Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5501

1 Wednesday, 28 April 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 8.06 a.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. Initially this morning we are to

6 take evidence by videolink from Dr. Blum. If the videolink is connected,

7 we may be able to see the doctor and hear him.

8 Good evening, Dr. Blum.

9 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much for staying up to this hour,

11 and we will take evidence from you now. You will understand this evidence

12 is additional to your report, the report which you signed with other

13 doctors and which we have received and been able to study. Now, from time

14 to time during this period, we will be having discussion with counsel, so

15 if we appear to ignore you for a short while, please understand and don't

16 be offended. And the first of those occasions arises now.

17 Mr. Petrovic.

18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. Before

19 we start today, I would like to kindly ask the Trial Chamber to decide

20 about today and tomorrow concerning the expert reports of the Prosecution

21 and the expert reports that the Defence presented to the Trial Chamber.

22 Could that discussion please be in closed session. The reason is

23 self-evident, Your Honours. These are profoundly personal matters that

24 have to do with our client, and it seems to us that discussing such

25 problems in detail in public would not be appropriate.

Page 5502

1 Also, we would like to point out that the practice of the

2 International Tribunal, to the best of our knowledge, has been such in

3 respect of such hearings that such debates were heard in closed session or

4 private session. Of course I can elaborate further, but I would not want

5 to go into all of that right now this morning. Thank you.

6 JUDGE PARKER: I take it, Mr. Petrovic, it is your motion that the

7 whole of the evidence should be taken in closed session.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, that is our

9 motion.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers.

11 MS. SOMERS: I'll if -- if you have no objections, Your Honour,

12 I'd ask Mr. Re to make the submissions this morning. Thank you.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Somers.

14 Mr. Re.

15 MR. RE: Thank you, Your Honour. Before I move to that, there's

16 just one issue I wish to raise, and that is Professor Matthews, one of the

17 co-authors of the report - I understand this has been raised with you by

18 the senior legal officer - is sitting in the public gallery. I've spoken

19 to my learned colleague Mr. Petrovic. He doesn't object to Professor

20 Matthews watching Dr. Blum's evidence, nor indeed would the Prosecution

21 object to the Defence expert being in court or watching over the Internet,

22 if she can.

23 JUDGE PARKER: When are you proposing to call Dr. Matthews?

24 MR. RE: Tomorrow at 12.15, I understand.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. I notice we have lost the doctor during

Page 5503

1 our discussion. I hope that isn't a serious problem. No, he's still

2 there.

3 Now, the submission about closed session?

4 MR. RE: The submission is, the Prosecution -- the Prosecution's

5 position is that these proceedings are extremely important ones in

6 international criminal law terms. These are the first proceedings in

7 which the issue of fitness or competency to stand trial has actually ever

8 been heard, has ever been a hearing. In this sense, this hearing is quite

9 historic, and Your Honours will be making international criminal law

10 history in whatever judgement you come to. The Prosecution submits that

11 there are compelling reasons why these proceedings should be public.

12 JUDGE PARKER: I can understand our deliberation of -- on your

13 submissions and hearing your final submissions on the matter, and our

14 decision. What about the detail of the conditions of the accused which

15 will be discussed by all the expert witnesses?

16 MR. RE: The position is it makes no difference, because

17 ultimately in your decision, you have to refer to -- if you find the

18 accused unfit to continue with the proceedings, you have to say why. You

19 have to set out the underlying cause. The underlying cause, of course,

20 will be discussed by the psychiatrist, so it's something that cannot be

21 kept secret from the international community.

22 I also add that I read yesterday in a newspaper that the

23 underlying cause is already in the public domain. We saw it in a Croatian

24 -- just excuse me for a moment.

25 [Prosecution counsel confer]

Page 5504

1 MR. RE: Ms. Somers corrects me. It was certainly public when the

2 accused arrived here, the application he was making, but I read yesterday

3 on something circulated on the Internet here --

4 JUDGE PARKER: We don't want to prolong this. We are cutting into

5 the time we have available for the videolink and already the time we had

6 thought to allocate to each side will have to be reduced, every minute we

7 spend on this debate.

8 It's one thing that there might be at large a general awareness of

9 a question of the fitness of the accused to plead. It's another thing to

10 have the detail of all the physiological and other aspects of his

11 condition aired in public. I just want very quickly your views and

12 submissions on that.

13 MR. RE: In relation to the other aspects, the Prosecution doesn't

14 object if those parts are in closed session, but the underlying main cause

15 which the Defence is relying upon, the Prosecution says should be heard in

16 open session because to be part of the judgement.

17 There's just one other issue. Mr. Petrovic referred to a practice

18 here. I think he's referring to the practice which was in the Kovacevic

19 hearing. I was there. What happened was a psychiatrist in a Status

20 Conference, a court appointed psychiatrist was cross-examined in closed

21 session about an ongoing matter, not about -- not about the final

22 determination. So there is no practice as such. But the remainder of the

23 Kovacevic hearing was in public, including the accused addressing His

24 Honour Judge Orie and the Bench. Those are basically our submissions.

25 There are compelling public reasons for most of it to be in public or open

Page 5505

1 session.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Now, you have not specified how you would see some

3 division of the content, and will not that add a great deal of awkwardness

4 to the examination and cross-examination if some subjects are to be in

5 closed session and some in open?

6 MR. RE: In my respectful submission, no. We do this every day,

7 we go in and out of closed session, depending upon identity and so on. We

8 know, Mr. Petrovic, Mr. Rodic and myself, we know when to go in and out

9 and Your Honours do too.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE PARKER: We will receive the evidence on all issues in open

12 session. The issue of fitness to plead has been brought into the public

13 arena. It should be seen to be heard and determined on that basis.

14 Doctor, I am sorry for that delay. Is it appropriate for you to

15 take an affirmation simply in the form of an affirmation as to the truth

16 of your evidence?


18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Do you have a form of affirmation in

19 front of you there?

20 THE WITNESS: No, I do not.

21 JUDGE PARKER: If you would --

22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, if --

23 JUDGE PARKER: -- be so kind as to simply raise your hand, your

24 right hand. Do you affirm that the evidence you will give this Tribunal

25 will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Page 5506












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5507


2 [Witness testifies via videolink]


4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Doctor. Now, we will commence

5 by the Prosecution asking you some questions. As we go, we'll be trying

6 to adjust the volume, because we have difficulty hearing you at the

7 moment. But we will carry on.

8 Mr. Re.

9 Examined by Mr. Re:

10 Q. Dr. Blum, can you please give the Trial Chamber your full name and

11 your occupation.

12 A. Bennett Blum. I am a physician specialising in the field of

13 psychiatry with subspecialties in the fields of geriatric psychiatry and

14 forensic psychiatry.

15 Q. Your curriculum vitae is attached to the report so I won't go into

16 it. I understand that you have testified to a US Congress subcommittee on

17 the area of geriatrics. Could you please briefly tell the Trial Chamber

18 the subject of that testimony.

19 A. Yes. In -- in the late 1990s I was the only geriatric

20 psychiatrist in the United States asked to testify before the US Senate

21 Subcommittee on Commerce, Science and Transportation during their hearings

22 on elder abuse and financial exploitation of the elderly. As part of that

23 testimony, I spoke about the issue of assessing mental capacity and

24 competency.

25 Q. Have you --

Page 5508

1 A. During that time, I --

2 Q. Go on. I'm sorry.

3 A. During the course of my testimony, I spoke about -- I spoke about

4 certain methods of assessing competency which have been used in a variety

5 of circumstances and was one of several methods used for the assessment in

6 this case.

7 Q. And have you, Dr. Blum, yourself devised a test for assessing

8 competency or functionality in aged people?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Where is this published?

11 A. This is published in the 7th edition of the Comprehensive Textbook

12 of Psychiatry. There is a chapter entitled "Legal Issues in Geriatric

13 Psychiatry." I was the co-author of the chapter in the 7th edition. I am

14 the sole author for the chapter coming out in the 8th edition, which will

15 be released later this year. That textbook is used by every medical

16 school and psychiatry training programme in the United States, and it's my

17 understanding it's used by the majority of such programmes throughout the

18 Western hemisphere.

19 Q. What about your test? Is your test in use in the United States

20 and other countries?

21 A. Yes, it is. It is currently in use throughout many jurisdictions

22 in the United States, at all levels. It's also being used in Spain and -

23 excuse me - and in Canada.

24 Q. What are the features of this test that you have devised?

25 A. The protocol looks at a number of cognitive functions and

Page 5509

1 behaviours to help assess -- to help assess a person's functional ability

2 in real-world situations. Once that is done, then a more traditional

3 medical evaluation is performed to help clarify the reasons for any

4 noticeable impairments.

5 Q. Can you please list for the Trial Chamber the things on your

6 protocol, the features of your protocol.

7 A. The protocol as it is -- as it is now taught contains 16 variables

8 and is easily remembered by the acronym PARADISE, in which each letter

9 stands for two items.

10 To quickly run through them, the letter P stands for caparison to

11 past behaviour. It also refers to knowledge of pertinent parties.

12 The letter A refers to alertness, attention, ability to handle

13 abstract concepts and consideration of alternatives.

14 THE INTERPRETER: Doctor, could you please slow down a little for

15 the interpreters.

16 THE WITNESS: Yes, I will. Should I repeat anything that I've

17 just said?

18 JUDGE PARKER: No. We have that, Doctor. But could I ask the

19 court officer who is with you to get you a glass of water. I think it

20 might help you during this session.

21 THE REGISTRAR: [In the United States] He already has it, Your

22 Honour.

23 THE WITNESS: To continue, then: With this acronym, the letter R

24 refers to remembering, or, in other words, memory. It also refers to the

25 understanding of responsibilities.

Page 5510

1 The letter D in the acronym refers to both the presence of

2 delusions, which is a psychiatric term referring to fixed or unwavering

3 false beliefs that are not appropriate or consonant with the person's

4 culture, background, or education and are maintained despite contrary

5 evidence. The letter also refers to the issue of impairment in

6 decision-making abilities.

7 The letter I refers to the presence of illnesses, which includes

8 medications, and it also refers to the issue of the impact or the person's

9 ability to understand the impact of their decision, meaning the likely

10 objective consequences.

11 We are almost completed. The letter S refers to the significance

12 of the behaviors, meaning that person's emotional understanding of their

13 decisions. And the letter also refers to the ability to strategise.

14 Finally, the last letter, E, refers to the effect of emotions, and

15 it refers to the questions of the person's ability to express their

16 desires.

17 MR. RE:

18 Q. Moving to the report which you and Professor Matthews and

19 Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc prepared for the Prosecution in this matter, I'm

20 going to ask you about the methodology the three of you adopted in

21 assessing General Strugar. Could you please briefly explain the

22 methodology you adopted.

23 A. Yes. The methodology involves several components. In brief, we

24 reviewed the existing documentation regarding General Strugar's health and

25 assessment of his emotional and cognitive abilities. We then performed a

Page 5511

1 general psychiatric evaluation, which included testing of various brain

2 functions in order to render a diagnosis.

3 With regard to the questions that we were asked for this hearing,

4 inasmuch as we were asked to assess his ability to function in a number of

5 ways that are listed on the front page of our report, we looked at his

6 functional abilities using the PARADISE 2 model that I have just

7 enumerated for you, as well as a model for assessing trial competency,

8 which is used in - excuse me - which is used in the United States, several

9 places in the United States, and we also answered specific questions that

10 were provided to us by the Prosecution team. These are all listed --

11 those questions and the responses are listed on pages 17 and 18 of our

12 report.

13 Q. Did you -- did the three of you divide the work you did and the

14 parts of the report you wrote between you?

15 A. Yes, we did.

16 Q. Did --

17 A. I --

18 Q. Did Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc do the initial part of the report which

19 refers to the detailed history-taking, and did you do the part under the

20 heading at page 13 -- I'm sorry, page 9, "Functional Abilities," from page

21 9 to page 13, and did Professor Matthews basically author the part on

22 trial competency abilities, from page 13 through to page 16?

23 A. Yes. The one thing that I would add is there is a paragraph

24 immediately above the heading of "Functional Abilities" on page 9 which I

25 authored. But otherwise, you are -- your description is accurate.

Page 5512












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5513

1 Q. Taking you to something specific in the report at page 3, it's

2 under the heading of "Review of Pertinent Records" on page 2, and it's the

3 sixth line down in the first paragraph on page 3. The report said:

4 "Conceptual remembering is not compromised." That's one sentence. The

5 next sentence says: "Executive functions are preserved."

6 I want you to explain to the Trial Chamber what each of those two

7 sentences means. That is, what is conceptual remembering and what is

8 executive functions?

9 A. Conceptual remembering is a term that is not commonly used in

10 psychiatry in the United States. However, it refers to the ability to

11 recall pertinent information and in abstract terms. To remember -- in

12 other words, to remember concepts.

13 Executive functions refer to the ability to manipulate and use

14 those abstract concepts and that memory in order to plan, consider likely

15 options and consequences, initiate behaviour, monitor one's behaviour, and

16 carry things out, in other words, to strategise and to complete an action

17 based on one's decision.

18 These -- all of the information in this paragraph came from a

19 neuropsychological report from the Institute of Neurology of the Clinical

20 Hospital of Serbia, dated October 2nd, 2002.

21 Q. Can you please give us a concrete example or practical example of

22 each of the two things; that's conceptual remembering and executive

23 functions.

24 A. Well, as we know, later on in our report, we talk about -- on page

25 9, I speak about the issue of abstract concepts, and here this would be

Page 5514

1 the equivalent of the -- this would fall under both categories, the

2 conceptual memory and the executive functions. For example, General

3 Strugar was able to correctly use and describe many abstract concepts,

4 including the issues of guilt versus innocence, the roles of his

5 attorneys, the role of the Judges and of the Prosecution, the purpose of

6 the United Nations, and the concept of leadership responsibility.

7 We go on for several pages, but what is written in the report on

8 those pages is a more complete answer to your question.

9 Q. Your report refers to your interviewing General Strugar and the

10 presence, of course, of a native speaker for him, Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc.

11 Can you tell the Trial Chamber how it worked with her and the interpreters

12 speaking to him in Serbian, or Serbo-Croat.

13 A. Yes. Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc sat at one end of the table and the

14 general sat across from her. Physically next to her sat Dr. Matthews, and

15 I sat next to him. And then off to my left and also sitting just to the

16 right of General Strugar was an interpreter. As Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc

17 spoke, as she conducted her interview, the interviewer -- sorry,

18 interpreter, rather, simultaneously translated their conversation. There

19 were times when Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc disagreed with a translation and at

20 which time she would pause the proceedings and elaborate to Dr. Matthews

21 and myself what her disagreement was and how she thought the specific

22 phraseology should be translated. This happened primarily with issues

23 involving detailed psychiatric symptomatology.

24 Q. And Dr. Blum, your report also refers to your interviewing people

25 at the prison. Why did you speak to prison guards and nurses about the

Page 5515

1 general?

2 A. Whenever involved in litigation, it's important to obtain as much

3 objective information as possible, and so I interviewed people who had no

4 personal stake in the outcome of this hearing. And as we noted in our

5 report, both the nurse and one of the correctional officers had supported

6 the self-report of General Strugar that he had decreased or impaired

7 memory. This became very important and a much more substantiated issue

8 for us to deal with.

9 Q. There's also been an issue of an MRI, and I think you spoke to

10 Dr. Pressman, a specialist in the field of neuroradiology. What

11 significance, if any, did the MRI have to your findings?

12 A. The MRI was - excuse me - there was an MRI performed back in 2002

13 which provided a biological basis for concluding that the general had

14 vascular disease that was affecting different parts of his brain. There

15 had been a conclusion that he suffered from a dementia that was caused by

16 these problems. As a result of our interview and the observations from

17 objective individuals, we also concluded that it was likely that he had a

18 dementia probably correctly diagnosed as being caused by a vascular

19 disease. The MRI performed in 2004 was in fact performed to help verify

20 and confirm the earlier MRI findings. We did not have the original films

21 to look at, we only had a report, so the 2004 MRI was performed, and in my

22 conversation with Dr. Pressman --

23 Q. Doctor, can you just very briefly just say what the significance,

24 if any, of it was. We're running short.

25 A. Basically, the 2004 MRI did not reveal the presence of any major

Page 5516

1 strokes or Alzheimer's disease and in fact if the general is in fact

2 suffering from dementia, it would be of very mild severity.

3 Q. Thank you. And finally, this is my final question. It relates to

4 psychological testing. Dr. Dusica Lecic-Tosevski's report refers to four

5 different types of psychological testing: The symptom test check is 90

6 Revised. That's the SCL-90-R. The Impact of Events Scale, that's the

7 IES; the Hamilton Scale for Depression, that's the HAM-D; and the Beck

8 Depression Inventory, the BDI. Your report doesn't refer to your doing

9 any of that testing. What is the significance of this testing and why

10 didn't you perform it? As briefly as possible, please.

11 A. Those tests are used in clinical settings and are known to have

12 very limited usefulness in a forensic evaluation. In fact are incorrect a

13 significant percentage of the time. Also, most, except for the HAM-D are

14 based upon self-reports and again, whenever assessing a litigant, a

15 self-report is considered a slightly lower degree of importance or

16 veracity than is independent and objective information by others.

17 Third, those tests, even if -- even though they were never

18 designed to make diagnoses, but rather to help monitor the progress of

19 treatment, they do not assess the -- they cannot assess to what extent any

20 diagnosis actually interferes with the person's real-world functioning.

21 Q. Thank you, Doctor. That's my examination-in-chief.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Re.

23 Doctor, we will now ask Defence counsel if there are questions

24 they wish to put to you.

25 Mr. Petrovic.

Page 5517

1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic:

3 Q. [Interpretation] Dr. Blum, I am attorney-at-law Mr. Petrovic. I

4 represent the defence of General Strugar and I will be asking you certain

5 questions regarding your report.

6 Would you be so kind as to tell us, based on what criteria did you

7 and your colleagues divide tasks? In other words, could you explain how

8 did you compile this report? In which way?

9 A. The tasks were -- it was decided that Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc would

10 conduct the majority of the interview because of her familiarity with the

11 language, and also for that same reason that she would -- that she would

12 write the section of the report dealing with the background and

13 information obtained from General Strugar during that interview.

14 Because of my expertise in assessing cognitive abilities in the

15 elderly, I performed that portion of the examination and wrote that

16 section of the report.

17 The issue -- the section labelled "Trial Competency Ability" and

18 the assessment that was used there was performed by Dr. Matthews, as he

19 was the most familiar with that particular protocol.

20 We all participated in answering the questions indicated at the

21 back of the report on pages 17 and 18 and in preparing the conclusions.

22 Q. How did you draw up those conclusions? Did you do that while you

23 were here in The Hague or did you do it differently? Just try to be

24 brief, please.

25 A. We certainly held discussions while we were still in The Hague.

Page 5518












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5519

1 Then the actual writing of the conclusions took place after we had all

2 returned to our respective homes.

3 Q. In this case, did you apply the test that you have discussed today

4 here, the PARADISE test?

5 A. Yes, I did.

6 Q. Would you be so kind as to tell us, because at least I, reading

7 your report, did not manage to find the place where it says that the test

8 that you have devised was applied and that it is applied in your practice.

9 Where does it say so in the report?

10 A. That is referenced on page 9 of the report under the heading of

11 "Functional Abilities." There's a sentence stating "These were assessed

12 according to a standard format developed by Dr. Blum," and there's a

13 citation listed in there. We did not list all of the places where that is

14 -- where that material is published. The results of that protocol are

15 found both in the section labelled "Functional Abilities" and also woven

16 in other parts of the report. I try to not list things out in an

17 artificial manner, saying -- so, for example, I thought it much easier to

18 include information regarding his medical history under the common and

19 appropriate section, labelled "Medical History," rather than repeat

20 essentially the same information later and say -- and notate that that was

21 one of the 16 items that I considered.

22 The remaining -- many of the other items are listed on basically

23 pages 9 through the top of page 13, and you'll see that often times

24 several are -- several of the factors are put together because --

25 basically for ease of understanding and communicating the material.

Page 5520

1 Q. We did not really understand each other, but it doesn't matter

2 that much.

3 Tell me, please: On page 2, you say that out of all the medical

4 background material that you had at your disposal, you used only those

5 that relate to trial competency. Tell us, please: Why did you leave out

6 of your analysis all the other material regarding the health condition of

7 the accused and which, as we are informed, had been placed at your

8 disposal?

9 A. I'm not sure what information you are referring to specifically.

10 However, I and Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc and Dr. Matthews were of the same

11 opinion that there were certain aspects of General Strugar's medical

12 history which were not germane to the issue of trial competency.

13 Q. Dr. Blum, from the documentation that was given you, we can see

14 that the general suffers from bilateral nephritic necrolysis, chronic

15 kidney insufficiency, spondylosis, and various other disorders affecting

16 kidneys and the backbone. All this is left out in your report. These

17 disorders do affect, however, the overall health condition -- his overall

18 health condition and his mental condition.

19 A. Well, I would agree that he has those conditions and that they

20 affect his overall health. However, the basis -- however, the findings of

21 our evaluation was that they did not specifically impact upon his

22 cognitive abilities nor his -- or even more specifically, his ability to

23 knowingly and -- knowingly and reasonably participate in these hearings.

24 Q. So it is your position that you assessed those diagnoses and that

25 they do not have any effect on his trial competency?

Page 5521

1 A. Not at this point in -- it's my opinion that they do not have an

2 effect at this point in time. Clearly, there was a concern that should

3 these conditions significantly worsen, that that assessment may change.

4 Q. Do you agree that chronic nephritic insufficiency, which the

5 accused Strugar suffers from as a diagnosed disorder, has a strong effect

6 on his capacity to function mentally?

7 A. Actually, it is interesting that you ask me that question, because

8 in approximately 12 hours, I am flying to give a presentation at the

9 American National Kidney Foundation and will be speaking about the -- in

10 part, about the effects of kidney disease on cognitive abilities.

11 The kidney disease may impact cognitive function; however, if

12 someone has a chronic disorder and is stable, then what we do is assess

13 how they are able to function. In this case, again, it is my conclusion

14 that General Strugar retains adequate mental capacity and that would be so

15 despite his chronic renal condition. Should that condition change, then

16 of course it may impact his cognitive processes.

17 Q. Have you seen the medical reports compiled over the years

18 regarding the levels of urea and creatine relating, of course, to this

19 particular disorder, including the recent reports dating to February this

20 year?

21 A. Yes, I did, and I considered them.

22 Q. Tell me, please, the levels of urea and creatine that exist in the

23 body of the accused, do you really believe that those levels are such that

24 they have no effect on his functioning? And furthermore, what is the

25 maximum level above which levels of urea and creatine would affect his

Page 5522

1 mental abilities?

2 A. The levels of both urea and creatine certainly can affect

3 cognitive functioning. Whether -- if it happened to you or me that our

4 bodies suddenly had such elevated levels, then our cognitive abilities

5 would likely be affected. However, among people who have chronic renal

6 disease, those levels do not spike suddenly but rather increase over a

7 period of time and there are many people - in fact it is very common among

8 nephrology patients - that they will have very high levels of urea and

9 creatine and nonetheless be able to function adequately in the everyday

10 world or be able to function in a courtroom setting. The issue of

11 absolute levels is one that cannot reasonably be answered, particularly

12 when you're speaking about the -- relating a level of urea or creatine to

13 the ability to participate in a specific act, such as this one. The

14 effect of urea and creatine varies from person to person, so it is

15 medically not feasible --

16 Q. Please, if you can give me answers that would be slightly briefer,

17 please. I would appreciate it very much if you could give me shorter

18 answers, because we are under very tight time limitations, in principle.

19 A. I will do my best. To quickly finish my answer, in brief, it is

20 not medically feasible to look at a blood chemistry level for urea or

21 creatine and from that be able to determine someone's cognitive abilities.

22 Q. I am not saying and I am not asserting that that is the only

23 factor, but I am asking you: Which level of urea and creatine was present

24 in the blood of the accused at the time when you assessed him?

25 A. Offhand, I do not know, but I know what his cognitive functioning

Page 5523

1 was.

2 Q. Do you remember if the value was high, low, medium, was it spiking

3 in relation to previous tests? Do you know anything about that?

4 A. Both those levels can fluctuate depending on a variety of

5 circumstances. The only way to know would have been to have conducted

6 that blood test on the days that we interviewed him. That wasn't done, at

7 least not to my knowledge. But again, the issue is how was he able to --

8 for me, the issue was how was he able to function.

9 Q. Tell us, please: In the long run, how does chronic renal

10 insufficiency affect the condition of the accused? If somebody suffers

11 from this disorder for a number of years, how does that affect what is

12 called chronic metabolic encelopathy? In the accused, for instance.

13 A. That question can be answered only in terms of general

14 epidemiology, so I can tell you what may happen to a percentage of the

15 population; it is not possible to know how chronic renal disease will

16 affect any given individual.

17 Q. Tell me, please: Your assertion that this -- these chronic renal

18 disorders that are present in the accused, are they in no way related to

19 what you established in several places in your report; his drowsiness, his

20 disaffectedness, lack of interest in certain situations?

21 A. Each of the behaviors that you just listed are reasonably -- have

22 multiple causes. Should his renal disease worsen, then I would say that

23 any one of those three could also worsen. Again, in people who have

24 chronic -- people who have fairly chronic disease, if their condition is

25 more or less stable, you'll not see sudden changes in their cognitive

Page 5524












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5525

1 functioning.

2 Q. To conclude this section: At the time when you were making your

3 assessment, no attempt was made to measure the parameters of the renal

4 functions in the accused was made, and you had no such data.

5 A. That is correct.

6 Q. Tell us very briefly: Spondyloarthrosis of the neck area of the

7 vertebra, is it true that it can affect blood circulation and feeding of

8 the brain in the accused also in large measure?

9 A. Again, epidemiologically, it is possible. How it affects any

10 given individual is not possible to know without specific evaluation. If

11 a person -- and in this, just as in chronic renal disease or indeed any

12 chronic disorder, if the condition is not changing rapidly, then the

13 cognitive processes will also not change rapidly. They will be stable.

14 Q. Did you draw any conclusion about the influence of

15 spondyloarthrosis in the neck area in the accused on his blood circulation

16 and the feeding of the brain?

17 A. My conclusions were that, regardless of his medical conditions, he

18 retained a certain level of cognitive abilities. With regard to any

19 specifics, such as drowsiness or somnolence, as we noted in the report,

20 there were times when he complained that he would be drowsy, but

21 nonetheless stayed alert and focused for very lengthy interviews, and when

22 observed in a hearing, when he was observed to apparently become drowsy

23 later on, a couple of hours later, he nonetheless was able to accurately

24 summarise the testimony that had occurred during that time. So again, as

25 a psychiatrist, I am more interested in the -- in his actual level of

Page 5526

1 functioning.

2 Q. So you did not assess this aspect either, nor did you have any

3 insight into it, when making your report, namely, the spondyloarthrosis of

4 the neck area? Briefly, yes or no.

5 A. I did not evaluate any type of arthritic disorder per se, only his

6 overall cognitive ability.

7 Q. But you did not evaluate the influence of arthritic changes on his

8 cognitive abilities; is that correct?

9 A. What I evaluated was the overall level of his abilities, as is

10 enumerated in the report. And inasmuch as I felt that if he had any

11 impairment, it was mild.

12 Q. Very well. Let's move on. Regarding PTSD, have you seen the

13 results, the test results produced by Dr. Lecic a few weeks prior to your

14 talks with the accused? And if you have, do you have any comment on the

15 way these tests were done?

16 A. I saw her report and some of the details that she included in her

17 report regarding those tests. Is that what you are referring to?

18 Q. Yes. Yes, sir.

19 A. Then, yes, I did see those.

20 Q. Tell me, please: Do you have any comment on the way the accused

21 was tested for PTSD in terms of methodology and in terms of results?

22 A. Yes. The PTSD stands for post-traumatic stress disorder. The

23 test he was given was the Impact of Events Test, and in fact it was

24 indicated that he was given the 1979 version. I was surprised that that

25 version was used for a couple of reasons. First of all, it never was

Page 5527

1 designed to diagnose PTSD. It is used to assess the degree of two

2 symptoms, the symptom known as avoidance and the symptom known as

3 intrusions, both of which can relate to a number of disorders. Also, the

4 test has been significantly revised. In fact, I was -- I would have

5 expected that at least the 1995 version would have been used, not the 1979

6 version. The test was revised because there were significant problems

7 with the older version.

8 Q. Very well, Dr. Blum. Tell me: Which test did you apply? Did you

9 apply any test at all during the entire course of your evaluation of

10 General Strugar, except the procedure of interview? Did you use any other

11 method in your interview except free-style discourse?

12 A. Well, our discourse was not free-style, so I think that's a

13 misrepresentation. But in addition to interviewing him, observing his

14 reactions and obtaining information from outside sources, we also

15 specifically asked him a number of neuropsychiatric questions that

16 assessed different parts of his brain and the functioning. And the

17 results of that can be found -- I will tell you on what page in a second.

18 The results of those tests can be found on page 9, the middle paragraph

19 that begins with the words "Upon direct questioning..." And as you will

20 see there, we assessed, at least briefly assessed, immediate recall and

21 short-term memory, orientation, the ability to name and therefore use

22 language, the ability to maintain alertness and attention, and other

23 executive function, general knowledge levels, and the ability to read and

24 the ability to deal with at least two-dimensional -- correction:

25 two-dimensional geometric shapes, each one of which assesses a different

Page 5528

1 lobe or area of the brain.

2 Q. So as far as depression is concerned and PTSD, you did not use any

3 other diagnostic instrument except for clinical interview? Yes or no.

4 A. We used the information obtained from interviewing both General

5 Strugar and others and compared it to the diagnostic criteria in the


7 Q. We'll get to paragraph 9 later, but let us move on rapidly now.

8 In relation to the brain MRI, is it correct that in your statement you

9 established that the quality of that image, which was done in March, was

10 inadequate, was of poor quality, March 2004?

11 A. It was -- according to my understand -- according to what

12 Dr. Pressman had told me, was that it was inadequate to assess the small

13 deep blood vessels, which are often affected in cases of vascular

14 dementia. However, the study was adequate to indicate that there was no

15 major anatomical damage. And of course -- the conclusion -- that we --

16 that we said that he in fact does suffer from a dementia due to vascular

17 disease.

18 Q. On page 16 of your report, it says that the quality of the MRI

19 that was done in March 2004 does not allow for an appropriate evaluation

20 of the small, deep blood vessels that are usually affected in cases of

21 vascular dementia. Is that right?

22 A. Yes. I had just said that in my last response. Yes, you are

23 correct.

24 Q. Does that mean that your overall assessment of the changes on the

25 small blood vessels of the accused, and these changes are typical of

Page 5529

1 vascular dementia, that this overall assessment was made and that actually

2 you did not have full insight into the kind of changes that exist from

3 that point of view?

4 A. The conclusion was based upon the previous MRI plus the

5 impairments that we noted or that were noted by others. Everything was

6 consistent with the issue of vascular dementia. The alternative would

7 have been to rely solely upon -- if we had relied solely upon the 2004

8 MRI, then we would have had to say that there was no obvious anatomical

9 damage. It was my feeling that the part of that study that was poor may

10 obscure areas of actual damage that were -- that showed up in the 2002

11 MRI.

12 Q. Tell me: In case of such ailments, changes between 2002 and 2004,

13 are they possible at all? That is the first part of my question. And the

14 second part of my question is: Are these changes an improvement in the

15 condition of the small, deep blood vessels in the brain or is the only

16 prognosis actually further deterioration of the condition that has to do

17 with the functioning of the small blood vessels of the brain?

18 A. Over time, the damage to blood vessels will -- generally worsens.

19 It is not possible to predict in advance how quickly that progression will

20 occur; it varies from person to person. So from 2002 to 2004, if there

21 was a change, then it would have been for the worse. And the only -- the

22 -- and again, we would be looking at the impact on the general's actual

23 ability to function.

24 Q. All right. Tell me: This part of your report that is called the

25 Narrative Summary of the report, that is, from page 5 onwards, that is

Page 5530












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5531

1 actually the content of your interview with the accused; is that right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. During the interview that you had with the accused, did it seem to

4 you at any point in time that what he was saying was naive in a way for a

5 man of his age and with his life experience? Did you perhaps gain that

6 impression during the interview?

7 A. No. In fact, if there was -- if anything, many of his responses

8 indicated that he is an extremely intelligent and socially acute

9 individual. In other words, many of his responses were quite

10 sophisticated.

11 Q. Some of the explanations he gave to you, do they seem totally

12 inappropriate to his position and his education and the social standing he

13 had before?

14 A. No. We saw no such inappropriate behaviour or response.

15 Q. All right. Is it correct that he could not remember even your

16 names after having talked to you for a few hours?

17 A. He did -- it's correct, he did not remember the names. He

18 remembered topics of conversation, he remembered specific things that

19 individuals had either --

20 Q. Could you please be specific and answer my question. Is it

21 correct that he could not even remember your names after having talked to

22 you for a few hours? Yes or no.

23 A. He did not remember -- well, correct, he did not remember names.

24 Q. You said that you applied some tests as well and that the only

25 tests you did apply are in the second paragraph on page 9 of your report.

Page 5532

1 Now, in relation to the first test that you conducted, there were three

2 brief phrases that you proposed to him. You asked him to remember them,

3 and he could not remember two out of three; is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Tell us: As for the rest of the questions you put to him, during

6 that part of the test you asked him about the most elementary things that

7 have to do with names of parts of the body, the day, month, year, and so

8 on; is that right?

9 A. Yes. These are standardised questions.

10 Q. Did you put any questions to him that were remotely more complex

11 in terms of this testing, apart from recognising parts of the body, the

12 day, month, year, and so on, in this part of your test, the one that is

13 referred to on page 9, paragraph 2?

14 A. Well, he was asked significantly more difficult questions

15 throughout two days of interviews, and the results of those are found

16 elsewhere in the report and they are not indicated here.

17 Q. Sir, I'm not asking you about the clinical interview. I'm asking

18 you about this part of your testing that is in paragraph 2, page 9. Could

19 you please be as brief as possible, because our time is running out.

20 A. The purpose of this type of testing was to give the standardised

21 questions that would indicate the presence of -- or correction: that

22 would be used just for a cursory overview of the neuropsychological

23 functions.

24 Q. What does that mean, when a patient cannot remember two out of

25 three notions? What is your assessment then of his capacity to remember,

Page 5533

1 his memory? And, on the other hand, there is the clinical interview that

2 you conducted in relation to the accused Strugar.

3 A. What it means is determined upon caparison between the performance

4 of that question versus the remainder of the interview. Inasmuch as the

5 general was able to recall - correctly recall - many items of great

6 sophistication and in significant detail when they were in a context that

7 was germane to his present situation, then I put very little emphasis upon

8 his inability to remember a couple of random -- or correction: unrelated

9 and contextually -- unrelated statements not put into a personal context.

10 Q. Do you know that the accused is expected to remember different new

11 types of content for five hours a day, things he hears in this courtroom?

12 A. What I know is that he certainly demonstrated that ability in

13 terms of the second day of our interview, when he was able to correctly

14 recall testimony that he had heard several hours before.

15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, would you agree that

16 we take a short break now, in view of the time?

17 JUDGE PARKER: No, Mr. Petrovic. But we will ask you to draw your

18 cross-examination to a conclusion in another three minutes. Thank you.

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have to say that

20 with regard to an 18-page report, I managed to cover only a minimum of a

21 minimum. But if it is so, I have no choice but to proceed.

22 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Blum, that you established that General Strugar

23 is affected by vascular dementia? Yes or no.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Also, very briefly: Is it correct that vascular dementia, that is

Page 5534

1 one of his illnesses, affects the memory of General Strugar?

2 A. By definition, all dementia, regardless of the cause, affects

3 memory. So yes. The major issue is matter of degree.

4 Q. Is it correct that his memory is decreased and that he has

5 difficulties related to that?

6 A. Yes, to a mild extent.

7 Q. Is it correct that he has other cognitive parameters that are also

8 reduced, as stated on pages 17 and 18 of your report?

9 A. Yes. And actually, I would -- actually, I would correct that by

10 saying they are stated on page 16 of the report.

11 Q. Is it correct that there is a significant number of vascular

12 dementia patients who are unfit for trial?

13 A. Of course. Again, that's a question that looks at general

14 population, not a specific individual.

15 Q. When looking at his condition, do you find any restrictions in

16 terms of his ability to follow the trial before this Trial Chamber?

17 A. No, not at this time.

18 Q. Is it your claim that General Strugar can follow these proceedings

19 under the same conditions that a completely healthy individual can?

20 A. In general, yes.

21 Q. Would you please be so kind as to elaborate what that means, "In

22 general, yes."

23 A. What that means is that it's my opinion that he understands the

24 charges against him, he understands the nature and process of the

25 proceedings, he's able to interact with yourself and co-counsel, he's able

Page 5535

1 to testify, he's able to remember and evaluate the testimony of other

2 witnesses. He's --

3 Q. Please, please. My question is whether this man, Pavle Strugar,

4 can follow these proceedings, this trial, under the same conditions that a

5 totally healthy individual man can. I did not ask you about what you were

6 saying now in your answer.

7 A. I apologise if I misunderstood your question. My conclusion is:

8 Yes, he can.

9 Q. Do you think that Pavle Strugar is a healthy man?

10 A. I believe he has a number of medical problems, but --

11 Q. Do you think that he is a healthy man?

12 A. That depends on how you're going to define the word "healthy." If

13 you mean absent of any medical conditions, then no, he is not. If,

14 however, you mean able to function despite having medical conditions, that

15 relative degree of health, then yes, he is.

16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have a multitude of

17 questions pertaining to this report. However, in view of the limitation

18 that you imposed upon me, I am not in a position to put the remainder of

19 my questions. Thank you.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. As you'll appreciate, we

21 did allow you quite some flexibility with time there.

22 Mr. Re, is there any re-examination?

23 MR. RE: There are several matters which I would wish to clarify

24 with the doctor, yes.

25 JUDGE PARKER: You have a very limited time in which to do it.

Page 5536












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5537

1 MR. RE: Thank you.

2 Re-examined by Mr. Re:

3 Q. Dr. Blum, several matters arise which I wish to clarify. You

4 spoke about the PARADISE test and how you had referred to several of those

5 issues at pages 9 to 13 of the report. I just want you to please list --

6 just list the headings as they relate to the PARADISE report, PARADISE --

7 sorry, test, 16 issues.

8 A. All right. The headings would be, as they're listed in the

9 report, Abstract Concepts, then on page 11, "Understanding of potential

10 consequences; consideration of alternatives; objective impact of outcomes;

11 subjective meaning of outcomes." Next is the Ability to Remember

12 Information; next is the heading of Attention and Alertness; and then, on

13 top of page 13, there are a number -- a number of factors that are further

14 listed under the heading of Assessment of Cognitive Abilities. And those

15 include the ability to strategise, correct recognition of pertinent

16 parties in the current litigation and their responsibilities, the ability

17 to make decisions, the ability to express desires, and the lack of any

18 delusions, as I had defined the term earlier.

19 Q. Thank you. Mr. Petrovic also asked you about a sentence in

20 paragraph 2 of page 9 about General Strugar's inability to remember two

21 out of three things which were read to him. You used the words in your

22 report that he was claiming that he could not remember the other two. Why

23 did you use the word "claiming" in that context?

24 A. Because -- I used the word "claiming" because throughout the

25 interview, the general evidenced many times in which he was able to

Page 5538

1 remember -- he was able to remember quite sophisticated questions,

2 phrases, witness testimony, et cetera. And so when he said that he could

3 not remember, that is what I documented here.

4 Q. Mr. Petrovic also asked you about General Strugar not remembering

5 your name during the interview. How did -- sorry. How did General

6 Strugar refer to the three of you? What did he call you?

7 A. He would -- he either would look directly at one of us and begin

8 speaking. I believe he remembered Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc, which is not

9 surprising, since the majority of the time was spent speaking directly to

10 her. And so I was not at all surprised that he did not remember my name

11 or that of Dr. Matthews.

12 Q. Mr. Petrovic also asked you about the diagnosis in

13 Dr. Lecic-Tosevski's report of post-traumatic stress disorder. And you

14 referred to your referring to the DSM-IV criteria. I don't think it's

15 referred to in your report. Can we take it that it is the same criteria

16 she refers to at page 11, that is paragraph 309.81 of the DSM-IV, or were

17 you referring to a different criteria? If you can't say it offhand,

18 abandon it.

19 A. I have a copy of the DSM-IV here. Tell me the page number again,

20 please.

21 Q. 309.81.

22 A. Yes. Well, 309.81 is the code for post-traumatic stress disorder.

23 That is found on page 468 of the DSM-IV text revision. Correction:

24 technically, there's a couple of lines that begin on the bottom of page

25 467 and continue on page 468. In answer to your question --

Page 5539

1 Q. Is that what you were referring to? That's all I'm asking. Or is

2 it a different paragraph?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you. Dr. Blum, Mr. Petrovic asked you directly whether

5 General Strugar suffered from vascular dementia, to which your answer was

6 yes. Your answer "yes" to that question, does it have to be read in the

7 context of the conclusion of your report, quote at page 16: "It is our

8 opinion that the defendant's cognitive impairments are sufficiently mild

9 that they do not prevent him from understanding the current proceedings

10 and assisting in his defence." And two paragraphs down: "In this case,

11 the defendant has mildly decreased memory and occasional word-finding

12 difficulty." Does your answer "yes" have to be read in that context?

13 A. Yes, absolutely. There is a difference between the diagnosis and

14 the question of the severity of someone's condition. And so yes, context

15 is essential.

16 Q. And Doctor, Mr. Petrovic -- or you answered a question in relation

17 to Dr. Lecic-Tosevski's use of the 1979 IES, and you said there were some

18 problems, significant problems with it. Are you able to very, very

19 briefly tell the Trial Chamber what the significant problems were and why

20 you wouldn't use this test now.

21 A. The test was -- the test was never designed to make a diagnosis of

22 PTSD but, rather, was designed to help assess various subcomponents,

23 certain symptoms that are found in PTSD plus in other conditions. That

24 test is not used in litigation settings in general because it -- because

25 the reliability is fairly low. Actually, under the -- various studies of

Page 5540

1 the reliability suggest reliability of anywhere from approximately --

2 well, I should say at least 25 per cent error on up to -- on down to about

3 a 10 -- 8 to 10 per cent error rate.

4 Q. Thank you, Dr. Blum.

5 A. For litigation, it's --

6 Q. I'm sorry, if you wish to complete your answer.

7 A. No. I was going to -- I was going to say that for litigation

8 purposes, it is much -- it's much more important to rely upon the DSM-IV

9 diagnostic criteria plus an assessment of actual functioning.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 MR. RE: That completes my re-examination.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Re.

13 Doctor, we are very grateful for the time you've made available

14 and the inconvenience which you have experienced. That concludes the time

15 we've allocated for evidence. So we thank you and wish you a good night's

16 sleep. Goodbye.

17 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours. Goodbye.

18 JUDGE PARKER: We will break now, to resume at 10.00, when we hear

19 submissions from the Croatian ambassador with respect to the Defence

20 motion for documents.

21 [The witness's testimony via videolink concluded]

22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 9.38 a.m. to

23 be followed by a Motion Hearing. The hearing will

24 reconvene at 11.02 a.m.

25 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

Page 5541

1 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers.

2 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. May I just make an

3 indication to the Chamber that the Prosecution and the Defence have spoken

4 about the document under tab 3, which Your Honour had instructed us to

5 discuss, and the Defence has indicated that for this harbour-master's log,

6 as we call it, they would like to have, rather than the entire volumes,

7 the dates of 5 December through 20 December. And we are working with the

8 particular entries that are in whatever is in tab 3. And I would --

9 accordingly, that was the basis for our holding out trying to get it into

10 evidence.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. So you are now proceeding to prepare

12 the whole document, are you?

13 MS. SOMERS: The Defence has asked for those dates, not the entire

14 document. The entire document is quite long. But those dates -- they

15 have the entire document but we're happy to single out those particular

16 portions.

17 JUDGE PARKER: And in a day or so they will be available and you

18 will produce them.

19 MS. SOMERS: Yes. The Defence has indicated its willingness to

20 assist in the copying process, so we think that -- the Defence may wish

21 the additional dates. We are only looking at the ones that are in tab 3

22 right now. And accordingly, we'd ask that our particular exhibit -- that

23 the exhibit as it stands be admitted and whatever the Defence is seeking

24 to add could be included as part of that exhibit number, if that's

25 satisfactory to all parties, to all persons.

Page 5542

1 JUDGE PARKER: So you'd like us to receive that document now and

2 to be prepared to add further pages to it by agreement with the Defence,

3 as soon as those pages are available?

4 MS. SOMERS: Yes. My colleague opposite is nodding his head, as

5 that is our understanding.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Very good. When the Prosecution and the Defence

7 are in agreement, the Chamber moves on quickly, so that there can be no

8 chance of a change of mind.

9 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Very well.

11 MS. SOMERS: All we'd ask for is perhaps an exhibit number.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. That's tab 3.

13 THE REGISTRAR: That is P162.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Now, could the witness be brought in,

15 please.

16 [The witness entered court]

17 JUDGE PARKER: Please be seated.

18 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, Dr. Rudolf. If we could just remind

20 you of the affirmation you took at the commencement of your evidence,

21 which still applies.


23 [Witness answered through interpreter]

24 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers.

25 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much, Your Honour.

Page 5543

1 Examined by Ms. Somers: [Continued]

2 Q. Good morning, Mr. Rudolf.

3 A. Good morning.

4 Q. Yesterday, as we concluded our session, we were discussing an

5 entry in what is Exhibit P162, Prosecution 162, which was what we've been

6 calling the harbour-master's log. And we had looked at the dates -- well,

7 right now the date of 5 December, as it is entered in that document. And

8 I wanted to return -- also emphasising that when His Honour mentioned that

9 there was confusion about where the pages numbers are, I will indicate,

10 for purposes of today, I stand corrected, Your Honour, that we should be

11 using the number at the upper left-hand top because they correspond both

12 the Serbo-Croatian and the English. Apologies. And that's what we'll

13 refer to now.

14 Looking at -- let's see. I'll take you back to where we were

15 yesterday. I was looking at what would be page 3 in the upper left-hand

16 corner of everybody's. We were talking about on the 5th of December an

17 entry anticipating the future use, on the 9th of December, 1991, of the

18 Argosy II, the same boat we were talking about. Do you recall that's

19 where we left off, Mr. Rudolf? I'm sorry. If you could just --

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Okay. And that just to recap, the suggestion in this particular

22 entry is that it will be used to provide Cavtat with food and medicines.

23 Is that consistent -- do you agree that that is in fact the entry in this

24 particular log for the day?

25 A. Yes.

Page 5544

1 Q. Moving along to page 6 on the 5th of December. There's an entry

2 by 11.00, it says 11.00, and it is addressed to the Boka VPS command,

3 protesting the acts of your units in and around the village of Bosanka,

4 who opened sniper fire on the Old Town, wounding two civilians at 1100

5 hours.

6 You had indicated yesterday that you had received reports of

7 various incidents, shall we call them. Was this particular incident

8 reported to you? Did this become known to you or is it simply something

9 that made its way into the log? Was there any discussion about this

10 particular incident?

11 A. I was indeed informed about these incidents, but whether I was

12 informed of this particular one, I cannot recall at the moment. But they

13 did discuss these incidents when they explained the situation in

14 Dubrovnik.

15 Q. For just a moment, if I could ask to turn your attention to tab 8.

16 Have you been presented with that, Mr. Rudolf?

17 A. Yes. That's page 8.

18 Q. It's actually tab 8 of the binder.

19 MS. SOMERS: If the usher is able to assist. I don't believe that

20 the witness has the binder. Oh, it is on the screen. Okay. If we can

21 proceed on Sanction, that's fine.

22 Q. This is a document dated 5 December that bears the -- to the

23 command of VPS, naval sector, from the Crisis Staff, also containing the

24 information we just looked at, or appearing to contain that same

25 information, about sniper attack on civilians in the Old Town. And does

Page 5545

1 this appear, Mr. Rudolf, to be the same information by its description as

2 what you've just looked at on page 6 of the harbour-master's log, what we

3 just discussed?

4 A. Yes. Reference is made here to Bosanka, which is a small hill.

5 Q. Thank you very much.

6 MS. SOMERS: I would move this document into evidence, and at this

7 time -- yesterday I asked for tab 17 to be identified, and I would also

8 ask at this time that it be moved into evidence. It also involves

9 incidents during the time period of alleged attacks on civilians. Looking

10 at -- what is in tab 8 and in tab 17, which have been given yesterday,

11 P161.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 17 is P161, the document dated 4th of

13 December, and there is no English translation for that document.

14 MS. SOMERS: Correct. We will seek one for the Chamber.

15 THE REGISTRAR: And this tab 17 then will be P163.

16 MS. SOMERS: I'm sorry. Tab --

17 JUDGE PARKER: Tab 17 -- just a minute. You're ahead of me there.

18 Tab 17 at the moment is marked for identification as 161.

19 MS. SOMERS: It has no translation, Your Honour. Tab 8 has a

20 translation.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Now you are wanting to move firstly tab 17

22 into evidence now?

23 MS. SOMERS: Yes.

24 JUDGE PARKER: I don't know what it says, which puts me at a

25 disadvantage.

Page 5546

1 MS. SOMERS: Sorry. We can repeat the contents, or perhaps I may

2 have thought we had done it yesterday. May I ask that it be shown and

3 read in by the witness, please.

4 THE INTERPRETER: May the interpreters ask that the document in

5 B/C/S be placed on the ELMO then.

6 THE REGISTRAR: This is P163.

7 MS. SOMERS: This is P161, P161.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Tab 17 onto the ELMO, if possible.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry. Registrar's correction.



12 Q. If you -- Mr. Rudolf, if you'd be kind enough to read into the

13 record -- it's a fairly brief text. The date at the top, if you could,

14 please. Yesterday I -- excuse me for interrupting. Yesterday, just to

15 refresh your -- what you said about it, when I asked you if you were

16 familiar not so much with the document, with the content, you indicated

17 that messages of this type were given to you, or you were given

18 information of this type --

19 A. Yes. Yes.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 A. It is not very legible. It says "Dubrovnik, Please convey or

22 transmit to the command of the VPS" - which probably means naval sector -

23 "Boka the following message: Addressed to the command of the naval

24 sector of Boka and the European Mission. We protest most vigorously

25 another violation on your part of the cease-fire perpetrated today between

Page 5547

1 1445 and 1500 hours by sniper fire from the direction of Bosanka against

2 civilians in the area of Zlatni Potok settlement on Ploce. It is pure

3 good luck that none of them was hurt. Crisis Staff, Dubrovnik."

4 Copies, office of the European Mission in Dubrovnik, another copy

5 to the European Mission in Split and the European Mission in Zagreb. The

6 seal says "Command of the Defence of Municipality of Dubrovnik, number

7 202/191, date 4 December 1991, Dubrovnik."

8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Rudolf, for assisting us. Again, this type of

9 information would have come to your attention, is that what you're

10 indicating, as part of your briefing of what was going on in the area?

11 I'm sorry. Could you --

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 JUDGE PARKER: The document previously marked for identification

15 as P161 will now become Exhibit P161.

16 Mr. Petrovic.

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise for

18 interrupting you, since the document has already been produced and

19 accepted as evidence, but the Defence is concerned because there is no

20 consistent practice regarding documents that the witness does not

21 recognise as such, but rather, knows something about the content of those

22 documents. You will remember, Your Honour, that with the witness Jokic,

23 we faced situations when the witness Jokic knew the content of certain

24 documents but the Prosecution objected to their introduction because of

25 some shortcoming in the document itself. It is our position that if the

Page 5548

1 witness knows something about the contents of the document, then this same

2 standard should apply to similar situations when documents are produced by

3 the Prosecution. Because when the Defence presented documents when there

4 were certain formal shortcomings and objections, the Prosecution objected

5 to their introduction.

6 In this case, the witness doesn't even remember this particular

7 incident. He only knows that such things happened. We do not object in

8 general to the introduction of such documents, but we want one and -- a

9 unified position to be applied in all such cases.

10 JUDGE PARKER: You may recall that there was objection to the

11 production of the documents of Admiral Jokic. You may not have noticed,

12 but when the movement was made by Ms. Somers for this document to come

13 into evidence yesterday, I did not receive it. The witness gave some

14 further evidence this morning, Ms. Somers moved again, I then turned and

15 looked to see whether either of you were going to object, and you did not.

16 I then indicated that it would be received into evidence because there was

17 no objection, as there had been to the documents of Admiral Jokic. You've

18 now objected.

19 Can I indicate, Ms. Somers, that the practice we have been

20 following would not have allowed the admission of this document in the

21 face of objection. I think it's fair to say that there is an objection,

22 and my present view is that we should leave this as marked for

23 identification. Is there anything you would want to put about that?

24 MS. SOMERS: I would distinguish what my learned colleague was

25 referring to with Admiral Jokic's exhibit, where he said I know part of

Page 5549

1 it. I know part of the content. In this instance --

2 JUDGE PARKER: Well, the present witness says he knows nothing of

3 the content. That's not a very strong argument.

4 MS. SOMERS: In this instance we're asking about incidents where

5 they're briefing -- yesterday there was testimony that their hostilities

6 were not active but that there were briefings. I think that given the

7 other document that was also admitted, it is consistent with what would

8 have been included in a briefing. And the other one, of course, is in the

9 harbour-master's log, it is part of -- it's got a consistent -- it's got a

10 separate corroborative element to it. This one -- I don't know that it

11 also appears in the harbour-master's log. Yes, actually it does, Your

12 Honour. I -- well, before I say --

13 JUDGE PARKER: Well, that doesn't help you. At the moment, the

14 witness, for understandable reasons, has no recollection of the document

15 or of the incident. And you want, in the face of that, to tender it.

16 There is now an objection to it being tendered.

17 MS. SOMERS: I think it is difficult to overcome the particular

18 ground, and if that is the case, I will leave it in identified status at

19 this time. But as to tab 8, I believe we are --

20 JUDGE PARKER: Well, let's deal with this document first. I

21 wrongly indicated a moment ago it would now become an exhibit. It remains

22 marked for identification as P161. That is tab 17.

23 And we now turn to tab 8.

24 MS. SOMERS: And I think the objection, if I understood it, went

25 only to tab 17, as there is an independent corroboration in -- of the

Page 5550

1 incident from tab 8 on page 6 of the log, and whether the Chamber takes it

2 for the truth of it or not, it's the same information that is contained in

3 the log.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe simply that

6 what my learned friend is -- not correct. The harbour-master's log dates

7 from the 5th December onwards. 5th, 6th, the 7th. And the incident

8 mentioned in the document which is in dispute refers to the 8th of

9 November. It says so in the upper left corner in the B/C/S version. It

10 is simply not accurate.

11 MS. SOMERS: I -- Your Honour, I believe the document that I'm

12 talking about has a 5 December date in tab 8. Tab 8, it is 5 December.

13 JUDGE PARKER: 17 is not an exhibit. That's been reversed. Your

14 objection has been upheld. We're now dealing with tab 8.

15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I allow that I have

16 made a mistake perhaps. Document under tab 17 has nothing to do with the

17 document under tab 8. But I understood my colleague is saying that the

18 confirmation of the document under tab 17 is in the document under tab 8.

19 If I understood this wrongly, I apologise to everyone in the courtroom.

20 JUDGE PARKER: The only issue, Mr. Petrovic, is whether you object

21 to the introduction of tab 8.

22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received in evidence.



Page 5551

1 Q. If we can move along in the harbour-master's log to page 7,

2 please, and ask you, Mr. Rudolf, to take a look at page 7.

3 MS. SOMERS: And perhaps -- I will indicate to the Chamber that in

4 reviewing the B/C/S and English versions, I have found some shortcomings

5 in the English translation, and I will try to point them out to the

6 Chamber as they arise, as we pass them, pass by them.

7 Q. Entry for the 5th of December, the time indicated -- let's see.

8 Have I missed something? Perhaps I have. I may have to go back a minute

9 to get to the original entry. Yes. Before we go to that page, if you

10 flip back to page 1, page 1, where there is an entry for the time frame of

11 8.15, which would be 8.15 in the morning. Mr. Rudolf, do you see that

12 entry? I'm sorry. Was that a yes? I didn't --

13 A. Yes. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you. Now, does that indicate that the Argosy II left -- or

15 do you agree that the Argosy II left the town port for Cavtat with the

16 European Community representatives? Would that be the group that you were

17 travelling with to Cavtat for your negotiations?

18 A. This is the 5th of December. Yes. Yes. That was the ship and

19 that was our group.

20 Q. And returning to page 7, where we had been a moment ago, at the

21 top of page 7 there is an entry for 1216, and it is that -- let's see.

22 For YUX. X is for the Crisis Staff of Croatia. "The Argosy II left

23 Cavtat and is due in the Old Town port in half an hour."

24 Now, is that a communication that would emanate from the forces

25 under the JNA control because of requirements of announcing naval travel?

Page 5552

1 A. We were supposed to announce our arrival, but I believe it was

2 communicated by radio from the ship to the harbour-master. It must have

3 been the time when we were returning from Cavtat to Dubrovnik on the same

4 ship.

5 Q. Another entry right below it, at 1248, also for -- meant for the

6 Croatians is the Argosy II entered the Old Town port. You can confirm

7 that that again is notice of the arrival of a vessel that would have been

8 subject to a blockade?

9 A. Yes.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Twice, Ms. Somers, you've indicated the call-sign

11 YUX is the Croatians or the Croatian Defence Staff. We have no evidence

12 of that.

13 MS. SOMERS: It is -- Your Honour, it's the context. If you look

14 at the message for -- we can go back and -- I will ask -- I will ask

15 Mr. Rudolf then to explain the source of the message. It's on there and

16 the context pretty much indicates who is who. But let me make that clear

17 for the record.

18 Q. Mr. Rudolf, if we go back for a moment to the entry on page 3 that

19 we were discussing yesterday, at 10.00, we were talking about plans for

20 the Argosy II on the 9th of December, looking at it on the 5th of

21 December. It says 10.00, it says for YUW from YUX. Now, the message

22 there, is it correct that it is a request to grant passage? YUX is the

23 sender, or requester, seeking passage. Would you agree with that?

24 A. Well, I can really not interpret these signs, but in my view, that

25 is a request to the Yugoslav People's Army to grant us safe passage.

Page 5553

1 Q. So in your view, who is YUX, if it is a request to the Yugoslav

2 army or forces?

3 A. Well, that could be a number of sources. It could be that the

4 request was made by the Crisis Staff of somebody in the civilian

5 authorities of Dubrovnik, but certainly somebody on the Croatian side.

6 However, who specifically, I couldn't tell you.

7 Q. Fair enough. Now, who, in your view, since the request appears to

8 be made for YUW, would YUW be? It says from YUX, and you've indicated it

9 is your understanding that that would be the Croatian side. Who would YUW

10 be?

11 A. I assume that it was one of the commands of the Yugoslav navy,

12 probably in Kumbor or somewhere.

13 Q. And by the context, would that support your conclusion where from

14 YUX there is a request to grant the Argosy II free passage on Monday, the

15 9th of December? Who controlled the coastal waters at that time?

16 A. The Yugoslav navy.

17 Q. In order to travel in those waters, of whom would the request have

18 to be made?

19 A. The appropriate command of the Yugoslav navy.

20 Q. Thank you. Thank you.

21 A. You're welcome.

22 Q. We have looked at the entries about the Argosy II with your group

23 re-entering the Old Town port, or re-entering Dubrovnik. Can you turn,

24 please, to page 15 - excuse me - page 8. At the entry with the time

25 showing 1825, do you see it at the bottom, pretty low in the bottom? It

Page 5554

1 says for --

2 A. I can see that.

3 Q. Okay. For YUW from YUX. Would you be kind enough to just read

4 the content of it.

5 A. "Boka VPS, please confirm free and safe passage for the ship

6 Argosy II for its journey tomorrow --" now, I don't understand one of the

7 words here -- "for 10.00 tomorrow in Cavtat. The Dubrovnik municipal

8 Crisis Staff."

9 Q. The Dubrovnik Municipal Crisis Staff appears at the bottom of the

10 message.

11 MS. SOMERS: Your Honours, the English translation reflects "for

12 negotiations scheduled for 10.00 tomorrow." It may be less clear because

13 it's handwritten in the Croatian.

14 Q. Is that a message that refers to the planned negotiations for 6 of

15 December? This is on the 5th of December.

16 I'm sorry. You shook your head, but the record doesn't pick up

17 your head-shaking. We need to have a yes or a verbal.

18 A. Yes, because we agreed in Cavtat that we would meet yet again on

19 the following day at 10.00 and sign the agreement.

20 Q. Looking at the next entry of 1930, for YUX, in the interests of

21 time I'll read out what is in the English. "We hereby grant permission

22 and guarantee the Argosy II safe passage from Cavtat (departure time 0900

23 hours 6 December 1991) until it enters the port of Dubrovnik."

24 Is this a guarantee of safe passage for return, for to and from,

25 to facilitate the negotiations?

Page 5555

1 A. Yes. It probably does not say "for return" here, but I believe

2 that that is the way it should be understood.

3 Q. Yes. The translation I have, "until it enters the port of

4 Dubrovnik."

5 Moving on. 190 --

6 A. Yes. Yes. That's all right. Yes. Yes. Safe passage is

7 provided to Cavtat and back.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 A. It's not very legible, you see.

10 Q. I do understand, of course.

11 "1900, for YUX from YUW, for the Crisis Staff YUX. We cannot

12 grant your request for introducing a ship line from Sipan to Dubrovnik and

13 back and for starting work on the water pump in Komolac on 6 December

14 1991, nor can we guarantee the safety of the ship and people. We express

15 our readiness to --" and I have to look at the other version -- "Depending

16 on the results of the negotiations in Cavtat on --" it should read, Your

17 Honours, in the original it says 6 December. The 6 has been left out. I

18 will ask for a correction, which is "on 6 December 1991."

19 If you take a look at the Croatian version, does that -- does this

20 contemplate an understanding that the request is one of the things dealt

21 with or to be dealt with in the 6th of December negotiations? That

22 there's acknowledgment that there are certain provisions that are

23 understood to take place in the 6th of November [sic] negotiations, or to

24 be dealt with?

25 A. It had been agreed in principle already on the 5th, but we hadn't

Page 5556

1 signed anything. And therefore, it remained that we would sign the

2 agreement on the following day, the 6th.

3 Q. Now moving on. That is the last entry for the 5th of December.

4 Looking at the entry for 6th of December, it says: "0612 for YUW from

5 YUX." This entry -- can you take a look at it, please, and indicate --

6 first of all, if the name that is in the B/C/S is Per Hvalkof. It says

7 "name illegible." Actually, I didn't think it was so illegible, I think

8 it was more the handwriting, but you indicated yesterday you knew a person

9 by the name of Per Hvalkof; is that correct?

10 A. Yes. Yes, that's right.

11 Q. For the benefit of the Trial Chamber, would you please take a look

12 in the Croatian and indicate if indeed you see that name reflected at the

13 bottom of the message --

14 A. I can see that, yes. Yes.

15 Q. The protest that is contained in this particular section: "We

16 strongly protest against the bombing of several parts of Dubrovnik that

17 started at about 0600 hours on 6 December 1991 and insist on an immediate

18 cessation of fire. This attack on Dubrovnik is in full opposition to the

19 goodwill you expressed yesterday and the agreement on the unconditional

20 cessation of fire that was signed in Geneva."

21 Then Mr. Hvalkof's name appears for ECMM. Do you concur -- or

22 what is your view about his suggestion that the attack is "in full

23 opposition to the goodwill expressed yesterday?" What is your view on his

24 assertion there? Do you agree?

25 A. I agree. On the 5th, a day before that, we had agreed on the

Page 5557

1 cessation of all hostilities.

2 Q. Reading on the next entry, for YUW from YUX, to the Boka VPS

3 command, European Mission: "We strongly protest against the unprovoked

4 strong artillery fire at 0550 hours this morning from the Strincjera and

5 Dubrava areas against the Srdj feature and tank and mortar fire on

6 Dubrovnik." The name indicated, or the term indicated is the Crisis

7 Staff.

8 Is this also a -- is the content of this protest something that

9 you were also familiar with? Did you know about the nature of the attack?

10 Was it conveyed to you? Did you yourself get information?

11 A. Of course. I was in Dubrovnik then. I didn't find out this

12 early, but around 7.00 we did learn of all these details and we were

13 present.

14 Q. Reading on: At 8.12, "One of the Argosy ships has been hit." I

15 think in the Croatian it's easier, but it says at 8.20 -- would you please

16 turn to page 11 of the Croatian and indicate what it says about after "One

17 of the Argosy ships had been hit." Can you look at that on page 11,

18 please.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. What does it say? It's a bit -- the translation didn't make it,

21 but it looks like -- can you read that? It says Argosy and then it has

22 a --

23 A. Argosy -- one of the Argosy’s was hit. Argosy -- the

24 fire-fighters can come to the city gates to try to put out the fire. I

25 think that's what it says. Message conveyed. OIC.

Page 5558

1 Q. And Argosy is smoking? Is that the word? Did you say --

2 A. Just a moment. One of the Argosy hit. Argosy -- it's very

3 illegible. Perhaps it does say smoking, smoke coming out of it. But I

4 can say what happened. I saw it myself.

5 Q. What did you see?

6 A. I saw that one of the Argosy had been hit and set on fire, and

7 then the fire from one of the Argosy ships was transferred to the other

8 one, and then they both burned and sunk. That could be seen very nicely

9 from the Argentina Hotel because both of these ships were in the city

10 harbour.

11 Q. Had the Argosy been used, to your knowledge -- what had the Argosy

12 been used for, to your knowledge, and what was its contemplated use,

13 either the I or the II? There were two Argosy’s. What were the

14 contemplated uses?

15 A. I only know that we travelled on this Argosy to Cavtat and from

16 Cavtat, and I treated it as a protected parliamentary ship.

17 Q. Do you know whether or not it had any indicia of either a mission

18 or something that would show its status as you suggested it was protected;

19 any type of banner, symbol, flag?

20 A. Yes. When we set off for Cavtat, I talked to them and I asked

21 them to put a banner up. There was a flag up there, but I'm not sure

22 whether it was white or blue. I told the commander and he said: Yes, we

23 have got a flag. And it shows that this is a ship where negotiators are

24 on board.

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I just ask my

Page 5559

1 learned colleague to denote the exact time. Was it when the ship was

2 travelling from Dubrovnik to Cavtat with the negotiators on board, or is

3 it the time when it was anchored in the Dubrovnik harbour?

4 MS. SOMERS: Perhaps if you could address -- if I may ask

5 Mr. Rudolf to address this.

6 Q. Was it both when it was at -- in port, as well as at sail, that it

7 had some indication? And if you can only answer one part of it, please

8 do.

9 A. When it was at sail, I know that it was marked. But when it was

10 in port, I couldn't tell, I couldn't see from the hotel, because it's

11 pretty far away.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 A. You're welcome. You're welcome.

14 Q. Moving on to the next entry for -- it says 9.55 for YUX from YUW.

15 For the Crisis Staff, for Davorin Rudolf, from the Boka VPS. And there

16 seems to be a question about one bit of the English, but: "We are making

17 an enormous effort to stop the clashes --" it looks like "caused by

18 shooting from Srdj and Lapad. We request you to intervene immediately to

19 stop the clashes at 1115 hours today. We propose that the meeting be

20 postponed until 1200 hours today."

21 First of all, what meeting -- Boka VPS. What meeting, to your

22 knowledge, is being referred to that would have taken place at 1200 -- or

23 is being sought for postponement until 1200 hours?

24 A. At first we had an agreement on the 5th of December with regard to

25 a meeting that was supposed to be held in Cavtat on the 6th at 10.00.

Page 5560

1 When Admiral Jokic and I spoke, and I think I also sent a radiogram

2 because of the attack on Dubrovnik, we kept postponing the meeting to

3 12.00, and I think then 1.30. It depended, you see, on whether there

4 would be a cease-fire or not. So I think it pertained to the meeting

5 between us and Admiral Jokic, because we postponed it several times. And

6 finally he called and said that we -- that he was supposed to travel to

7 Belgrade at 2.00. So technically, the meeting could not have been held on

8 that day, and therefore, it was not.

9 He postponed it because at 2.00, at 1400 hours, he went to

10 Belgrade, so he said that we indeed could not meet on that day.

11 Q. It was your observation or perception that despite the fact that

12 it had to be postponed, that Admiral Jokic was trying to have the meeting

13 take place and that perhaps -- well, that's part one. Was it your

14 perception?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Now, the circumstances -- if we keep going, and I will return to

17 any conversations you may have had with Admiral Jokic in a moment, but

18 entry at 10.20 on page 12, from -- for YUW from YUX. And your name is

19 underneath that entry. Would you be good enough, please, to read it.

20 A. "We accept a strict cease-fire as of 1115 hours. For practical

21 reasons, we cannot come to the meeting by 12.00, so we propose that the

22 meeting be held at 1330 hours, or rather, as soon as possible.

23 D. Rudolf."

24 Q. And is that in fact a communication you made?

25 A. Yes.

Page 5561

1 Q. Moving down to one of the entries under 1027 for YUX, where it

2 says: "For D. Rudolf. Admiral Jokic asks Mr. D. Rudolf to come to the

3 meeting as soon as possible because later the admiral has pressing

4 official engagements. The admiral requests an urgent reply from

5 Mr. D. Rudolf."

6 Does that correctly reflect what was relayed to you about Admiral

7 Jokic's time frame?

8 A. Yes. But he later sent a radiogram saying that he had to go to

9 Belgrade. And he exactly confirmed that he had to go at 1400 hours and

10 therefore we could not meet. I wanted for us to meet as soon as possible,

11 due to the situation, and I had the impression that Admiral Jokic wanted

12 us to meet as soon as possible too.

13 Q. The official -- the pressing official engagements and the time

14 frame of 1330, does that -- did you interpret that in light of his later

15 communication to mean that it was the Belgrade meeting that was the

16 official -- the pressing official engagement?

17 A. No, not at that moment.

18 Q. Later?

19 A. But there's another radiogram where he says that specifically.

20 Q. Moving on. The 1045 entry, for YUW from YUX for Davorin Rudolf to

21 Admiral Jokic at the Boka VPS. "Since both of the Argosy ships have been

22 hit and burned, we would like to come on a Split Port Authority ship

23 marked I ST 3 with Port Authority written on the side. Please confirm the

24 safe passage of the ship from port of Gruz to Cavtat and back. I believe

25 that the Split Port Authority ship was not hit and I cannot verify it at

Page 5562

1 the moment. The proposal for a cease-fire as of 1115 hours has been

2 accepted. The Split Port Authority ship was also hit or damaged. Please

3 let us know how we can come to Cavtat in that case."

4 THE INTERPRETER: Could Ms. Somers please be asked to read slower.

5 Thank you.

6 MS. SOMERS: I apologise to the interpreters for reading so

7 quickly.

8 Q. Again it is D. Rudolf, but there is a PS. "I wish to stress once

9 again that the Port Authority ship would depart from the port of Gruz.

10 Please confirm safe passage."

11 In fact, did you ever depart from the port of Gruz that day on the

12 Port Authority vessel? Did you have a meeting that day with Admiral Jokic

13 in Cavtat?

14 A. No, no, not on that day. We did not have a meeting on that day

15 and we did not sail out of the port of Gruz either. Allow me to explain.

16 In Dubrovnik there is the city port facing east - or towards the border

17 with Montenegro, to be clearer - and the port of Gruz, which is on the

18 west side. At that moment, our Port Authority ship was in Gruz and we did

19 not know whether it had been hit or not. That is why I worded it this

20 way. But in response to your question: No, we did not have any direct

21 meeting on that day with Admiral Jokic.

22 Q. Looking at the entry 1105, it is for YUW from YUX, addressed to

23 the Boka command and the European Mission. I will go quickly through it

24 for the record, but I want to ask you a couple of questions at the end of

25 it.

Page 5563

1 At 550 hours: "Tank fire from the positions at Strincjera,

2 Bosanka and Zarkovica, a company backed by infantry began an attack on the

3 positions of defence forces of the Republic of Croatia at Srdj. At the

4 same time opening mortar and machine-gun fire on all parts of the town.

5 The defence forces of the Republic of Croatia responded only after the

6 infantry and tanks came within 200 metres of Srdj. We deny carrying out

7 any acts of provocation or activities from Srdj and Lapad that would have

8 been a cause for the cease-fire violations. We declare with full

9 responsibility that the allegations of the activities of our forces have

10 been fabricated in order to justify the attempt to take Srdj. We have

11 stopped further activity --" and perhaps you can help us in the Croatian.

12 "We expect true compliance with the cease-fire and the withdrawal of your

13 forces to their starting positions. At this moment, your forces are

14 firing on the Dubrovnik municipal Crisis Staff headquarters, Srdj, and the

15 town of Dubrovnik."

16 And it is -- there is an indication of the municipal Crisis Staff

17 below it. Are you familiar with where the Dubrovnik municipal Crisis

18 Staff headquarters were at this date?

19 A. I think it was at the city municipality, that is, within the Old

20 Town.

21 Q. Were you made aware at any time, let's say up until 6.00 in the

22 morning, of any protest lodged by anyone on the JNA, your partners in

23 negotiating on the JNA side, about Croatian attacks against JNA forces in

24 the area of -- well, on the hill where Srdj, Bosanka, that area, are? Any

25 attacks at all in the early morning hours of the 6th, maybe the cusp of

Page 5564

1 the 5th to the early morning hours of the 6th?

2 A. No. I checked that later. Actually, I was asleep at the time.

3 The shooting woke me up later, but I asked how all of it had happened.

4 The commander of the defence of Dubrovnik told me that there was no

5 shooting from our side and that there was nothing done to provoke an

6 attack from the other side.

7 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me just one second.

8 [Prosecution counsel confer]


10 Q. The -- moving along in the entries. 1128 -- on page 15, there's

11 an entry for 1128 hours to Admiral Jokic, and it is at the end, which is

12 at page 17 - it's a bit lengthy - it is from -- it is indicated that it is

13 from yourself. Can you please perhaps tell us where you were when these

14 communications were being made. Where were you physically located, if you

15 recall?

16 A. At the Argentina Hotel, or actually, this is a small annex

17 building by the hotel. That's where we all were throughout that day, the

18 6th of December. The Argentina Hotel would be my answer. Orsula is the

19 name of the annex, but all of it is a single hotel. So it is all one

20 facility.

21 Q. I note that on page 16, when you were in the process of explaining

22 about trying to get to Cavtat, you indicate: "We cannot get out into the

23 street because the attack is still in progress although it has decreased

24 in intensity. I have been informed that troop movements towards Srdj are

25 continuing despite the cease-fire agreement."

Page 5565

1 Now, in this indication, troop movements by which troops are being

2 referred to? What did you intend to convey there? Whose troops?

3 A. The troops of the Yugoslav People's Army. This is 11.28, so after

4 the cessation of hostilities at 11.15.

5 Q. Continuing: "The old part of the town has been heavily

6 bombarded. Fires can be seen in several places and both ships sailing to

7 Cavtat have been hit. They are still burning in the harbour. Machine-gun

8 fire and occasional mine explosions are heard from Zarkovica."

9 And I believe that in the Croatian -- if you could take a look,

10 please, in the Croatian version, because it says, after the term

11 "Zarkovica" "three words illegible." Would you be good enough to look at

12 page 16 in Croatian and try to assist us with what comes next. It says:

13 "I heard from Zarkovica..." and then right after that.

14 A. "As I'm writing this." "From Zarkovica, as I am writing this,

15 machine-gun fire can be heard." So the three words are "dok ovo pisem,"

16 "as I'm writing this."

17 Q. "The reports of destruction on the Stradun near the Old Town hall

18 are coming in. Two shells apparently hit St. Blaise's church. A building

19 in the Old Town is burning. I believe that you personally are making

20 every effort to secure a cease-fire. Can you stress once again that the

21 negotiations are under way."

22 And there is a correction in the next line. If you could look in

23 the Croatian, if you'd be good enough, perhaps, because we noted in

24 reviewing that it was confusing because it is incorrect. "Can you stress

25 once again that the negotiations are under way and that the building in

Page 5566

1 which --" if you could help us with that sentence. How should it be

2 correctly interpreted?

3 A. I think it says shells.

4 Q. No. I'm not talking about that, Mr. --

5 A. It's not legible.

6 Q. Page 17.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. "Can you stress once again that the negotiations are under way,"

9 and then it makes reference to the building in which, it says,

10 "negotiations are taking place." Is that what is really written in

11 Croatian, that negotiations -- or what is actually there, please?

12 A. I think that it says: "It should be pointed out that negotiations

13 are under way."

14 Q. Okay. Then --

15 A. It's a word that's not very legible.

16 Q. Does it make reference --

17 A. "The building where the negotiators are was hit and the

18 parliamentary ship was hit and destroyed and that we got guarantees from

19 the JNA for free passage to attend negotiations and that since written

20 history has existed, negotiations took place with negotiators being fully

21 protected. It is 1210 now and occasional shots are still being fired from

22 Zarkovica. Please make further efforts to ensure that the negotiations

23 are completed and put an immediate stop to this totally irrational

24 situation. D. Rudolf." And then it says: "As things stand now, we

25 practically cannot go into the street, let alone to the ship. I would ask

Page 5567

1 you to propose a new time --" it's hardly legible again -- "because

2 obviously we cannot get to Cavtat in time."

3 Q. Thank you for the assistance, Mr. Rudolf.

4 MS. SOMERS: May I just point out, then, to Your Honours that on

5 page 17, where it says at the very -- it would be the third line, under

6 "Details of Work," that the building in which, instead of "negotiations

7 are taking place," "the building in which the negotiators are staying has

8 been hit."

9 Q. And what building would that be referring to, Mr. Rudolf, where

10 the negotiators were staying? What building would that have been

11 referring to?

12 A. Hotel Argentina.

13 Q. Looking at page 18, the entry for 1145 hours, for YUW from YUX.

14 Just one second, please.

15 [Prosecution counsel confer]


17 Q. Can I ask you, please, before we move on, on that particular

18 point. In the passage you just read where there was a description of what

19 was occurring in the Old Town, with the Old Town coming under fire, are

20 you familiar -- or do you know if in the course of the attack on the 6th

21 of December, was there any indication or protest to the Croatian

22 representatives or the group with which you found yourself, protest by the

23 JNA of any military activity coming from the Old Town, any outgoing fire

24 from the Old Town? Was there any protest made to your side? In other

25 words, fire coming from within the Old Town, was there any protest made?

Page 5568

1 A. The answer to your first question: I was first informed of this

2 by General Strugar in a radiogram he sent at 4.30 p.m. It was his

3 interpretation. He said the Croatian forces had provoked the attack and

4 that despite the cease-fire, they continued shooting from the Old Town and

5 that those forces had in fact set fire to the Old Town themselves. I

6 believe you have this radiogram in the original and you can read it.

7 Q. Can I just ask: That is a response you're referring to which

8 we'll get to, but I am talking about your reading entries where it is

9 indicated that the Old Town is under attack. Had there prior to that

10 time, from the time the attack began until let's say these entries are

11 indicated, been any protest that you are aware of by JNA as to outgoing

12 fire from the Old Town? I'm sorry, your answer was?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Thank you. Now, picking up at page 18, the entry for 1145 hours.

15 This is a message for Minister Davorin Rudolf at the Dubrovnik Crisis

16 Staff from the Boka VP -- it says VPO perhaps VPS. Would you be good

17 enough, please, to read that response, read that message. If you care to

18 do it.

19 A. "For the Crisis Staff of Dubrovnik, Minister Davorin Rudolf, at the

20 VPO Boka. Dear Minister, I express my sincere regret with this difficult

21 situation and incident. It was not our order, because it would have never

22 crossed my mind to do such a thing. General Kadijevic has sent you and

23 the European Mission in Dubrovnik a message, saying that he had ordered an

24 urgent investigation to establish our responsibility and identify the

25 culprit for this incident. At the same time, we believe that you, on your

Page 5569

1 part, will establish your part of the responsibility in order to shed full

2 light on the circumstances of the incidents of last night and this

3 morning. He called me to come to Belgrade at 1400 hours today, so I will

4 not be able to continue my talks with you today.

5 "I propose the following: That we resume our talks at 1200 hours

6 tomorrow after my return from Belgrade.

7 "Second, to accept our proposal for an unconditional cessation of

8 fire in the entire --" I can't read this word very easily. It probably

9 says "operative zone." "Dubrovnik to Ston.

10 "3. The daily service from Cavtat to Dubrovnik should be opened"

11 - and here it probably says "Gruz, Mokosica" - "and Dubrovnik to the

12 islands twice a week."

13 So it says to open the daily service from Cavtat to Dubrovnik,

14 Gruz, Mokosica, Zaton, and Dubrovnik to the islands twice a week.

15 Four -- here again we have an illegible word. "Ships should be

16 checked in the port of Gruz."

17 Five, that sides or parties -- I cannot read this handwriting

18 easily. "That our parties encircled units," it says, "and the combat

19 elements positioned along the forward line should withdraw without leaving

20 any combat elements."

21 Six: "The roads leading out of the town, including the one

22 leading to Ston, should be reopened."

23 Seven: "The blockade of the town should be fully lifted and the

24 weapons threatening the town should be withdrawn out of range. Members of

25 the armed forces who came into the town should be evacuated on first

Page 5570

1 available ships."

2 Eight: "We can discuss other problems in Cavtat at 1200 hours on

3 the 7th of December, 1991."

4 Postscript: "Once again, we express our regret over this incident

5 and hope that we will be able to overcome this. Vice Admiral Miodrag

6 Jokic."

7 Q. Was it your understanding, or can you indicate what your

8 understanding was from this message as to what Admiral Jokic cited as the

9 cause or the source of the attack, the reason for the attack? Let me

10 rephrase that. I withdraw that question. It's perhaps too difficult to

11 approach.

12 Was it your understanding from this message that there was an

13 admission by Admiral Jokic of the involvement of the units of the JNA with

14 respect to starting this attack?

15 A. In my view, yes. And he says here, making reference even to

16 Kadijevic, who was the minister of defence in Yugoslavia, that he ordered

17 an investigation in order to establish who is responsible for the incident

18 and to find the culprit. And of course, he says that we on our part

19 should also conduct an investigation and see if there is any

20 responsibility on our part.

21 And you haven't asked me this, but I wish to say that this

22 radiogram was very important to us. I read it to the people of Dubrovnik

23 over Radio Dubrovnik. I'm not speaking about the naval radio station but

24 about the regular Radio Dubrovnik, broadcasting regular programmes.

25 It was indeed very important. That's how I saw it and how all the

Page 5571

1 people of Dubrovnik saw it. He expressed here his regret over this

2 difficult situation and incident, as he called it. He says it was not

3 done on my orders and it would have never crossed my mind. I would have

4 never thought of doing such a thing.

5 We received this radiogram as a very important one, and it had a

6 great psychological impact in a positive sense, I would say.

7 Q. Can you confirm that based on the situation on the ground when you

8 and Admiral Jokic left Cavtat the day before, the 5th, that this situation

9 was not contemplated, that this incident would not have been contemplated?

10 A. No one among us, not only did not think along those lines;

11 moreover, I can tell that you it came as a great relief to us. We

12 conveyed this explanation to the people and it gave us hope. None of us

13 expected, even when this attack started and when I got down and saw with

14 my own eyes what was going on, I couldn't believe my eyes. I later talked

15 to a representative of the Supreme Command of the armed forces of

16 Yugoslavia, and I could not fathom that an agreement we had reached could

17 be violated because officers of the JNA were educated people.

18 At that moment, I did not feel that my life was in danger, but I

19 felt humiliated, devastated, completely despondent, because it seemed

20 absolutely unbelievable to me that a thing like that could happen because

21 the first thing we agreed on in Cavtat was a cease-fire.

22 Q. You said that you read this to the people of Dubrovnik over radio.

23 Were -- in your estimation, did you find -- how did you see the people of

24 Dubrovnik reacting to this attack on the morning of the 6th?

25 A. You see, we were staying at a hotel and we were in the hotel at

Page 5572

1 that time. We were unable to leave Hotel Argentina. Let me explain. To

2 the east of the hotel, you see clearly all the way up to a hill called

3 Zarkovica, and from this place Zarkovica, fire was opened on that road

4 between us and Zarkovica, and there was no other way to go out into the

5 streets of Dubrovnik. And all these people around us, and of course we

6 were in constant contact with the Crisis Staff, with the mayor, with the

7 president of the Executive Board, we were in permanent contact with the

8 commander of the Dubrovnik defence, because the telephone lines continued

9 working all the time at the hotel. We had electricity. We were able to

10 watch TV, because the hotel was equipped with a power unit and generator.

11 And I can tell you that this telegram, this message, came to us as a very

12 comforting one.

13 Q. Can I ask you something? There has been a suggestion that

14 perhaps in the course of what you've just described, you made a reference

15 to the Old Town. Did you -- as I don't see it in the transcript, was

16 there a reference made in the Old Town in what you have just said? If so,

17 it has not made its way to the transcript. And if not, just indicate.

18 A. You see, when I say "Old Town," I mean the part of Dubrovnik which

19 is walled in by the ramparts. Around the Old Town was the municipality.

20 That's where the Crisis Staff was.

21 Q. Okay. Because I just wanted -- it didn't seem to show up, and I'd

22 been informed that it had been mentioned.

23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness did not

24 say what the record says: "around the Old Town was the municipality." The

25 meaning of the witness was that the municipality, the town hall, was in

Page 5573

1 the Old Town. When he says "municipality," he probably means the town

2 hall. That's at least how I understood him, the way he put it in B/C/S.

3 Inside the ramparts of the Old Town was the municipality, literally

4 speaking, meaning the town hall. That's what I understood the witness as

5 saying.


7 Q. Would you confirm that? Is that what you intended? If my counsel

8 -- thank you.

9 A. Yes. The building and the members of the Crisis Staff were

10 there, that is, the building facing the St. Blaise church.

11 Q. Thank you. Now, there is a mention in -- on page 18 in Admiral

12 Jokic's communique to you at, the bottom. It says, when it's discussing

13 establishing responsibility:

14 "At the same time, we believe that you will also establish your

15 part of responsibility in order to shed full light on the circumstances of

16 the incidents last night and this morning."

17 Now, did -- from the perspective of the Croatian representatives,

18 was there perceived to be any reason to investigate anything in terms of

19 culpability by the Croatians? What was the view?

20 A. No. No. Look, Dubrovnik was literally in a mousetrap. You

21 should have been there and seen what it actually looks like. It was

22 besieged from up there in the hills and it was under blockade from the

23 sea. In the military sense, Dubrovnik had no -- presented no interest at

24 all. It was very poorly armed and had a very small number of soldiers.

25 What kind of person in that situation would have tried to cause any

Page 5574

1 provocation?

2 Second thing: Everybody in Dubrovnik knew that negotiations were

3 under way, and everybody was expecting an agreement to be signed the next

4 day. In that kind of situation, in a town which had no electricity, no

5 water, where people were going hungry, suffering from cold, a town in a

6 terribly difficult situation, who on earth on the Croatian side would have

7 been crazy enough to provoke an attack?

8 And third: I must say that I asked our commander of the Dubrovnik

9 defence, Lieutenant Colonel Nojko Marinovic, whether anything had been

10 done on our part to provoke an attack, and he told me definitely not. But

11 for you to understand what the situation was like, I have to tell you

12 this: Nojko Marinovic is a soldier. We were ministers of the Croatian

13 government. When he was coming to report to us, he came with a marching

14 step. He would stand at attention before us and act as a real soldier.

15 And he told us, very decisively, very positively: "No." I believed him,

16 not only because of what he was saying but because the whole situation,

17 that it was inconceivable really that anyone on the Croatian side could

18 have done anything to provoke that situation that happened on the 6th of

19 December.

20 Q. How would you have characterised or how did you characterise the

21 defence of Dubrovnik? And I mean would you have characterised it as a

22 strong defence, a weak defence? What was your view, as having been sent

23 as a negotiator and having come from Zagreb?

24 A. When the report was made to us on what was going on, especially

25 when we received a report on the status of defence by Nojko Marinovic, who

Page 5575

1 was lieutenant colonel at the time, we understood that we were militarily

2 completely inferior, poorly armed, and had very few soldiers. And

3 regarding the number of soldiers, various figures were mentioned during

4 the negotiations. General Jokic at one point mentioned 15.000 soldiers,

5 and mercenaries even, as he put it. However, that was far from the truth.

6 There were relatively few soldiers, armed, I would say, inadequately.

7 So --

8 Q. Can you comment on the arming? Was there -- was Zagreb assisting

9 in providing whatever needs Dubrovnik requested of Zagreb?

10 A. No. Far from it. First of all, Zagreb could not have done that,

11 even if they wanted to. And for all that to arrive to Dubrovnik, if

12 Zagreb sent 100 units, say, 10 would actually arrive. Because on the way

13 to Dubrovnik, everybody would take for their own defence whatever they

14 needed, and relatively little would reach Dubrovnik.

15 MS. SOMERS: I'm sorry.

16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on page 75, line 19,

17 something is missing, namely, a reference to the fact that General Jokic

18 mentioned those 15.000 soldiers and mercenaries at negotiations in

19 Cavtat. If I'm not mistaken, this is missing from the record and the

20 witness actually said it.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, he did, Mr. Petrovic.

22 MS. SOMERS: Also, I would assume that it would not be General

23 Jokic, but Admiral Jokic, if that's --

24 Q. Am I fair to assume that you had intended to say Admiral Jokic?

25 A. Admiral Jokic, indeed.

Page 5576

1 Q. Now, when you mentioned sending units but that things didn't make

2 it because along the way they were taken, are you referring to weaponry,

3 supply of weapons from Zagreb?

4 A. I mean everybody. It was a very chaotic situation. Dubrovnik, as

5 I said, was under blockade from both land and sea. The Yugoslav People's

6 Army had occupied everything up to the Neretva River, that is, about 70 to

7 80 kilometres to the west, towards Split, so that serious weaponry could

8 not even have been delivered to Dubrovnik. I am not a soldier myself, and

9 I do not know much about those things, and my impressions are, I would

10 say, those of a layman.

11 And as for the objection of this gentleman here, of course, I

12 haven't even begun to tell you all the details from the negotiations in

13 Cavtat. I have managed only to cover the most important things. And I

14 don't know, Counsel, what you meant when you said: Did he actually

15 mention 15.000 or not?

16 Those were talks between General -- between Mr. Kriste and General

17 Jokic, and if you need me to give you more detail about that, I can.

18 Q. Again, I assume when you refer to Jokic, you mean Admiral Jokic;

19 correct?

20 A. I always mean exclusively Admiral Jokic.

21 Q. As opposed to General Jokic.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Ms. Somers, I'm afraid we have run five

23 minutes over what was a deadline in time.

24 MS. SOMERS: Oh, I didn't realise. I thought it was 12.30. I'm

25 sorry. I apologise.

Page 5577

1 JUDGE PARKER: It was 12.20.

2 MS. SOMERS: My apologies, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE PARKER: And time is now getting critical for me.

4 I'm sorry, Dr. Rudolf, but as I indicated briefly yesterday, we

5 must bring to an end the evidence of today. I hope you don't treat this

6 as disrespectful. It just happens that these days are very disturbed

7 days, this Wednesday and this Thursday, in our programme, and it means,

8 I'm afraid, that you are being put to inconvenience. We apologise. But

9 we must stop now, and we resume tomorrow morning at 9.00. And as I

10 indicated, the morning itself will be cut short by planned evidence which

11 we will be receiving from other witnesses according to a timetable set

12 nearly a month ago. So we apologise in advance.

13 We will now adjourn until tomorrow morning.

14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.26 p.m.,

15 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 29th day of April,

16 2004, at 9.00 a.m.