¹⁷³⁰⁰

Tuesday, 4 March 2003

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.

WITNESS: IVAN GRUJIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff: [Continued]

Q. Mr. Grujic, I have already mentioned that I would like to address a few matters in relation to detection facilities. And with the help of the usher, I would like to put to you tab 5 of Exhibit 402.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: You can get it from here.

Q. And I just want you to look at the page Camps Sorted By States where you also have the locations of the camps listed. First of all, in relation to the states, you have for Croatia, you have listed 2.404 detainees. Does this mean detention facilities in the RSK or does this also include camps run by the Croatian authorities?

A. It refers exclusively to the camps in Srpska Krajina.

Q. And in relation to 802 detainees, you have listed here, "No information." Is that the same explanation that you gave yesterday, that some of the material was so scarce that you couldn't really say?

A. Yes. The material was scarce, and we were dealing with detainees who were freed on a local level up until 1991, in the first stage, until ¹⁷³⁰¹ official commissions, state commissions, had been set up.

Q. During the preparation of your testimony, did you look at camps in particular that are listed in the Croatia indictment?

A. Yes.

Q. You also mentioned during your testimony that a number of detainees were transferred from one camp to another. Would they be registered several times or just once?

A. Well, the data I presented, a data -- when they were last in the camp. So that is to say from the camp they left. And they were recorded by the ICRC and through statements themselves saying that they had passed through several camps.

Q. So they would only show once in your files and that's the last camp they were in.

I would like to turn first now to the -- to the camps in Montenegro, and I would like you to tell us, for the specific camps that I addressed, in addition to the number of detainees that are actually listed here, the time period of -- during which these detention camps existed, the kind of place it was, as far as you know, and whether you can say anything about the conditions in the camp, in particular about -- whether they were -- any abuse took place in these camps. The first camp I would like you to talk about is Morinje in Montenegro where you have listed the 346 detainees. What can you tell us in addition to that?

A. According to the information that the office has, 346 detainees were listed as having been released from the Morinje camp. The camp in ¹⁷³⁰² Morinje had the largest number of detainees between the 1st of October, 1991, and the middle of December 1991. According to the statements of the detainees themselves, the camp was within a military compound of warehouses where the conditions were extremely bad, without any sanitary conditions.

Q. And the detainees in this camp came from which region? Do you know that?

A. The detainees in the area of Crnogora, Montenegro, Morinje and Kumbor were from the Dubrovnik area in actual fact. So those camps catered to detainees from the Dubrovnik region. They were taken to those camps there.

Q. You have next the camp Kumbor. When did it exist and was it a transit facility, and what can you tell us?

A. The Kumbor camp existed during that same time, between October and December 1991, and a small number of detainees we have listed with us was small because it was a transitory camp and detainees from Kumbor were later transferred to Morinje and other areas of Montenegro.

Q. And was it a military facility? Do you know?

A. I don't know whether it was a military facility or not.

Q. Let's now turn to Bosnia, and I would only like to address the camp Bileca. What can you tell us about this camp?

A. From the Bileca camp, 131 detainees were exchanged. The camp was set up between October and December 1991. That is to say before any conflicts had started in the region. And in Bileca, there was a great deal of abuse and mistreatment of detainees, and we have evidence about ¹⁷³⁰³ that.

Q. In relation to the previous camps in Montenegro, did you have any indication of abuse there?

A. As a rule, in all the camps that we listed, there was physical abuse of detainees.

Q. Now I would like to go to -- turn to Serbia, and you have -- and first of all, Stajicevo. What can you tell us about Stajicevo?

A. Stajicevo was a camp to which detainees were brought mostly from the Vukovar area. And we have 661 detainees registered for Stajicevo. The camp had the largest number of detainees between the 18th of November, 1991, and the 21st of December, 1991. That particular camp was a facility that was on a factory farm, an agricultural concern, so quite inappropriate for accommodating human beings. And we evidenced the killing of war -- of war. For example, Branko Koch, Ivan Kunac.

Q. How many people -- do you know how many people were killed there?

A. At least about ten people. But let me say specifically. Let me tell you something specifically about these two men that I mentioned by name.

Q. Yes. Yes, please.

A. That is to say all I can talk about is about Branko Koch and Ivan Kunac, if you wish to hear some details concerning them.

JUDGE MAY: Well, unless there's a particular reason for hearing those details, I think there is so much evidence that we need to keep moving.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. ¹⁷³⁰⁴

Q. In relation to Stajicevo, I just want to know, was it also a transit facility?

A. Stajicevo was also a transit facility. Detainees from Stajicevo were later transferred to the prison in Sremska Mitrovica where detainees and prisoners were concentrated from other camps and prisons.

Q. And Begejci, when did it exist, in which time period, and was it also a transit place?

A. Yes. It was also a transit camp. Most of the -- from the 1st of October, 1991, until the end of November 1991 was when the camp had the largest number of detainees. Once again, it was a farm managed by the JNA, and there were 55 detainees.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the number, please.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We have actually the number in the list; Five hundred fifty-five.

Q. And to which place were they transferred from there?

A. From there, they were transferred to Sremska Mitrovica.

Q. In relation to Zrenjanin, just one question: Was that also a transit place?

A. According to our information, they would stay in Zrenjanin for a short period of time as well, and there was a place by Zrenjanin called Ecka.

Q. And then now turning to Sid. Was that a military prison, and when did it exist?

A. The prison in Sid was set up already on the 20th of July, 1991, and it existed until the 21st of January 1992. It was a military prison, ¹⁷³⁰⁵ and the detainees were transferred between the prison in the Secretariat for Internal Affairs, that is to say in the police station, to that military prison which was in a facility managed by the automobile school. And it was -- and there were 23 detainees listed in that particular prison.

Q. You've already mentioned the number for Sremska Mitrovica, but can you tell us at which time periods detainees were detained there?

A. The detainees in Mitrovica were also held from November 1991, and after they were transferred from the Stajicevo and Begejci camps, which is where there were a large number of detainees, this penitentiary or house of correction in Serbia is where they were taken to, or rather, the last detainees were liberated from that particular facility in 1994.

Q. And can you say anything about the conditions? But only briefly.

A. The conditions were somewhat better than they were in Stajicevo and Begejci, but there were a large number of detainees in a small space. There were no hygienic, sanitary facilities, there was scant medical assistance, and it boiled down to detainees helping each other. That is to say if any of the detainees had any knowledge professionally in the field of medicine, they would help each other. And there were also some killings in the Sremska Mitrovica prison.

Q. And now I would like to turn to Croatia, and first of all Knin. In which time period did the detention facilities in Knin exist, and what can you tell us about the conditions?

A. In Knin, there were 671 detainees that were evidenced between August 1991, up until November 1991. And the detainees were put up in the ¹⁷³⁰⁶ old hospital building and in the barracks. The conditions were listed as being exceptionally poor. The detainees were ill-treated and there was some killings as well.

Q. Dalj. What can you tell us about Dalj? When was it in operation?

A. There was a camp in Dalj as well, yes, and it was located in the farm facilities, farm buildings, and in the police station itself. The camp was in existence from August 1991 to November 1991 with large numbers of detainees. There were 29 detainees, in fact, and some of the detainees were killed. And the names of the detainees are on a list in Annex I, paragraph 50, 51 and 55.

Q. In relation to Vukovar, what can you tell us about the camp there? When did it exist? What was it?

JUDGE MAY: If the registrar would assist me, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Vukovar, there were two main locations, although there were much more, but these two main ones had a large concentration of detainees, prisoners, and that was in the industrial facilities and industrial halls of Velepromet. That was one. And Komerc was the other, where at one point there were at least 723 individuals who were transferred from there to Stajicevo and Begejci in Serbia. And another portion was at Ovcara, also in the hall of the factory farm from which they were taken to the execution site at Ovcara.

Q. At what times did this detention facility operate?

A. Those detention facilities were in existence -- or rather, from the 18th of November up until the end of November was when most of the detainees were held there. ^{17307 BLANK PAGE 17308}

Q. And the last one; Borovo Selo.

A. In Borovo Selo, we had a camp, and it was located in part in the school building, the sports hall of the school building, and the other half was in an industrial complex or, rather, the farm, the Lovas farm, as it was called.

Q. And when did these two camps operate; what time?

A. Those camps operated during that same period, that is to say from October -- and actually, the one in the sports hall itself was in existence already in August 1991. It had already been set up there then. And the Lovas farm facility came into being when large numbers of detainees came in from Vukovar.

Q. The detention facilities in which no detainee was officially registered, would they show up in your list at all?

A. No. Facilities did not show up on my list from which detainees were not freed on an exchange basis or were registered on the part of the ICRC. So this is the smallest number of camps, and the criteria was registration by the ICRC - the International Red Cross Committee - or the detainees being freed on an exchange basis.

Q. And you mentioned that detainees were killed in these facilities. Do you know how many altogether?

A. It's difficult for me to say here and now, to give you a total number, but it increased as our investigations progressed. I know that about ten people at least were killed in Sremska Mitrovica, for instance, and we said that a large number of people were killed in the Borovo Selo camp. In the camps in Vukovar that we mentioned which were placed under ¹⁷³⁰⁹ Vukovar, the Borovo Komerc and Velepromet, many people were killed there whose bodies were later found in the mass graves.

Q. Just one last question: You mentioned that -- you mentioned the mistreatment in camps. Did you observe signs of this mistreatment on detainees that you personally met and dealt with?

A. Yes, I did. I was engaged in the exchange of prisoners of war between 1993 -- from 1993 onwards, and I met a large number of people who had visible signs of injury when they were being exchanged. Let me also mention that all these detainees, the ones who were exchanged, after the exchange process, had to be treated medically where injuries were noticed, observed. And as I say, there is extensive medical documentation to bear that out. And I personally can testify to the fact that I saw some people who were physically abused, and this was quite obvious when they came up from the exchange.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, these are the questions of the Prosecution.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, it's now for you to cross-examine the witness. If there are matters which you want to challenge in his evidence, of course you're entitled to do so, but I must remind you that you must stick to his evidence, and we don't want a wide-ranging cross-examination about which he knows nothing. So you will be confined to asking about matters which he can deal with.

You can have, if you require it, two and a quarter hours to cross-examine him. I hope you can perhaps do it more quickly. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't understand, Mr. May, why ¹⁷³¹⁰ these warnings, because if I ask a question that you consider to be irrelevant, you warn me of that very attentively. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Grujic, you're a policeman, you have been a policeman since 1972; isn't that right?

A. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. What were the positions that you held in the Croatian police?

A. In the statement that I gave, a detailed description is given of everything I did in the police, and I said that I was engaged in virtually all types of police work, ranging from a police clerk or a regular police officer right up to the level of inspector.

Q. And tell me, since when have you been a member of the HDZ?

A. I think that my political affiliation is not of importance, but I can tell you that I am not a member of the HDZ.

Q. And you never were?

A. No, never.

Q. And as a policeman, did you work in Osijek?

A. Yes, I did, Mr. Milosevic. That is also contained in my statement.

Q. When did you work in Osijek?

A. From 1972 up until 1992.

Q. In view of the fact that in that period of time you were working in Osijek, you certainly know Branimir Glavas, Vladimir Seks, Vekic and others, don't you?

A. I don't quite know what you mean by knowing them. Yes, I know ¹⁷³¹¹ Vladimir Seks as a member of parliament. I also know Mr. Vladimir [sic] Glavas, who was head of the county of Osijek and Baranja. So I know Mr. Vekic too that you asked about, who was Minister of Internal Affairs in the ministry in which I was employed, so do I know them. So I can't say I really am familiar with them; I know of them. I may have had very superficial contacts with then.

Q. And are you familiar with the activities they engaged in in that -- in the period of 1990 to 1992 while you were working in the Osijek police?

A. I don't understand the question. What activities?

Q. The activities to expel in an organised manner, liquidate, dismiss Serbs from that entire area.

A. I can't talk about those things because I don't know anything specific about those things.

Q. Very well. If you don't know, we'll move on. Tell me, once the HDZ came into power, who was the head of the state security in Osijek?

A. Mr. Branko Budic, even before that, and he remained in that position.

Q. And what do you know, please, about the killing of the head of the Osijek SUP, Josip Reichl-Kir?

A. I knew Mr. Josip Reichl-Kir very well and I collaborated with him for many years, and I was present in the police building when we heard the news that he had been killed at a checkpoint between Tenja and Osijek. And an investigation was conducted, and it is still -- it still hasn't been completed. ¹⁷³¹²

Q. And you know nothing more about that?

A. I know that a certain Gudelj was suspected as having committed that act who allegedly opened fire at that checkpoint. But the proceedings haven't been completed so I can't speak about it. I wasn't a direct participant.

Q. But you do know that the perpetrator was Gudelj, born in Tenja, near Osijek, and he is a fugitive in Australia?

JUDGE MAY: What is the relevance of this to the case?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is relevant for this witness since this Reichl-Kir, head of the SUP in Osijek was killed because he opposed breaches of the law and the commission of crimes that were widespread at the time and also because, according to information I have, the witness, with Branimir Glavas and the mentioned Budic is linked to the organisation of the killing of this Josip Reichl.

JUDGE MAY: Well, that is a very serious allegation indeed which you can put to the witness so that he may answer it. But how does it help us? Look, Mr. Milosevic, we are dealing with killings in the thousands, we're dealing with detained people in the thousands; how does it help us, even if it's right that this man was killed, what's the relevance of it? Even if you're right.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If, Mr. May, you consider that not to be a relevant question for the witness, then let it be.

JUDGE MAY: No. I want you to say --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We will have occasion --

JUDGE MAY: I want you to explain - it's your case - as to what ¹⁷³¹³ the relevance is. Just explain it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe it to be relevant because I have information that the perpetrator of this killing was this Gudelj, born in Tenja, and that the witness, together with Glavas and Budic, participated in organising the killing of the chief of police of Osijek who opposed violence and large-scale killings and liquidations of Serbs in that area at that time. So I assume --

JUDGE MAY: Am I to understand -- do you say that that justified the detention and killings which occurred here?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, a crime can never justify another crime, and you know that full well. This is just a question of the credibility of this witness, and I think that I am entitled to ask questions relating to the credibility of the witness --

JUDGE MAY: You can --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- regardless of what's testifying about.

JUDGE MAY: You can ask questions about the credibility, but what you need to think about is the connection between these allegations of wrongs done to the Serbs and the -- as alleged by you, and the facts that we have here, as put out by the Prosecution, as alleged by them, of killings and mass detention. And the question that you need to think about, because you're going to have to address us about it in due course, is what the relevance is, what the connection is. But we won't continue with this. You can certainly put that to the witness. You can ask him questions. In fact, I will. ¹⁷³¹⁴ It's suggested, Mr. Grujic, that you were connected with this particular killing. Is there any truth in that at all?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is not true. Not a single allegation made by Mr. Milosevic linked to the killing of Mr. Kir. It is not true that I had anything to do with it, nor did I know anything about it until I heard that he was killed. And I must say that I -- this was a very painful event for me because he was a good friend of mine.

JUDGE MAY: What was your position in the police station? What was your rank and position?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time in those days, I was an operative officer covering the municipality of Osijek. And through that position, I collaborated very closely with Mr. Kir.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We can move on, I hope.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well, Mr. Grujic. You have described here a very large number of victims of the civil war in Croatia, giving us numbers, sometimes even names, sometimes even individual locations and so on. So will you please answer this question for me: Who -- you're a policeman, and therefore you know very well what that entails. Who, when, where, under which circumstances killed those individuals for in such a testimony in this courtroom to -- for you to be able to present such data in testimony against me?

A. Who, where, and when, there are detailed information about that and there are witnesses, whereas my testimony was that of an expert ^{17315 BLANK PAGE 17316} witness to find where the victims were found, what is the number of the victims, and not to say who, when, and where.

Q. And those witnesses that you say that exist, and I will hold you to your word, do they have anything to do with Serbia and me?

JUDGE MAY: That's not for him to answer. All he can give evidence about is what he investigated, the facts and figures which he came up with, the numbers and the like. Now, you can ask him about that and he can answer, but he can't answer about generalised questions about the evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But that is the crux of the matter, Mr. May. If you present here all the individual victims of the war and link them to this false indictment, then that is nonsensical. What has that got to do with Serbia and me?

JUDGE MAY: Well, that is your case. Of course, that's the matter which we are having to decide. But at the moment we're dealing with this discrete part of the evidence. You can ask the witness about it, but you can't ask him about anything else.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May. We'll move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. At the beginning, Mr. Grujic, at the beginning of your testimony yesterday, you spoke about bilateral meetings with representatives of an identical commission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. Were there many such meetings?

A. There were very many, more than a hundred such meetings held in ¹⁷³¹⁷ connection with these problems.

Q. Mrs. Uertz-Retzlaff yesterday insisted on the point that some of those meetings were attended not only by representatives of Yugoslavia and Croatia but also representatives of the Republic of Serbian Krajina or Republika Srpska. I haven't noted that down quite accurately. Maybe of both.

A. Quite so.

Q. And how many such meetings were held at which these persons were included?

A. About ten or so. I can find you a list and the dates, if necessary.

Q. No, that won't be necessary. Tell me, please, did you understand the invitation and inclusion of those representatives in those meetings as a matter of goodwill prompted by the wish to solve the problem for which purpose the commissions were formed on both sides, or was this an indication, as being suggested by the other side, of the coordinating role of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

A. There is no doubt about the coordinating role. I can give you the details.

Q. Very well. That is what you're claiming. You feel that that role was a coordinating one.

A. Mr. Milosevic, if I had arranged the release of prisoners from the territory of the Republic of Serbian Krajina who were imprisoned there with representatives of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, then it is quite clear that this is coordination. Or if I arranged the discovery of ¹⁷³¹⁸ a missing person in that area with that commission, then that is quite clear. Definitely that was so.

Q. Very well, Mr. Grujic. If you yourself say that a representative of the same commission from the Serbian Krajina or Republika Srpska is attending, then surely you arranged that with that representative and not with the representative of a country in which those prisoners were not being held. Isn't that so?

A. No. I am claiming again I arranged the release or discovery of a missing person specifically with Mr. Pavle Todorovic, for instance, to discover a person in Bosnia, specifically the pilot Peresin.

Q. Wasn't that the goodwill and assistance given by Todorovic who, as far as I can remember, was the Minister of Health, to assist you with the authorities of Republika Srpska to find the pilot? How else could he do that?

A. Yes. I appreciate his goodwill, but we are talking here about competencies and about the real state of affairs.

Q. Very well. We'll come to that competence later, but clear up one matter for me, please. Did I understand you correctly that all the detainees found in the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were there from the time of the conflict with the JNA? That is the year 1991 and the beginning of 1992, when there was a large scale conflict between Croatian forces and the JNA on a broad front all over Croatia.

A. There were detentions later on and detainees who were in the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Q. So you're saying that there were captures carried out while the ¹⁷³¹⁹ JNA did not exist, and they happened to be found in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

A. Quite so.

Q. And do you have a list for that?

A. Yes. I'll give you the names straight away. For instance, Vanin Zlatko was captured in connection with armed conflict in the border area between Hungary and Yugoslavia. He was in a military investigating prison in Belgrade. After that, he was transferred to the territory of Krajina, that is Knin, and he was released there.

Q. Wait a minute. We didn't understand one another. My question was: Was anyone who was not captured in the conflict with the army, with the JNA, was he to be found as a detainee in the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? Was there any such person?

A. That person was not captured by the JNA but by the police.

Q. I see. The police, probably on the border.

A. No, not in the border.

Q. The border area with Yugoslavia.

A. Yes. And there are other such examples, many such examples. And those persons were captured by the police, and they were in prisons in the territory of Yugoslavia from which they were exchanged.

Q. If they were imprisoned by the army or the police of Yugoslavia, I assume that they must have been imprisoned on the territory of Yugoslavia, or while the JNA were still present throughout the territory of the former Yugoslavia, they were captured by the JNA as prisoners of war. Isn't that so? ¹⁷³²⁰

A. I don't know whose competence it was in those days nor is that the subject of my testimony.

Q. Oh, I see.

A. I can say only that those persons were in a facility that was in the territory of Yugoslavia, that is Serbia, that is Montenegro, that so many of them were detained there. As for competencies, I can't talk about that.

Q. My question is: Were they captured by the JNA during the conflict?

A. Not only by the JNA but by paramilitary formations as well in the territory of the Republic of Croatia. So by paramilitary formations. And they found themselves in prisons in the territory of Yugoslavia.

Q. Very well. We'll clear that up fully eventually. So you're saying that Yugoslavia or, rather, its commission had a coordinating role in the exchanges. Tell me, this coordinating role or any role of the FRY commission, was this an expression of their willingness to cooperate or was something else behind it? Was it part of their wish to help deal with these humanitarian problems or was there something else behind it?

A. In any event, I said that I appreciated their cooperation designed to assist in the release and discovery of missing persons. But I also said that a dominant or, rather, coordinating role, to say the least, was played by the commission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as compared to the commission from Republika Srpska and the commission that existed in the occupied parts of Croatia, that is the commission of the so-called ¹⁷³²¹ Republic of Serbian Krajina.

Q. Very well, Mr. Grujic. Tell me, now, your commission, the commission that you headed for detainees and missing persons, did it engage in identical activities and often advocated the interests of the commission of Croats in the -- from the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

A. We did have cooperation with commissions from Bosnia, both with the commission, the Bosniak commission, and also the commission of the then Herceg-Bosna. And that particular cooperation was actually at a level of cooperation, that's true, but we never acted in the sense of the fact that the Republic of Croatia could do something linked to detainees in the territory of Bosnia while I was on the job.

Q. All right. Fine, Mr. Grujic. Now, do you know about a letter that you yourself signed as president of the Commission for Detainees and Missing Persons in which you addressed the commission for exchange in Sarajevo presided over by Bulajic, a man whose name was Bulajic, on the 28th of June, 1993?

A. Well, I don't know what all this is about. I entered into a great deal of correspondence with representatives of various commissions; the commission of the RSK, with Yugoslavia, the federations commission, and so on.

Q. You say in point 1 of that letter, "On the list there are a large number of persons for which the Republic of Croatia did not make any requests, 108. With respect to these people, we sought the opinion of the HVO commission from Herceg-Bosna." ¹⁷³²² So what this means is you're seeking confirmation and opinions in order to continue to act. So you're coordinating that affair, and you say: "After that, we'll be able to determine our position with respect to the status of those persons," and so on and so forth, "and inform you thereof." So that is your own letter, dated the 28th of June in which undoubtedly you are asking for confirmation and the opinions of the commission of Herceg-Bosna in order for you to be able to pursue matters related to their exchange. Are you challenging that, Mr. Grujic?

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Just a moment, Mr. Grujic. The witness should see the letter. He can't possibly remember it. He should have the opportunity of looking at it and commenting on it. So would you give it to the usher, please, if you want him to comment.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. First of all, are you challenging the contents of the letter?

A. Well, I have to have a look at it first to be able to answer.

Q. Fine.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With the Court's indulgence, may I -- well, if we have to discuss this particular portion, it would be a good idea for the whole letter to be read out, because the portion that Mr. Milosevic quoted has been pulled out of context.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. That is the whole of point 1.

A. Well, it's clear that I did send this letter, but --

JUDGE MAY: Will you just tell us what it is, please, what the letter is about, and then you can deal with the particular area that ^{17323 BLANK PAGE 17324} Mr. Milosevic is asking you about.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what it's about: The president of the commission, at negotiations in Novska of the Republika Srpska handed over a list of persons in prisons on the territory of Bosnia, and that particular list, when we analysed it, we ascertained that on the list were persons who were not the subject of interest of the Republic of Croatia, and that persons we were interested in were not on the list of detainees. And it was precisely for that reason that I wrote that particular letter to Mr. Bulajic, bringing his attention to those facts. And in the letter, I stipulate what Mr. Milosevic just read out, that I would send the list to the commission of Herceg-Bosna or, rather, the HVO, for them to take a look at it and to see if anybody on their list was on this other list so that we can then take further steps to agree upon what we were going to do.

That meant that if the persons were on the list that the Republic of Croatia had no interest in, which I state here quite specifically, that meant that they could not discuss those persons but would be sent on to the Herceg-Bosna commission. The fact that I coordinated, or rather, not coordinated but managed these affairs for Herceg-Bosna, I would never have written this letter to Mr. Bulajic, nor would I have referred to him to the commission.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Grujic, as far as I recall, and you have the text in front of you, you say in the letter that you're going to take steps in that regard only once you have had consultations and received confirmation and the ¹⁷³²⁵ opinions of the HVO from Herceg-Bosna. So you can read out the whole of point 1 out loud. Please go ahead, read it out loud.

A. Well, I would read the whole letter, if necessary.

Q. It's not necessary. I don't have time to read through all the letters in full.

A. But you cannot pull something out of context.

Q. This is not out of context. It is the whole of point 1, that first paragraph. And you say when you received confirmation and their opinions - so they are to give their confirmation and opinions - for you to be able to take a decision in the matter. So that is point 1. And I'd like to have that tendered into evidence, please, and the Court can ascertain for itself what the letter says.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Perhaps you could hand it in and it could be given an exhibit number.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So what's bad in --

JUDGE MAY: No, no. Let's get an exhibit number for it.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Defence Exhibit 107.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, Mr. Grujic, please, is there anything bad in the fact that the commission of the RSY for exchanges, which sometimes advocated the commissions -- which sometimes represented the RS and RSK commission positions when your commission did the same, it represented the interests of Herceg-Bosna. Is there anything bad in that? ¹⁷³²⁶

A. It's not a question of representing anybody's interests. What all this is about is how far it was able to influence the other commissions.

Q. Well, I assume, Mr. Grujic, that in those commissions everybody wanted to wield as much influence as possible to have as many people exchanged as possible and to alleviate the consequences of that war. To help people. I assume that that's what the commissions wanted and that they all worked in similar fashion to achieve that end. Is that so or not?

A. Well, ask me your question. I don't know what you mean, what you're getting at.

Q. Didn't all the commissions, each on its own side, endeavour to help people, ultimately, and to cooperate with the opposite side and perform its job, do its duty?

A. All I can say is that my own commission did wish to assist people, but I can't speak on behalf of the other commissions.

Q. All right. Is it true that you replaced as president of the commission Josip Kardum? Is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. What I'm asking you now is this: Confirmation of this practice of your commission, is it contained in points 2 and 3 that were sent out by your commission to the Commission for Exchange of Prisoners in Banja Luka? And you state that if any individual requested by your commission should be released within the scope of another exchange process, you would consider their duties done vis-a-vis you. So that is the letter to the Commission for Prisoner Exchange, and it says: "Persons detained by the ¹⁷³²⁷ Republic of Croatia that we would like to see exchanged," what the Republic of Croatia is requesting, and then it says at the end here: "We consider that exchanges of this kind should be an addition to the Geneva agreements and Budapest agreements. And we stress that if the person we request be released should be released in another operation, we will consider that you have done your duty towards us, and the same principle must be applied on both sides."

Does this also indicate that there was coordination along those lines?

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness see the letter.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Here it is. Have a look.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, if we proceed at this pace, then our time will be up very fast.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I have to read through the document you've just given me, and what I've read through here indicates that the Croatia commission sent a letter to the Commission for Prisoner Exchange in Banja Luka and expresses their satisfaction at what they have offered by way of exchange and states that the information that the commission has indicates that prisoners will not be released from other camps in Bosnia, which was something agreed upon in Geneva. But they propose that the following detainees be exchanged, and then we have a list of the detainees in question, and I don't see anything to take issue with there. ¹⁷³²⁸

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is that your letter?

A. It was signed by Josip Kardum.

Q. The president of your commission?

A. Yes, that's right. And I see nothing to take issue with there.

Q. Well, whether there is or not, let's leave that alone. But all I'm asking you is, is that your letter?

A. Yes, that is my letter.

Q. Explain this to me then, please, and you can hand over the letter to Mr. May if you are inclined to do so, and let's move on.

JUDGE MAY: And give it a number.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. A moment ago you stated --

JUDGE MAY: Number.

THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit 108.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As you mentioned a moment ago that some people -- you mentioned one particular man who was in Belgrade and then came -- found himself in Knin. We'll get to that later. But could you explain, please, how it was that the Serbs from the area of Bosnia-Herzegovina happened to be -- to find themselves in camps on the territory of the Republic of Croatia, for example?

A. Would you be more specific and tell me what you mean.

Q. Well, did you have occasion to see that Serbs from Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example, were in camps of the Republic of Croatia? ¹⁷³²⁹ How did that come about? How did they happen to turn up in camps in Croatia, a Serb from Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example?

A. Well, there were different possibilities. So tell me what you mean specifically for me to be able to answer.

Q. Well, do you know that on the list of detained Serbs put up for an exchange which you attached to your letter, the Commission for Prisoner Exchange on the 2nd of July, 1993, that there was a number of Serb detainees from the BH territory? Do you know about that? Are you aware of that?

A. Well, I don't know where those people were taken prisoner. They could have had nationality or residence in Bosnia-Herzegovina or Yugoslavia, but where they were actually taken into custody, taken prisoner, I can't say because I don't know. So if they were to be found in camps, they might have been captured somewhere in connection with the armed conflict. So it was my job to have these people exchanged or released. Now, under which circumstances they had come to be in prison and in the camps in the first place, I don't know nor could I have known, nor could I speak about that.

Q. All right, I'm not going to hand you the list then because you do not dispute the fact that there were Bosnia-Herzegovina citizens who were in Croatian camps.

A. Well, I would have to see what you're talking about, what you're referring to.

Q. Well, here you have, then, a list of prisoners that were incorporated into the exchange, prisoners in Croatia, and it was the 2nd ¹⁷³³⁰ of July, 1993, an attachment, a letter written by you and a list by you. You can see where the people were captured. Take a look at it, please, if you would.

A. Yes. From this list I don't see where they were captured nor what -- the national of which country. It just lists the names and surnames.

Q. All right. Let's move on, Mr. Grujic, and hurry up. Is it true that in the negotiations that you held during the exchange with representatives of Bosnia-Herzegovina or, rather, the Republika Srpska, representatives of the FRY did not take part, nor did they authorise anybody to negotiate on their behalf? Isn't that so?

A. Just a moment, please. What did you say? You asked whether they took part?

Q. Yes. Did the representatives of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia take part or authorise anybody to take part in the negotiations on their behalf?

A. Well, as far as I recall, for example, in Bocac, there were representatives -- Bocac is in Bosnia, by the way, representatives of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were there when negotiations, talks, took place.

Q. Very well, then. I'll quote another letter of the 2nd of July, 1993, point 3, and I'll leave out parts that are irrelevant for what I am claiming. I'm saying they did not; you say they did. It says, I quote: "In view of that as well as the fact that in contact so far representatives of the commission from Belgrade did not take part nor did they authorise anyone to negotiate on their behalf. We take the liberty ^{17331 BLANK PAGE 17332} to emphasise the following," and then you list various things. All this because representatives of Belgrade did not take part, nor did they authorise anyone to negotiate on their behalf, and you're claiming the opposite.

And at the end, in point 5, it says: "Also in view of the fact that we don't know who exactly needs to be received in Novska or Livno, we propose that the exchange with respect to persons held in the Republic of Croatia, or rather, which the Republic of Croatia has been searching for, we say that we do not mind if an exchange be carried out in Livno of the prisoners agreed on between your commission and the commission of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna."

So here we see this other matter testifying to your coordinating role on behalf of Herceg-Bosna. The first point is on page 1 of this letter, and the second point is on page 2.

So I'll give you the letter as a whole so that you can see for yourself that at the beginning it says, I quote: "That in view of the fact that representatives of the commission from Belgrade did not participate nor did they authorise anyone to negotiate on their behalf," end of quote. That is one point. And the second point has to do with the fact that you were organising an exchange in Livno in Herceg-Bosna, and again this was signed by your predecessor, Josip Kardum. Just look at it, please, and then we can move on. And as there is a transcript, there is no doubt as to my having quoted correctly.

Mr. Grujic, is it quite clear that your commission, the commission of the Republic of Croatia, was involved in the exchange of prisoners in ¹⁷³³³ the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. That is clear, because we had a large number of detainees that were detained in camps in the territory of Bosnia, and there is no dispute over that. So we were looking for possibilities for them to be released.

Q. Yes. But my specific point is is there any dispute that your commission negotiated on behalf of the commission of Herceg-Bosna, that is a commission of the Croatian Community in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. It's not a question of negotiating on their behalf but rather their assistance to receive detainees in that area.

Q. Mr. Grujic, I would not insist on this at all if Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff had not insisted on this practice in your communications with a commission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which she probably considers to be something negative. So I'm trying to strike at least some balance and to avoid the impression that whatever is happening in Yugoslavia is negative. So from this letter you see that your commission organising an exchange in Livno, which is in Herceg-Bosna; right? And these are prisoners from Herceg-Bosna, and on other hand, prisoners of the Muslim federation.

A. You see, it has to be known that it was not possible to carry out an exchange in areas between Republika Srpska and the Republic of Croatia because of war operations. You know that there was the corridor along the Sava River, and it was impossible. An exchange of prisoners could only be done in the southern part where detainees from Republika Srpska were transferred to that area and citizens of the Republic of Croatia were then ¹⁷³³⁴ transported to Croatia.

Q. Mr. Grujic, please don't say these things, because after you there will be a witness who will be talking about the time of the war conflict between the Muslims and Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina. So she will be coming immediately after you. So if we're talking about the since July, 1993, that was the period of conflict between the Muslims and Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

JUDGE MAY: What's the question?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is there any dispute that representatives of the Croatian army were in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Grujic?

A. I think that there's no dispute over that.

Q. Very well.

JUDGE KWON: Before you try to move on, what are you going to do with this letter? Would you like to exhibit it, or shall we return it to you?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. I would like it to be exhibited, because it fully denies what Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff was trying to allege about the Yugoslav side.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it true that your commission frequently --

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Wait a moment. Before we go on, the number.

THE REGISTRAR: It's Defence Exhibit 109.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just give me a brief yes or no answer, please. That will suffice. ¹⁷³³⁵ I'm just asking you, is it true that your commission, in spite of agreements reached, concealed prisoners, especially members of the JNA that should have been exchanged? Yes or no.

A. I think you have to be more specific. What do you mean did the commission hide them? How can the commission conceal them?

Q. They were silent about their existence, did not reveal information about them, concealed their existence.

A. I will give you a very brief answer, Mr. Milosevic. All detainees in the Republic of Croatia during my term of office were certainly registered by the International Committee for the Red Cross. And this means that they could exchange family messages with members of their family regardless of where the family was, which means that their family members knew that they were in prison. Therefore, that is the mechanism whereby we obtained information about some prisoners.

Q. Very well. Is it true that your commission, on the 22nd and 23rd of July, 1992 negotiated with the Commission for Exchange of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in Subotica?

A. I can't confirm that.

Q. But there is a report about that.

A. I don't have it. You have seen how long I have held this position.

Q. Very well. And do you know, Mr. Grujic, that on your list a large number of JNA members were missing even though representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross and some released members of the JNA claimed that in camps in Croatia there were a large number of ¹⁷³³⁶ prisoners, members of the JNA?

I'm saying this to provide evidence or to corroborate my claim that the number of prisoners was minimised and facts were concealed about existence of these prisoners, those the International Red Cross was aware of that.

A. I don't think that is possible. All prisoners registered by the International Committee of the Red Cross were registered. And today we have reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross saying that in the territory of the Republic of Croatia those prisoners that were registered are still not being held, whereas in other parts of the former Yugoslavia there were still such cases.

Q. I have a letter here, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Defence, the Commission for the Exchange of Prisoners, a letter addressed to the 1st Krajina Corps, in which it says: "We enclose a list of captured members of the army of Yugoslavia and civilians handed to us by the Croatian government delegation during talks in Subotica on the 22nd and 23rd of July, 1992. The Croatian side claims that the list is final and complete. However, after analysing that list, we have come to the conclusion that there are large numbers of prisoners, members of the army and civilians, that we are searching that they are not, rather, they are not on this list. Among them, there are many who have been seen by the International Committee of the Red Cross, by released persons, and family members."

Does this tell you anything, Mr. Grujic, or not?

A. Can I see that letter, please? ¹⁷³³⁷

Q. Yes. I'll give it to you a little later. Let me just address another point.

You claimed yesterday that Tole Zarko, a soldier, was first -- of the Croatian army was first held in Serbia and then moved to Knin.

A. I never mentioned Tole Zarko in my testimony.

Q. You spoke about a person captured over there and then transferred to Knin.

A. Yes, but it's not Mr. Tole Zarko.

Q. Well, who is it, then?

A. I would have to look at the lists and then I'll give you the names. But it is certainly not Mr. Tole Zarko.

Q. On this letter by General Radinovic, it says that this citizen of yours was arrested in the territory of FRY. He was not engaged in any combat operations. He had on him a forged passport with which he had come to the Federal Republic from the Czech Republic, that he spent some time in prison as an ordinary criminal and not as a prisoner of war, and that he was handed over to the Republic of Serbian Krajina because the authorities there were looking for him because of war crimes committed in Slunj where Tole was born.

And this is what it says in this letter by General Radinovic: "In connection with the captured member of the Croatian army, soldier Tole Zarko, and his escort, we wish to inform you that they are in the prison at Knin and under the authority of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. Please contact the responsible authorities in Knin regarding the possible exchange of Tole Zarko and his escort." ¹⁷³³⁸ If you're interested, you can look at this letter.

A. Yes, I would like to see the letter.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Will you please read the last passage, which refers to the missing names on your list, and then this particular passage regarding this particular individual.

A. Yes, I can comment on this letter. So the letter is being sent by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Ministry of Defence, to the 1st Krajina Corps, which means to Bosnia, to the Commission for the Exchange of Prisoners.

So the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is writing to the Krajina Corps.

In the letter, they say that they have information that a certain Tole Zarko was arrested, that we did not mention at all here during my testimony, and that this same person is under the authority of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, and they are advising us to have further contacts regarding exchange. That is, the Commission for the Exchange of Prisoners is asking the 1st Krajina Corps to take steps for the exchange. And also, they say that they are providing a list of prisoners handed over by the commission for Croatia.

Therefore, at all negotiations the current list of prisoners or detainees were exchanged -- were exchanged for those detainees to be exchanged, which doesn't mean that all the detainees needed to be on those lists. All registered detainees would normally appear on those lists. ^{17339 BLANK PAGE 17340} But here they say that the Ministry of Defence analysed the list provided, and on the basis of their information, without any grounds, they claim there should be more names.

We also analysed lists and claimed that a detainee may have been here or there. So that was one of the ways of finding detainees. But from this letter, we see absolutely no grounds to claim that except that they had analysed the list. And the other grounds is -- and another point is that this is a relationship between Yugoslavia and Bosnia. This letter confirms the existence of that relationship that we mentioned earlier on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we move on?

JUDGE MAY: Do you want that to be exhibited, this letter?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

JUDGE MAY: Number.

THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit 110, Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: In fact, it may be convenient to adjourn now. Mr. Grujic, could you be back, please, in twenty minutes to conclude your evidence.

Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, it occurs to me it may be sensible to discuss the Vukovar witnesses, Rule 92 bis, after this witness. We ought to do something of that this week , before we call the next witness.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Yes. There's also an issue that should be dealt with today in view of the fact that we have a three-day break. That concerns the recent filings about Ambassador Galbraith. ¹⁷³⁴¹

JUDGE MAY: We haven't had those yet.

MR. KAY: They're in the system, and Your Honour may recollect that Mr. Nice mentioned it yesterday in open session with a date which the Prosecution had an interest in securing.

JUDGE MAY: We can deal with that.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, just one additional matter.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We have actually scheduled two witnesses where decisions are outstanding for next week. That is the witness Baca, which we want as a replacement for Franic, and also the witness Rousseau.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We can deal with Rousseau. Baca I'm not so sure about. But anyway, let's adjourn now.

--- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Grujic, as we have just observed that it is not contentious that Croatian armed forces were on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, do you happen to know how many Serb prisoners, detainees who were held in Odzak, that is to say on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, were transferred after July 1992 to Croatia and put up in camps throughout Croatia?

A. I don't really know. I can't answer that question. I don't have that information. I did say earlier on that I do not have facts and figures of that kind, where people were captured and taken prisoner. All ¹⁷³⁴² I can testify about is where people were released and when they were released from prison.

Q. All right. Fine. But now let's look at some figures, the figures you yourself gave us. But before we come to that, let me just remind you of the following: At a meeting of the Croatian parliament on the 15th of January, 1996, the late president, Franjo Tudjman, presented some information to the fact that there were 10.668 persons killed and 2.215 missing persons. Later on, those figures were adjusted so that the total of missing and killed persons was somewhat lower, or rather, the total of persons killed was increased and the persons missing, the number was reduced somewhat. So the figure that was arrived at was a percentage, actually. The percentage of persons killed and missing with respect to the number of inhabitants of Croatian ethnicity was 0.35 per cent. I assume you will recall that, and you have that figure.

A. I don't think it is justified to express this in percentages and to add up apples and pears. You can't put persons who were missing and persons who were killed into one category. I don't think that's the right way to go about it. But as to figures, the figures of those missing and those killed changed depending on the period, and the number of missing persons that were actually found, the number of graves located, so that the time distance and time factor is very important linked up to these figures.

As to the figures that I presented here during my testimony, I stand by them. I stand by each and every number I uttered, because there is always a name and a surname, an individual behind a number, and ¹⁷³⁴³ personal ID and data, whether we are referring to missing persons or persons killed. So this is the information that my office has at its disposal, and I stand by it.

Q. All right. But at all events, Mr. Grujic, if we leave aside the number of persons missing and not link it up and add it to the number of persons killed, then the percentage is lower than that 0.35 per cent that I quoted a moment ago.

But tell me this, please. Let's clear up one matter first of all: Of the number of persons killed, the figure that you testify about, which is 11.800-odd -- and just help me what the exact figure was. 11.800 and how many? 11.834. I have it here, yes, of persons killed. So that is the total number of Croats; right?

A. No. That is the total number of persons killed regardless of their ethnic affiliation, excluding people who lost their lives after 1995.

Q. All right. Now, within the number of persons killed, how many of them were members of the Croatian armed forces, the Croatian National Guards Corps, and the HVO who were killed in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. We're not talking about individuals here and members of the HVO, in fact.

Q. All right.

A. What we're talking about, and I'm sure that is why your information is different, the facts and figures here referred to the territory of the Republic of Croatia exclusively.

Q. Are you claiming that among this figure of 11.800-odd persons we ¹⁷³⁴⁴ do not have any members of the Croatian armed forces who were killed on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Is that what you're saying?

A. Yes, that's what I'm saying. That's what I'm claiming. Any possible -- there could be a slight mistake, but I doubt that you will be able to actually find a mistake.

Q. How do you list members who were killed of the regular Croatian army on the territory of Herzegovina or members of the Croatian National Guard Corps killed on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Where are they listed? How are they registered? So members of the Croatian armed forces who were killed on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, if they are not included in that figure, where are they included?

A. Well, when I explained how these lists and these registers came into being, I said that it was the ministries, that they did it, and there was the Ministry of Defenders and that the Ministry of Defenders will have information and lists of all those killed who were members of the armed forces.

And following on from that logic, in undertaking this analysis, we presented data which referred exclusively to the territory of the Republic of Croatia. So anything about those killed on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, I would not have that kind of information.

Q. All right. Now, if you say that this percentage, which is below 0.35 per cent --

A. Well, I don't want to delve into percentages. I didn't give percentages, nor did I calculate this in percentages, and I think that to be the wrong approach. ¹⁷³⁴⁵

Q. Whether it's the wrong approach or not, what I'm asking you is do you know that the percentage of Serbs killed is far greater, several times greater, in fact?

JUDGE MAY: What do you mean? What do you mean, and what is the relevance? All this witness is dealing with is the number of killed who he has recorded. The fact that you've got some other figure for some other group is irrelevant. What's the relevance of it as far as this witness's evidence is concerned, even if you're right?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, my question is as follows, Mr. May. As -- well, let me explain, give a brief explanation before I go on to ask my question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Grujic, according to the census of Croatia in 1991, the lists made in Croatia then, Croatia had 4.774.265 inhabitants, according to the 1991 population census.

JUDGE MAY: This is all irrelevant, but I will ask Mr. Grujic this: In the figures which you gave, do you record Serbs who were killed?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They are in the records, Serbs, ethnic Serbs in the Republic of Croatia. What I can tell you is that on that list we have recorded the following, as we're dealing with figures: 6.790 persons were ethnic Croats, and 298 persons were of Serb ethnicity.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Are you talking about the number of persons killed, Mr. Grujic? Well, you say several hundred ethnic Serbs; right?

A. Those are the ones that we have recorded as having been killed. ¹⁷³⁴⁶ These are the official records of the Republic of Croatia, and in those records, for understandable reasons because we don't have the figures, we have not recorded members of the paramilitary units that were killed and buried previously. So they were not recorded because we don't have information of that kind within the Republic of Croatia.

Q. All right. And did you -- have you ever heard of Veritas? It's an institution dealing with crimes against humanity and Serb victims in Croatia.

A. If I'm not mistaken, that is a non-governmental agency; right?

Q. So instead of this figure that you have, some 200-odd or 300 Serbs killed, do you know that their records, which have been verified, that the figure there is 6.744, in fact, persons killed.

JUDGE MAY: What is that for? For paramilitaries and the like killed in Serbia -- killed in Croatia? Is that what that figure includes?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm talking about this: Mr. May, it seems to be that there's some confusion here, as you understand it. Mr. Grujic is the director of an institution dealing with persons killed, missing, expelled, or rather, the victims of war in Croatia. I am talking about the -- about Serbs who were Croatian nationals, and I'm asking Mr. Grujic why you don't deal with Serbs who were Croatian nationals and expelled, missing, or killed.

A. Well, we do deal with that too. We do deal with ethnic Serbs, and that can be seen from the list of missing persons that I submitted. So all those who were registered with the office, all the ethnic Serbs, the exhumed bodies that were identified have been recorded and are on the list ^{17347 BLANK PAGE 17348} of persons killed. But when you speak about the Veritas figures and you said that was 6.700-odd, I don't wish to comment on that specifically. I have reports by them which speak of lower figures. But regardless of that, what I can tell you is this: There are certain questionable things and uncertitudes on that list, for example. People who died a natural death are also on those lists. For example Luka Andzelic, Basta Andja, two cases in point. And then we have persons who are still living. For example, Ljubica Batula, Drago Borojevic, Djuro Borojevic and persons who were reported missing in Kosovo, such as Djuro Barac in Pristina, Nikola Begovic in Orahovac, persons who went missing in the BiH territory.

JUDGE MAY: Let him finish.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. You needn't enumerate.

A. Very well. So persons missing in the BiH territory, such as Igor Alisic [phoen], Dusko Babic, Srdjan Mitrovic at Pale. Therefore it is because of these shortcomings that list is not relevant and pertinent. But I can answer your question and say yes, I do deal with ethnic Serbs, and we have just completed a list on the territory of Serbia and Montenegro, persons who went missing there. And we initiated and launched this drive in Croatia using Croatian criteria, and this kind of list was compiled and completed in Bosnia too. So yes, we do deal, and very seriously, with Serb -- ethnic Serbs.

Q. All right. According to the method and way in which you do this, as far as I can gather, Mr. Grujic, you list the Serbs killed, and there are several hundred of those on your list, whereas Veritas, the figure ¹⁷³⁴⁹ Veritas gives us is several thousands. Do you note a drastic difference between those two figures or are you claiming that your figures are the correct ones?

A. I claim that my figures are the correct ones and there is a difference. The list of Veritas is called persons killed, missing, and so on. It entails all the categories. So apart from the shortcomings I've already mentioned, there is another very serious shortcoming: The difference in figures and numbers exists because the information that I presented refers to facts and figures dating from 1991 up to 1995. And I also stated that persons who had lost their lives in combat were listed on a separate list during the Storm and Flash operations because the taking of this data is still an ongoing process which is nearing completion. And apart from that, we summarised 500 individuals of that kind in Knin, Gracac, and Korenica, and they are with the international court, and the -- we have started the identification of those Serbs. And from Knin itself, we were able to identify over 100 persons, which means yes, we are dealing with that problem. And --

JUDGE MAY: Can I just clarify, please, Mr. Grujic, see if I can understand what you're saying. You say there is another shortcoming in the Veritas list. You referred -- your list refers to people killed between 1991 and 1995 and not in Storm and Flash. That's your evidence. Now, what is the shortcoming compared with that of the Veritas list?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I spoke of the period from 1991 to 1995 and presented that information. I also said that I cannot stand ¹⁷³⁵⁰ behind the figures and names of all those killed in the Flash and Storm operations, those guards, because we haven't completed our examination of those figures.

JUDGE MAY: Are you saying -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, it's most important, but I can't understand what the point is you're trying to make.

Are you saying that the Veritas list includes those killed in Storm and Flash or not? I need to be sure.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the Veritas list includes those killed in Operations Flash and Storm, taking into account the other categories I mentioned too.

JUDGE MAY: You also said then that you were working on individuals in Knin and elsewhere who were killed in Storm and Flash, and that included some 500; is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. That means, then, that you're claiming that in Croatia, only several hundred Serbs were killed, in fact, including Operations Flash and Storm.

A. No, that is not correct. What I'm claiming is that without including -- excluding Operations Flash and Storm, I'm talking about the persons of Serb ethnicity who were recorded as having been killed in this list of the 11.000 that I submitted, from 1991 to 1995. Similarly, I stated that on that list most probably persons who were members of ¹⁷³⁵¹ paramilitary formations were not on the list because we do not have information of that kind. And following on from those logics, we don't have that information today either.

Q. So you are disclaiming the figure of Veritas, that is 6.744 persons of Serb ethnicity were killed?

A. I expressed doubt as to that figure because on the list are not only those killed but also missing persons, which cannot be grouped together. And also because I found certain shortcomings that I have referred to, to the effect that on the list there are some persons who were killed in the territory of Bosnia or in Kosovo or were alive.

Q. Yes. You read out a couple of names. But surely those few names don't mean much compared to the several thousand that I'm speaking about. I'm talking about several thousand, and you are saying several hundred, and that is why I'm asking you.

So you're claiming that a couple of hundred of people were killed and not several thousand.

A. No, that's not right. I'm saying that the number I gave applies to the period 1991 to 1995. But I'm also claiming that a certain number of persons were killed, mostly Serbs, in Flash and Storm Operations, and the UN council was informed about this, and the figure is about 1.000 killed, about 1.000. Their burial places have been marked. It is known where they have been buried. And out of those 1.000, 500 have been exhumed and a certain number identified. So I can say that the number of people killed in Storm and Flash is 1.000.

In addition, there is a number of missing persons during the ¹⁷³⁵² period of the Flash and Storm operations, and through verification by the International Committee of the Red Cross and our own data, that figure was originally 1.200. Now it's been reduced to 800. And to confirm those figures, we have conducted an inquiry in the territory of Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and information seems to point to a figure of around 800.

Q. I see. So that is what you are claiming. You are claiming that this figure of several thousand killed Serbs is incorrect.

A. I've said very clearly what I think about that.

Q. Very well.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, would you clarify something, please. What are the dates for the Veritas list? What are the dates of the deaths involved? Can you tell us that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't have the last date, but this is an updated report that I received in connection with the testimony of this witness, and I can provide you with their official report, and the figure is 6.744, according to their verified records.

JUDGE MAY: But we'll need to know the dates of the deaths. Just help, Mr. Grujic, before we leave this topic, about the paramilitaries. You said you didn't include the paramilitaries who had been killed and buried previously, I think is what you said, as it was translated. Could you clarify that and tell us what you did with any paramilitaries that you found.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is only logical that we couldn't have such data, so most of those persons, members of paramilitary ¹⁷³⁵³ formations, were buried by other members of paramilitary formations.

JUDGE MAY: I see. You didn't have any information about them.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And did you consider the Serbian army of Krajina a paramilitary formation?

A. Of course. Clearly we did.

Q. Oh, I see. So that was an army with which you negotiated and exchanged prisoners, but you considered it a paramilitary formation.

A. As far as I know, this was an occupied part of the territory of the Republic of Croatia, but I would not enter into a discussion about that as it is not the subject of my testimony.

Q. You claim that the Serbs occupied a part of the territory on which they lived.

JUDGE MAY: No. That is not part of his evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He just said that. That is what he's claiming.

JUDGE MAY: We don't want to get into an argument about that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- not like to enter into that discussion.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Are you aware that the Serbian side had proposed for years that a unified list of killed and missing persons be compiled for the territory of the Republic of Croatia regardless of ethnic, religious, ¹⁷³⁵⁴ or military affiliation but that the Croatian side would not agree to that and obstructed the formation of a unified list?

A. I think that that is again incorrectly stated slightly. Missing persons, regardless of their ethnic, religious, or any other affiliation in the Republic of Croatia did have the opportunity to report that fact to those service.

Q. You mean the missing persons could report that they were missing?

A. No, their family members could report that people were missing in official institutions. And all those who reported that such a person was missing, and I've given the ethnic composition of missing persons, and all of them are on the list of missing persons.

Furthermore, I said that we have renewed those lists, and through the mass media, and I have the proclamation here if you're interested in seeing it, we called on all the citizens of the Republic of Croatia to report their missing family members.

Q. Very well, Mr. Grujic. Yesterday in the examination-in-chief you said -- you referred to the expulsion of a certain number of citizens from areas on which they lived. Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of Serbs were expelled by armed operations of the Croatian armed forces from the areas in which they lived? And they were also citizens of the Republic of Croatia. Why aren't you dealing with them?

A. I think that the Republic of Croatia is very seriously engaged in that problem. And as far as I know, more than 130.000 persons within that category have already returned to the Republic of Croatia. There are just now more than 30.000 persons are in the process of returning to the ^{17355 BLANK PAGE 17356} Republic of Croatia. And for the matter to be quite correctly dealt with, the Republic of Croatia has a specially formed office for refugees dealing with that problem.

Q. And do you know that out of those 130.000 that you say returned, 40.000 had to flee back again to Serbia or Montenegro or Republika Srpska, and that the net figure is much lower than the one you are mentioning. Are you aware of that? Is that part of the activity of your office?

A. No, it is not part of our sphere of activity. I said that in the Republic of Croatia, there are separate institutions dealing with that, but we do not have this figure that anyone had to leave again. I don't know why anyone would have to leave a democratic state.

Q. Because they were killed, because their houses were set on fire, because they were mistreated, and that is why they returned back. Those are the reasons.

A. I don't know who was killed.

Q. We'll come to that, but obviously not with you. Do you know how many out of the 600.000 Serbs who, according to the Croatian 1991 census were living in Croatia, how many were expelled from the territory of the Republic of Croatia? Do you have that information, that figure?

A. I do not have any official figure. There are various sources, ranging between 200.000 and 250.000, but I do not have that information. I'm talking about information that I learnt about from unofficial sources.

Q. I'm trying to establish what you have just said, Mr. Grujic. You're not addressing the problem of Serbs at all. Is that right or not?

A. That is not right. I've said that there is a list, a census of ¹⁷³⁵⁷ those who have returned, of those who are in the process of returning. We cannot have that information. But it is equally clear that the ICRC has those figures.

Q. But there are no lists of those killed and those expelled, and many thousands were killed and hundreds of thousands expelled. So you have no census of those figures?

A. I think it is absurd to discuss these matters in this way.

Q. Let me ask you very specifically, then: Did you say yesterday that your office was responsible for all exhumations in the territory of Croatia?

A. Correct.

Q. Then how is it that if your office is responsible for all exhumations in the territory of Croatia, that the first exhumations of Serb victims in the territory of Croatia be carried out by the opposing side and not your office? And this was in the spring of 2000 in Gospic. How come up that until then you had not exhumed any Serb victims in the territory of Croatia until they came to Gospic and carried out the first exhumation in Gospic?

A. I think that also is incorrect. We exhumed 135 mass graves in the territory of the Republic of Croatia from which we found more than 3.300 victims among whom there were members of Serbs -- Serb ethnicity who have been identified. I can also say that there were graves with persons of Serb ethnicity, such as, for instance, at Plitvice, in the cave the whole Rakic family was buried there. They were people of Serb ethnicity. Also in the grave in Snjegovici, there were 13 persons of Serb ethnicity. So ¹⁷³⁵⁸ what you're saying does not stand, that we did not deal with that problem and that we did not exhume persons of Serb ethnicity. That is not correct.

Q. I'm claiming that the first exhumation was done by them in the year 2000. What you did exhume happened by chance as part of the exhumations that you were doing.

A. So there just happened by chance to be some Serbs in the 135 graves. But I said that the Rakic family was Serbs. Their grave was not accidentally exhumed. It was found intentionally and exhumed. Also in Snjegovici. It was found and exhumed. And international monitors were informed about all those exhumations, and they attend them. And later on, the persons were identified.

Q. Apart from those exhumed from a septic pit in the Serbian part of Gospic, what else was exhumed? These were the crimes committed in the Medak pocket, Divoselo, Citluk, Pocitelj, in September 1993, at a time when the area was under United Nations protection. What else was exhumed then? From the Knin cemetery, it was again through the intermediary of this opposing side that more than 300 bodies were exhumed.

A. Two hundred and ninety-nine. And this was not under the intermediary. The exhumation was done pursuant to positive laws of the Republic of Croatia on the basis of instructions from the investigating judge of the Republic of Croatia and in the presence of the state attorney of the Republic of Croatia.

Q. Was that at the request of the opposing side or on your own initiative? ¹⁷³⁵⁹

A. At their request.

Q. Oh, I see. Well, why then did you not remember before their request was made to make that exhumation when this was done in the year 2001, six years after 1995?

A. You see, we're still exhuming graves from 1991, so ten years later, if we're talking about dates. But I think it is also important to say that exhumations can be undertaken, and it is normal to undertake that when certain conditions have been met, which means when you have information about possible victims before their death, because if you cannot identify victims quickly, capacities are soon exhausted and we have a lot of problems in housing those bodily remains. So we first collected information prior to death on the basis of a questionnaire that was provided within the territory of Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia. These are the pre-conditions. And once they are met, we can undertake exhumations. Everything else is hasty and can cause very grave problems.

Q. I understand your efforts to explain how the procedure goes. You mention questionnaires and so on. But, for instance, Osijek, where you work, let me ask a you a specific question. Paulin Dvor is close to Osijek, isn't it?

A. Yes, relatively close.

Q. Tell me, please, how is it possible that from the Rizvanusa location on Mount Velebit, close to Gospic, a number of bodies of Serb civilians were exhumed having been killed in December 1991 in Paulin Dvor near Osijek where you worked. Do you know where Osijek is and where Mount Velebit is and how come that these Serbs civilians killed in Paulin Dvor ¹⁷³⁶⁰ near Osijek should be exhumed on Mount Velebit. And you say somebody didn't fill in a questionnaire and this was in a zone in which you were responsible.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer the question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, one should make certain distinctions. My job is the organisation and implementation of exhumation and the keeping of appropriate records. It is a fact that the remains of 18 persons were exhumed in June 2000 in the area of Rizvanusa, as Mr. Milosevic says. It is also a fact that the identification has still not be completed but the preliminary identification, using DNA analysis, shows that those persons were most probably persons who were on the tracing list for Paulin Dvor. After identification has been confirmed, then their identity will be confirmed. And the competent institutions or investigating court is conducting investigating proceedings into this case, and I can also say that I know from the mass media - as this is not my job - that some persons have already been charged for this and that they are in custody so that -- the answer will be provided by the court.

Q. Very well, Mr. Grujic. Paulin Dvor is in Eastern Slavonia; isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And Velebit is a mountain in the north of Dalmatia, isn't it?

A. Yes, correct.

Q. So these were Serbian civilians killed in Paulin Dvor in 1991 precisely at the time when you were the operative officer for state ¹⁷³⁶¹ security of that region; right?

A. I can't testify about that event because I don't know about it. I might have some wrong information, so I can't testify about what you're talking about now.

Q. I just presented the facts and asked you questions based on them. Paulin Dvor in Eastern Slavonia, these 18 bodies that you mentioned were from Paulin Dvor found in Northern Dalmatia --

JUDGE MAY: He cannot give you any answers. Let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So who was arrested? You say that some people were arrested. Who was arrested?

A. From the information media, I know that at least two persons were arrested, taken into custody and placed in detention because of these criminal acts. And the competent court will engage in the proceedings and determine accountability and all the relevant facts linked to the event.

Q. Well, when I hear the figures that you're quoting and comparing them to the actual figures, then I have to say, Mr. Grujic, that I very much doubt them.

Now, do you know something about the exhumations that took place in the locations of Masicka Sargovina, Sarvas, Golubnjaca in the Lika region? Because that came under the competence of your office. How many Serbs did you unearth there?

A. You mentioned Golubnjaca. In Golubnjaca, we have the Rakic family. So they were people of Serb ethnicity.

Q. And how many Serbs did you dig up in those three locations? ¹⁷³⁶²

A. Well, I can't give you a figure off the bat for the three locations, but I can give you a rough idea, a rough estimate, and that is, in those three locations, between 20 and 30 persons.

Q. All right. And is it true and correct that 400 dead bodies are located at the Institute for Forensics in Zagreb at the present time?

A. Yes. Over 500, in fact, dead bodies.

Q. I'm talking about the exhumed bodies of the Serb victims now.

A. Exhumed victims we do not divide up according to their national ethnic structure.

Q. It is my impression that you do do that, that you do distinguish and divide them up.

A. No, we don't. Exhumed bodies, victims who have not been identified, you can't say which ethnic group they belong to because the bodies have not been identified yet. They have no personal IDs. We can only assume who they belong to. And if we do that, then we can say that of the 500 victims, for example, that were exhumed from the 135 mass graves, that most of them were Croats. The majority were Croats. And if we look at the remaining number, 350 unidentified persons - I'm giving rough estimates - were most probably persons who were of Serb ethnicity, but they're waiting to be identified, for the process of identification to take place.

So the victims we can say were probably Serbs and victims of non-Serb ethnicity. So non-Serb ethnicity over 500; ethnic Serbs about 350.

Q. 350, you say, whereas Veritas says that at the Forensics Institute ^{17363 BLANK PAGE 17364} there are at least 400. But I suppose you say those figures are incorrect too.

A. I don't know how Veritas could have more exact figures than us. I said that I was speaking about approximations. If you're interested in exact figures, I'll give you an exact figure.

Q. Please. And is it true that 1.000 registered places in graves are waiting to be exhumed, and the Serbs are insisting on that?

A. I don't think that is a correct figure.

Q. You say not a correct figure. Fine. All I want is a yes or no answer from you now, please: Do you happen to know, do you happen to remember that there were exhumations of Serb victims during the war and that one of those was a victim from the Miljevacki plateau operation, dating back to June 1992 where 40 persons were killed, and after they had been arrested, Serb civilians were killed and thrown into a pit, a cast pit, and two months later they were exhumed and turned over to the Serb side. So this was done by the Croatian authorities at a time when you yourself headed that particular department. Is that right or not? They were killed, thrown into a pit, exhumed later on and turned over to the Serb authorities during the war in the exchange that was conducted?

A. I think -- what are you talking about? Are we talking about the Miljevacki Dzep pocket or the Miljevacki Plateau?

Q. We're talking about the plateau. Forty persons arrested, executed by firing squad, thrown into a pit.

JUDGE MAY: You have told us that, so it appears for the ¹⁷³⁶⁵ transcript. No point going over the same ground again.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So you say you know nothing about that?

A. I know nothing about that incident.

Q. All right. Now, as this is something you delved in and you don't know nothing about it, do you happen to remember that the United Nations required the Croatian government to give explanations for the massacre of Serb civilians in the area of the Medak pocket when 70 civilians were killed and 48 went missing?

JUDGE MAY: Do you know anything about this, Mr. Grujic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, linked to the Medak pocket. I can tell you what I know about that.

JUDGE MAY: It's something you know professionally rather than what you've read in the papers; is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 88 person people lost their lives in the area of the Medacki Dzep or Medacki pocket, and the according to the information that the office has at its disposal, which were compiled based on the analyses conducted, the figures and facts we received through negotiation, 46 were soldiers and 42 were civilians of that number. And straight after that event, the bodily remains of 52 persons were taken, 18 remains were uncovered by the UN, and in 1995, three other bodily remains of persons of Serb ethnicity were uncovered. In April 2000, exhumation was undertaken in Obradovic Varos, near Gospic, when the bodily remains of ¹⁷³⁶⁶ 11 persons were exhumed.

According to the present situation from that same area and that same operation and drive, 15 persons are still listed as missing. However, we are still -- ten persons have not been identified yet, which means that five persons are still being traced.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And these were all Serbs; right? Everything you've said relates to Serbs?

A. Yes. But I don't have -- most probably they were Serbs, because I don't have an exact -- exact information about their ethnicity.

Q. All right. Judging by the information that you do have, is it true that the victims in Divoselo, Citluk and Pocitelj were civilians, in fact?

A. Well, this is how it was: I can't actually say anything about that because it was probably a period after the conflicts. And as far as I know, linked to those events, criminal reports were filed, investigations are under way to bring the perpetrators -- to discover the perpetrators and bring them to justice. So this is an ongoing procedure with the competent authorities in Croatia.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Would you just clarify: The Medak pocket you dealt with, where 88 were killed. What was the date of that operation which led to their deaths?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was sometime in 1993. I can't give you an exact date, but 1993.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ¹⁷³⁶⁷

Q. Do you remember the cautions of Stoltenberg, a public one to Franjo Tudjman, to cease attacks on territories inhabited by Serbs and to withdraw from the villages in Lika where they had killed the civilians? Do you remember that warning that was issued? And that was your duty. It was your job to attend to matters of that kind, or was that not your job at the time?

A. That has absolutely nothing to do with my job nor with the subject of my testimony.

Q. I understand that you're not interested in the other side of the coin, but tell me this: Do you happen to remember that on the 12th of October, 1993, a special report of the UN Commission for Human Rights and former Polish minister, foreign minister who was not inclined to the Serbs at all, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, confirmed that the Croatian forces - and I quote him - "systematically and deliberately are destroying houses, destroying cattle, livestock and other property, and that they killed --"

JUDGE MAY: I am going to interrupt you for the very point I was making at the outset of this cross-examination. This is October 1993. The indictment period that we're dealing with is in 1990 and 1991, going into early 1992.

Now, what is the relevance of events in Croatia in 1993? No. It's your case. You tell us what the relevance of it is. But it's about two years after the time we're dealing with.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, you sometimes deal with 1991 and 1992, and yesterday you dealt with 1994 and 1995. So I don't know what you're actually dealing with, because yesterday we spent an hour ¹⁷³⁶⁸ and a half listening to explanations which related to the period of 1994, 1995, and 1996, and so on. And at the time --

JUDGE MAY: I don't know what you're talking about. Let us go back to this witness's evidence. It's right, of course, that he has been dealing with deaths up to 1995, and you've been allowed to cross-examine about it. But the question is this: The report, the Mazowiecki report that you referred to about the Croatian forces destroying houses, et cetera, in 1993. Now, what is the relevance of that? It's two years after the time we're dealing with. Likewise, Operation Flash and Storm are even later.

The point that I'm trying to bring home to you is this: It's not going to assist the Tribunal in deciding this case about events in 1991 and 1992 to deal with events in 1993 and 1994 in Croatia, unless you can show us what the relevance is. What I'm saying is it's for you to show us. If you say there is some relevance in this, we'll --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this is where the relevance lies --

JUDGE MAY: -- we'll listen to it, of course. But at the moment, I can't see any relevance.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is the relevance of it, Mr. May: The relevance is in that part of my sentence which you did not quote, you mentioned property, you mentioned livestock and cattle. You didn't mention the last part of my sentence where I say in Mazowiecki's report of 67 Serb civilians killed. So the relevance lies in this: The witness, at that time, headed a governmental department for establishing ¹⁷³⁶⁹ precisely those facts, and he had information given to him by the High Representative of the United Nations, and this was not clarified or explained or included in his reports because, in his activities from 1991 up until 2003, he has dealt in matters of this kind. So he's not testifying only about the things he did in 1991 and 1992, but what happened, what the consequences of the war was and what steps were taken and steps are being taken today even in the year 2003. So I am bringing into question the true intentions of the government and its office to ascertain the truth about the victims of war and the proportions of those victims on the side of Serbs, Serbs who were nationals of the Republic of Croatia. And I therefore consider that things are being turned upside down here because the Serb victims in Croatia are several times greater than the Croatian victims, especially if we look at the number of inhabitants in Croatia. And this particular office --

JUDGE MAY: That will be a matter which we will have to decide, it may be, in due course. The witness has given his evidence. He's given a figure for 300 that he's discovered, 300 Serbs. You have produced another figure for a report, the dates of which we don't know about. If you want to ask the witness whether he's biased, of course you can do that, if that's what you allege, that it doesn't show a true picture.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I'm not claiming at all only linked to this witness what I'm claiming. I consider that in an organised and systematic way, you wish to turn the truth around, upside ¹⁷³⁷⁰ down, about the events in Croatia.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, Mr. Grujic, did you take part, or your department, your office, in the exhumation of 70 Serb civilians who were buried in Zadar because the Croatian side exhumed them, turned them over to the Serb side, to the Republika Srpska Krajina in the course of 1994? They were buried in Zadar. That means on territory under the control of the Croatian authorities. It -- you are in charge of the exhumation. Now, did you take part in this particular exhumation or was that done by the army? Did your office, bureau, or whatever you wish to call it take part in that?

A. The fact is that at that time, bodily remains of persons were exchanged. I don't know what the exact number was, but I don't think it's the figure that you mentioned. It was a smaller figure, less persons who were buried at the cemetery in Zadar, and at the request of the then commission led, if I might, by Mr. Savo Strbac, who is at the head of the Veritas agency today, he was the Vice-Premier member of the commission at that time, and it was at his request that the bodily remains were turned over. And I think that that process was done in a completely proper fashion.

At the same time, let me add, at that same time, or rather, not at the same time but in 1991 in actual fact, in that same way, the bodily remains of the victims killed in Skabrnja, 60 of them, were handed over. So this is a procedure which was done.

Q. I asked whether you took part in that. ^{17371 BLANK PAGE 17372}

A. I did not personally take part in that, no.

Q. But you claim that you were the only - how shall I put this? - the only institution in Croatia that was in charge of exhumations throughout that time.

A. I think that this is quite clearly stated in the attachment to my report, attachment 2C of my statement, in fact, where the competencies and authorities linked to the exhumations are listed and the periods involved. All that is recorded in that document.

Q. I have here that 52 bodies were returned to the Serb side out of 70 that were killed. This is also on the basis of records kept by the institution headed in those days by Savo Strbac. And do you know that during the war there were dozens of minor or individual exhumations of Serb victims that were handed over to the Serb side?

A. I think that in my previous answer I said so. Yes, there were, but this was mutual. This was done on both sides. This was a procedure whereby killed members of armed formations were handed over to the other side and which is, of course, in conformity with the Geneva Conventions. So I see nothing in dispute there.

Q. That is precisely what I wanted to establish, that this was done by both sides. That is what you just said, both sides. Now, tell me, please, how many Serb victims were exhumed in the area in which you were, that is at the Vukovar cemetery, and how many Serb victims were thrown into the Danube, according to your assumptions?

A. I do not wish to make any assumptions. I can tell you ¹⁷³⁷³ specifically.

At the Vukovar cemetery, there were 938 victims buried. All 938 victims have been exhumed by us. Among them there were a certain percentage of persons of Serb ethnicity.

Q. What percentage, according to your assessment?

A. I can't give you the exact percentage but an approximation. It was around 15 per cent. Actually, 20 per cent were all members of national minorities, the rest being Croats. And I think about 10 per cent were Serbs.

Q. And did you collect any information regarding the burning of corpses and their being thrown into the Danube?

A. I can speak about facts, and facts indicate that we did come across burnings all over. Also, wherever possible, those victims were identified.

Q. My time is running out. Let's just say a few words about the camps now, please.

Do you know, since you spoke about camps, that there is a list and a book has been issued, documents about war crimes in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. The report was published in 2001. The camps for Serbs in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, there were 536, but that doesn't interest you. In the territory of Croatia, 221 camps. Do you have that figure?

A. That figure is absolutely untrue.

Q. Please. You say it's untrue and we'll move on.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness answer. The allegation has been ¹⁷³⁷⁴ made. Yes, Mr. Grujic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Twenty-two places in the Republic of Croatia were registered as places where prisoners of war were held, and four of those places had the status of dormitories for prisoners of war to correctional institutions, and 16 prisons and detention facilities were used for that purpose. All detainees under the authority of the Republic of Croatia were held in those prisons in that period of time. Clearly those places which were transit places could not appear on that list. That is, from the moment a person was captured until he was put in detention. I have a list of those places, and I can give you the figures.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So you have the list of the places from which they were brought into prison.

A. No, I don't have those figures. That is not part of our activity. There are different places along the separation line. You know that the separation line between occupied areas and the free territory of Croatia was several thousand kilometres long.

Q. Yes. But there are several thousand days during which that office of yours has been working.

Tell me, on your list, as we've cleared up here, you say that there weren't 221 camps for Serbs in Croatia, and your negative answer is final. You said that there were about 20-odd. Is the Lora camp one of those places, the Lora camp in Split?

A. The Lora camp was a dormitory for prisoners of war, according to ¹⁷³⁷⁵ official records, where detainees were held.

Q. How come that in such a place, which was one of the worst camps, there were 1.005 detainees that passed through this camp and at least 35 were executed in the camp itself, and according to statements of prisoners, there might have been 70 of them killed in the camp itself. Do you have any information about that as you call that camp a sleeping or dormitory?

A. It's not my name for it. It is the official name for this location. As to events linked to that location or boarding place, certain investigations are being conducted within the competence of the county court in Split where some persons have been charged, and the number that you are mentioning I could not comment on it because it is not within my sphere of activity nor do I have any knowledge that it could be such a high number.

Q. Very well, then. According to your knowledge, how many prisoners were killed in that camp?

A. You see, I do not have that figure because, as I was saying, that is within the competence of the county court that is conducting the investigation which will confirm whether those events took place or did not at all, but I can tell you that within my term of office, with the exception of two cases, there was no bad treatment or illegal treatment of prisoners of war.

Q. We will come to that on some other occasion because today we won't have time. But tell me, please, as you call Lora, which was a camp as a boarding house, did you know the pavilion 26 at the Zagreb fairgrounds, ¹⁷³⁷⁶ and recently Nenad Puhovski made a documentary film about this camp. And Nenad Puhovski is a Croat. Hundreds of citizens of Zagreb, mostly of Serb ethnicity, passed through this camp. Are you aware of that?

A. Such a place has not been registered as a place from which prisoners were released or exchanged. You must know that the position was such that all places where prisoners were held officially, that those places were registered.

Q. So this was not registered, so it doesn't exist for you. Let us move on.

Do you know that in the Pakrac Poljana, or field, and Marino Selo - these are camps - in the period from 11th October 1991 -- Mr. May, here you have the year 1991 -- until the 29th of March, 1992, several hundred Serbs were liquidated? Pakracka Poljana and Marino Selo. And most of those executions were carried out in the settlements of Western Slavonia, and all these settlements were outside the area in which the Serb population resisted by force of arms the violence of the Croatian armed forces. So all these places were outside that area.

JUDGE MAY: Now, if you can follow that question, Mr. Grujic, you can answer it. If not, it could be repeated and broken up into the various questions which are involved.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can say in general terms that this figure of several hundred is one I am not familiar with. I only know - and this is something I can testify about - that in the area of Pakracka Poljana, in 1995 the remains were exhumed of 19 persons that were found and buried in 1992 by members of the Argentinian battalion of the UN. So ¹⁷³⁷⁷ those are the only victims that have been found so far in the area of Pakracka Poljana.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. So you're claiming that the figure I have that in Pakracka Poljana and Marino Selo, from October 1991 until the end of March 1992, more than 300 Serbs were liquidated, you're saying that is not correct.

A. I am saying that I do not have such a figure but that I can only testify about what I have just said.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, you will not allow any questions about Flash and Storm; is that right?

JUDGE MAY: Just one moment.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: No. Just deal with the matters which this witness can deal with.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In that case, tell me, as I'm not allowed to ask you anything about Flash and Storm as Flash and Storm attacks on UN protected areas and the greatest killings in that war occurred in 1995 --

JUDGE MAY: No. No. I said not.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes. But my question is: How is it possible that eight years subsequent to the event your office still has no figures about it? Eight years after the event. And the massive suffering and killing of Serb ¹⁷³⁷⁸ civilians in the first place. And you're claiming that you're treating all citizens equally. How come you're not addressing that problem?

JUDGE MAY: I've stopped the microphone. It's not a relevant question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And since we haven't said anything about -- or, rather, I'm not allowed to ask about Flash and Storm, do you know how -- because of the pressure brought on Serbs, particularly in towns, many were living in Zagreb, Rijeka, Sisak, Osijek, how many of those Serbs sought shelter behind the barricades in the Republic of Serbian Krajina precisely in 1991 and 1992 in addition to those who fled to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia?

A. I think that I have given the figures linked to registered refugees, the figures in the possession of the administration in the Republic of Croatia.

Q. If that is your answer, let me ask you: Do you know -- and Mr. May, I'm talking about 1991 from June until August, June, 1991 'til August 1992, do you have those figures in your office? That is that from the area of Daruvar, Grubisno Polje, Podravska Slatina, Pakrac, Novska, Orahovac, and Virovitica, 52.320 Serbs had fled that area and 193 settlements in Western Slavonia were ethnically cleansed? Are you familiar with that? This was in 1991 and 1992.

A. I can only repeat that in 1991, there were 4.784.000 citizens of the Republic of Croatia, out of which 3.736.000 were Croats and 581.000 Serbs; that 205.000 Croats were expelled, 3.104 Serbs -- ^{17379 BLANK PAGE 17380}

Q. How many Serbs were expelled from Croatia?

A. 3.104.

Q. 3.000 Serbs fled from Croatia?

A. That is the official figure, or 1.41 per cent, whereas Hungarians accounted for 4.987 or 2.26 per cent.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, after this, I see no reason or meaning in asking any questions of this witness.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I would have a few questions, but I think it is time for the break, is it not?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll take the break. Twenty minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.13 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.39 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Grujic, I'm going to deal with the contents of your statement, limit my questions to that, and of course taking it up to mid-July 1992. I should like to ask you -- perhaps I didn't make a note of this correctly yesterday. Could you tell me, when did you write this report in actual fact?

A. This report was written last year.

Q. Thank you. If I understand the methodology you used, you state the methodology you used here, in fact, and the criteria used when compiling questionnaires and your conclusions. And then in point 4 of ¹⁷³⁸¹ your report, you say that you organised and held talks on detainees and missing persons with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and transporting the remains of detainees and missing persons from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?

Similarly, a little further down, you state that in those talks, you dealt with the question of exchanges; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. However, from what I can see in the report, in those talks and negotiations with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, you did not - and of course Bosnia-Herzegovina too - you did not ask them for any kind of information with respect to the killed and expelled at that time, 1992 and later on, because you wrote the report, as you yourself state, last year. So you didn't ask them for information of that type. All you used was information by the Ministry for Public Works of Croatia relating to detainees and missing persons. And when you refer to detainees, the number is 220.380 persons. Does that mean that each of these individuals have been recorded in the files and records of this office of yours? Do you have the cards, have the registers in these files?

A. All -- no, not all the files exist, the cards exist. I give an attachment to my statement with a card register that speaks of how these individuals were listed and registered. So that is the official number of registered individuals according to our methodology.

Q. So you have just one card stating that there were 220.000-odd, but you don't have the individual cards for each person? ¹⁷³⁸²

A. No, we did not attach the individual cards for each person.

Q. Thank you. Now, you give us those figures. In your work on these reports, we heard that you did not ask for information from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, but did you ask the international institutions at that time and request their facts and figures and information with respect to expulsions, that is to say people leaving their homes, of any ethnic group?

A. Of course the office for detainees and refugees dealing with this type of matter did exchange information and did collect information and the information that I presented here, the figures, the number of expelled persons and their national structure, so where I said that the number was 205.215 for refugees, there is a name and surname for each of those persons and a card filled out. And that figure is compatible to the figure that the international organisations have as well, the UNHCR.

Q. Do you know who Mr. Ramljak is, the mayor of Sisak at that time?

A. I don't know Mr. Ramljak personally.

Q. But you've heard of him?

A. Yes, I've heard of Mr. Ramljak. Mr. Ramljak in the courts of law. But I don't know what you're referring to.

Q. Well, we heard a high-ranking UN official, Mr. Kirudja here, who testified and was examined here a few days ago and said that on the 15th of July, 1992, in Sisak, he had a meeting with Ramljak and that Ramljak told him that at that time, from the Sisak region alone 10.000 Serbs had actually left. Do you know about that figure? So just from the Sisak area, 10.000 Serbs leaving. ¹⁷³⁸³

A. No, I don't know about that particular piece of information. And let me go back to what I was saying earlier on. I spoke about all the registered persons.

Q. Now, the figure that you mention of 3.000 in your report, from the 15th of July, this figure - 1992 - for the Sisak area alone talks about 10.000 people alone.

A. May I give an explanation at this point? A certain number of persons who left the areas, those areas, stayed on in Eastern Slavonia, and they were not recorded as refugees because they were on the territory of the Republic of Croatia.

Q. What about the other people that left the -- their homes, the 220.000-odd thousand. Did they stay in other areas of Croatia, the 220.000, did they leave Croatia or did they just move from one area of Croatia to another?

A. When I gave these explanations earlier on, I said that we couldn't have had any figures about the people on occupied Croatian territory because our administration did not have the possibility of having official records of that kind. That is why the information that I presented is relevant, because we have a name and a surname behind every number, the signature of that individual, saying that they were expelled.

Q. I understand you. But you said that some just went to live in another place within the same territory. Does that refer to the 220.338? Does that apply to Croats moving from one area of Croatia to another?

A. They did not -- were not displaced, they were expelled from their homes and were located in hotels, in collection centres and in various ¹⁷³⁸⁴ other accommodation that was organised for that purpose, and there were those who were outside the territory of Croatia itself as well.

Q. Thank you. Now, the other topic, to move on. Can we assist the Trial Chamber in understanding your findings in the following way: Could you tell me, please, the number of exhumed persons that you mention in point 31 of your report, does it incorporate the 11.834 persons killed, the overall number or not?

A. No. They -- this is not included because exhumed persons do not have a name and a surname so they cannot be on that list. The people on the list are only the people that have been identified amongst the persons exhumed. So the number of exhumed persons is larger than the number of bodily remains identified. So all those from the 135 mass graves that were exhumed, they entered the identification process and over 2.700 people were identified, and those 2.700 were included in that figure of 11-odd thousand.

Q. Well, I don't know. Perhaps this will be clear to the Trial Chamber, but I have to insist. You said that the overall figure, or rather, the overall figure of persons who were killed is 11.834 persons. How is it possible then that those exhumed persons were not within that figure?

A. I said that was the lowest number. But when we came out with a list, then for each person on our list there is a name and surname. Those who were not identified, once they have been identified, they will be included in the list of persons killed. So we have their bodies, we have their bodily remains, their corpses, but we haven't identified them. So ¹⁷³⁸⁵ we stick to the facts. The facts are first name, last name, personal IDs, and so on.

Q. So the persons that have been exhumed could increase the number of persons killed; right?

A. Yes. They will certainly make the number greater after identification has taken place, and the number of persons missing will also be increased, because most of the persons listed as missing we are finding them in the form of their dead bodies.

Q. In 34(b), paragraph 34(b), you say you list these persons killed according to the competent authorities. Now, these records, do they contain all the facts and figures, all the information as to how these people lost their lives, how they were killed, what the cause of death was, and are there relevant evidence linked to that in the documents or not?

A. Here we just have the lists, the lists of persons who were killed, who lost their lives. Now, the causes of death are not listed here.

Q. So we don't know how they lost their lives; right?

A. That's right. Somebody else will be able to speak about that in due course.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, when you spoke about the status of either the persons killed or persons listed as missing or persons that are still being traced, in addition to civilians and members of the civilian defence, you used the term "defender," "defenders"; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Now, am I right in concluding, or could you explain to the Court ¹⁷³⁸⁶ whether the defenders were members of the armed forces of the Republic of Croatia, in fact.

A. Well, I mentioned this in my report, in the written part of my statement that the term "defenders" and "defender" is an official term used for members of the armed forces. So they are, yes, all the members of the armed forces, they're referred to as defenders.

Q. So they were people bearing arms; right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And can you tell us about the defenders, what their national ethnic composition was, these defenders. What was the ethnic make-up?

A. It would be difficult for me to do that now.

Q. Well, could you tell us roughly what the ethnic composition of them was?

A. I can tell you roughly, as a general guideline, that 80 per cent or approximately 80 per cent were Croats and the other 20 per cent were miscellaneous, other national minorities. Now, why I say this is the following: This percentage of persons killed, 88 per cent were Croats. With exhumed, identified bodies, 87 were Croats. With missing persons, 87 per cent were Croats. With refugees, 93 per cent were Croats, persons expelled, that is. So on the basis of that, we can clearly deduce that.

Q. Well, let's look at this 80 per cent that you talked about, the persons who lost their lives. Let's dwell on that for a moment, the defenders. You state here in 34(b), paragraph 34(b), you stated the following: That 6.790 Croats was the total number killed. Does that mean that of the 6.790 Croats killed, 80 per cent were defenders? Is that what ^{17387 BLANK PAGE 17388} that means? Does it mean that 80 per cent were defenders?

A. At least.

Q. At least, you say?

A. Yes, at least 80 per cent.

Q. And among these 11.834 people, you have persons unknown 4.000-odd, 4.174 or something to that effect for unknown.

A. In all the information I provided, I proceeded with figures that were absolute, where we could evidence the status of the person involved, the age of the person, et cetera. But where this was non-existence, we would list these under "unknown."

Q. But theoretically, can we say --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tapuskovic, we must ask you to come to a conclusion in five minutes, please, given the constraints of time.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. That's what I was going to do, Your Honour. I just need five more minutes.

Q. That means that these 4.173 persons could all be Croats or could all be Serbs; right? Theoretically speaking.

A. Well, it would be difficult if that were theoretical.

Q. All right. Thank you. Now I have one more thing to ask you, and it refers to table 5 -- tab 5, where -- which -- tab 5. That is the exhibit you have. Have you got tab 5 in front of you? And they are the lists of the camps and prisons.

A. Well, yes. We can talk about that. Go ahead.

Q. It says that 7.766 persons were exchanged. Was that all for all, according to the principle of all for all? ¹⁷³⁸⁹

A. No. Those exchanges took place in a continuous process and period of time ranging from 1991 to 1996 at different localities and under different circumstances and conditions.

Q. All right. And we have 7.660 is the figure, nationals of Croatia. Can we say that just as many went on to the opposite side?

A. No. The exact figure is 2.479 persons.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, in these lists when it comes to Croatia, I see here the camps that are listed, and we have five camps with just one detainee each, and then we have several camps with just two detainees, then eight detainees. So how do you class these as camps if there is just one person in one of them, or two people, or eight people? So half of them are camps with just one detainee in them.

A. Well, I did draw attention to that and said that the criteria for this was exclusively that the person was exchanged from that camp or they were registered in that camp. What does that mean? It means that through those camps we had detainees passing through from some other camp and released from some other camp. So that is for purposes of exactitude. Where we have the Red Cross registration, those were camps. The camps that were not registered, and there are several -- many witnesses testifying to different camps.

Q. Yes. But the figures are that there are so many camps in Croatia, the number you list here. Half of them only had eight detainees; in Serbia, 11 detainees; in Montenegro, 15. So your criteria -- what was your criteria, in fact?

A. The criterion was that a detainee had been registered in that camp ¹⁷³⁹⁰ or released from that camp. It does not include the detainees that had passed through the camp, ended up somewhere else and were released from that other place.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further questions, Your Honours.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, I only need to clarify two facts given by the witness and how they relate to the figures in the report.

Re-examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:

Q. You have addressed, during the cross-examination, the expulsion of Serbs, and it was put to you that Serbs from Western Slavonia fleeing in 1991, and my question is: In relation to your list of displaced persons within Croatia, would those fleeing to Republika Srpska or Yugoslavia, would they show in this list?

A. No, they are not on that list.

Q. And do you have any concrete estimate of how many people actually fled from Western Slavonia? Only if you have reliable figures.

A. No.

Q. And the other question in relation to the exchange of bodies, you mentioned the exchange of bodies in October 1993 in Zadar, and you also spoke about mutual exchange of bodies from both sides in the earlier year. Would these exchanges, would these bodies come up within your list of exhumations or your list of killed people?

A. All those who were identified through the exchanges are on the list of killed people. ¹⁷³⁹¹

Q. But those exchanged -- for instance, in Zadar there was this example given during cross-examination when the bodies were just exchanged without further identification, they would not?

A. The remains that were exhumed, so these were remains of members of enemy formations who remained in the territory under the control of the Republic of Croatia, and those remains were buried as unidentified in Zadar. But it was known that they belonged to members of enemy forces. And through the exchange, those remains were handed over to the opposite side, and they went into the identification, and we have no knowledge about that. But we do have knowledge about those that we took over and identified, and they are on the list of killed persons.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Grujic, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are free to go.

[The witness withdrew]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Regarding the witness -- it's switched on.

I was saying that in the break, I received a new witness that was mentioned this morning by Mr. Kay, that is Mr. Galbraith, the former US ambassador in Croatia. Today is the 4th of March --

JUDGE MAY: There are various matters we're going to discuss, various matters we're going to discuss. ¹⁷³⁹² Do we need, in discussing -- we'll go into the witnesses who it's proposed to call in due course. Is there a need for a private session for any of this?

MR. NICE: Not as far as Galbraith is concerned and not, I think, for the 92 bis that Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff will be dealing with.

JUDGE MAY: Well, we ought to deal with -- let us list them. There's Mr. Galbraith, we have another witness, Zana Baca who wasn't on the list. It may be convenient, since he's on the list, to deal with Joseph Rousseau, and then go on to the 92 bis witnesses afterwards. We'll start with Ambassador Galbraith.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. The history of our dealings with him are set out in the application, and of course fundamental to my approach to this case has been that witnesses will give evidence in open session, and I will not even be applying for witnesses to give evidence other than in open session unless I can support any requirement for closed session. So far as this particular witness is concerned, as the Court will see from our filing, we've only very recently been informed that there will be no impediment in the way of his giving evidence in open session, and as soon as we got that permission, we took all steps to serve his material and to file our application. The English language version material was filed last night and I think the B/C/S was provided this morning. The material is not particularly voluminous. The points he covers are very important but limited in number. He is a man with his own professional commitments at present at university or universities, I'm not sure which. He happens to be available next weekend. I think it's ¹⁷³⁹³ probably some break in teaching, the 10th and 11th, and that happens to coincide with the general ending of the Croatian part of the evidence, it being much more convenient for the Chamber to have evidence in a connected way rather than taken out of order.

In those circumstances, we applied that his evidence may be adduced. It's clearly, in our respectful submission, extremely important and valuable evidence which will save the time of other witnesses. We ask that it may be adduced next week. We have in mind that there are in fact three days when the Court will not be sitting and when the accused will be in a position to make preparations for this witness. If it can't be next week, it will be at some future date in the middle of another sector of the evidence.

JUDGE MAY: It will be, of course, a reduced disclosure time.

MR. NICE: We accept that entirely, yes. But the scope of the evidence is comparatively narrow. There are dates at the very end of March, apparently, when he's also available. He's got to come from America, and I believe originally, in order to assist us, planned to come this weekend when he is available.

JUDGE MAY: We've got the summary and that covers the -- covers it adequately, does it?

MR. NICE: Yes, the actual notes. There is one thing in the application that's wrong. It said that there is a statement which will be produced. The document is an unsigned document and therefore ranks as investigator's notes and it is from those notes that the summary will be produced and in respect of which the witness will give evidence. It's ¹⁷³⁹⁴ about eight pages, including the first sheet. So it's a short document.

JUDGE MAY: I suppose there's one general issue of importance besides the question of disclosure and time for preparation, and that is the introduction of witnesses at a late stage, and I know you've covered it and you've explained the reasons, but it is something which obviously the Trial Chamber will have to keep an eye on because of the effect it has on the case as produced to date.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm so sorry. I made some general observations about this yesterday and about the effect the trial has on the availability of witnesses. That relates to the other witness in respect of whom an application was filed yesterday and whom I hope to be able to take further at the beginning of next week. This next week after the witness will have been seen.

I don't know that any objection is being taken to this witness on this basis by any of the parties, and in our submission no such objection should be taken for it's witnesses like this who, as well as providing material that's essential to the case, also flesh it out, provide external views that are of such value if ultimately accepted by the Chamber, and it has only been - and this is something that the accused I'm sure will be delighted to hear - it's only been because of my refusal to apply for closed session testimony on almost any witness, that means I've had to wait until now to be able to make this application, because processing my informal application to the relevant authorities takes months, if not rather longer.

JUDGE KWON: Did I understand it correctly that this particular ^{17395 BLANK PAGE 17396} witness could not find another available time?

MR. NICE: Yes, he could. He could come -- it's a question of fitting it in with his -- with his commitments elsewhere around the world and in America, but the reason for trying to have him heard now is this fits conveniently for your consideration in the Croatian part of the case rather than coming at a time when we'll probably be well launched into Bosnia and then you will have to cast your mind back more particularly to this period of time.

MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour. The amici curiae filed a paper on the 14th of February, 2003 where we made observations about the Prosecution motion at that stage, dated the 5th of February, 2003 for leave to amend the then witness list. And we made a number of observations but also made the concomitant point that preparation for the defendant, the accused was an essential feature of the fairness of the trial. And looking at the statement in note form and the summary of Ambassador Galbraith, it occurs to me there are big issues within that statement which the accused may want to deal with.

I notice the time set aside for direct examination of two hours, which might be a little optimistic considering his role within events between 1991 and 1992 and the personalities that he met. But for the accused's part, because of the conclusions and observations by this witness, I would foresee that there are major matters that he would like to cross-examine the witness upon, notably the relationships with Martic, Babic and Markovic which, for him, of course, is a central aspect of his defence. And just as much, again, as this is an important witness for the ¹⁷³⁹⁷ Prosecutor, the polarity of that is that the accused would probably need a good deal of time to question and deal with this witness. In our submission, he should be given an adequate period for preparation. That preparation would obviously not just be for steps that could be undertaken by him but any that his associates or other advisors may want to make on his behalf in the production of documents to aid cross-examination or research that may need to be undertaken concerning this witness. It's a matter for him, and no doubt the accused will make his own point of view very clear, but certainly for my part in addressing the Court, I would plead on his behalf the need for adequate time by which he could prepare himself to deal with this witness who could be made available later on in the proceedings.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Kay, you don't have any comment about anything relating to other reliefs requested by the OTP?

MR. KAY: I deliberately avoided that at this stage, the Rule 70 aspect, because I've only just received this this morning and I have to digest it as well and see what the entire picture will be. So with Your Honour's leave, I would like not to commit myself to any position on that at this stage.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My position is exclusively of a principled nature, Mr. May, namely, you are aware that the time for disclosure of witnesses was shortened for me to a minimum of ten days. Therefore, today I received for the first time - and I hope that is not in ¹⁷³⁹⁸ dispute - I received this witness with the announcement that he would testify next week, which is even shorter than this minimal time period of ten days that you have allowed for me. So I request that at least this minimum time frame of ten days that you have ruled upon be applied. Secondly, as a matter of principle, I wish to mention, as it follows on to what was said a moment ago, you have withheld me the right to ask the witness about events which are outside the period of 1991 to July 1992. This witness testifies exclusively about events after that time period. So if something applies to me, it must apply to the other party too. Or if you allow the other side to produce testimony or allegations which are outside the time frame that you yourself have determined or, rather, which they themselves have determined, then you must allow the same to apply to me rather than withholding that right. Because during the break I looked through this and there is not a single point that comes within the time period that you have ruled to be relevant, so this is an absolutely discriminatory attitude towards me, both with respect to time and also with respect to contents that are being examined.

JUDGE MAY: The reason which you were prevented cross-examining was because the witness had dealt -- the last witness had dealt with the period before the two operations in collecting his material. Therefore, your questions were outside the scope of what he was able to give evidence about.

We will restrict evidence, certainly as far as the Croatian indictment is concerned, unless it appears important and significant. ¹⁷³⁹⁹ However, as opposed to the last witness, there may be witnesses who are able to deal with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and therefore, in those cases, evidence of a later date may well be relevant. Mr. Nice, very briefly, please.

MR. NICE: The Rule 70 aspect is covered in the written application, further argument available if wanted.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: What about 3? The Trial Chamber is concerned about the restriction of the scope of cross-examination.

MR. NICE: It is, of course, a -- two things about that: First of all, it matches the relief granted in the other witness to whom reference is obliquely made and of whom the Chamber will have a recollection.

JUDGE MAY: And upheld by the Appeals Chamber.

MR. NICE: I think so, yes, but I'm not sure about that. The -- it's a condition, part of the conditioned consent of the relevant authority.

The third point is that there will, of course, be, if you so decide, lawyers present on behalf of that party who will be able to respond on the spot, or effectively on the spot, to any applications to go outside the prima facie restrictions of that condition. It's not something about which we can do any more at the moment.

JUDGE MAY: So if we make the order at the moment in the terms asked --

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: -- but with leave to apply to go outside it, that ¹⁷⁴⁰⁰ would leave it open to the accused to ask questions outside it, with leave.

MR. NICE: With leave, and of course, with -- well, if the condition's been granted in those terms, the witness is prima facie authorised to say nothing. The unlocking -- I don't know what his immediate and personal response might be. His enthusiasm might be contrary to the attitude of those imposing the restriction, I suspect, but that's a problem we regularly have to deal with with this type of evidence. But the advantage, of course, of having representatives of the other body here is that those representatives can be spoken to and it may be that they'll then be in a position to modify the condition upon which the giving of evidence has been predicated.

JUDGE MAY: But it is a condition.

MR. NICE: It is a condition as it stands at the moment, yes.

JUDGE MAY: And when we attempted to interpret Rule 70 in a more liberal manner, we were told by the Appeals Chamber we had to apply it strictly, as I recollect it.

MR. NICE: That's the position, yes. I express no views one way or another personally, it's not for me to do so. But I have to operate within it and my guiding principle has always been to make sure that whatever other conditions may be attached that I can respectably and properly present, as I do these, there should be no infringement to the right to a public trial, and we've made great progress there.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We will -- we will make the order as asked. We think ¹⁷⁴⁰¹ it right. This is an important witness. There are reasons why -- good reasons as to why the witness hasn't appeared on the witness list before, namely that he has not been available. Therefore, we think it right to add his name to it.

We, having regard to the interpretation which was given to Rule 70 by the -- strict interpretation by the Appeals Chamber, we will grant the relief asked in terms of the restriction on questioning, and the representative of the government being present, we will grant the relief asked.

However, we do not think it right, in the circumstances of his being an important witness, to spring him upon the trial and upon the accused within a week. The accused should have more time to prepare, because preparation may include research with his associates. He should have more than a week. So we'll say that he's not to be called next week but later in the trial.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful. We'll list him probably towards the end of March.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Can we move from dealing with his evidence to the other two who appear on the list about whom there are applications, and we can perhaps deal with them together.

There's Ms. Zana Baca, if I've pronounced her name right. She is a specialist on war-related damage, and the notion is that she deals with protected -- the damage to protected monuments of the old town. Dubrovnik I should say, yes, and she replaces another witness.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. It is exactly -- actually, ¹⁷⁴⁰² exactly the same subject as the other witness who is not available, and she will also deal with the issues of protection raised by Judge Robinson. You know, this --

JUDGE MAY: Oh, yes, the issue of protection. And is there any reason why she shouldn't be, if you put her statement in, dealt with under Rule 92 bis? Well, that's for you to consider.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes we'll consider that.

JUDGE MAY: If you care to deal with her in that way. And while you're on your feet, Mr. Rousseau is the ECMM monitor. You ask for his statement to be admitted. It doesn't relate to the accused directly. You want certain paragraphs to be dealt with live, paragraphs 5 to 7, as far as I can see. It's 6, but I think 5 for the sense. 1, 2, 4, and 8 to 11 Rule 92 bis, and the rest would not be admitted. Yes. Any point about either of those two, Mr. Kay?

MR. KAY: No. No we had no observations.

JUDGE MAY: No. Mr. Milosevic, anything about those two?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. This doesn't matter. But could you please tell me, instead of which witness? I understood Mrs. Retzlaff to say that this witness would be testifying instead of another witness that's already on the list. So I can strike that particular witness off my list.

JUDGE MAY: You should know that. According to the papers we have in front it, it is to replace Mr. Zvonimir Franic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So he won't be testifying; is that right? ^{17403 BLANK PAGE 17404}

JUDGE MAY: Yes, that's right. Very well. We'll admit those statements as asked. We will consider Ms. Baca's under Rule 92 bis when it's ready. We will admit her evidence, taking off Mr. Franic from the list.

It may be more convenient to spend the rest of the session dealing with Rule 92 bis rather than embarking on the next witness. The witnesses who I signalled that we would deal with were those dealing with Vukovar, and I had seven, beginning with C-006, C-171, 1126, 1149, 1164, and 1165.

Beginning with C-006, I have a note that this looks to have been a Dokmanovic witness and therefore I am inquiring as to why it wasn't appropriate to serve that particular transcript.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, to -- I don't think that he was a Dokmanovic witness. I think he was not called. According to my information, he was not called in the Dokmanovic case, and I can't actually see the reason why he was not called, but he was not called.

JUDGE MAY: Could you check that again.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: It's quite possible that I have my notes wrong on it.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Actually, Mr. McKeon, whom you know already from this trial, has checked the data, and he informed me that this person was not called in the Dokmanovic case.

JUDGE MAY: Well, very well. He deals with events at Ovcara when the detainees were in the hangar, as far as I could see, and he let some of them out. He's one witness. ¹⁷⁴⁰⁵

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The witness was actually present in Velepromet. He was present in the barracks where the people were taken first, and he made a lot of observation in relation to Sljivancanin, Vujovic, and Vujanic, the person in charge. Also at Ovcara he saw them.

JUDGE MAY: Since one of the issues that has been raised by the accused is the role of the JNA in the Vukovar incident, it may be that this is a witness who should be called for cross-examination.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we would agree to this, because he seems to be quite important.

MR. KAY: Yes. We referred to this witness in our schedule as part of our filing to the Trial Chamber, because the description of his evidence in the Prosecution summary we didn't think was entirely accurate, and so we make an observation at paragraph 19 that this could not necessarily be considered as cumulative evidence.

JUDGE MAY: There are other considerations.

MR. KAY: Yes. I make that so the Trial Chamber is alert to the perhaps extra matters that this witness dealt with.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. But we have in mind to admit with cross-examination.

Mr. Milosevic, anything you want to say about that particular witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know what witness we're talking about anyway. I haven't got this in my documents.

JUDGE MAY: You haven't got it. C-006. He's a Vukovar witness, as these all are. ¹⁷⁴⁰⁶

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That doesn't mean -- tell me anything. I haven't got a review of the witnesses, their names, the contents of their testimony, and I didn't know that this would be discussed at all.

JUDGE MAY: I did say last week that we would be discussing this issue, and I read out more than once the list of witnesses.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We will admit this witness with cross-examination. In terms of the numbers, I think the next one which would come is 1071. This is the widow, if I have it right, of a man who was arrested by the JNA, taken from the football field, and it's alleged subsequently shot. And really, the evidence, a great deal of it, is taken up with her search, fairly harrowing search, for her husband, and unsuccessful. You would ask that this be admitted without cross-examination?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: Is she a protected witness? What circumstances --

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: So her name is Zorica Brajdic?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. And is a crime-base witness for Lovas farm.

JUDGE MAY: Well --

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Murdered in the field. You know, the minefield.

JUDGE MAY: Well, that's not my note. My note is it's, unless we're at cross-purposes about the field, a man who was taken from -- she's ¹⁷⁴⁰⁷ the widow of a man taken from the football field and subsequently shot.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. He was murdered in a field. He was taken away from Vukovar, that's correct, but the crime as such occurred in Lovas. So the crime base is Lovas.

JUDGE MAY: Lovas field, not the minefield.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, it was the field, yes.

JUDGE MAY: But he was shot. Yes, Mr. Kay, this one.

MR. KAY: The observations we have about this is that it's cumulative in relation to Vukovar, but there's the additional features within her evidence where she deals with an area called Rupe near Olajnica and the transport of herself and her daughters to Brsadin. It's additional matters within the statement which then fall into evidence, although not strictly speaking being part of a specific allegation within the indictment.

It's at tab 5 in the statements, this particular --

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We will reserve on this one.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, just let me explain in relation to this one, and also that applies equally for number C-1126. What we want to say is that what these witnesses say is corroborative in relation to pattern of ethnic cleansing that occurred in regions and of -- about which other witnesses have talked about, and so far it is cumulative. In addition to that, admittance of written statements according to 92 bis does not necessarily afford a cumulative nature of the evidence. ¹⁷⁴⁰⁸ That's just what I would like to add.

JUDGE MAY: The next one will be 1126. Dealing with a particular form of evidence, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. I just mentioned this case where we also have the witness speaking about a different village, but what she actually is testifying to will be the pattern of ethnic cleansing, and so far the same that applies to 1071 would apply here. That is all I would have to add to this witness. She speaks about a different village not yet addressed. That's clear.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: The difficulty with this witness is, of course, that a witness expected to testify viva voce is the express source of the cumulative evidence. The Prosecution identify [redacted], and so it's difficult to deal with the cumulative nature of it because of that difficulty, although within the Rules that is permitted, witnesses who will testify or have testified being the source of the cumulative nature of the evidence.

The Prosecution have already made a submission about the fresh evidence being cumulative of ethnic cleansing generally, because the point is made by us in our schedule that the witness dealing with Opatovac and the JNA entry into Opatovac is fresh evidence.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will admit, but with cross-examination. Yes. Let's try and do another one. 11 -- 1164 and 1165. 1164 deals with the shelling of Vukovar. The witness was arrested in September ¹⁷⁴⁰⁹ and taken to Begejci camp. 1165 is the forensic pathologist who simply testifies about the bodies found at Ovcara, a matter about which there has been no dispute, as I recollect, no mention of the JNA. Perhaps you could help us with those two, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff. Is there anything further we should consider?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. In relation to the pathologist, he actually made observation in relation to the parts of the bodies and actually, the witness, Dr. Strinovic, who is supposed to testify next week, will deal with this aspect. So that is clearly corroborative. So I think that shouldn't be a problem, because Mr. -- Dr. Strinovic is actually the head -- the medical -- the Croatian medical examiner.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And in relation to --

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: And the other one, I think I summed it up rightly.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. And actually, the additional underlying other evidence is the evidence of Mr. Grujic, who referred to the camp where the witness had actually been detained in. So for both, we would request without cross-examination.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: If I deal with tab 38, which is 1164 first, [redacted]. Cumulative in respect of Vukovar but with reference to the JNA and the White Eagles, an eyewitness account of shelling in July 1991 in Vukovar.

JUDGE MAY: We will reserve that one. But the next one is the ¹⁷⁴¹⁰ pathologist. What reason is there?

MR. KAY: We just mentioned it was a distinct category of being a pathologist but with nothing extra to add.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic, we're going to reserve on the first witness, so we won't ask you to consider that.

The pathologist, is there anything you want to say about that, why we shouldn't admit the pathologist's evidence?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know what kind of admission of evidence. I just insist on my right to cross-examine each and every witness.

JUDGE MAY: Well, in that case, we can see no good reason to cross-examine. There's been no dispute that these people were shot. There will be other evidence about it. We shall admit it under Rule 92 bis. It falls within all the categories for admission and none for cross-examination.

So 1165. Perhaps Prosecution would produce that at our next sitting with the necessary attachments and we can exhibit it. Well, while we're waiting for something, apparently the registrar has a matter to deal with it, have you got the statement? Let's exhibit it now. C-1164.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we don't have the 92 bis form.

JUDGE MAY: Of course. We are ahead of ourselves.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: We cannot admit it, we simply indicate that we will ^{17411 BLANK PAGE 17412} admit it.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. We didn't facilitate the process without having you confirm it.

MR. NICE: The witness who was to start today, not having even started and there being a four, five-day break and that witness no doubt returning home in the meanwhile, I can't guarantee that we'll stick to her as the next witness. It may be inconvenient for her and more convenient to slightly re-order the witnesses for next week. We will send a letter as soon as we know the position.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Provided the accused has reasonable notice of any change --

MR. NICE: Oh, yes.

JUDGE MAY: -- so he can prepare properly.

MR. NICE: Of course.

JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now until next week.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 10th day of March, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.