certainly have to be very

21 controlled in our time if we are to hear the expert witness Theunens on

22 Friday. Now, that is one alternative, and the Chamber would be prepared

23 to make this order on the occasion, in the circumstances, his evidence in

24 chief could start today but there would be leave to the Prosecution to

25 further proof the witness between the end of hearing today and Wednesday

1 in respect of the new documents. Now, that can lead to problems and

2 difficulties in way of procedure and concern that there may have been too

3 much discussion by Prosecution, so we would frankly prefer that the start

4 of the evidence be on Wednesday.

5 Mr. Moore.

6 MR. MOORE: Your Honour, could I ask, please, for it to be

7 Wednesday. I anticipate I will be able to deal with the witness, given a

8 fair wind we are all day on Wednesday and Thursday, I should be finished

9 between two and a half and three hours, so that will be two sessions,

10 which give the Defence twice that amount in cross-examination and still

11 not impact on to Theunens.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We will hear the earlier witness who is

13 being recalled today. The evidence of the next witness, P-002 will

14 commence Wednesday morning. And we will hear the witness Theunens

15 commencing Friday morning.

16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you will allow

17 me, just one more thing. I will try not to take up too much time from the

18 cross-examination of the next witness. My learned friend Mr. Moore said

19 that the 48-hour rule was violated. I am saying that because I would like

20 to establish for the following witnesses that are still to come, and also

21 for witnesses that will appear in the Defence case, exactly what the

22 dead-line is. I recall that shortly before the testimony of witness

23 Trifunovic, Your Honours warned the Defence that because of the importance

24 of military experts the dead-line to establish -- to provide documents

25 would be changed to 48 hours. Up until then the dead-line was 24 hours,

1 but P-002 is not such a witness, and that is why the Radic Defence assumed

2 that the dead-line was 24 hours, in view of a very tight schedule for

3 these days, and in relation to the time we found out when P-002 would

4 begin his testimony, this is what we did. We also knew that today we

5 would only have witness Grujic, and also we expected the

6 examination-in-chief to begin of P-002 with the cross-examination

7 beginning the day after that. So we believe then that we did meet the

8 24-hour dead-line rule. Thank you.

9 JUDGE PARKER: You are quite correct in your statement,

10 Ms. Tapuskovic, that this not being an expert witness, notice of 24 hours

11 was required. What is particularly wrong and difficult in this case is

12 that there was a document provided or documents provided not translated

13 into the language of the Court, which would mean that it would be of no

14 use to the Chamber and no use to Mr. Moore. And while the minimum

15 requirement is 24 hours, if there is a number of documents so that the

16 volume becomes large, it is obviously unreasonable to expect others to

17 master a large volume of documents in just 24 hours. We keep the time as

18 short as 24 hours so that a document which comes very late to your notice

19 is important can be served with just 24-hours notice. But if you know

20 that you have a large number of documents, you must ensure that they are

21 translated and because of the volume, there is more there than can

22 reasonably be assimilated and dealt with by your opponents in just 24

23 hours.

24 Very well. Thank you. We will move on.

25 Mr. Moore, before you leave, I think it would be useful if we

1 could mention looking ahead. Time notice would be of value to all

2 counsel, that we anticipate of course that evidence will finish in -- on

3 the Friday after next Friday. It's not known to the Chamber whether there

4 is in contemplation a Rule 98 bis motion. If that is in contemplation,

5 the Chamber would anticipate hearing the oral submissions which are now

6 called for by the rule on the following Wednesday, the 28th of June. And

7 it would anticipate that the Defence should have no more than one and a

8 half sitting sessions on that day for their submissions, and that the

9 Prosecution would have a similar time, so that we would conclude the

10 submissions in the course of that day. We would hear submissions at

11 another time. Just how much time the Defence would anticipate needing in

12 preparation, and this affects probably Mr. Vasic more than anybody else

13 because he's first in line, but we, as we have indicated throughout, have

14 in mind a fairly quick turn-around from Prosecution case to Defence. And

15 we will therefore hear quickly peoples' views at a time when it's

16 convenient about that, and we will plan the timetable from the 28th of

17 June in light of that. But do be on notice of the 28th of June for Rule

18 98 business, if it's thought that there should be such a motion.

19 [The witness entered court]

20 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon, and welcome back. Could I -- I

21 think it would be a preferable precaution in view of the time that you

22 have been away if you were to make the affirmation again. If you have the

23 affirmation card.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

25 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Please sit down.

2 WITNESS: IVAN GRUJIC [Resumed]

3 [Witness answered through interpreter]

4 JUDGE PARKER: Now, this witness is simply recalled for the

5 purpose of completing cross-examination. I see no dissent from that. I

6 think it's over to you, Mr. Lukic.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:

9 Q. Mr. Grujic, good afternoon. My name is Novak Lukic, I'm one of

10 the Defence counsel of Veselin Sljivancanin, and on behalf of his Defence

11 team I will be putting questions to you. We are the reason, our team is

12 the reason you had to return to The Hague.

13 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Lukic.

14 Q. First I want to see whether you have the binder in front of you,

15 the one that we used during your previous testimony, with the index of all

16 documents?

17 A. Yes, I have it in front of me.

18 Q. Thank you. First I will be putting you questions about your

19 biography, and that was covered in examination-in-chief, and also

20 Mr. Vasic touched upon that. The questions will pertain to your work at

21 MUP and also your work within the commission for detainees and missing

22 persons. So we are now referring to the period up to 1991, when you used

23 to work at MUP, and you will agree with me, won't you, that every Ministry

24 of the Interior has normally two sections, one as public law and order and

25 the other one is state security, if we may call it that?

1 A. Yes, that was the general principle of organisation, there were

2 some services that could not fit that description. Some services fell

3 under both those sectors.

4 Q. Yes, but the main activities of the MUP are aimed at these two

5 sectors, public law and order and state security?

6 A. Yes, in general terms, yes. But there were certain crimes which

7 were directed against the constitutional law and order and could fall both

8 under public law and order and State Security Services.

9 Q. Would we agree that the main task of state security is to preserve

10 the constitutional organisation and order of Croatia, because you worked

11 for the MUP of Croatia, but that also pertained to all other ministries of

12 the interior and other republics; isn't that right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And the main task of the public Security Services is to preserve

15 public law and order. Is that their main task?

16 A. Yes, the main task, yes. But that task also has elements that

17 could fall under the other sector, that of state security.

18 Q. In your examination-in-chief, and in cross-examination you said

19 that you were specialised for anti-terrorist activities; isn't that right?

20 A. Yes. I think back in 1984.

21 Q. And you served in Osijek and that region, right?

22 A. Yes. I carried out tasks in the territory of the town of Osijek.

23 Q. You said to Mr. Vasic that you also participated partially in the

24 voluntary surrender of weapons during that period of time, which was

25 carried out in various villages. You personally, and your department, did

1 you send to your superiors reports about weapons that were distributed

2 along the party lines?

3 A. What do you mean, party lines?

4 Q. For example, did you know that at that time the weapons were

5 distributed by the activists of the HDZ to the supporters of that party

6 and other activists?

7 Q. I can tell you that all the information we collected at the time

8 relating to any arming of any groups, all such information was sent up the

9 chain of command?

10 Q. That's what you said to Mr. Vasic, but my question was, do you

11 remember specifically sending reports to your superiors about the arming

12 of the HDZ supporters in Osijek at the time?

13 A. Listen, it's been quite a while, many years have passed, but I'm

14 sure that there must have been at least one report dealing with that

15 issue.

16 Q. You served in that position in October of 1990, right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you know who Ante Gilje is?

19 A. Yes, yes. But I know him from the later period of time, or rather

20 I heard of him later. He is a member of the Croatian army who worked for

21 the military police of the Croatian army.

22 Q. Do you know what his role was in October of 1990?

23 A. I truly wouldn't know what he did at that time.

24 Q. Do you know who Ivan Zovak is?

25 A. No.

1 Q. And you've probably heard of Tomislav Mercep?

2 A. Yes, I've heard of him and I also know him.

3 Q. What was his position in October of 1990 in Vukovar?

4 A. I wouldn't be able to answer accurately, but I think that he was a

5 national defence secretary or something of the sort.

6 Q. Do you know what Vitezit 60 is?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Could you please explain it to the Trial Chamber?

9 A. That's a type of explosive. One used for industrial purposes, so

10 it wasn't intended for military purposes but was used for industrial

11 purposes.

12 Q. Please tell me, in accordance with the then regulation in force,

13 was there any need for any political party to be in possession of such an

14 explosive and to distribute it to other individuals? Were political

15 parties allowed to be in possession of that?

16 A. Not only no political parties were allowed to possess that, but

17 also no physical person without proper permits could be in possession of

18 such explosives.

19 Q. Could we now please put on the screen document 3D01-0063. You

20 will now see a document; you may be familiar with it, and maybe not.

21 English translation is 0064, but could we please see the B/C/S version?

22 Thank you.

23 Have you ever seen this document, Mr. Grujic?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Well, take a look at it. Go over it.

1 A. Shall I read it out loud.

2 Q. No, no need for that. We have it in our system, you just need to

3 acquaint yourself with the document. Let me tell you what this is about.

4 Receipt, I hereby state that I received from the Osijek HDZ from Branimir

5 Glavas Vitezit 60 explosive for the needs of the HDZ branch offices in our

6 municipalities. One to Ante Gilje from Nustar took over this explosive

7 for the municipality of Vinkovci, 75 kilograms of explosive, and then Ivan

8 Zovak from Zupanja took it for the municipality of Zupanja, 100 kilograms

9 of explosive, and then the third person is Tomislav Mercep from Vukovar,

10 who took it over for the municipality of Vukovar, 100 kilograms of

11 explosives, and all of them signed this document and it's dated 21st of

12 October in Osijek.

13 So you say that you never seen this document before?

14 A. That's correct, I've never seen it before.

15 Q. We received it from the OTP. In view of the job that you had at

16 the time, what would be your comment? Don't you think that this illegal

17 to say the least?

18 A. First of all, I would like to tell you about the job that I

19 performed at the time, and give you my comment in view of the job that I

20 held. Had I known about this document at the time, I would have acted in

21 accordance with the regulations in force at the time, and I would have

22 informed my superiors up the chain of command within my service.

23 Naturally they would have taken action and taken steps to prosecute these

24 people in relation to this explosive.

25 Q. So you say to us that you are not familiar with this document, but

1 you are telling us that you would have initiated action had you known

2 about this. Would you agree with me that at the time this was not only

3 unlawful, but also unconstitutional? If it was your job to carry out

4 anti-terrorist activities, would you agree that this was an omission in

5 your work at the time, the fact that you didn't know about this?

6 A. I wouldn't call it an omission, you do understand that one cannot

7 know everything and when we do have knowledge, then we take proper action.

8 Then at the time, together with the members of the JNA Security Service we

9 conducted an action to seize weapons from, if we're now talking along --

10 about ethnic affiliation, then we seized weapons from ethnic Croats in all

11 instances where we were aware of the facts. So I'm telling you that I

12 didn't know about this; had I known about this, I would have done

13 something about it. There were people above me, and my job was to collect

14 information and to send it up the chain of command to relevant superiors.

15 Q. Yes, that's correct. You told us about your joint action with the

16 JNA aimed at seizing unlawfully-held weapons. Tell me, please, in October

17 of 1990, what position did Glavas hold?

18 A. I think that he was the TO secretary in Osijek.

19 Q. What about his party role?

20 A. I really wouldn't be able to tell you, I was never a party member

21 myself.

22 Q. In view of the fact that you were in state security, I thought

23 that you might know this?

24 A. No, we didn't look into anybody's party affiliation. It is

25 contrary to democratic principles, it was so back then and nowadays.

1 Q. But you have to ask you, if the job of state security, one of the

2 jobs of state security is to combat terrorism, and if in certain political

3 parties there are individuals who engage in unlawful conduct, wouldn't it

4 be true that the job of state security is also to monitor the activities

5 of political parties if there is reason to believe that there are some

6 individuals engaging in unlawful activity there?

7 A. In a way, yes. But you know that the state security was organised

8 in a different way, and that internal affairs were within the jurisdiction

9 of another service. And it was the department for internal security that

10 was in charge of these things, and you must know this.

11 Q. I won't go further into this, but let me just say that at the time

12 you had a very successful career, your career was on a fast track, you

13 were promoted very quickly?

14 A. Well, I wouldn't agree with that. If you go back and look at my

15 CV and you will see that back in 1972 I was an ordinary policeman, and

16 then I was promoted by one level every four years, and this is how I

17 became an inspector. When I moved from the Ministry of the Interior to

18 the Croatian army, that was not a promotion, I remained at the same level,

19 in accordance with the then regulations. So factually, that meant that my

20 rank was a level below than what I held at the Ministry of the Interior.

21 I don't think that this is a promotion at all.

22 Q. That was my view analysing your biography. Another question that

23 I have --

24 JUDGE PARKER: Before you do, before you leave this issue, there's

25 been a lot of mention of October in connection with the receipt. Is it

1 that the receipt is -- has a date or not?

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours, I didn't

3 want to read the entire document because we have it in e-court. The

4 document is dated 21st of October, 1990.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I will now tender this document into

7 evidence.

8 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this document will become Exhibit

10 560.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Just one more question from that period coming as a result of your

13 answer to a question from Mr. Vasic. When we're talking about Labrador

14 affairs and your comment in relation to that, you said you don't know

15 about eavesdropping, but I know they were eavesdropping me. I'm intrigued

16 now, who is it that you think eaves dropped on you, when and why?

17 A. I didn't say that I was the subject of eavesdropping.

18 Q. Followed.

19 A. Followed, these two are very different.

20 Q. I agree.

21 A. And I would like to clarify this for you and also for Their

22 Honours. The word Labrador was mentioned. This was a group of

23 intelligence officers that worked within the existing structure for other

24 structures, if I can comment like that. In response to the question

25 whether I knew about the Labrador group, I said that I did not know about

1 it, I wasn't overseeing it, they were probably overseeing me, because they

2 were within my organisation monitoring what that organisation was doing,

3 but we didn't know about it, this is something that was confirmed later,

4 and then the matters were processed and what happened, happened. So to

5 clarify, the Labrador group is a group that worked within the existing

6 structure for some other structures.

7 Q. So you just assume that that was what they were doing or you know

8 that for certain?

9 A. Well, they had to know what we were doing, and I mention that

10 because the chief of that group, Mr. Drazen, was the chief. So he must

11 have known what they were talking about.

12 Q. Let's move to a new topic. I'm going to put several questions to

13 you about your work in the commission for detainees and missing persons.

14 One of the tasks of that commission was to participate in the exchange

15 negotiations in relation to prisoners on the territory of the whole of

16 Yugoslavia; is that correct? I don't believe that Slovenia and Croatia

17 figured much there, but one of the tasks of your commission was to

18 negotiate with the commissions from Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina;

19 is that correct?

20 A. Yes, it is. And I also omitted to say with also representatives

21 of temporarily occupied territories, they also had their own commission

22 and their prisoners.

23 Q. I'm going to ask you about that as well. You actively

24 participated in the work of the commission in 1993; is that correct?

25 A. Yes, in May I was appointed the president of the government

1 commission for detainees and missing persons.

2 Q. You also negotiated with representatives of the commission for

3 exchanges of Republika Srpska and Herceg Bosna, the HVO; is that correct?

4 A. Yes, it is.

5 Q. You also negotiated with Amir Masovic, probably also with

6 General Radinovic, am I right?

7 A. Not with General Radinovic, but with Amir Masovic, yes.

8 Q. I would just like to add my question on page 20 -- actually, page

9 21, line 1, I said the HVO, and what I said before that was Herceg Bosna,

10 and this is not recorded in the transcript.

11 Who did you negotiate in that period of 1993, 1994, that was from

12 the Yugoslav side? Do you remember perhaps?

13 A. As far as I can remember, there was Mr. Todorovic, also Mr. Korac

14 after him and now it's Mr. Gagic, three persons have been at that post

15 since that time.

16 Q. Did you have any contacts with Berislav Pusic?

17 A. Of course I did. He was the president of the commission of Herceg

18 Bosna. As you know, there were three commissions active in the territory

19 of Bosnia and Hercegovina, the Herceg Bosna commission, the Federation

20 commission, or rather Bosna, that was their name at the time, and the

21 commission of Republika Srpska.

22 Q. And you know that he is in one of the courtrooms here and that he

23 is being held responsible for, amongst other things, for his work in the

24 commission?

25 A. Well, I wasn't really following what he was saying in the

1 courtroom. I don't know whether that relates to his work on these topics.

2 Q. Mr. Grujic, did your commission from the time that you were at its

3 head, and perhaps you know about the period from before, ever participate

4 in the exchange of civilians?

5 A. Of course we did. And you can see that from the number of persons

6 released from prisons and camps, as well as their affiliation, whether

7 they were members of the armed forces or whether they were civilians. Our

8 assignment, our main task, was on the basis of available information, and

9 this was the work of other commissions as well, to make lists in order to

10 free those persons from prison.

11 Q. Was an exchange ever executed through the commissions that were --

12 of civilians who were not in camps of one side or the other?

13 A. Not involving Republika Srpska, definitely not.

14 Q. You talked about persons that were captured in Croatia and taken

15 to camps in Serbia, you provided charts and tables with information on

16 that. What I'm interested in is the following: In negotiations when

17 you're negotiating with the other side, you receive information that you

18 seek for example such and such a person is being sought from Bosnia or

19 Serbia, that, for example, went missing or disappeared in Bosnia. When

20 you establish information and you, for example, establish that the person

21 is in the lower prison in Split or in Osijek or in Brod, depending on

22 where the prison was, did you ever check how was it possible that a person

23 from Bosnia found themselves in prison in Croatia?

24 A. First of all, that was in our jurisdiction, to make that kind of

25 check, and you can see on the basis of regulations that our main

1 assignment was the release of prisoners, the release and exchange of

2 prisoners. You can speculate how come this happened, but a number of

3 situations were possible. It happened that people happened to be captured

4 on the line of separation or that they were caught when they were visiting

5 another territory. This is something that happened often, that people

6 were captured in the inter-boundary areas between states too, between

7 Hungary and Yugoslavia. These situations are possible.

8 Q. I'm going to ask you something specific, and you were asked this

9 in the Milosevic case and perhaps relates to a period when you were not in

10 the position. Do you have information about the existence of the camp

11 Odzak? When after the Croats left the territory of Odzak, all the

12 prisoners, there were hundreds of them, perhaps even a thousand of them,

13 and they were all transferred to camps or prisons in Croatia? Do you know

14 anything about that?

15 A. I don't know specifically the situation for Odzak. I don't know

16 where those people were transferred, but I know that there were situations

17 when - and this is what I mentioned before - people were in the boundary

18 area, members of the armed forces were withdrawing, they crossed into the

19 territory of Croatia, and that is when they brought prisoner of war with

20 them who, as such, were recorded and registered.

21 Q. On page 22, line 18, I mentioned --

22 A. But if you allow me, I been doing this work from 1993, so I am

23 competent to discuss this topic from that time on.

24 Q. I am going back to this period, because you spoke -- you are

25 speaking about Vukovar, which is 1991.

1 A. But I'm talking about the records that I am maintaining.

2 Q. My question is that your commission, or actually not just the

3 commission, but your function was to monitor the situation in the camps in

4 Croatia; is that correct?

5 A. To monitor the situation in terms of conditions, of accommodation,

6 and the health of the detainees. This is what our task was.

7 Q. I would like to ask you though that if you have information about

8 Croatian citizens that were in Serb camps, I'm sure that you received

9 information from the other commissions when they were seeking persons,

10 that you received information that persons from Bosnia were in your camps

11 and did you -- when you found out such information, did you inform your

12 authorised organs, ministries, and so on, that in your camps there were

13 persons who were foreign nationals. This is the question, yes or no?

14 A. No. It was not in our mandate to inform that. Our -- them about

15 that. Our mandate was to secure the release of persons, and this was very

16 clear. I, or no one in that position could not exceed their mandate,

17 which was regulated by the pertinent regulations.

18 Q. Very well. Although you didn't take part in it, you were informed

19 about the large exchange in Nemetin on the 14th of August, 1991. We're

20 interested in that because there were many people from Vukovar who even

21 testified here who were involved in that exchange. Are you aware that on

22 that occasion in Nemetin, your commission, the Croatian Exchange

23 Commission for Detainees and Missing Persons, exchanged 62 persons who

24 were captured on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Are you aware

25 of that information?

1 A. I don't know where they were detained, but I know that they were

2 exchanged, that these people were exchanged.

3 Q. The date of that exchange is the 14th of August, 1992. I correct

4 myself.

5 A. I would just like to say one thing in relation to that exchange.

6 The exchange was agreed on in Budapest with representatives of the

7 International Committee of the Red Cross, and the exchange was not

8 conducted by using the first and last names of person or their ethnic

9 affiliation or their citizenship, it was conducted on the basis of the

10 basic humanitarian principle, all for all. Therefore, it is very clear

11 that all the people, regardless of where they were captured, were

12 transferred or were included in the process of that particular exchange.

13 Q. Does the name Dragutin Lesic mean anything to you, whose cremated

14 remains were handed over to you by the exchange commission. He was

15 cremated at Ernestinovo, at Ernestinovo.

16 A. No, no, I don't remember that. I think this is something quite

17 different. What it was, if that's the same case, but I'm not sure if it's

18 the last surname.

19 Q. Dragutin Lesic from Novi Grad, near Odzak?

20 A. Yes, it's a fact that these remains were handed over, and these

21 remains were cremated together with other remains not at the camp. Since

22 there was no information, the mortal remains were kept at the institute

23 for forensic medicine, no information was available. There were some

24 other mortal remains, social cases, welfare cases, and on the basis of the

25 findings of the commission, affiliated with the Ministry of Health. Such

1 mortal remains that are held for more than a year and their origin is not

2 known and there is nobody to receive these mortal remains, these mortal

3 remains are cremated and all of this is recorded. When we found out at

4 the negotiations that such a possibility existed, we carried out some

5 checks, we established that this is what occurred and in accordance

6 with -- on the basis of agreement via the commission with the family, we

7 handed over the mortal remains.

8 Q. Now we're going move to the main topic of this examination. I'm

9 going to deal with two categories, the category of detainees and missing

10 persons -- actually of expelled and missing persons and then I also wanted

11 to clarify some facts with you. Your database, as the basis of all the

12 analysis is based on the census conducted in 1991. This was in March

13 1991, when the results were published and I think that the census was

14 actually conducted in 1990, perhaps I'm wrong.

15 A. Yes, it is based on the population census; it's the only relevant

16 population census that exists from that period.

17 Q. That was the census that was done for the whole territory of the

18 then Yugoslavia that was the last census, there was another census that

19 was carried out in Croatia in 2001 but that was a new census using new

20 territorial units?

21 A. Yes, the territorial approach was different and I don't have that

22 information with me right now.

23 Q. What my learned friend Mr. Vasic asked you, and I'm going to ask

24 you that question, and it's based on some theoretical grounds, the

25 statistical information given by territorial units at the time of the

1 census of 1991, was something that you compared with the situation in

2 2001, and using the territorial divisions at that time. So having

3 conducted the analysis the way you did, why didn't you conduct the same

4 analysis using the territorial division from 1991?

5 A. Perhaps then and now we misunderstood each other. When I spoke

6 about the information, information for the Podunavlje region, I said that

7 the information was compiled for the region that was occupied at the time,

8 according to each particular settlement, and this information relates to

9 the occupied part of the territory. This is what we're talking about, the

10 districts that were not under the control of the Republic of Croatia or

11 rather its institutions.

12 Q. I understand that, but I would like to clarify the following: For

13 example, let us take the town of Vukovar. You have information from 1991,

14 statistical data, which, for you, is the basis for all your analysis.

15 When you were doing your analysis at the time, did you take the boundaries

16 of Vukovar that were administratively enforced in 1991 or later?

17 A. In 1991.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 A. Except for one thing. That is the number of displaced persons in

20 Vukovar. Because the office for displaced persons included information

21 for additional four settlements, but there was explained in this section.

22 So the analysis of the population was made on that basis, so that we do

23 have the correct information. The basis is the year 1991, the lists were

24 made settlement by settlement, and the results were reached so that all

25 those settlements which were not under the control of the Republic of

1 Croatia were included in the analysis.

2 Q. I found information that about eight per cent of the population at

3 the time was on temporary employment abroad from the Vukovar area, so

4 those people who were registered as residing in Vukovar were actually at

5 that time, and for who knows how long, abroad. What was the approach to

6 that particular category of citizens regardless of their ethnicity?

7 A. If they were included in the census, then they were proper

8 residents and nobody could say whether they were living abroad or not.

9 This is the category of people temporarily employed abroad, temporarily,

10 so their domicile, their legal domicile was in that territory.

11 Q. Although factually speaking they could have been abroad for many

12 years?

13 A. Well, listen, somebody can go for medical treatment and stay there

14 for several years and not be recorded in the census.

15 Q. Let us now look at document 280 on the 65 ter list, ERN number

16 3448008 [as interpreted], page 30 and 31. This is the census, and this is

17 one of the agreed facts in this case. I'm now interested in one category

18 of data. You may have it. Do you know how many persons in this census of

19 1991 were undeclared?

20 A. You mean for entire Croatia?

21 Q. Croatia, or Podunavlje and Vukovar, the town of Vukovar.

22 A. These people should fall under the category "others." And that

23 category was added to all tables, both in percentages and figures.

24 Q. All right. So category "others." And your number for Vukovar

25 residents who were displaced were 14.31 per cent?

1 A. When we get to that I will clarify all data for you. But in all

2 instances where we have the category "others," that category covers all

3 those who did not declare their ethnic background. But this category also

4 includes some ethnic minorities that did not exist as separate categories

5 anywhere else.

6 Q. We have a document, it's going to come up on the screen. One

7 matter I find quite interesting, and if you know, please answer. Do you

8 know that in the territory of entire Yugoslavia in 1981 there was a large

9 number of Yugoslavs, and then in the 1991 census their number decreased

10 sharply. Are you familiar with this piece of information, namely that

11 many people who declare themselves as Yugoslavs in 1981 later on changed

12 their national orientation and declared themselves in different terms at

13 the later census?

14 A. Well, listen, everybody has the freedom of choice; it was

15 guaranteed in the constitution. It is clear that, yes, there was such a

16 phenomenon, and we can look into its origin, but if we're now dealing with

17 facts and the fact is that that's what the situation was in 1991, then you

18 will see that the figures shown in these tables reflect the situation in

19 the entire Yugoslavia, and this was done by the then Federal Bureau for

20 Statistics.

21 Q. Will you agree with me that in 1990 and 1991, in the territory of

22 the entire Yugoslavia it was quite unpopular to declare oneself as a

23 Yugoslav and that it was a notorious fact?

24 A. I don't know, why would that have been unpopular. People probably

25 had other motives, and I don't see why that is important. Do you know how

1 census was conducted? It was done in such a way that the questionnaires

2 were filled privately so everybody has an opportunity to declare

3 themselves freely, and they did so. And people can of course comment this

4 in any way they wish.

5 Q. I wasn't going to go into detailed analysis of this document, and

6 I see that it's not on the screen yet. I want it to be tendered into

7 evidence. Even though the national composition is not a disputed fact, I

8 still wanted to have this tendered into evidence. I hope the OTP won't

9 object to have this document, 285 -- or rather, I correct myself, 280 from

10 the 65 ter list, be entered into evidence.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this document has many

12 pages. This is the census data. What's important for me is that there

13 are various categories and differences in these categories over the years.

14 How many people declared themselves as certain ethnic group. I would

15 like to have this in the evidence, please.

16 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 561, Your Honours.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Now we're going turn to displaced persons, which is a category

20 that you analysed. We will see now something in Power Point, a document

21 that we received from the OTP. Mr. Grujic, we received this diskette from

22 the OTP. You have the document on your screen. We don't have a similar

23 table relating to the displaced persons in the evidence. That's why

24 I'm -- would like to know whether it was your service or your rather your

25 state that delivered this document to the Prosecution, the one that you

1 can see on the screen?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Yes, that was my understanding. Because this document exists both

4 in the B/C/S and in English. Your service translated these documents into

5 English; isn't that right? So they provided both the B/C/S and the

6 English version?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. I see that you used the term "displaced persons" in this document

9 for the word "prognani" in B/C/S. I don't know whether you speak English,

10 but I would like to know whether this is the version produced by your

11 state.

12 A. Yes. This issue was debated in other cases as well. This is the

13 issue of translation. I can confirm that several words I used for this

14 term prognani, we used the term prognani and izbegli. These are two basic

15 terms.

16 Q. We will get to that, and I think it will be best to look into

17 regulation rather than into grammar to define these two terms. But at any

18 rate, this is the document that your country produced in English, and

19 submitted it to the OTP?

20 A. No, this was produced by me personally, or rather submitted by me

21 personally. And if you wish we can clarify whatever you think needs to be

22 clarified. If there is a problem in translation, I think we can deal with

23 it right now.

24 Q. No, we won't go into grammar, we will rather look at the concepts

25 and notions. What the OTP disclosed to us, and what was tendered into

1 evidence in documents 5542 and 5543, there is the translation into English

2 in these documents disclosed by the Prosecution and the term "expelled

3 persons" is used there. And I think we need to clarify this. Both this

4 document and the document we received as the official translation, the

5 term "displaced persons" is used, and I would like to clarify this with

6 the witness so that we can sure whether this is a grammatical issue or an

7 essential, meaning issue. When you testified on the 1st of June on page

8 9.933, you spoke of the persons who were forced to leave their residence

9 and you said to those were prognani or displaced persons.

10 We're now dealing with the data at the level of Croatia which says

11 that there were 220.338 persons who are categorised as prognani or

12 displaced persons, and are you claiming that this many people were forced

13 to leave their residence, that the force was used? Is that what you're

14 trying to say?

15 A. I think we need to clarify this. What does it mean, forced? What

16 does it mean that the force was used? That means that either the force

17 was used or there was a threat. It also means that these people were in

18 such a mental state that they had to leave their homes and that they were

19 unable to return to their homes because nobody could guarantee their

20 safety. This is how we see this term.

21 Q. We will get to the definition, but this is how you see it, this is

22 how you define the term "prognani"?

23 A. Yes, let's clarify something. The office for displaced persons,

24 which is the official institution dealing with this issue, defines

25 displaced person as people who had to leave their homes for the reasons I

1 explained and who are in the free territory of the Republic of Croatia.

2 So these are prognani, displaced persons. Refugees are people who came

3 from other countries to the Republic of Croatia or people from the

4 Republic of Croatia to the territory of other countries, so there is a

5 significant difference.

6 Q. Yes, we fully agree there, that the term prognani, or displaced

7 person, is somebody who moved from one place to another, but only within

8 one state and that refugees are people who crossed the state border. But

9 I want to ask you about your definition of displaced persons because you

10 seem to define it as people who left because of force, use of force or

11 threat of force. You said that for that reason people left their

12 residence; is that right?

13 A. Yes, for those reasons or for their subjective perception of un --

14 lack of security.

15 Q. Well, that's another issue.

16 A. Yes, but these are facts. I know where this debate will lead. We

17 can get directly to the point, we don't need to beat around the bush. Let

18 us put things in proper context. You are now referring to operations

19 for -- Flash and Storm.

20 Q. No. No, not at all. Those questions were put to you in other

21 trials. I have no questions pertaining to 1995.

22 A. I apologise.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would now like to read

24 the degree on the status of displaced persons and refugees. I think there

25 won't be any need to tender this into evidence. We will just put one copy

1 in front of the witness. I have already informed the OTP about that, and

2 I think that we will see how competent technical services define these

3 categories, displaced persons and refugees.

4 [In English] Mr. Usher, please.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Grujic, I will read this out slowly. This is

6 a decree on the status of displaced person and refugees of the government

7 of Croatia, dated the 27th of October, 1991. I suppose that your office

8 functions pursuant to this decree. I apologise, the date was 1992.

9 Article 2: "A person who independently or in an organised way via

10 a municipal Crisis Staff, municipal civil protection staff, Croatian Red

11 Cross, or a centre for social work, had to leave the territory -- its

12 residence in the territory of the state of Croatia in order to escape from

13 an immediate life-threatening condition to escape an armed aggression or

14 an armed operation, such a person can be awarded the status of a displaced

15 person or a refugee."

16 The next sentence: "A displaced person in this decree is a person

17 described in paragraph 1 of this article, a person who fled from one area

18 of the Republic of Croatia to another area of the Republic of Croatia,

19 whereas a refugee is a person from the paragraph 1 of this article who

20 went abroad."

21 Following this, a law was adopted. Did I read this out correctly?

22 A. Yes, yes, you did.

23 Q. A law was adopted on the status of displaced persons and refugees,

24 we're going to look at Article 2, it was adopted on the 6th of October,

25 1993, so about a year after this decree. The law defines these persons in

1 Article 2: "A person who moved from an area of the territory of Croatia

2 that was in a war zone who moved either independently or in an organised

3 fashion through the municipal Crisis Staff, Croatian Red Cross, social

4 work centre or any other organisations. And a person who based on the

5 assessment of the organs of the Ministry of the Interior or a competent

6 command of the Croatian army left their residence in order to escape from

7 life-threatening conditions, to escape from an aggression or other armed

8 operation, shall be given a status of a displaced person or a refugee."

9 And then they go on further to define this identically as in the decree.

10 You will agree with me that when it comes to displaced persons and

11 when your office compiled these statistical data, you used the categories

12 as defined in law, the categories of displaced persons and refugees?

13 A. Yes, that's beyond dispute. But both the law and the decree speak

14 of status, which is a material status and this is how it should be

15 interpreted.

16 Q. We will be interpreting it here, I'm not asking you to interpret

17 this.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know whether we

19 need to tender this into evidence. I don't have English translations

20 provided, but I think that you have the interpreted investigation and

21 perhaps you can take judicial notice of it.

22 JUDGE PARKER: I don't think we need judicial notice, we have

23 sufficient of it in the transcript. In English for most purposes.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I am quite satisfied with the English

25 interpretation. I think it's time for a break and then perhaps we can

1 continue afterwards.

2 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn now, resuming in 20 minutes.

3 --- Recess taken at 2.01 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 2.24 p.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic.

6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. [Interpretation] I would just read one more thing from the

8 regulations. Do you have this regulation in front of you that I gave you,

9 Mr. Grujic? This is Article 13. The regulation that we talked about

10 yesterday about -- earlier about the status of refugees and displaced

11 person, Article 13 says: "A person awarded or granted the status of

12 displaced person will be provided with accommodation; two, food; three,

13 assistance in social adjustment; four, schooling for their children; five,

14 health coverage; and six, assistance to cover all other essential living

15 expenses or requirements."

16 I would just like to add under three, it was assistance in social

17 adjustment and psychological help, that was not recorded.

18 Mr. Grujic, I'm going to ask you about what it says in the

19 regulation. I assume that these are all the benefits once a person is

20 granted the status of a displaced person, it's something that is provided

21 by the state; is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Thank you. Now, we're going to move to the tables and charts. I

24 would like to look at Exhibit 545, Mr. Grujic. That is tab -- I would

25 like to find it. It's tab 2.7.

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the transcript, I

2 would just like it to be noted that as far as the translations are

3 concerned that we received from the Prosecution and which have been

4 tendered as evidence, are used and that is the word "expelled" should be

5 used for the term prognani.

6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch the exhibit

7 numbers.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]. I believe that the word that was used

9 in the original reports should be used. And that should be the

10 term "displaced." Exhibits 541, 542 and 545, but this is something that

11 we will also take up with the CLSS. The exhibits which have been tendered

12 are draft translations done by the Prosecution, and all the previous

13 translations which are official Tribunal translations use the

14 term "displaced." I assume that we're going to get this from CLSS later?

15 Q. Mr. Grujic, now we're going to look at this table, the table that

16 relates to Vukovar. First of all, we have the national composition of

17 inhabitants, is that correct, from 1991. You explained what you said

18 earlier to me, that the percentage 14.31 per cent or 6.390 persons are all

19 those persons who were not included in the categories where people

20 declared themselves according to their ethnic groups, so these would all

21 be the national or ethnic minorities?

22 A. Yes, ethnic minorities that are not mentioned in the previous

23 categories.

24 Q. This number, 44.639, of displaced -- actually, no. Of citizens of

25 the town, these are 44.639 inhabitants, and the town is viewed in its

1 original administrative boundaries?

2 A. Yes, when we say Vukovar, we also include Borovo Naselje; that

3 would be the territorial boundary at the time.

4 Q. This number, 22.165, refers to the displaced person which you

5 received for the displaced persons, returnees, and refugees?

6 A. Yes, that is the officially registered number of persons from the

7 territory of the town of Vukovar, and Lipovaca, Sotin, and Grabovo are

8 added to that figure. These how they maintained their records.

9 Q. Is that how it is written down here, and this is the data that was

10 received from that administration. My question is, did you seek, did you

11 receive, did you have at any point in time, persons whose place of

12 residence was Vukovar, they left Vukovar but did not report to that

13 administration, they perhaps reported to some other state?

14 A. No, we are explicitly talking about the category of people here

15 who, as you yourself said, have been granted the status of displaced

16 persons and who reported to the institution which is maintaining these

17 figures and behind each of those numbers there is a card certifying their

18 displaced status.

19 Q. That is how I understood it. But you don't know how many persons

20 there are there who had left Vukovar but did not report to anyone in that

21 period?

22 A. Of course not. If they reported to somewhere else, how can we

23 know that?

24 Q. Do you have information, how many citizens in Vukovar lived there

25 while it was not, let me put it this way, under your sovereignty in that

1 period from 1991 until 1998?

2 A. No, it's clear that we cannot have such data.

3 Q. Perhaps somebody kept this -- these figures. Could you have

4 asked, perhaps, the Vukovar municipal administration for information like

5 that, or the East Krajina Autonomous Area, do you know how many people

6 lived in Vukovar when it was not in your sovereignty?

7 A. Well, the numbers are different there, and that is precisely the

8 reason why we did not go into that, we have people leaving, people coming

9 back, there are a lot of people coming in and out of that area passing

10 through, so it would be very difficult to have such information. On the

11 other hand this is data that will be classified in the future, in the way

12 that it should be done. At this point in time, I can speak about official

13 records and official information that is in force.

14 Q. Official information from your administration; is that correct?

15 A. This is official data of the Republic of Croatia, from

16 institutions which, in the Republic of Croatia, deal with this subject

17 matter.

18 Q. Thank you very much. Now I'm going to ask you something else.

19 Table number 2, and this is the number of the expelled, according to the

20 time of expulsion, up until the 18th of November, 1991, you established

21 that 14.043 persons were expelled from Vukovar; is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So this is the period from the census until the 18th of November?

24 A. No, not from the census. We said at the beginning, when the first

25 expelled person or displaced person in the Republic of Croatia was

1 registered, and then we can start from that date.

2 Q. Yes, I correct myself. You didn't say that right at the

3 beginning, but only on the second day of your testimony. That was when

4 you mentioned your -- that category, you said that the first person that

5 was displaced was in March, 1991. Perhaps we can refer to that.

6 A. The first displaced person was registered on the 2nd of January,

7 1991.

8 Q. My question is the following: You place the cut-off date on the

9 18th of November, 1991, for this particular figure. Can you tell me how

10 many people of this number were granted the status of displaced persons

11 until August 1st, 1991, and how many of them were granted this status

12 after August 1st, 1991?

13 A. I cannot give you such a figure. The statistics that you see here

14 are statistics that were drawn up by the office for completely different

15 needs, and they are what they are.

16 Q. I'm going to tell you why I'm asking you about these dates. We

17 know that here in this courtroom, because these are the dates that we are

18 dealing with in the document that we call the indictment, but this is what

19 this is all about. Here, before this Trial Chamber, we have heard that

20 the town of Vukovar was under blockade from late September, 1991, and this

21 would be testimony on page 1.354 of 9th of May, for the reference of the

22 Trial Chamber. So you are not able to rule out the possibility that these

23 40-odd thousand people left Vukovar before the blockade, because witnesses

24 have said that after that nobody was able to leave. So you cannot rule

25 this possible out; is that correct?

1 A. I can rule it out.

2 Q. Could you give me your arguments?

3 A. Over 4.000 people, I cannot give you the exact number, but I do

4 assert that over 4.000 people from Vukovar through Mitrovica, we're not

5 talking about prisoners of war.

6 Q. But this is after the 18th, this is a different category, and we

7 will discuss this later. This is the category after the 18th of November.

8 This is the next group. Is that correct?

9 A. Your question was whether --

10 Q. My question was, these 14.000 people who left Vukovar before the

11 18th of November, 1991, in relation to them, can you rule out the

12 possibility that they all left before the 1st of September, 1991, because

13 we have information, actually before the end of September. We have

14 information that in late September, 1991, the town was blockaded, and

15 nobody was able to leave anymore. This is the testimony. So based on

16 this testimony I am asking you: If the town was blockaded, is it possible

17 that these people left the town before the blockade?

18 A. Not all of them for sure. There was the possibility to leave

19 town, as far as I know. It wasn't very easy, but it did exist. So I

20 really cannot speak about this. I would like to speak about facts and the

21 numbers that I have presented here. The dates are what they are.

22 Q. Can we agree that in relation to the number of 14.043 persons who

23 left Vukovar before the 18th of November, 1991, according to reports from

24 your office, you are unable to say when they left exactly, if we look at

25 it in the frame of reference of January, 1991 onwards?

1 A. Well, this is very easy to see. You have all the records. But I

2 could not analyse each card and each person one by one, we're talking

3 about statistical figures, not personal data for individuals.

4 Q. All right, very well. We have heard many testimonies here from

5 people who, regardless of their ethnic background, sent their families

6 away before the combat began in Vukovar, so my question is, if a person

7 left their home before the start of combat operations, because they were

8 afraid people began to disappear and so on, and that person left for

9 Zagreb and then four months later after November 1991 said, "I left

10 Vukovar in April 1991 but my house now is destroyed. I don't have

11 anywhere to go back to," would that person be granted the status of a

12 displaced person if the person from January received it, I assume that

13 such a person would get it too.

14 A. You saw that there was a decree specifying the circumstances under

15 which one could become a displaced person, gain that status. So whoever

16 fulfilled the requirements was granted that status and those who did not

17 meet the requirements did not receive that status.

18 Q. Yes, that's how I understood it. Now I will turn to this other

19 category that you touched upon, which were displaced persons from the 18th

20 of November, 1991, until the 1st of May, 1992. You gave us the figure of

21 5.346 persons; is that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. These are the convoys that went to Sremska Mitrovica, then they

24 came back, there were some problems, people were taken to Nustar, this was

25 a large convoy on or around the 20th of November. We heard a lot of

1 testimony about that. I suppose that the majority of these persons left

2 in that period of time, you said it was over 4.000 persons?

3 A. Yes, about 4.000 persons went through this transit area. These

4 were not prisoners of war. People went through Sremska Mitrovica and then

5 via Bosnia they were repatriated back to Croatia.

6 Q. Do you know that in those days the JNA offered all citizens to go

7 where they wished to go, whoever wished to go to Serbia could go there and

8 whoever wished to go to Croatia could go there as well, regardless of

9 their ethnic background. Are you aware of that?

10 A. No, I can't testify to that.

11 Q. But do you know that the JNA made this offer that whoever wanted

12 to remain in Vukovar could stay there? This is what we heard from

13 witnesses.

14 A. Listen, I can't testify to that because I don't know. I can only

15 give you second-hand information about what I heard from somebody.

16 Q. Why I'm asking you this, I'm asking because we saw that in the

17 reports when somebody reported a missing person certain information was

18 provided. So I guess when somebody filled paperwork to be given the

19 status of a displaced person, then that person also needed to provide some

20 information, so I'm just interested in knowing whether anybody mentioned

21 that the JNA had offered people to stay in Vukovar if they so wished. Do

22 you know anything about that and such data?

23 A. No, I don't. And I can't testify about that. I don't rule that

24 out as a possibility, but I don't know anything about it.

25 Q. We know that European observer mission and International Red Cross

1 also was involved and filled some paperwork, and I assume that your

2 service, which existed under a different name at the time, also received

3 some information from international organisations?

4 A. Yes, to the extent that it was feasible, in view of the date.

5 Because, as you know, all international organisations within their

6 mandate, have certain limitations.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, not in view of the

8 date, but in view of the mandate.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. We have 14.000 people in one category and five odd thousand in

11 another category, and out of those figures, you don't know people, when

12 filling paperwork of their status, said that they left because they were

13 expelled by the JNA. You don't know anything about the circumstances of

14 them leaving?

15 A. Well, there were those questionnaires that I provided, and they

16 specify similar data, everything that people filled in.

17 Q. So this questionnaire resembles the one for missing persons?

18 A. Yes, yes. All the information that was relevant in order to

19 obtain a certain status was entered into specific questionnaire.

20 Q. Yes, but you don't know approximately how many claimed that they

21 had been expelled by the JNA?

22 A. No, I don't have such information.

23 Q. Just a minute, I need to reorganise my notes.

24 We will now turn

25 to Exhibit 542, which is --

1 JUDGE PARKER: Before you move on, Mr. Lukic, a couple of things

2 that the Chamber would like clarified.

3 I wonder, the information in your records when you have identified

4 somebody as being displaced or a refugee, is that information based on a

5 questionnaire filled in by the person, or is it on information obtained

6 from various agencies?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, solely on the basis of

8 a report, any person that reported themselves as a refugee or a displaced

9 person had to fill a questionnaire. Only after the questionnaire was

10 filled could that person obtain a status of a refugee or a displaced

11 person.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Now, the date upon which that person

13 left Vukovar, in this case, is that the date which they say was the time

14 they actually left Vukovar, or was that the date that their category was

15 recognised, when they had completed the questionnaire?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was done in such a way that every

17 displaced person, upon filling a questionnaire, was entitled to certain

18 rights. Those people who were expelled had to live somewhere, had to

19 obtain food somewhere, and the state agencies gave them housing and so on.

20 So they had to fill a questionnaire and the time period between them

21 leaving their houses and filling questionnaire was a very brief one. Each

22 such person filled in the date when they left home. They had to find

23 shelter and the state provided them accommodation and they filled the

24 questionnaires there and were then sent to other provisional

25 accommodation, either individual or collective, once, and received certain

1 benefits from the state.

2 JUDGE PARKER: That was the date on which they were recorded the

3 date they said they had left Vukovar, or is it the date when they were

4 registered as displaced?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the moment they were

6 registered, because the questionnaire specifies the date of registration.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

8 Yes, Mr. Lukic.

9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. [Interpretation] Now we'll turn to Exhibit 542, which is tab 2.6

11 for Vukovar-Srijem county. Once again we will focus on this category of

12 displaced persons. Have you found that, Mr. Grujic?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So you reported that in Vukovar-Srijem county from the total

15 number of residents, based on the 1991 census, which was 111.248

16 residents, there were a total of 55.644 displaced or expelled persons; is

17 that right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And then you created two categories for this time period while

20 they were displaced. One was, say, from January, 1991, until the 1st of

21 May, 1992. And in this county the number of such persons was 47.137

22 persons, we're interested in this period of time because of our

23 indictment. Is this right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Can you tell me, out of this number, which goes all the way up

1 until May 1992, can you tell me how many people in this county were

2 registered as leaving the county before the 1st of August, 1991, or the

3 1st of September, 1991? I'm interested in those periods. Can you tell us

4 that?

5 A. I will repeat that all statistics were done based on the same

6 criteria. Since we spoke of this at the level of state, it was also done

7 at the level of Vukovar and at the level of county. All of the

8 information was compiled on the basis of same criteria, it was done

9 statistically, not individually, for each person. Therefore, I can't tell

10 you how many people left in a particular month. If needed, we can do it;

11 it will be labour intensive, but it could be established.

12 Q. I knew you were going to answer this, but I have to put these

13 questions to you. The same question, maybe we don't even need to see

14 Exhibit 541. I'm now interested in Osijek-Baranja county. Different

15 numbers and different county, but my question is the same, as always. Can

16 you tell us, in relation to the total number of people, can you say how

17 many were registered as displaced up until the 1st of August, 1991?

18 You'll probably answer the same.

19 A. Yes, my number is the same. These are statistical data, not

20 individual data compiled for each person, and statistical data is compiled

21 in the way that all official statistics are compiled in the Republic of

22 Croatia.

23 Q. These two tables for these two counties, and especially

24 Vukovar-Srijem county, because we heard a lot of testimony regarding that

25 county, do you know that a referendum was organised in some settlements

1 where citizens stated whether they wanted to leave or remain in that area?

2 A. I don't know much about local referendums, no. As you know, at

3 the time I was in Osijek; I dealt with Osijek and there were no such

4 referendums there.

5 Q. Can we now see, although maybe it's not even necessary, so you

6 know nothing about local referendums. Do you know that during that period

7 of time, I'm now referring to Vukovar-Srijem county, do you know that,

8 from the fall of 1991, citizens, Croats, who were leaving their homes, or

9 rather that those who had left their homes returned to their homes in the

10 fall of 1991, that there were such cases and that it was registered by the

11 international community?

12 A. Well, listen, I can't rule out a possibility that there were

13 people coming back. I'm sure that there were such cases. Not only there,

14 but in all other places. But those were individual, individual cases, and

15 there were different reasons for people going back.

16 Q. Yes, I agree. I'm just stating this for the benefit of the Trial

17 Chamber. This is Exhibit 313. No need to put it to the witness, but this

18 is a document introduced into evidence when Ambassador Kypr testified.

19 Does the name Stipan Kraljevic mean anything to you?

20 A. Well, listen, that's a very common last name in Croatia. No, I

21 don't think it rings a bell, that particular name.

22 Q. He was the mayor of Ilok municipality during this crisis time?

23 A. No, no, I heard of it, but no.

24 Q. Could we now put to the witness Exhibit 3D01-0075. You will see a

25 document on the screen. Could we zoom in, please? It says here, "a list

1 of expelled persons from the 1st of January, 1993." Can we see page 3 of

2 this document, please? The next page, please. The lower portion, please,

3 where the signature can be seen.

4 So this is a list containing 195 names of persons who left the

5 town during that period of time, the town of Ilok. This was signed by the

6 mayor, the person that I asked you about. Do you know that in 1993 -- I

7 also have two other documents for 1994 and 1995, but do you know that

8 there were cases of people leaving town and that obviously they were

9 registered somewhere?

10 A. Naturally, that is evident based on the analysis we provided.

11 Q. Yes, and this confirms those parts of your analyses which refer

12 to later periods of time. We have two identical documents, one is for

13 1994, and it's 3D01-0072. We don't need to see it. But I would like to

14 see document 3D01-0065, which is for 1995. We received these documents

15 from the Prosecution pursuant to Rule 68. Or rather, we received them

16 with the statement pursuant to Rule 92 bis.

17 Can we see the heading, please? Can that be enlarged? It says

18 here, I'm going to read this out: "Vukovar-Srijem county, town of Ilok,

19 municipal government, Zagreb," and then the street in Zagreb, "the list of

20 persons expelled in 1995." Could we now turn to the last page of this

21 document. A total of 290 persons signed on the 7th of November, 1995, by

22 the same person, Stipan Kraljevic, that means that at that point in time,

23 people were leaving their homes and registered in Zagreb, as this document

24 says?

25 A. We have to clarify certain matters. You saw the heading of the do

1 you know, you read it out yourself as to who was the author of the list.

2 Each city and town took care of its citizens and made lists; that doesn't

3 mean that that list was relevant for the registering of the displaced.

4 But they all had to report individually, they had to be registered to

5 receive or to be accorded the detainee status and receive a card.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, displaced person's

7 status.

8 A. This does not run contrary to the other table we have seen.

9 Q. This is important because of the town of Ilok.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In any case Your Honour, I don't want

11 to put the same document to the witness pertaining to 1994, therefore

12 perhaps all three documents could be tendered jointly as the same exhibit.

13 JUDGE PARKER: They will be received.

14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

15 JUDGE PARKER: It would be easier if they're separate.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we perhaps tender separately the

17 following documents: 3D01-0075, could we have an exhibit number for that?

18 That is the list for 1993.

19 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit Number 562, Your Honours.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] One document 3D01-0072, the list for

21 1994.

22 THE REGISTRAR: This will become Exhibit 563, Your Honours.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And document 3D01-0065, the list for

24 1995.

25 THE REGISTRAR: This will become Exhibit 564.

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

2 Q. Mr. Grujic, while you were president of the commission, as of 1993

3 when you took over the duties within the commission for the detained and

4 missing, I presume you had clear records as to the structure of the

5 population and the number of detainees in the territory of Croatia, at

6 least the part that was controlled by the Croatian authorities?

7 A. Yes, of course.

8 Q. Have you ever heard of Tadeusz Mazowiecki?

9 A. I believe everyone has, including myself.

10 Q. I wanted to read out something to you, and ask you for your

11 comment. Because it pertains the time included in the indictment, that is

12 Tadeusz Mazowiecki's report, who was appointed human rights rap tour by

13 the secretary general for the former Yugoslavia. That is report number,

14 or rather dated the 17th of November, 1993, paragraph 99.

15 "[In English] According to the UN High Commission for Statistics,

16 as of October 1993 there was a total of 247.000 Croatians and other

17 non-Serb displaced person coming from areas under the control of the

18 so-called Republic of Serbian Krajina."

19 [Interpretation] This tallies with your part of the report. I

20 will now read on.

21 "[In English] 54.000 Serbian displaced person and refugees --

22 254.000 Serbian displaced persons and refugees from the rest of Croatia,

23 an estimated 87.000 of which were situated in the United Nations-protected

24 areas. The situation of the refugees and displaced persons has created

25 serious humanitarian problems and constitutes a major burden for society."

1 [Interpretation] Are you familiar with such data?

2 A. Yes. And they can tell us something. I said that the people who

3 were registered with the Croatian authorities were -- they were put on

4 lists and included in the figures we mentioned. It is also clear that

5 there is always the figure of those unregistered. Some people could not

6 have been registered if they were not in the Republic of Croatia. Of

7 course, then we can only speculate as to the figure, and we need to

8 exercise caution. Mr. Mazowiecki mentioned that. He said that it was an

9 assessment. But what I mentioned was the actual number of those

10 registered. If we compare his statement, and you stated that there were

11 247.000 mentioned there, out of which 47.000 --

12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, 87.000.

13 A. Were in the protected area. What does that mean? The movement of

14 population within a single state, but had simply changed their place of

15 residence. That means that someone had to leave a house or apartment

16 prior to their moving in.

17 To continue in the report you've read out, there is no mention of

18 402.768 refugees who were at the moment in Croatia.

19 Q. It is mentioned in the latter portion of the report, I agree with

20 you. Someone had to leave a house for another one to move in. I agree

21 with you that 254.000 Serbs, until 1993, had left their homes. And they

22 were registered with the UNHCR, it was no assessment, and they were in the

23 territory controlled by the Croatian authorities, according to Mr.

24 Mazowiecki. Hence my question, Mr. Grujic, is you will agree with me, I

25 believe, that we cannot claim that the movement of population in the

1 territory of Croatia was solely because of the JNA aggression. Therefore,

2 would you agree with me that the movement of peoples in both direction in

3 Croatia are not caused solely by what you called the JNA aggression.

4 A. I wouldn't agree with that. We have to look at the time period.

5 We are talking about 1993.

6 Q. This report mentions the number you commented, that is until

7 October 1993 of those registered of the Croats expelled from territories

8 that were not controlled by the Croatian authorities, as well as the Serbs

9 who moved the other way, according to Tadeusz Mazowiecki. My question is

10 a simple one. The expulsion of Serbs reported by Mr. Mazowiecki from the

11 territories controlled by the Croatian authorities was that caused by the

12 JNA aggression, yes or no?

13 A. I can't testify as to that, but I have to express my position

14 clearly. This figure here is an assessment.

15 Q. No.

16 A. I've never found a register figure for each and every person

17 containing all their particulars.

18 Q. Can I tell you why you were unable to find that? Because you

19 never asked the UNHCR for their report to see how many Serbs had left

20 Zagreb back in 1991?

21 A. I wouldn't agree with that. The Republic of Croatia had good

22 cooperation with the UNHCR. It is still ongoing because there are people

23 returning still, and when we are discussing that we need to discuss the

24 facts. Out of all the figures I have been told here, the only one that

25 can be verified as fact is that there were 138.000 people who returned to

1 the Republic of Croatia. That is the figure we can discuss. Everything

2 else is an estimate. I can only stand by what had been registered in

3 Croatia, that is 138.000 plus the 12.000 who are still in the process of

4 return.

5 Q. I will leave that for the end of my examination. I understand

6 that you work with the statistical data obtained by your -- from your

7 institutions. I'm not trying to dispute that source and the figures, but

8 I'm just trying to say that based on those figures we cannot see the

9 entire situation, that there were numbers recorded by other organisations

10 that did you not use, but nevertheless I'm quite happy to hear that you

11 want to have that cleared for the entire territory of the Republic of

12 Croatia for the sake of all of us who hail from the former Yugoslavia, but

13 I will leave that for later and I wanted to move to a different topic.

14 I wanted to ask you about the category of those missing. When

15 Mrs. Tapuskovic was cross-examining you, you have said quite a lot about

16 the questionnaires that were made, and used to gain information about the

17 missing persons. On the 1st of June you testified before this Tribunal

18 that you are still looking for 1.480 persons out of which 991 are of

19 Croatian ethnicity. Is that correct?

20 A. In the general data, for the entire state, we have such data

21 broken down into county numbers. In the overall figure of those who have

22 been registered as missing with the directorate for the missing persons.

23 Q. I was wrong, the figure is actually 1.140 persons. According to

24 your report, out of that number 943 were reported missing back in 1991.

25 That is in your report number 34, paragraph F?

1 A. If it is contained in the report, then I stand by that.

2 Q. That is Exhibit 530, page 2, I'm interested in a technical detail

3 in the B/C/S version regarding the work of the commission. In the English

4 that is page 3. You talk about the scope of activities. Have you found

5 that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. That's paragraph 4, scope of work of the office for detainees and

8 missing persons. You mention the office's tasks, and I can see here that

9 the office was not mandated with acquiring data on the people reported

10 missing outside the territory of Croatia, but who hail from Croatia?

11 A. I think something is incorrect there. The mandate was to gather

12 data, process it, and conduct exchanges as regards the citizens of the

13 Republic of Croatia, irrespective of the place of disappearance within a

14 given framework, time framework.

15 Q. I'm trying to say that there were a number of people who were

16 reported as missing to some other organisations other than your office.

17 For example, with the Veritas in Belgrade or the UNHCR in Sarajevo, or to

18 the MCK [as interpreted] that is, the International Committee of the Red

19 Cross, and those people hailed, say, from the town of Vukovar. You didn't

20 include those people, you included only those who were reported to your

21 office, based on the questionnaires?

22 A. Of course, I can only discuss the data that is the figures of

23 those who were reported with my office. Also on the first day of my

24 testimony, as regards registering missing people, I explained how we went

25 about that and how data was collected for the people who were not on this

1 list. To repeat, in 1994 there was a new list made, and all citizens of

2 Croatia irrespective of their religious or any other affiliation were

3 invited to fill out questionnaires. All those reported were put on the

4 list. You are correct that some people submitted their claims, or rather

5 the questionnaires for the missing persons to some other authorities. For

6 example, in Serbia and Montenegro, some turned to the commission in

7 existence in the temporarily-occupied territory, and some turned to the

8 authorities in Bosnia. That was not unique for Croatia only but for all

9 other parties. On the other hand, the International Red Cross uses the

10 territorial principle when recording missing people, irrespective of their

11 citizenship. Our data is compatible with the data of the ICRC, and soon a

12 book should be published made jointly by the two organisations as to the

13 total figure of those missing. I am particularly proud of that because I

14 initiated the publishing of that book. In our discussions with the --

15 with our counterpart in Serbia and Montenegro we decided to collect all

16 data on those missing by using the criteria used in Croatia, and indeed we

17 worked collectively on that, we have new data now, and I mentioned that

18 the first day of my testimony.

19 The ICRC also participated in our initiative. As regards Vukovar

20 and those missing from there, a part of those people were reported with

21 our office, and a part turned to the commission of Serbia and Montenegro.

22 After having sent these documents to the Tribunal we had a meeting in

23 which Serbia and Montenegro publicly pledged that the mandate of looking

24 for the missing persons from the Republic of Croatia is a Croatian matter,

25 and that they wished to transfer their confidences -- competences as

1 regards that problem to the Republic of Croatia. You are now trying to

2 tell me that the total number of those missing in Vukovar was somewhat

3 different. Therefore, perhaps I can offer an additional argument or

4 clarification. If I may have a moment.

5 Q. That is Exhibit 545.

6 A. When we're talking about Vukovar, and we can discuss any

7 settlement like that, but on the territory of Vukovar -- just one second,

8 please. On the basis of records of the previous commission, which worked

9 in that area, and the data was inherited by the working group following

10 the reintegration, 40 proceedings or search proceedings were initiated,

11 out of that 15 persons were from Vukovar itself, 18 were from the area of

12 Serbia and Montenegro, while seven of them are of unknown place of

13 residence. Other than that, there is also information by a -- an

14 association or an NGO from Vukovar, it's not a government association,

15 which mentions 33 persons. That means that this is the data that we used

16 in our searches and in the final figures.

17 Q. All right. You are now going ahead of the order of my questions

18 by the logic of your answers, but if we look at Exhibit 545, that is your

19 chart for Vukovar, the missing, and the source of information is the

20 administration for detainees and missing persons, and you established on

21 the date that the report was submitted, on the 15th, that there are 353

22 such persons. Is that correct? I'm now looking at the table. This is in

23 tab 2.7. The table of missing persons. So we have the administration for

24 detained and missing persons providing the information that 353 persons

25 were registered as missing; is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now we're following the sequence of questions and then we will go

3 back. So these are the sources by that administration, and these are

4 their sources. So these 353 persons, does that figure exclusively come

5 from the questionnaires on the missing persons?

6 A. Absolutely. Those who initiated the search proceedings or

7 actually those for whom search proceedings were initiated are in the

8 questionnaires. But we can agree that the differences here are quite

9 small, because as I said, a number of people reported to other

10 organisations and not to us. But all I can do is stand by the numbers

11 according to where the person reported.

12 Q. How do you know that it's a small number of people if you don't

13 have that information, persons who reported to somebody else?

14 A. Well, that's precisely the reason why they were bilateral talks,

15 so persons would be on the lists of Serbia and Montenegro and on the lists

16 of the commission that operated at a given area at a given time. So the

17 information we took over would include those figures. Of course we could

18 not include the figures given by Serbia and Montenegro in that way, but we

19 asked the families to re-register with us, but it was up to each

20 personal -- each family to decide when they would re-register with us.

21 There was another thing. For the sake of precision and accuracy

22 of those figures, we also had a commission providing the total number of

23 persons missing on the entire territory of the Republic of Croatia, which

24 included all of -- and this went through the International Committee of

25 the Red Cross.

1 Q. Well, perhaps this would be the topic of future surveys and

2 compilation of figures. So we will not discuss that now. I mean there

3 are some other sources, and you have mentioned that.

4 A. This is very specific. 50 persons that you are talking about who

5 went missing in Vukovar, who were of Serb ethnicity, and were on the total

6 lists of Serbia and Montenegro, of NGOs, so all of those three lists, when

7 they are compiled, amount to 50 persons up to today. Out of those 50

8 persons, 17 families reported to us, so they're included in the number of

9 353. The rest did not report to us.

10 Q. Thank you. Now we have clarified it. Could you please now

11 comment, this is your written report, paragraph 12, and you say there that

12 this is analysis of data after initial information was compiled. Your

13 written report.

14 A. What are we talking about?

15 Q. We're talking about the missing persons, I'm going to read it back

16 to you, so you will know what we are talking about. "When the

17 questionnaires had been filled in the first step was to check whether the

18 disappearance was connected to the conflict." This is what I'm

19 interested, if you can explain that to me.

20 A. I will try to explain, I hope that I will succeed. You know that

21 other than disappearances as a result of armed conflict, you can also have

22 disappearances caused by, let's say, criminal acts of a different nature.

23 It was possible -- actually, not only was it possible, but we actually

24 established that there was a number of cases where some people reported a

25 person was missing and it actually turned out that we were talking about a

1 suicide. So that is why we devised a control mechanism in order to

2 establish that too, meaning that the records that we compiled in the

3 manner described here, were double-checked by the ministry for internal

4 affairs, so that they could check whether any of those persons overlapped

5 with some other criminal acts, suicides, or anything like that on their

6 records.

7 Q. Or kidnappings and things like that?

8 A. Well, it could be any other criminal act that was not related to

9 combat. It was another effort on our part to come to accurate figures so

10 that we would not be using incorrect or insufficiently-checked data in our

11 negotiations, data that could perhaps lead to different results and

12 conclusions.

13 Q. Thank you very much. Each of the questionnaires which you

14 analysed with Mrs. Tapuskovic contains a question on the time of

15 disappearance, does the person initiating the search know when the person

16 in question disappeared. So this is something that the persons processing

17 the questionnaires within the commission used to check what happened to

18 the person. So let us say that some of that information was incorrect.

19 What would you do in such a case? I assume that often you were led astray

20 by this information. I'm going to be even more specific. If you have the

21 statement of a person initiating the search and in the questionnaire

22 witnesses are also mentioned if they exist, if there are discrepancies

23 there, who do you -- whose word do you take?

24 A. Well, I said that several family members submitted a number of

25 questionnaires. I said that there were such cases, and then we had

1 different information. But for the most part the information proved to be

2 correct, which actually then was proved because certain things were

3 proved. That persons were released, that was proved. There were also

4 victims in mass graves, that was a case proved. Then there were people

5 reported as missing from a certain area, and that were later found in a

6 mass grave. So these facts or findings substantiated the facts mentioned

7 in the questionnaires. So we would double-check whether these were really

8 persons who provided everything they knew, and this was data gathered for

9 the purposes of looking for a specific person, not for any other purposes.

10 There is also another very important thing, and that is that the

11 persons, when they spoke about a person that took somebody away by force

12 in some cases gave their nicknames, and of course we could have some funny

13 situations there, at least they might seem funny to us, where we would

14 have a number of questionnaires that would mention Owen, but you would

15 allow the possibility that that was also a nickname, such as Kameni or any

16 other nickname existed. On the bases of these nicknames, we later

17 established the identity of that person, and then this was later confirmed

18 at the trial in Belgrade.

19 Q. Actually, Vance was mentioned.

20 A. Well, Vance Owen, the mention of that. I can even say that it was

21 a nickname, if this was mentioned in a number of questionnaires, in the

22 same way that there was Kameni, it was just perhaps one of those people

23 who introduced themselves in that particular way.

24 Q. Well, I'm going to say the following and perhaps you can tell me

25 if I am wrong or not. A person who would furnish such information and

1 asserted that a member of their family was taken away by Vance Owen could

2 have been revolted with the international community and could have used

3 this as a way to express that revolt.

4 A. Theoretically it's possible, but if you would permit, people are

5 looking for somebody and they're not expressing their revolt in a

6 questionnaire providing information on a missing person.

7 Q. I'm not going to report -- cite from the Mazowiecki report, but it

8 is said there that there were rumours, para-information, that was the

9 cause of, let me say, wrong information, wrong leads and so on. In the

10 work of the commission did you often encounter things that were based or

11 had anything to do with rumours?

12 A. I have to give a detailed answer to this once again. There were

13 rumours, but there was also misinformation, deliberate misinformation, so

14 both rumours and misinformation was something that we checked. We tried

15 to narrow the scope of our interest down to the facts. So there were

16 rumours, people formed their opinion on the basis of rumours but when we

17 are talking about questionnaires, you will allow that this was done in a

18 manner that was quite closely followed by the media and supported the

19 media, the approach was a humanitarian approach. So these collection

20 centres where people had such strong feelings of revolt were interviewed

21 in such a way with the support of psychologists, that this was something

22 that was necessary for the purposes of searching for persons and not as a

23 vent for their frustrations.

24 Q. And was this something that was expressed when the questionnaires

25 were being filled in?

1 A. Well, the questionnaire is drafted in such a way precisely because

2 of that, so that this introductory part would help to bring the person

3 giving the information into a state of concentration and focus so that

4 they would be able to provide relevant information, and then you would

5 have the antemortem results which would indicate that that person was

6 actually dead. So nothing there was purely by coincidence, that was in

7 the questionnaire.

8 Q. All right. Very well. We can perhaps move faster, we don't have

9 to move through each document. This report that relates to the

10 Osijek-Baranja and Vukovar-Srijem counties, you provide information in

11 both documents about the number of the missing, 88 for Osijek-Baranja, and

12 499 for the Vukovar-Srijem area. And my question is identical for both of

13 these locations, later we will move to Vukovar itself. As far as these

14 figures are concerned for either of the counties, can you please tell us

15 when these persons were reported as missing? Do you have the information

16 for that? You have the relevant information for Vukovar, but I'm

17 interested in these other locations. Do you have the frame, time-frame

18 when these persons went missing?

19 A. No, this was not provided in these cases. It was provided in the

20 case of Vukovar, because we tried to work through the Vukovar data in --

21 with as much detail as possible. As far as the customary statistical data

22 presentations are concerned because we are talking about public figures,

23 this was done in the same way in these cases too. What we can say is that

24 over 80 per cent of disappearances, I assert, based on my experiences and

25 what we have in front of us, occurred in the period from 1991 to mid-1992.

1 Starting from July, sometime, in 1991, until June 1992. The -- is

2 actually that is when most of the persons went missing and that coincides

3 with all the other casualties, so we can be quite sure that this is

4 correct.

5 Q. We look at Exhibit 545 now, Vukovar. This would be in tab -- and

6 that will bring us slowly to completion. This is tab 2.7.

7 Q. You said that there were 353 persons missing according to data of

8 your administration for detainees and missing persons. And you divided

9 for detainees and missing persons. And you divided that, you established

10 that from 332 went missing out of the total number, and four persons went

11 missing in 1992, out of the total figure of 353; is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. My question in relation to 1991 is similar to all the previous

14 questions. Are you able to tell me, since during the summer also there

15 were such cases, can you tell me, out of this number, how many people

16 disappeared before the 1st of October, out of this total of 332?

17 A. Well, this is not possible, but actually the majority of those 332

18 persons disappeared after October.

19 Q. You don't have the figure, but you are asserting that on the basis

20 of information received at your administration?

21 A. Since I have been doing this work for 13 years now, I am able to

22 conclude certain things. There is one specific thing here.

23 Q. What about the period from the 1st of October until the 1st of

24 December, how many people went missing?

25 A. Could you please tell me the months again, please?

1 Q. Yes, the 1st of October until the 1st of December.

2 A. Over 70 per cent, for sure.

3 Q. And you are asserting that on the basis of information that you

4 have from the questionnaires but you don't have it with you right now?

5 A. No, I don't have it with me right now, but I am speaking on the

6 basis of what I know, on the basis of the work I have carried out to date.

7 Q. Very well. I'm going to ask you a few more questions, let's say

8 for the end I'm not going to talk about the missing or the disappeared

9 anymore. I'm going to actually talk about something that arises from

10 everything that you have said. But you have already told me a lot today.

11 And on the basis of your answers to questions from the Prosecution and my

12 colleagues from the Defence. In your analysis that you testified about

13 here, did you provide information that was accessible to you from your own

14 database. That is what you did; is that correct?

15 A. I repeat. The information that was presented here comes from the

16 database or official database maintained by my administration except

17 information that relates to displaced persons, and this information comes

18 on the basis of official statements to the office for displaced persons.

19 My office has that information because more than 80 per cent of the

20 disappeared persons and their families were granted the status of

21 displaced persons. So they were double victims, so this is where all my

22 information came from. As far as those who were killed, that data was

23 drafted in the manner and method from the Croatian government for the

24 needs of The Hague Tribunal.

25 Q. When it comes to the database for the persons who were killed, did

1 you include into that database the Serbs and other ethnicities who were

2 killed in the territory of Vukovar and were buried in the Vukovar cemetery

3 and whose exhumations were not conducted by you?

4 A. By whom it was done then?

5 Q. What are you saying, that you did them?

6 A. No. It's not the way you described it.

7 Q. All right then, you describe it for us.

8 A. As you are well aware, at the Vukovar new cemetery 938 victims

9 were exhumed. Among them there was a significant number of Serbs. They

10 were buried at the Vukovar cemetery by the JNA members. In all of those

11 cases where we established death, regardless of ethnic background, were

12 included on the list. We can't put someone on the list unless we have a

13 document certifying that that person is dead, or unless we identify that

14 person.

15 Q. Yes, and those persons were exhumed and the persons --

16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the question.

17 A. There are no such cases.

18 Q. You mean there are no such cases of people who were killed in

19 Vukovar but not buried there?

20 A. Based on what I know a large number of persons who were killed, or

21 rather the majority of those who were killed but were not buried at the

22 new cemetery in Vukovar, and there about 400 such cases, were taken away

23 and they were members of the JNA and they were taken away. And we have no

24 such information because they were not buried there. I also have to

25 reiterate something else. Even now, when we find a person, regardless of

1 the ethnic background of that person, if that person is a citizen of

2 Serbia and Montenegro we always report it to the relevant commission, and

3 that person is included on the list, but obviously not on the list of

4 persons killed in Croatia.

5 Q. I understood that. And I fully understand that what you processed

6 were the exhumations that you analysed?

7 A. Listen, up until the 18th of November in Vukovar there were a

8 number of deaths on a daily basis. And most of them were recorded with

9 names of victims and it was delivered to us and those names were included

10 in the list of those who were killed. The ethnic composition is obviously

11 diverse. On average 10 people were killed every day. I think the last

12 such report arrived on the 11th of November, we received no reports

13 afterwards, even though there were deaths afterwards. You are trying to

14 ask me whether anybody went unrecorded on the list of the killed. Let me

15 reiterate, on the list of those who were killed we have all those persons

16 whose names we obtained through any source. But we don't have the names

17 of those who were killed but were taken away from that area, because they

18 were JNA soldiers or members of some other formations.

19 Q. Yes, I understand that. Do you agree with me that neither you nor

20 I can know precisely whose bullet or whose shrapnel killed any one of

21 those who were on the list of killed persons?

22 A. I can't even go into those discussions. I can tell you that we

23 uncovered a mass grave in a certain location, I can tell you about the

24 event in which the persons in that mass grave were involved. Now, as to

25 who pulled the trigger, I can't give you any names there. I'm just

1 speaking of facts in general.

2 Q. You will agree with me, I hope, that what you called an aggression

3 against Croatia and what I call implementation of constitutional and legal

4 duties, but you will agree with me that in that conflict there were two

5 sides?

6 A. I'm not going debate with you how you define this conflict. I see

7 it as an aggression against the Republic of Croatia for many reasons, but

8 we do not need to go into this debate.

9 Q. Yes, but there were two sides?

10 A. Yes. But if somebody's parliament adopts a decision on secession

11 and then there is an armed conflict after that, then I see that an

12 aggression.

13 Q. I don't think that we need to go into the debate. I even objected

14 to the Prosecutor putting such questions to you. My question to you was,

15 do you agree that there were two sides to that conflict.

16 A. Yes, certainly.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have concluded my

18 cross-examination. Thank you.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

20 Mr. Smith, we either have five minutes or we have a break.

21 MR. SMITH: Five minutes will do. Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

23 Re-examination by Mr. Smith:

24 Q. Mr. Grujic, it was put to you, the difference in the way that you

25 look at the term "displaced" and "expelled." And I'm talking about the

1 displaced and expelled in the area the whole area of Croatia between 1991

2 and let's say 1996. The figure you put forward was that 230.338 were

3 displaced, and the way you interpreted that figure, or that definition of

4 displaced, you stated that it means that people moved either by force or

5 by threat of force. Now, it was also put to you that in the law, in the

6 Croatian law relating to the status of displaced persons and refugees, on

7 the 27th of October, 1991, that that law didn't include that complete

8 interpretation, that each of those people were moved by use of force or

9 left because of threat of force. Can you explain to the Court where you

10 got that extra information that people left, those 230.000 left by force

11 or by threat of force, because that doesn't appear necessarily in the

12 definition under the law.

13 A. I will try to give a very brief answer. Just as I said previously

14 to counsel, more than 70 per cent, or rather more than 80 per cent of the

15 missing come from the families that were displaced. So in their requests

16 initiating the tracing of the missing person, they described the

17 circumstances of disappearance. So I'm stating that the information I

18 provided about 220.338 persons was based on the reports on each person who

19 left his residence either because he or she was expelled or because of

20 fear of what might happen to them, or because some of the Croatian

21 institutions informed them that they needed to leave that area because of

22 safety reasons. Those people were given the status of

23 displaced persons and they are called displaced persons.

24 I insisted on the difference between the displaced persons and the

25 refugees because that was defined in the law. When we speak of refugees,

1 we can say that in addition to 220.000 there were -- or 15.000 refugees

2 from Serbia and Montenegro not included in this number but rather included

3 in the number of 402.768 refugees who were staying in the territory of

4 Croatia at that time, and were originally from other states. So these are

5 two different categories. Also, in the category of refugees we include

6 persons who left the territory of Croatia, thee were persons that were

7 described in the report of Mr. Mazowiecki, but those were just estimates

8 and they -- these people fall into the category of refugees.

9 This number of 220.338 persons, under the Croatian terminology are

10 displaced persons, and the decrees provided by counsel regulate that.

11 Q. Thank you. So your conclusion was arrived at by extrapolating the

12 conclusions that you got from analysing your missing persons

13 questionnaires to the 220.000 figure as a total?

14 A. No, the number of 220.338 is an official data of the office for

15 displaced persons. 80 per cent of the members of displaced families were

16 included into that number and they are the ones testifying about those

17 facts, the facts surrounding the displacement or disappearance. 1.140

18 families of displaced persons, over 80 per cent of them were displaced

19 persons themselves and in the questionnaires they provided information to

20 that effect. I'm not sure whether I was clear enough. But to conclude,

21 the official number of the office for displaced person is 220.338. There

22 is a questionnaire supporting each of those cases with the name and

23 registration cards of displaced persons.

24 Q. So that conclusion is arrived at from the questionnaires of those

25 displaced people, not the missing person questionnaires; is that correct?

1 A. That's correct.

2 MR. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, I have no

3 further questions. There is one brief administrative matter in relation

4 to agreed facts that Ms. Regue may wish to address you on now, or

5 alternatively, that can be done on Wednesday, as Your Honour deems fit.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps we could indicate to Mr. Grujic that the

7 questions have concluded so that you are now free to leave and go back to

8 your work and home. The Chamber would like to thank you for your

9 returning and for the assistance that you have been able to give us during

10 your two visits. And we thank you in respect of everything that you have

11 been able to do to assist us.

12 If you wish to leave right now you may, but we will be spending a

13 minute or two on another matter. You may just sit there if you would

14 prefer until we adjourn.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, for your

16 patience that you have shown in listening to me. I will wait for you to

17 conclude your business and then I will leave the courtroom after you

18 leave it.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Regue.

20 MS. REGUE: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Just a brief matter --

21 just a brief matter with regards to Mr. Vasic's submission concerning the

22 agreed facts. I am afraid that there was some confusion between both

23 parties concerning the agreed facts and the clarification that

24 Your Honours require by the end of April. Actually, both parties have

25 been discussing this issue at length, since the end of April, and the

1 Prosecution never considered that the version of 10th of May was the final

2 one. Actually, it was an e-mail that we never signed. Besides the

3 Prosecution submitted further versions to the Defence in order to agree to

4 additional points, so having said that, the Prosecution now is willing to

5 file tomorrow an addendum an version to the agreed facts so we acknowledge

6 that should have been done much earlier. So just having said that.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. At least --

8 Mr. Vasic.

9 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Just a few seconds, Your Honours.

10 What we heard from my learned friend is no different from what I said.

11 The Defence believes however, that a large number of agreed facts, in fact

12 more than 35, should have been put to the Trial Chamber, and we are

13 available to the Prosecution to discuss other facts; however, I think that

14 those that we had agreed upon more than six weeks ago should have been

15 provided to the Trial Chamber already. Thank you.

16 JUDGE PARKER: From the point of view of the Chamber, we are

17 encouraged to think that in the immediate future we will receive some

18 agreed facts. If more can be agreed in the next week and a little bit,

19 that will be even the better.

20 Can the Chamber make it clear that when it received what it

21 understood was a version of agreed facts some time ago, a number of them

22 appeared to be drawn in a way which left a number of issues ambiguous and

23 unclear. And we therefore asked whether that was intended or whether it

24 was the product of oversight, and that is why there has been further

25 discussion between the parties in an attempt to clarify the various

1 matters. Now, obviously if the parties really are in agreement it is

2 desirable that their agreement be recorded accurately and not inaccurately

3 so as to lead to confusion.

4 Thank you for that assistance. We now adjourn and we resume on

5 Wednesday morning at 9.30.

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.58 p.m.,

7 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 14th day of

8 June, 2006, at 9.30 a.m.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25