2 (Open session)
3 (The accused entered court)
4 (The witness entered court)
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours,
7 case number IT-95-16-T, The Prosecutor versus Zoran
8 Kupreskic, Mirjan Kupreskic, Vlatko Kupreskic, Drago
9 Josipovic, Dragan Papic and Vladimir Santic.
10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Good morning.
11 Mr. Terrier?
12 MR. TERRIER: Good morning, Mr. President.
13 To answer the question that you asked yesterday, I
14 should like to indicate that the request of
15 Mrs. Slokovic-Glumac to have the Judge from Zenica
16 heard as a Court witness, we have no objection.
17 However, there are two other problems which require an
18 urgent decision of the Court, but for this I would need
19 10 to 15 minutes, and perhaps you would find a more
20 appropriate time to do this. Perhaps we should finish
21 with the witness first. Thank you.
22 JUDGE CASSESE: I think Counsel Radovic was
23 examining the witness.
24 MR. RADOVIC: No, I didn't want to say
25 anything in particular, but I am continuing with the
1 examination of the witness, and it's up to you to
2 decide whether we will follow the proposal by
3 Mr. Terrier or we will continue with the examination of
4 the witness.
5 JUDGE CASSESE: No. My intention was to
6 continue with the examination of this witness as
7 Mr. Terrier suggested. After that only could we come
8 to that particular matter he would like to raise. You
9 may proceed.
10 MR. RADOVIC: Would the witness be shown
11 document P335?
12 WITNESS: Vlado Alilovic (Resumed)
13 Cross-examined by Mr. Radic:
14 Q. I would like to ask you something about this
15 document and then you will pay attention to the parts
16 that I will indicate. Please look at the title first.
17 Who is the document addressed to? It's in the upper
18 left corner.
19 A. Yes. This is the Travnik defence
20 administration to the Vitez defence office.
21 Q. Could you please tell us how these defence
22 administrations were organised? Was this
23 administration above the Vitez defence office?
24 A. As far as I know, yes.
25 Q. And who signed this document?
1 A. The document was signed by head of the
2 defence office, Mr. Marijan Skopljak.
3 Q. And he was a representative of the defence
4 office of the HVO government in Vitez?
5 A. Yes, in Vitez.
6 Q. Now, since the document is entitled "Report,"
7 and I'm not sure that the document in English sounds
8 the same as it does in Croatian, I would like to ask
9 for your interpretation of some of the things from this
10 document.
11 Look at item 3 under "Notes," the first
12 sentence says, "The formation of the Viteska Brigade
13 did not progress according to the anticipated
14 timetable."
15 How do you understand this?
16 A. Since -- it probably had difficulties. There
17 was the problem of mobilisation.
18 Q. All right. Then it says -- underneath the
19 note it says, under the second 3, "In the period of
20 16th of April, up to and including April 28th, 1993, a
21 total of 498 conscripts were mobilised."
22 Could you please tell us whether you can
23 conclude from this sentence on which date was the
24 individual mobilisation carried out?
25 A. No, of course you cannot conclude.
1 Q. So how do you interpret the following? So
2 the item underneath that it says, "Military conscripts
3 were mobilised, which were used as replacements on the
4 lines after the first assault, i.e. they are gradually
5 included as replacements for the soldiers from the
6 mobile personnel."
7 How do you understand this? Who participated
8 in the first assault?
9 A. Well, this is what it says here, that mobile
10 personnel participated in the first assault and then
11 immediately after that other conscripts were
12 mobilised. In other words, in the period from the 16th
13 of April until the 28th of April, a total of 498
14 additional conscripts were mobilised.
15 Q. Could you please tell us who is considered to
16 be part of the mobile personnel as it says here?
17 A. Well, I spoke a little bit about that
18 yesterday.
19 Q. Just tell us briefly.
20 A. They are considered to be people who had
21 certain contracts signed with the defence office.
22 Q. So let's go to the list of these names which
23 are attached to this document. Have you found that?
24 There is a whole list of names.
25 Please look at this list of names, look it at
1 carefully, and in markings can you tell from this list,
2 from any of the persons, can it be concluded in which
3 period between the 16th and the 28th of April where
4 they mobilised? Please look at it carefully, think
5 about it and then reply. Just these above the line.
6 A. From this list you cannot tell when each of
7 these persons was mobilised. I don't see that
8 anywhere. So it can be concluded that these people, in
9 this period that is cited, this period of 12 days, were
10 sent to some of the lines.
11 Q. But when they were deployed, you can't see
12 that?
13 A. No, you can't see that.
14 MR. RADOVIC: Thank you very much, Your
15 Honours, I have finished.
16 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you, Counsel Radovic.
17 Counsel Puliselic?
18 Cross-examined by Mr. Puliselic:
19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Alilovic.
20 If I understood you yesterday in the course
21 of your examination, you mentioned attempts by the BH
22 army to cut some important road communications before
23 the conflict and in the course of the conflict. My
24 question is: What is your information about which
25 places and which towns did the army of B and H try to
1 cut off or to prevent communications in the Lasva
2 Valley and broader in Central Bosnia, if you know
3 anything about that?
4 A. I spoke about this yesterday. The conflict
5 in Busovaca, in January, the first thing that happened
6 was that communications were cut and Busovaca and
7 Kiseljak were separated in the length of about 10 to 13
8 kilometres. During the conflict in Vitez, they tried
9 to do that in Vitez as well, and I said that the
10 barricades from the 20th of October was an attempt to
11 separate the forces between Vitez and Busovaca, or to
12 cut Vitez practically in two, and this way to divide,
13 to separate Vitez and Busovaca. This was attempted
14 throughout the conflict by the B and H army.
15 Q. Do you know anything about the fact that the
16 HVO government was considering for a while to evacuate
17 the population during the conflict?
18 A. Yes, I know about this. We were preparing to
19 cut through a new road for possible evacuation of the
20 population if it was -- if it became impossible to
21 resist the attack, so then there was a complete
22 blockade, so it wasn't possible to carry this out.
23 Q. In your opinion, would the HVO
24 successfully -- would it be able to successfully resist
25 the B and H army in view of the equipment and the force
1 of the army? What was the situation in Central Bosnia,
2 and could you tell us what the situation was in the
3 Lasva Valley?
4 A. I said a little bit about this yesterday, and
5 I personally think and the figures speak for
6 themselves. I think that this was impossible, and what
7 happened in Vitez in such a small area, struggling for
8 our bare lives and surviving for as long as we did, I
9 can hardly explain that myself.
10 Q. According to your information, when did the
11 Muslims start seriously preparing for the conflict?
12 Did they -- perhaps were the events from Slimena have
13 any influence on these events?
14 A. Absolutely, even after they received arms,
15 considerable quantities of arms. And for a long time
16 after that we could not agree to go where we had the
17 common need, where there was our common need to go.
18 After that, a few months after that, the B
19 and H army, i.e. the Muslims, started to behave
20 differently. They didn't ever want, and I couldn't
21 explain this, to use our joint forces where this was
22 needed, and attempts to do this over a long period of
23 time were not successful.
24 This barricade -- all of these barricades and
25 the incidents and events that happened point to the
1 fact that even after that we did -- we did not take the
2 steps together that we should have taken, and it
3 happened -- things happened that did happen.
4 Q. Do you have any information about when the
5 defence department in Vitez started to mobilise
6 people? Was this after the armed incident?
7 A. Yes, of course. I came to work, to the post
8 office where I was staying, for the third day -- after
9 the third day for the first time, and then I would get
10 there regularly every day. I would spend time in my
11 office. I could see, because the defence department
12 was close by, I could see that it was preparing
13 seriously for mobilisation, and the serious
14 mobilisation efforts began only then.
15 Q. You mentioned yesterday that in Buhine Kuce,
16 about 35 people were killed?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Could you please tell us when this happened,
19 if you remember?
20 A. This happened at the beginning of '93 -- I'm
21 sorry, '94, shortly after New Year. I think that's
22 when it happened.
23 Q. Do you know if the units of the B and H army
24 were located in Buhine Kuce?
25 A. Yes. This was the line of separation.
1 That's what I know. So my answer is affirmative.
2 Q. Do you know that at the end of the
3 conflict -- at the beginning of the conflict, the
4 communication between Vitez and Busovaca was cut for a
5 while at Buhine Kuce because of gunfire from positions
6 of the B and H army, so that traffic along that road
7 was impossible and it was redirected to Radak bridge
8 and along the Lasva River? Do you know about this?
9 A. Yes. This is how it was during the whole of
10 the war.
11 Q. Thank you. Do you know Dragan Papic?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. Do you know if he had participated in the
14 making of some political or military decisions at the
15 time of the conflict, before the conflict, particularly
16 relating to this time period that we're concerned
17 with?
18 A. As far as taking part in the planning, I
19 believe that he didn't participate in that because he
20 wasn't holding a post from which he could participate
21 in that.
22 MR. PULISELIC: Thank you. I have no further
23 questions.
24 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you, Counsel
25 Puliselic. Counsel Slokovic-Glumac?
1 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Good morning, Your
2 Honours.
3 Cross-examined by Ms. Slokovic-Glumac:
4 Q. Good morning, Mr. Alilovic. I would like to
5 show you some documents and ask you some questions in
6 order to make corrections to the transcript because
7 there were some things that were not entered properly
8 into the transcript. This is relating to Buhine Kuce;
9 there were 35 victims. And you also mentioned
10 Krizancevo Selo. How many casualties were there?
11 A. I think 65 or 66 people were killed there.
12 Q. Thank you. Also you said that in the second
13 half of '92, Merhamet was founded.
14 A. Yes, in the second half of '92.
15 Q. Was the parish office of Caritas continuing
16 to supply the Muslims with humanitarian aid; is that
17 so?
18 A. Yes, but in smaller quantities than before.
19 I said this yesterday.
20 Q. Did this continue in the course of '93?
21 A. I think it did not because this simply was
22 not possible except for parts which were under the
23 control of the HVO.
24 Q. This is what I'm asking about, which were
25 under the control of the HVO. So you could take
1 supplies to Mahala?
2 A. Yes, absolutely. This continued and even
3 more intensely than before, because during the war, I
4 took over the coordination of the humanitarian aid.
5 Q. So the citizens, Muslims, who happened to be
6 on the territory under the control of the HVO continued
7 to receive assistance from Caritas?
8 A. Absolutely, because we, in fact, distributed
9 all the food that we got from the humanitarian aid
10 through Caritas because it had the staff and it was
11 able to do this, it had the necessary transportation,
12 so we maintained this system of supply throughout the
13 war. Also, there was the Red Cross which had certain
14 quantities and for certain categories; it also supplied
15 the citizens. There was another humanitarian
16 organisation, Mother and Child, which was established
17 during the war.
18 Q. Do you know who was responsible for the
19 technical aspect of aid distribution at Caritas? Who
20 was working at Caritas?
21 A. Zeljko Blaz was working at Caritas. He had a
22 small group of people who were in charge of these
23 matters, and I coordinated this, as I said, from the
24 beginning of the war onwards.
25 Q. Thank you. Could you please look at a
1 document now? Could you tell us whether you
2 remember ...
3 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked D48/2.
4 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC:
5 Q. So this is an HVO document signed by the
6 president of the HVO government. Do you recognise the
7 signature?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do you recognise the stamp?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So president of the HVO, Ivan Santic. Do you
12 remember this situation where aid was requested for 160
13 of the most imperilled families in the villages of
14 Preocica and Lupac?
15 A. Yes, I remember. I wonder why you don't have
16 more of these documents. The situation in certain
17 villages was always more difficult. These were in the
18 bordering villages towards Lasva or towards Zenica
19 where there was a vast number of refugees as well, and
20 the social conditions at that time were more difficult
21 than in Vitez itself, and Mr. Santic, I think on
22 several occasions in this way, while the UNHCR was
23 still present in Vitez and it was present there, at the
24 end of October it left Vitez, but some members of staff
25 remained there. He, on several occasions, made these
1 attempts to try to resolve the most serious situations
2 in the municipality of Vitez. This was one of his
3 characteristics.
4 Q. Could you tell us what the ethnic make-up of
5 the population in the village of Preocica was, for whom
6 the aid was requested?
7 A. The ethnic make-up of Lupac and Preocica was
8 about 98 or 99 per cent Muslim.
9 Q. Do you know whether there were any Croats in
10 Lupac?
11 A. I don't know, even though in Preocica we had
12 a sales outlet, and we tried to do that in Lupac as
13 well, but I don't know if there were any Croats in
14 those villages. Maybe the occasional Serbs.
15 Q. So these were exclusively Muslim villages?
16 A. Yes, they were exclusively Muslim villages,
17 for the most part Muslim villages.
18 Q. I will show you another document.
19 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked
20 D49/2.
21 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC:
22 Q. Mr. Alilovic, do you recognise the stamp and
23 the signature of Mr. Ivan Santic here?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Do you remember this decision?
1 A. I remember this decision, but the person who
2 is receiving this assistance, I don't know that person.
3 Q. So this is a decision by the HVO government
4 of the 9th of December of '92 to give assistance to
5 Mr. Adem Beslic for eyesight surgery. Tell us, is
6 Mr. Adem Beslic a Muslim?
7 A. According to his name and last name, he is a
8 Muslim, but I don't know him personally.
9 Q. Were there other such decisions to help the
10 most needy, the neediest people in the municipality?
11 A. Yes, there were such decisions, and Caritas
12 helped us a lot in such cases, and I spoke about that
13 yesterday and a little bit earlier this morning, so
14 this is how we would solve such cases.
15 Q. What was the average salary in Vitez at that
16 time, in December of '92?
17 A. The average salary in July or August, when I
18 was taking the data for the local municipal accounting
19 office, at the factory of industrial explosives, for
20 example, the salary was 38 German marks per month. In
21 December, it probably didn't even come to 20 German
22 marks, but I don't remember exactly. So this would be
23 the figure after the periodic calculation for '92, so
24 38 German marks. At the level of the municipality, the
25 salary was much lower. My salary, for example, was 60
1 German marks.
2 Q. The period we are talking about, December and
3 the beginning of 1993, January?
4 A. By then, I think that very few people were
5 actually working, so that the average salary must have
6 been much lower than the one I mentioned for August,
7 which means much below 38 German marks.
8 Q. Therefore, this was a substantial sum in
9 those days?
10 A. Indeed. It amounted to 10 or 12 average
11 salaries and probably even more.
12 Q. I will now ask you to look at some permits
13 issued by the HVO for trade and transport of goods, so
14 please look at this permit.
15 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked D50/2.
16 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC:
17 Q. Have you read the document?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So this is a permit for the movement of
20 persons and goods?
21 A. Yes. It is a customary document in form that
22 used to be issued in those days.
23 Q. It was signed by the president of the HVO
24 municipality of Vitez, Ivica Santic. You recognise the
25 signature?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You also see the signature of Tihomir
3 Blaskic?
4 A. Yes, I see it on the left-hand side.
5 Q. So tell us, please, what is actually
6 permitted by this document?
7 A. This document gives permission, in the first
8 place, for the movement of vehicles up to a part of the
9 special purpose industry and the transport of certain
10 goods -- equipment, rather, and weapons.
11 Q. So transportation is permitted --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- of these shell cases, 120-millimetre
14 mortars, and three delivery forms.
15 A. The goods come from the SPS Vitez, that is a
16 factory, the section producing special purpose
17 equipment.
18 Q. Was there a BH army logistics centre in
19 Visoko?
20 A. Yes, there may have been one, but for the BH
21 army forces because that was in a Muslim area.
22 Q. Are you aware of the presence of the BH army
23 in Visoko?
24 A. Yes. I mentioned yesterday that until the
25 outbreak of the conflict, as far as I know, all
1 equipment of this kind was shared with the BH army in
2 Vitez, and as far as I know, deliveries did not cease
3 until the outbreak of the conflict, deliveries of this
4 kind of equipment.
5 Q. In view of the fact that this permit for the
6 movement and trade of goods was signed by the president
7 of the municipality, does it mean that, in a sense, he
8 was a participant in the agreement reached between the
9 BH army and the HVO as regards the transportation of
10 ammunition, as we can see from this document?
11 A. I don't know whether he often participated in
12 the talks, but this was the normal format of permits of
13 this kind for allowing passage of goods of any kind,
14 including this kind of goods, so that he was involved
15 in these matters related to the transportation of
16 goods.
17 Q. So all types of permits of this kind were
18 issued by the HVO municipality?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. When it came to the transportation of
21 military materiel, then clearly the HVO military had to
22 participate or, rather, its representatives?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you see such documents before relating to
25 military materiel?
1 A. I have seen this kind of permit but not the
2 actual delivery forms.
3 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Thank you. I have
4 another document to show the witness, please.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Document D51/2.
6 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC:
7 Q. Mr. Alilovic, have you read this document?
8 Do you recall this extraordinary session held on the
9 24th of April, 1993?
10 A. I do.
11 Q. Were you present?
12 A. I was. I was present.
13 Q. This announcement of the civilian authorities
14 actually is a reaction to the events that occurred
15 immediately prior to this, that is, the beginning of
16 the conflict until the 24th of April?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Under item 3, it is stated that the Command
19 of the Operative Zone of Central Bosnia is requested to
20 carry out a detailed investigation of all individual
21 cases of flagrant violation of international
22 humanitarian law.
23 And then it goes on to say that a
24 particularly detailed and efficient investigation is
25 required for cases of killed civilians, destruction and
1 torching of civilian facilities in all conflicts to
2 date.
3 Tell us, please, what kind of a request was
4 this? Did the HVO government have any jurisdiction
5 over the command of the Operative Zone?
6 A. It felt the need to do this, and that is why
7 it did so, to let the command know, because we had some
8 more detailed knowledge about what was happening on the
9 ground, and it was with that aim in mind that this
10 request actually was made to units as to the way they
11 should behave and what they should do.
12 Q. In view of the fact that you were asking the
13 command of the Operative Zone to act, does that mean
14 that you thought that the perpetrators of those acts
15 could have been soldiers because otherwise you had your
16 own civilian police?
17 A. Yes, we had a civilian police, but it was
18 also a part of the units, in a sense, and this was
19 actually a request to the HVO forces as to the way they
20 should behave and what they should do. That is at
21 least how I understood it at the time.
22 Q. So you thought that it was necessary to
23 establish who was responsible for any violations of
24 international humanitarian law?
25 A. Indeed.
1 Q. So you were prompted to take such action
2 because you had heard of a number of cases?
3 A. Yes. Unfortunately by this date at this
4 session and others that preceded it, I heard about all
5 these events and what took place until then, and, of
6 course, afterwards as well.
7 Q. Was the number of victims in Ahmici known by
8 this date, the 24th of April?
9 A. I believe so, but I don't recall exactly now.
10 Q. Also under item 2, it is stated that the HVO
11 government of Vitez unanimously condemns all recorded
12 crimes committed during conflict between the BH army
13 and the HVO by any party.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. That was the position of the government;
16 wasn't it?
17 A. Yes, that was the position of the government,
18 because probably already by then the casualty figures
19 were known. Also, we had some information about the
20 crimes committed, at least I was informed about them at
21 that meeting, and as an individual and as a member of
22 the government, I fully supported such a position.
23 Q. Under point 4 too, another request is made to
24 the HVO command and the BH army command to exchange
25 innocent detained civilians as soon as possible. That
1 request was also one of the important conclusions
2 reached at that meeting?
3 A. Yes, indeed. The meeting adopted the
4 conclusion, as far as I can remember, to try and come
5 to an agreement as soon as possible with the Muslim
6 side over the exchange of detainees, and through the
7 UNPROFOR, I think a meeting was arranged, and in the
8 days that followed an agreement was, in fact, reached
9 on exchange, and in those negotiations Pero Skopljak
10 participated as the vice-president, or, rather, the
11 person who was assigned to take change of matters
12 related to exchange.
13 Q. Do you know whether the exchange was actually
14 carried out?
15 A. As far as I know, the agreement -- I can't
16 remember -- I don't know exactly when the meeting was
17 held in the UNPROFOR base, but I do know there was one
18 around that time, and that Mr. Skopljak participated as
19 well as the brigade commander -- whether anyone else
20 participated I don't know, I don't remember -- and that
21 an exchange of the detainees in Vitez for some
22 people -- some Croats from the territory of Zenica.
23 Therefore, an exchange of Muslims from Vitez for Croats
24 from Zenica.
25 Q. Was the exchange carried out?
1 A. As far as I know from these meetings Muslims
2 were given to Zenica, but as far as I know, hardly any
3 Croats came from Zenica.
4 Q. You actually said that Muslim detainees were
5 released by the Croats, whereas the BH army did not
6 release Croats. Is that what you said? Croats
7 detained in Zenica?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did the HVO government frequently issue
10 announcements and requests of this kind addressed to
11 the Operative Zone?
12 A. Yes, it would issue similar such documents,
13 but I think this wasn't frequent, because Mr. Santic
14 was in contact, almost on a daily basis, with them, as
15 well as Pero Skopljak as the person in charge of the
16 exchange, as I said a moment ago.
17 Q. Very well. Thank you. Let me show you
18 another document.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Document D52/2.
20 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC:
21 Q. Do you recognise the signature on this
22 document of Ivan Santic?
23 A. Yes, I do. I'm also familiar with the
24 contents of this letter, and I myself talked to
25 Mr. Santic about this and he asked me about my
1 opinion. Of course, I was fully in agreement with
2 him.
3 Q. So this is a document whereby the HVO
4 government is proposing the release of a part of the
5 detained Muslims to the command of the Central Bosnia
6 Operative Zone. So this letter and this request was
7 something that happened outside the negotiations
8 between the HVO and the BH army?
9 A. Actually, I thought that this happened before
10 the meeting, when the first steps were agreed as to
11 negotiations over an exchange in the UNPROFOR base.
12 Why this document bears this date, I really don't know,
13 because I think that actually it happened earlier, and
14 I think that a part of this recommendation was, in
15 fact, implemented.
16 Q. So you mean that a part of the people were
17 released prior to the formal agreement on the
18 exchange?
19 A. Yes. That is what I was able to hear from
20 Mr. Santic.
21 Q. Do you remember how many people were
22 involved?
23 A. I do not. I know, for instance, that
24 Mr. Mujezinovic was there for a time, some professors,
25 that some of them were released, but I really don't
1 know exactly whom or how many of them.
2 Q. Thank you very much. I have one further
3 question linked to your testimony. You said that your
4 main job was procurement of food and supply of the
5 population; wasn't it?
6 A. (No audible response)
7 Q. When purchasing food, did you bear in mind
8 the different foodstuffs used by various ethnic
9 groups? For example, the fat that is used by the
10 Muslims?
11 A. Yes, of course. It is well-known that
12 Muslims do not consume lard, and oil was always an
13 item -- or rather vegetable oil, vegetable fat. But
14 also a large number of Croats consume oil rather than
15 lard, so that the range of goods offered was quite
16 satisfactory if that is what you had in mind, that
17 perhaps we didn't procure enough food stuffs that
18 Muslims consume.
19 Q. You said that the -- this process of supply
20 continued in October. Did it continue after the
21 Muslims returned to Ahmici, after the roadblock was
22 removed?
23 A. Yes. Supplies continued for as long as it
24 was possible to move around at all, and already in
25 October we had considerable quantities in stock so that
1 citizens were still able to purchase goods in the
2 shops. Yesterday, I think, we reviewed a document, a
3 permit by Mr. Kupreskic, issued after the removal of
4 that roadblock, even though by then movement was more
5 difficult than prior to that event but movement did
6 occur.
7 Q. Do you remember for how long this method of
8 supply with packages continued, with food parcels?
9 A. I think it went on until October or
10 November. Actually, until all demands by citizens had
11 been met, demands for this kind of food.
12 Q. Tell us once more, for the record, what was
13 the name of the person working in Caritas with the
14 distribution of aid?
15 A. The person in charge of Caritas, I think --
16 Q. Just give us the name.
17 A. Was Mr. Zeljko Blaz and he is still
18 performing that same role today.
19 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Thank you. I have no
20 further questions for this witness. I should just like
21 to tender into evidence the documents from the
22 exhibits. Could you help me, Mr. Bos, with the
23 numbers?
24 THE REGISTRAR: D48 to D52/2.
25 MR. BLAXILL: No objections, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.
2 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: D48 to D52/2, thank
3 you.
4 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. No objection, so
5 they are admitted into evidence.
6 Before we move on to the Prosecution, I would
7 like to clarify the way we intend to apply the
8 provisional ruling we made yesterday.
9 Let us now consider the particular case of
10 the present witness, Mr. Alilovic. Now, I see from my
11 documents that he has been called by three Defence
12 counsel, Susak, Radovic and Slokovic-Glumac. So as a
13 witness for the three defendants who -- on behalf of
14 whom the Defence counsel I've just mentioned are acting
15 here.
16 Now, that means that after the
17 cross-examination by the Prosecution, only those three
18 these Defence counsel will be allowed to re-examine the
19 witness. The other counsel, namely Counsel Par,
20 Pavkovic and Puliselic, have cross-examined the witness
21 after the examination-in-chief. Is it clear?
22 Mrs. Slokovic-Glumac?
23 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Mr. President, in view
24 of the fact that I was the author of this list, may I
25 clarify it? This list was done on the basis of
1 counts. With respect to Count 1, we have listed
2 witnesses who will be testifying to the joint
3 circumstances of the indictment, and they are actually
4 joint witnesses for all the accused.
5 So as to avoid any misunderstanding, under
6 Count 1, all the witnesses are joint witnesses. It was
7 only a question of my writing the list. But this
8 witness, for instance, was called by colleague Susak.
9 As for the facts they are testifying to, they are
10 common to all, and these other counsel did not
11 separately indicate their witnesses for Count 1,
12 they're all on this same list.
13 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. However, it is a fact
14 that when we were given the lists of witnesses for each
15 defendant, Mr. Alilovic was only mentioned in the list
16 of witnesses drafted by and filed by Counsel Susak, by
17 yourself and Counsel Radovic. Subsequently you
18 provided us a list of all defendants' list of witnesses
19 except Vlatko Kupreskic. You are referring to that
20 particular document. Here no mention is made of --
21 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Yes.
22 JUDGE CASSESE: -- of the fact that all
23 those -- about 20 -- actually, 41 witnesses, witnesses
24 for the six defendants. No mention is made there. You
25 may, of course, be aware that if we start having the
1 examination-in-chief of 41 witnesses by six Defence
2 counsel, then cross-examination and then
3 re-examination-in-chief, we will end probably this
4 trial in two years time. So we must come to some sort
5 of -- I would like to stick to what you had proposed
6 initially, each of you had proposed initially in the
7 lists of witnesses you filed with the Tribunal, and
8 each Defence counsel set out on paper a list of a
9 certain number of witnesses. If those witnesses
10 coincide, that means that the particular witness may be
11 examined-in-chief by more than one Defence counsel.
12 Otherwise, he will be examined-in-chief only by one.
13 Otherwise, it's a sort of Pandora's box.
14 So I insist, at least for Mr. Alilovic, since
15 it is very clear from the lists filed by Counsel Susak,
16 Counsel Radovic and Counsel Slokovic-Glumac that only
17 they intended to call Mr. Alilovic as a witness, they
18 will only be entitled to re-examination after the
19 cross-examination by the Prosecution.
20 I wonder whether the Prosecution is now
21 prepared to cross-examine the witness.
22 What about the procedural matters Mr. Terrier
23 intended to raise? Are they linked to this particular
24 issue or could we take them up the later on if there is
25 no link to this question which -- no. So later. Thank
1 you.
2 Cross-examined by Mr. Blaxill:
3 MR. BLAXILL: Mr. President, Your Honours,
4 good morning. With your leave, I will be
5 cross-examining this witness, Mr. Alilovic. Good
6 morning Defence counsel.
7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Alilovic.
8 Mr. Alilovic, you stated in your evidence
9 that relations began to deteriorate between the Croat
10 and Muslim populations in Vitez municipality because,
11 in essence, the Croats felt that the Muslims were
12 unsupportive against the threat, as you say, of Serb
13 aggression. Is that so?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And, in fact, you felt that the Muslims
16 should be taking active steps to support you in what
17 was then a war, to use that term, between Croatia and
18 the Serbs; is that so?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. As time went on, particularly into 1992, you
21 say that the Muslims had very much opposing views about
22 the Serb threat and, at one point, even decreed
23 neutrality, not to have a part in that war?
24 A. Yes, neutrality was declared at the beginning
25 of '92, I said.
1 Q. I believe I am right in saying that you also
2 said that it was at around that time the Croat
3 population of the area felt it was necessary to prepare
4 to defend themselves?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And, again, that this was still directed
7 towards the threat of, as you saw it, Serb aggression?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. Now, you mentioned that one initiative taken
10 was, of course, forming the HVO; that is correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And the term "HVO" covers essentially two
13 items, does it not: one, a civilian government, and
14 the other, a military regime?
15 A. A military component, yes.
16 Q. Under whatever constitution was drawn for the
17 HVO, is it true that the military component would have
18 the major power in the event of threat or imminent
19 threat of war or conflict?
20 A. I didn't feel this to be so.
21 Q. Well, were you aware of any form of decree or
22 ordinance to that end or not?
23 A. No.
24 Q. You have stated that your role before and
25 during the conflict that followed remained in the
1 economic sphere, in food supply and the like; that is
2 correct, sir?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So just to clear one small point. When
5 invited by Defence counsel to comment on military
6 strategy or other matters, you do so from just a degree
7 of general knowledge, not from any military knowledge
8 as such?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. Now, you say that one initiative
11 taken by the HVO was to seize quantities of weapons.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I presume it was the military component that
14 carried out that operation?
15 A. Yes, the military component did undertake the
16 operation, but this operation was also discussed by the
17 civilian authorities, and they supported this
18 operation.
19 Q. And it --
20 A. It was recommended -- I apologise --
21 recommended and supported.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, you say that as a result of
23 that, there was the proposal that there should be equal
24 sharing of the weapons?
25 A. Yes. This was a request by the Muslim side,
1 so an agreement was reached in this sense, as I said,
2 for the weapons to be shared; and as far as I know,
3 this was done.
4 Q. I would ask you, sir: Do you have any direct
5 knowledge that it was done?
6 A. Yes. I had the opportunity to hear this on
7 several occasions at official public meetings.
8 Q. But you did not have any personal
9 administrative hand in the transfer of weapons between
10 people, or supply of weapons?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Forgive me, but it seems a little illogical
13 to divide up weaponry in that fashion between a force
14 that is trying to prepare for its defence and one that
15 you described as inert and not wish you to take part in
16 the war?
17 A. No, I didn't mean it that way, if we
18 understood one another well.
19 Up until then, there were relatively few
20 weapons, and the HVO launched an initiative to acquire
21 weapons due to the overall military and political
22 circumstances at that time, and you could hear this in
23 the media based on the assumption that the Serbian side
24 was trying to link its forces from Vlasic to Kobiljaca,
25 and it was necessary to urgently obtain as much
1 weaponry as possible in order to resist. In order to
2 organise a resistance, it was important to mobilise all
3 forces, both Croat and Muslim. So the intention during
4 that whole time was to move in that direction to ensure
5 joint efforts towards a unified approach, unified
6 resistance, towards our common enemy. So in that
7 sense, when I said that, this is what I meant the
8 entire time until, unfortunately, that incident
9 occurred, and that is our greatest tragedy, because we
10 could not find a common solution. So this is what I
11 was talking about, and I hope that we understood one
12 another well.
13 Q. Are you aware, Mr. Alilovic, that Mr. Dario
14 Kordic actually issued an order that the agreement over
15 the Busovaca TO weaponry was cancelled? Did you ever
16 hear that?
17 A. No, I did not hear that. I was informed that
18 these arms were distributed.
19 MR. BLAXILL: I have, in fact, served a
20 document on the Defence this morning, Your Honours.
21 Copies have been supplied for the use of Your Honours
22 as well. I wonder if it could just be put to him
23 simply in respect of the fact as to whether he would
24 concede or not concede that point. So whether this is
25 tendered subsequently in evidence, we will remain -- it
1 is with Your Honours.
2 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked 340.
3 MR. BLAXILL:
4 Q. Mr. Alilovic, you will see that document
5 dated the 10th of May, 1992. I would really, sir, just
6 draw your attention to paragraph 1 of the order. It
7 says "is issued" and then paragraph 1.
8 Now, sir, is it correct that that states that
9 "the agreement between the HVO and the so-called
10 Busovaca TO on the distribution of weapons is hereby
11 terminated, and it has been decided that Busovaca HVO
12 forces take over all weapons, equipment, material, as
13 well as the barracks."
14 That would appear to be correct; is that so,
15 sir?
16 A. That's what it says, that the reached
17 agreement is terminated between the HVO and the
18 so-called Busovaca TO, and it's to take over all the
19 weapons, equipment, material, and the barracks by the
20 Busovaca HVO from the TO. Yes. This document I am not
21 familiar with. This is the first time that I see it.
22 As a person who took part in some of the meetings, I
23 have information that these weapons were distributed.
24 Q. Now, if I may move on, Mr. Alilovic, you say
25 that, almost in due course, the Muslims set up a
1 parallel, parallel kind of local government for
2 themselves; is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. One thing you haven't really mentioned, sir,
5 is the impact of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna
6 which was formed, was it not, in 1992?
7 A. Yes, it was formed.
8 Q. Is it not true, sir, that that Croatian
9 community of Herceg-Bosna was, in fact, set up to be an
10 independent Croat state within the territory of Bosnia
11 and Herzegovina; is that correct?
12 A. No, I never viewed it in that way, and I
13 think that this is incorrect.
14 Q. Did you, sir, have -- you have knowledge of
15 the policies and the philosophies behind the formation
16 of that Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna? You were
17 aware of that, sir?
18 A. Yes, of course, some of it is known to me.
19 Q. Isn't it true that many people espoused a
20 form of Croat nationalism and set that up as a state,
21 as a sovereign state with its own territory; is that
22 not so?
23 A. No, this is not true. I didn't think about
24 it in that way, and I don't think the Croatian people
25 thought about it in that way. Why? Simply because in
1 speaking about that, about the inertia of the Muslim
2 side in the sense of what was happening to the Croatian
3 people, that the Croatian people in Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina had the need to create a kind of body which
5 would be able to self-organise and do something, but
6 this has nothing to do with a state or the creation of
7 an entity that would be like a state. That's
8 ridiculous. For me, that's ridiculous.
9 Q. Did you hear, sir, that, in fact, in Sarajevo
10 in September of 1992, there was actually a Supreme
11 Court decision declaring the Croatian community of
12 Herceg-Bosna to be an illegal state, as no state? Did
13 you ever hear of that? You didn't hear of that?
14 A. I didn't hear. I don't know how there could
15 be a decision on the abolishment of a state when this
16 was not a state. This was an economic, cultural, and
17 territorial entity. This is how we interpreted it in
18 the Croatian corps, and I personally took it to be this
19 way.
20 Q. So you are saying then at least we have an
21 entity which is ethnically, socially, economically, and
22 territoriality a Croat entity; is that what you're
23 saying?
24 A. Yes, this was an entity where there was a
25 considerable number, according to its structure, a
1 considerable number of Croats.
2 Q. Is it not so that during the period
3 particularly of 1992, the HVO, as an institution, made
4 it clear that they would hold the power within that
5 region?
6 A. I am not aware that they would hold power in
7 that region but that they would take the initiative in
8 the sense of organising and preparation for defence.
9 Wanting and attempting together with persistence and
10 patience together with the Muslims to organise a
11 defence against a common enemy. And I have to say this
12 again, this was an activity that would go on up until
13 the time of the conflict, and if we had objectively
14 dealt more seriously with this problem, the conflict,
15 the clash, would not have taken place in the first
16 place.
17 Q. Well, I would suggest to you, Mr. Alilovic,
18 that the setting up of a parallel administration, or
19 the committee for the protection of interests of the
20 Muslims, was, in some measure, prompted by the controls
21 being exerted by the HVO; isn't that correct?
22 A. Which controls do you mean?
23 Q. General administrative and local government
24 control in the area.
25 A. In the control of the local administration,
1 the Muslims participated as well, since they, in view
2 of the fact that they did not want to participate in
3 the authority which is called the Croatian Defence
4 Council, they organised a parallel authority where they
5 established their own control.
6 Q. Mr. Alilovic, do you recall a time when
7 Dr. Mujezinovic and his colleagues actually submitted a
8 complaint to your local government regarding materials
9 to be used in schools, in education; do you remember
10 that?
11 A. In which period? Excuse me.
12 Q. This would have been in, I believe, mid 1992
13 because did the HVO not decree that certain materials
14 would be used in schools mainly to remove any reference
15 to the former Yugoslavia and, as it were, non-Croatian
16 materials; is that correct?
17 A. No, I don't know about that, and I think that
18 this is not true.
19 Q. Sir, if I can move towards the end of 1992,
20 and you said around the 20th of October, '92, there
21 were clashes between the HVO and elements of the
22 Bosnian Muslim forces at certain checkpoints; is that
23 correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Would it be fair to say that in the months
1 subsequent to that, the tensions between the
2 communities were very much greater?
3 A. I don't quite understand the question. Is it
4 logical that there were tensions?
5 Q. May I put it a different way, Mr. Alilovic?
6 Is it true that subsequently, after October '92, there
7 were numerous incidents of perhaps clashes between HVO
8 and Muslim individuals, Muslim persons; is that
9 correct?
10 A. In Vitez?
11 Q. In Vitez.
12 A. Well, in my testimony yesterday, I said that
13 after that event, because of frequent meetings amongst
14 the representatives of the political parties and
15 representatives of both units, the situation was calmed
16 down successfully. The extent to which it was tense
17 after that, compared to the previous period, I couldn't
18 really estimate that. I wasn't directly in the
19 situation to assess that. But I think that the
20 situation was calmed down successfully, thanks to
21 agreements between the two sides and the implemented
22 correct agreements regarding, for example, the division
23 of arms within the factory and the attempt and further
24 negotiations to attempt to establish a line of defence
25 as long as possible against our common enemy. So I
1 personally did not think that the situation after
2 October 20th became significantly worse.
3 Q. So, Mr. Alilovic, if I understand you
4 correctly, you still personally view the position at
5 that time as being one where the Muslims and Croats
6 still had a common outside enemy; is that correct?
7 A. Absolutely.
8 Q. Absolutely. Yet, within something like four
9 to five months of that time armed conflict broke out
10 between Muslim and Croat.
11 If I can move forward, sir, to the date of
12 the 16th of April, 1993, I believe that you stated that
13 you were at home and awakened to the sound of gunfire
14 early in the morning; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. I believe you said that you were summoned to
17 try and go and see Mr. Santic, but you couldn't move
18 until the next day, the 17th; is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So you -- sorry. I'm going too fast.
21 So you stayed at home, did you, the whole of
22 that day?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And presumably you were unable to see much of
25 what went on in Vitez during that day?
1 A. Yes, of course I wasn't able to see.
2 Q. More particularly, sir, you clearly would not
3 have any evidence to offer as to what happened in
4 Ahmici village on that day?
5 A. Unfortunately, no.
6 Q. You and your department were not involved in
7 the checking and preparation of casualty figures for
8 any of the victims of the actions of that day; is that
9 correct?
10 A. No. No.
11 Q. If you offer an opinion as to any numbers, it
12 is purely what you may have picked up in subsequent
13 times from other parties?
14 A. I had the opportunity to hear this at the
15 meetings when we were talking about information. Then
16 I had the opportunity to hear that at official meetings
17 of the government. These were relevant facts, first of
18 all, if I mentioned them at all.
19 Q. Now, sir, from the 16th of April events
20 continued in Vitez. Did you become aware of such
21 things as the rounding up of Muslim civilians and
22 others?
23 A. Yes, I was aware of that.
24 Q. Is it not true that a number of Muslims were
25 detained in the cinema building and more in the
1 Dubravica school? They were used as detention
2 centres?
3 A. I didn't consider them to be detention
4 camps. They were temporarily placed there, these
5 people. I know that this was in the cinema building
6 because I had the opportunity to see that when I was
7 going to work, and I could hear this information at a
8 meeting of the HVO government, which we talked about
9 earlier during the presentation of one of the documents
10 signed by Mr. Santic, indicating his desire and his
11 recommendations to release immediately a certain number
12 of persons before any kind of agreement was reached on
13 exchange.
14 Q. But you would concede, therefore, sir, that
15 these numbers of Muslim persons were held in those
16 locations and were not allowed to leave of their own
17 will?
18 A. Yes, I will agree.
19 Q. Did you hear subsequently about such things
20 as detainees being taken to the lines to dig trenches?
21 A. No, I didn't hear that.
22 Q. You didn't hear that?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you hear of the transfer of Muslim
25 detainees to the Kaonik camp where they were further
1 detained?
2 A. No, I didn't hear about that.
3 Q. Did you hear about searches and seizures in
4 civilian apartments in Vitez during that period?
5 A. No, I didn't hear about that at an official
6 meeting but this is possible.
7 Q. But on the other hand, did you hear of any
8 form of detention facilities or rounding up of Croat
9 civilians and people being detained in the Vitez area?
10 A. I heard more or less as much as there was
11 this on the Croatian side in the regions which, during
12 the first days of the conflict, that there were also
13 similar things happening on the Muslim side, similar
14 detentions. I heard this at the meetings.
15 Q. Would this have been in Vitez, sir, in
16 Vitez?
17 A. In the region of the Vitez municipality.
18 This happened in Poculica, Preocica. I remember those
19 names. In Kruscica.
20 Q. Do you have any idea of the -- sorry, I will
21 repeat. Did you have any idea of the numbers involved
22 in those particular locations?
23 A. These were all the people who did not manage
24 to escape, as far as I know, not -- I don't have a
25 precise number, really.
1 MR. BLAXILL: Your Honours, I have reached,
2 in fact, a kind of subject matter break-point there and
3 it may be convenient for you to order the break.
4 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. All right. We will
5 take a 30-minute break.
6 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
8 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.
9 MR. BLAXILL: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Q. Mr. Alilovic, in the course of your evidence
11 in chief you referred to a document being an HVO
12 document relating to a contract to supply goods with
13 the Sutra company run by Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic; is that
14 correct? Or represented, I'm sorry, represented by
15 Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic?
16 A. I didn't mention a contract.
17 Q. I'm sorry, perhaps --
18 A. But rather an offer, a bid by Mr. Kupreskic,
19 when we were preparing food supplies for the winter for
20 the citizens of Vitez, that Mr. Kupreskic, or, rather,
21 the company Sutra, was one of the bidders who offered
22 to supply those goods at more favourable terms than
23 others, and he was selected.
24 Q. And so he was one of the selected contractors
25 and was able then to conduct business selling goods; is
1 that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You made mention of the fact that in the
4 course of his work he entered both Muslim and Croat
5 houses delivering things?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. But to be absolutely clear, this was simply
8 in the course of business for which he earned income
9 for his company?
10 A. Yes. In this area, yes, that applies to all
11 the contractors. That applies to all the contractors.
12 I too was in the field throughout that period and
13 afterwards. But it was also mentioned that
14 Mr. Kupreskic carried out his activities throughout the
15 period up to the conflict and even during the first
16 days of the conflict, as far as conditions allowed, and
17 immediately after the signing of the truce with the
18 Muslims these activities were resumed.
19 Q. Mr. Alilovic, you were shown a form, a
20 document, purporting to be a claim for reparations to a
21 house, a house in the name of Mrs. Kupreskic, I
22 believe, and in respect of lost or damaged goods. Do
23 you recall that document?
24 A. Yes, I do. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Do you recall the date of that document, or
1 at least the year?
2 A. It was the report of the commission for the
3 estimation of damages compiled after the truce with the
4 Muslim Bosniak side. Such reports are being drawn up
5 even today. This document was done after the truce.
6 It may have been in '96 or'97. I do not recall the
7 date exactly.
8 Q. Now, your department did not do any work in
9 respect of the War Damage Commission; is that correct?
10 It wasn't part of your duty?
11 A. No, it wasn't.
12 Q. And --
13 A. Except with respect to the goods mentioned in
14 the report when the total damages is summed up, so then
15 it would affect that department. But as for the
16 estimation of the damage on a building, that was not
17 part of the work of my department.
18 Q. And so would the work of your department, in
19 that respect, be to verify prices and quantities if
20 they're claimed; is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So you would not be in a position to know
23 whether goods were taken or destroyed, but you could,
24 if given a list of goods, you would have been able to
25 price them for the commission and say, "Yes, that is
1 the price." Is that a correct interpretation?
2 A. I was in a position know that there were such
3 appropriation of goods. And at the time we were not in
4 a position to make all the proper calculations and
5 everything else, but after the truce with the Muslims
6 and the Bosniaks, through the defence ministry, those
7 damages were checked, data collected and efforts were
8 made to compensate the damages. So this too goes
9 beyond the framework of my duties, except for checking
10 the goods taken and pricing them.
11 Q. I wonder if at this point, please, the
12 registrar could kindly arrange for Prosecutor's
13 Exhibit 329 to be handed to the witness?
14 Will you please tell the Court, Mr. Alilovic,
15 what does that document appear to be?
16 A. As far as I'm able to understand, this is a
17 certificate issued when collecting data, by the defence
18 department, to confirm participation in units in order
19 to acquire rights to shares. Time will show, regarding
20 the agreement with the Muslim side regarding additional
21 remuneration, a decision had to be taken, so that on
22 both sides there were certain abuses with respect to
23 the issuance of such certificates, the aim being to get
24 a certificate for as long a period as possible to gain
25 greater remuneration. I think this problem has still
1 not been resolved regarding such additional
2 remuneration. I too have a certificate of this kind,
3 so that is how I interpret it.
4 Q. And in fact, does the certificate refer to
5 the conscription of an individual, and is that
6 individual Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic, son of Franjo, born
7 the 1st of January, 1958; is that correct?
8 A. Yes. This certificate is issued in the name
9 of Mr. Kupreskic, yes.
10 Q. And does it indicate that he was a member of
11 the 92nd Viteska Homeguard Regiment from the 16th of
12 April, 1993 to the 15th of January, 1996?
13 A. That is evident from this certificate that he
14 was assistant commander for health matters, although I
15 didn't know that at the time, and that at first, at the
16 beginning, I know that he drove an ambulance, and
17 because of the condition of his health, because he has
18 a heart problem, he was not recruited on a regular
19 basis and he didn't do his military service in the
20 former JAN because of that condition. That is probably
21 why he was assigned to this post, assistant commander
22 for health, although I wasn't aware of that. What I
23 did see was him driving an ambulance.
24 Q. So yesterday, sir, when you were asked by
25 Defence counsel about whether Mr. Kupreskic was
1 mobilised, you initially said you didn't really know,
2 but later when asked the question, "He wasn't
3 mobilised?" you said, "No." But in fact, you didn't
4 know at the time, did you?
5 A. I always said that I didn't know, I think,
6 and my reply now again is that I don't know. But
7 you're asking me on the basis of this document what it
8 means, and I think I have provided an answer as best I
9 could since I too have a similar certificate.
10 Q. You have, sir, and I thank you for it.
11 Mr. Alilovic, moving, if I may, to a couple of the
12 documents we have seen this morning. You were shown --
13 this is D52/2, if the witness needs to look at it
14 again --
15 A. Yes, I saw this document.
16 Q. It is just to confirm -- clearly it would
17 seem that Ivan Santic had considerable concerns about
18 the detained Muslims in Vitez at that time, late April;
19 you say that is correct, sir?
20 A. I didn't see Mr. Santic having concerns about
21 the detained but, rather, I spoke to him to the effect
22 that it would be good to be reasonable and to try and
23 release a significant portion of those detained because
24 for a number of reasons, this would be a good sign
25 towards dealing with the situation that we were faced
1 with at the time.
2 Q. So it seems the civilian HVO administration
3 was trying to do something about the detained Muslims
4 in Vitez, hence this document?
5 A. Certainly. As I have explained, it would be
6 a sign of goodwill, prompting the other side to act
7 similarly, because on that occasion when we discussed
8 this, I heard that several detainees in Poculica and
9 Preocica had been killed, and then this would be an
10 attempt towards carrying out an exchange. Anyway, he
11 didn't believe it necessary to detain many of those
12 people at that time.
13 Q. If I could move on, sir? You saw another
14 document, this is marked D51/2 -- perhaps we could have
15 a brief look at that again?
16 Mr. Alilovic, correct me if I misunderstand,
17 but this announcement appears to me to show concern of
18 the HVO civilian government in Vitez at what they
19 perceive to have been crimes committed by participants
20 in conflict in the area of Vitez at that time; would
21 you say that is a fair interpretation by me?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. That would include, sir, perceived criminal
24 activity by units of the HVO military as well as any
25 allegations against other parties; is that so?
1 A. At the time, we were aware of a large number
2 of casualties and we were already informed at the time
3 that crimes had been committed on both sides.
4 Q. Indeed so. And one of the crimes that you
5 feel you had in mind at that time was, in fact, the
6 attack on the Ahmici village; is that correct?
7 A. Yes. The way in which it was done, it was
8 already clear by then that this was a crime.
9 Q. Do you recall, sir, and were you, in fact,
10 even present at a large meeting held on the 29th of
11 April, 1993? I believe the location may have been
12 Citluk, unless I'm misinterpreting the word entirely.
13 Perhaps I could further refresh your memory: It was
14 hosted by Mr. Mate Boban?
15 A. Citluk?
16 Q. That might be the word for "date" because
17 it's next to the date. I may be wrong. I don't
18 understand the language well enough.
19 Were you aware, sir, of this large meeting
20 chaired by Mate Boban on the 29th of April of '93?
21 A. No. I remember perhaps that there was a
22 meeting in '92 which I did not attend, but I remember,
23 from the media, roughly at the time the HVO was formed.
24 Q. I see.
25 A. But the 29th of April, '93, the conflicts
1 were still ongoing and they were gaining in intensity,
2 so I really have no recollection about that date in
3 particular.
4 Q. Just referring there again. At around that
5 time, were you aware of Mr. Ivica Santic attending any
6 particularly large gathering or meeting with political
7 leaders at that time?
8 A. In '93, you mean? In '93?
9 Q. Yes, in '93.
10 A. No, I am not aware of that.
11 MR. BLAXILL: I wonder if I might just have
12 one moment to confer with my colleagues for just a
13 second?
14 I'm much obliged to Your Honours. I have
15 just a couple more matters. I shall be very brief.
16 Q. In respect of people mobilised into service
17 with the HVO military, Mr. Alilovic, are you aware
18 whether conscripts were actually paid? Were they paid
19 rather like the people who signed contracts with the
20 HVO?
21 A. I know something. The people who signed a
22 contract with the HVO were paid something when it was
23 possible to raise the necessary funds. As for those
24 who were mobilised subsequently, I am not aware of
25 anyone being paid anything except for a certain period,
1 if some funds were available, then people were given
2 some compensation. So this was on an ad hoc basis. I
3 remember that on a number of occasions, some
4 remuneration was given.
5 Q. But there was no guarantee of a daily rate of
6 pay for a conscripted soldier?
7 A. Certainly not.
8 MR. BLAXILL: Thank you, sir. Well, that
9 actually concludes my questions, Your Honours. I would
10 like, please, to tender Exhibit P340 which I placed
11 before the witness. That was the document bearing,
12 amongst others, the signature of Dario Kordic.
13 That concludes my cross-examination,
14 Mr. President.
15 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. No objection? So
16 P340 is admitted into evidence. We may now move on to
17 re-examination.
18 MR. PAVKOVIC: Your Honours, I can announce
19 that the witness will be re-examined by Attorney Luko
20 Susak and Jadranka Slokovic-Glumac.
21 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Counsel Susak?
22 MR. SUSAK: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Re-examined by Mr. Susak:
24 Q. Mr. Alilovic, the Prosecutor asked you about
25 the existence of Herceg-Bosna.
1 A. You mean the formation of Herceg-Bosna and
2 the existence. Yes, fine.
3 Q. Did it exist as a separate entity in
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina? But let me ask you something
5 else: Are you aware of the referendum on the integrity
6 of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Was such a referendum carried
7 out?
8 A. Yes, of course I am familiar with it. It was
9 held at the end of February 1992, I think. I think it
10 was the 29th, if I'm not mistaken.
11 Q. Are you aware of the results of that
12 referendum?
13 A. Yes, I am. The question at the referendum
14 was answered by "Yes" I would say by the vast majority
15 of the Muslim and Croat people. Unfortunately, not by
16 the Serb people. But roughly 99 per cent of these
17 first two peoples endorsed it.
18 Q. You said 99 per cent. You said this applies
19 to both together. What about the Croats?
20 A. I think roughly the same percentage of Croats
21 voted in favour.
22 Q. So the referendum was on the wholeness of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina, its integrity.
24 The Prosecutor asked you a question about the
25 deterioration of relations between Muslims and Croats,
1 so this prompts me to ask you: How did the HDZ, as a
2 Croatian party, cooperate with the SDA party of the
3 Muslims?
4 A. I think I have explained that at sufficient
5 length on the first day of my testimony. The forms of
6 cooperation were frequent meetings arranged whenever
7 the need arose to coordinate views on particular issues
8 or to try to influence a change of opinion, so that
9 meetings of that kind were held frequently.
10 Q. Were any conclusions passed at that level?
11 A. Yes, conclusions and recommendations were
12 passed at those meetings.
13 Q. When did that cooperation cease in that form?
14 A. As far as I know, cooperation in that form
15 did not cease until the outbreak of the conflict, and,
16 in fact, it continued several days after the outbreak
17 of the conflict.
18 Q. When did those forms of cooperation begin?
19 A. Immediately after the elections, and
20 especially, as I said on the first day of my testimony,
21 after the positions became evidently contradictory with
22 regard to the aggression against the Republic of
23 Croatia and the amassing of Serbian forces and
24 equipment.
25 Q. Could you give us the dates for this,
1 roughly?
2 A. The preparations for the aggression on
3 Croatia started, in fact, immediately after the
4 elections. Actually, all the mass media and prominent
5 international persons were forecasting the break-up of
6 Yugoslavia and that this would not take place by
7 peaceful means. This was something we could hear on
8 the media on a daily basis. And since the approach to
9 this issue varied in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and even in
10 Vitez, views were divided, there was a need for the
11 leading political parties to meet more frequently, to
12 exchange views, to try to achieve a rapprochement of
13 views and so on.
14 Q. But, Mr. Alilovic, could you give us a date,
15 a rough date for this, the year, the month?
16 A. This was particularly intensive at the end of
17 August, September of 1991 already when significant
18 positions were taken, differing positions, between the
19 HDZ and the SDA regarding opposition to the return or
20 the withdrawal of the JNA army from Slovenia and their
21 redeployment in the area of Zenica, then the question
22 of cessation of sending recruits to the JNA, then also
23 expression of disagreement with the JNA's decision to
24 place TO armaments under its control, then also the
25 decision to see and establish what the TO had at its
1 disposal at that time. This was the sort of thing over
2 which meetings were held frequently between the two
3 parties, and I think those meetings very often were
4 successful. A meeting that I'm very familiar with in
5 August 1991, it was stated that inter-ethnic relations
6 were still good, but in view of the situation and the
7 views adopted by the official authorities and by the
8 SDA in Bosnia-Herzegovina, they could deteriorate.
9 Q. Mr. Alilovic, we will now move to another
10 area. It will only be a short question. You spoke a
11 lot yesterday and today about exchanges. You mentioned
12 Dubravica and the cinema building. Do you know in
13 which way did the Muslims leave Dubravica?
14 A. I don't know exactly how they left, but I
15 know that at a meeting at UNPROFOR, it was agreed to
16 carry out an exchange and that, in this sense, it was
17 carried out. How it was carried out, I don't know. I
18 know, I had the opportunity later to hear that these
19 people were released to their homes, but the exchange
20 was not carried out as agreed at UNPROFOR.
21 Excuse me. We were informed about this by
22 Mr. Pero Skopljak, and I had the opportunity to hear
23 this, that at a meeting at UNPROFOR, I don't remember
24 exactly what date, he said -- he was taken out from the
25 meeting or representatives of the civilian bodies were
1 taken out from the meeting and then only
2 representatives of the two military groups remained,
3 military officials from the highest levels of the
4 Zenica corps, so in this sense we were surprised to
5 hear that the exchange was not carried out as agreed,
6 and Mr. Pero Skopljak informed us on that occasion that
7 he was not present at the time that this agreement was
8 reached about the definite form of the exchange but
9 that this was done by Mr. Mario Cerkez. So it was
10 agreed for these people to be released. How they were
11 released, how they left, I really don't know.
12 Q. Where did you say the meeting was held at
13 UNPROFOR?
14 A. At the UNPROFOR base at the elementary school
15 in Stara Bila.
16 Q. Who was at that meeting at the beginning?
17 You said that Pero Skopljak informed you.
18 A. At one of the meetings afterwards.
19 Q. Do you know who took part in those talks at
20 the UNPROFOR base at the beginning?
21 A. I've already said that. I know that Mr. Pero
22 Skopljak attended from our side, Mr. Mario Cerkez, and
23 then from the other side, I know only that they were
24 high representatives of the BH army who were present,
25 including the top representatives, maybe the corps
1 commander or some other official.
2 MR. SUSAK: I have no further questions.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you, Counsel Susak.
5 Counsel Slokovic-Glumac?
6 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Thank you very much,
7 Mr. President.
8 Re-examined by Ms. Slokovic-Glumac:
9 Q. Mr. Alilovic, very briefly, you said, when
10 you were talking about the permit for Kupreskic Vlatko,
11 this is document 339, were you mobilised?
12 A. Well, I considered myself as being mobilised
13 by the fact that I was working there, but I didn't get
14 an official piece of paper on this, that I was an
15 official member of the HVO government, until later, so
16 I didn't have an official document so that I could
17 present, introduce myself in this way.
18 Q. I didn't ask you whether you were a
19 representative of the HVO government but whether you
20 got any kind of confirmation that you were mobilised.
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. Were you, in fact, mobilised as a soldier?
23 A. No, not as a soldier, I was not mobilised as
24 a soldier, but I do have a document that I was a
25 participant in the war from the time that I started to
1 work in the HVO government.
2 Q. From what date is this?
3 A. My document bears the date from the end of
4 June. I don't remember exactly. At the end of June
5 1992.
6 Q. What was the formal right that you enjoyed
7 under such a document? What were your rights?
8 A. As far as I understand, as far as I have been
9 informed so far, I only had the right to additional
10 salary, and this is a part that could be used later in
11 order to purchase state-owned property or something
12 like that.
13 Q. So this is, in fact, a right to have shares?
14 A. The right to an additional extra salary
15 which can be in the form of shares which could be used
16 for the purchase of some things, or for the payment of
17 some obligations which will be regulated by the state
18 later, but this has not been regulated yet.
19 Q. It hasn't been regulated yet or nobody has
20 actually exercised their rights arising from this
21 document?
22 A. No, it hasn't been regulated, nor has anybody
23 so far exercised any rights arising from this document,
24 including myself.
25 Q. So this is a decision for people in
1 accordance with their participation in the defence in
2 some form or another, certain rights are granted; is
3 that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So these documents that are issued for this
6 purpose are issued retroactively; is that right?
7 A. Yes. They were issued during the course of
8 1996, even '97, and as far as I know, this has not been
9 completed, this process.
10 Q. Do these documents contain exact data or this
11 data is changing in order to provide people with even
12 greater rights as far as the shares are concerned?
13 A. Well, it's confirmed that in the overall
14 balance, in the overall available resources there were
15 abuses from both sides. I mean, the HVO and the Muslim
16 sides, abuses in the issuance of such documents, that
17 perhaps somebody had been engaged earlier in orders
18 that they could enjoy greater rights.
19 Q. So my question to you is: Do these documents
20 contain exact information, precise information that we
21 can use?
22 A. Unfortunately, I think not.
23 Q. I would like the witness to be shown
24 Prosecution's document 340.
25 The Prosecution has shown you this order and
1 stated that under point 1 in the order it is stated
2 that the agreement is terminated between the HVO and
3 the Busovaca TO regarding the distribution of weapons.
4 A. Yes, I saw this point 1.
5 Q. In the introduction it is stated that the
6 reason that this order is issued is because of the
7 brutal armed attacks by the forces of the so-called
8 Busovaca TO led by Dervis Sarajalic against HVO forces
9 on the road to Sendula's bridge against the barriers
10 and with the purpose of implementing the decision by
11 the Crisis Committee during conflicts at Kaonik during
12 which Darko Vuleta and Stipe were killed on the
13 approach to from Busovaca.
14 Can you see from this document that the
15 agreement between Busovaca TO and the HVO was
16 terminated because of this armed incident between the
17 HVO and the TO forces?
18 A. Yes, this is evident.
19 Q. And is it obvious that this was an armed
20 attack by the TO against the HVO?
21 A. Well, this is probably a question of the
22 violation of the agreement between the TO and the HVO
23 agreement in a barracks. It's possible that this
24 agreement was not observed and that for this reason the
25 agreement was terminated, but I don't know this.
1 Q. Yes, but you can see from this text that the
2 termination occurred because of the incident. Do you
3 know whether the agreement was terminated in its
4 entirety or whether the agreement was perhaps observed
5 about the division of arms between the HVO and the TO
6 Busovaca?
7 A. Well, I stated my opinion that I had
8 information that this task was carried out correctly,
9 that it was done 50/50, and I even had the opportunity
10 to discuss this with Mr. Mujezinovic, and I know from
11 him, what he told me, that in certain parts on the
12 lines they had some anti-aircraft guns and so on.
13 Q. So it's possible that the division of arms
14 was carried out, according to your information?
15 A. Yes. This is the information that I had.
16 Whether this task was completed correctly I'm not sure,
17 but for certain a part of the weapons from the Busovaca
18 barracks were placed -- were given to the Muslim side
19 as indicated by this conversation with Mr. Mujezinovic
20 that I had in October '92 during a friendly meeting
21 with him.
22 Q. So this refers to Busovaca, and you think
23 that according to your information, the weapons may
24 have been distributed.
25 Regarding the agreement between the HVO and
1 the TO in Vitez, were there any incidents there that
2 would have led to the termination of the agreement?
3 A. I am not aware of any, that any incidents had
4 taken place, and I think this was carried out to mutual
5 satisfaction.
6 Q. So you know that the weapons were divided
7 between the TO and the HVO in Vitez?
8 A. Yes. That is what I know. Of course, not
9 from -- based on documents and not from direct
10 participation, but I do have such information. I don't
11 have information indicating the opposite, not even from
12 the Muslim side.
13 Q. Thank you. Do you know the number of
14 detained Croats in Zenica in -- on April 16th and April
15 18th in '93?
16 A. I don't know the figure exactly, but I know
17 that there was a large number of detained able-bodied
18 Croats in Zenica in some notorious music school, and
19 also in the prison in Zenica.
20 Q. And those people who were detained in the
21 music school and the house of correction in Zenica,
22 that they were not released even though an exchange was
23 agreed on with the people from Zenica?
24 A. Well, yes. That is what I had been informed,
25 that nobody was released from the house of correction
1 in Zenica.
2 Q. For the region of Poculica and Kruscica,
3 Preocica, for those regions do you know when the Croats
4 there were released and exchanged?
5 A. I don't know the precise date, but they were
6 exchanged fairly quickly, and I think that this was
7 within the overall exchanges that were carried out. I
8 don't know precisely. I know that several people were
9 killed in Poculica when they were detained on those
10 premises, in those facilities.
11 Q. Were there any detained Croats in Mahala?
12 A. Yes, there were. Of course.
13 Q. Croats who lived in Mahala who were also
14 detained by the BH army?
15 A. Yes, several families , maybe ten. I don't
16 know exactly.
17 Q. Did these people -- were these people part of
18 the exchange? Do you remember?
19 A. Yes, I remember when Sefer Halilovic came,
20 and Petkovic, I don't know his name. There were
21 attempts, in this sense, to carry out an exchange, and
22 I think that an exchange was carried out to a certain
23 extent, and that people were convinced that this will
24 end quickly, so that people did not leave immediately.
25 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Thank you. I have no
1 further questions.
2 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I have one
3 question for you, Mr. Alilovic. May I refer you to
4 document D51/2?
5 Did you say -- this is the announcement of
6 the civil HVO government of Vitez on the extraordinary
7 session 24th of April, 1993. Did you say that you took
8 part in this extraordinary session, on the 24th of
9 April, 1993, as a member of the civil HVO government?
10 A. Yes, I stated that.
11 Q. And did you take part in the drafting of this
12 announcement?
13 A. No, I did not take part directly in the
14 composition of the announcement, but I did participate
15 directly at the meeting and I did take part in the
16 discussion.
17 Q. On the substance of this announcement. So
18 you agreed that the announcement should be drafted?
19 A. Yes. Yes.
20 Q. Now, let me direct your attention to point 3,
21 item 3, where the command of the -- well, the civil HVO
22 government of Vitez demanded from the commander of the
23 Operative Zone of Central Bosnia to carry out a
24 detailed investigation of all individual cases of
25 flagrant violations of International Humanitarian Law.
1 I wonder whether you later became aware of
2 any such investigation being carried out into alleged
3 violations either by the BH army or by the HVO units.
4 A. Unfortunately, I don't know.
5 Q. So you were not informed of any such
6 investigations. You don't know the follow-up given to
7 this announcement which was actually requested to the
8 HVO government -- HVO operative command?
9 A. Yes. I don't know what happened further
10 regarding this matter.
11 Q. In particular, do you know whether any
12 follow-up was given with regard to what you termed the
13 crimes being committed in Ahmici?
14 A. You mean directly after this meeting?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. No, I don't know really. The conflict was
17 escalating, unfortunately. I had a lot of work to do,
18 and I don't know whether anything was done regarding
19 this matter.
20 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you so much. I assume
21 there is no objection to the witness being released?
22 Mr. Alilovic, thank you so much for coming
23 here to give evidence in court. You may now be
24 released. Thank you.
25 A. Thank you.
1 (Witness withdrew)
2 JUDGE CASSESE: Before we move on to our next
3 witness, I wonder whether the Prosecutor could set out
4 the various arguments that he announced this morning.
5 Mr. Terrier?
6 MR. TERRIER: (No translation)
7 JUDGE CASSESE: Could you please repeat what
8 you just said?
9 MR. TERRIER: I would be glad to do so,
10 Mr. President.
11 I was just saying that I would like to raise
12 two matters having to do with the organisation of the
13 proceedings, and which appear to me to require a rapid
14 ruling by the Trial Chamber. The first of those
15 questions has to do with the alibi defence provided by
16 Vlado Santic, and the second has to do with the
17 directive of the Trial Chamber, according to which the
18 Prosecution must, several days before the
19 cross-examination, submit to the Defence the exhibits
20 that it intends to use.
21 Regarding the first issue, the Defence of
22 alibi by the accused Vlado Santic. We have received a
23 document dated 16th January, 1999, that is Saturday,
24 according to which we have been notified that
25 implementing Article 67(A) of the Rules of procedure,
1 that is the defence of alibi by the accused Vlado
2 Santic, three witnesses have been named. Those
3 witnesses will say that the accused Vlado Santic was in
4 Vitez at the time of the acts attributed to him, that
5 what appears from those documents, and it is finally
6 specified that the accused will not testify himself.
7 Mr. Pavkovic, who is the author of this
8 document, tells us that it is not, strictly speaking, a
9 new document, but, rather, a confirmation of a previous
10 notification of December 1997, which, according to him,
11 remains in effect.
12 I wish to note and ask the Trial Chamber to
13 note that a letter dated the 21st January, 1998,
14 received by fax by the Office of the Prosecutor, the
15 attorney of the accused Vlado Santic withdrew this
16 defence of alibi by a letter which has no ambiguity in
17 it. It is indicated in that letter that a new
18 indictment was about to be drafted, and that according
19 to that indictment the accused will specify his
20 intention to abide by his defence of alibi or not, and
21 in the last paragraph of that letter it says that the
22 Office of the Prosecutor will be informed of the
23 decision regarding the application of Rule 67.
24 There is no point in my reminding the Trial
25 Chamber the contents of Article 67 -- Rule 67. As all
1 of us here present know, that requires notification
2 prior to the beginning of the proceedings at the
3 latest, and I think at the beginning of our proceedings
4 we had a discussion on the defence of alibi. Your
5 Trial Chamber made a ruling interpreting the Rules and
6 specifying that a defence which would prove that one
7 was not in Ahmici on the 16th of April, 1993 should be
8 considered as defence of alibi in the sense of
9 Rule 67.
10 On that day, we had a debate, Mr. Pavkovic
11 was present, and this did not provoke any reaction from
12 him. Five months after the beginning of this trial we
13 received this notification regarding application of
14 Rule 67.
15 In view of the present situation, I have two
16 comments to make. The first would be that the
17 Prosecution wishes the Rules to be implemented and in
18 the -- under the conditions envisaged. The accused did
19 not notify us of the alibi defence within the fixed
20 time period. The Prosecution would not like an error
21 to compromise the means of defence of the accused. I
22 think that would be contrary to the general principles
23 of law as I understand them, that the accused be
24 prevented to prove that he was not in Ahmici on the day
25 of the crimes he's charged with, and that his freedom
1 of action in this court should be limited in any way.
2 In view of that, the Prosecution refers to
3 Article 20 of the Statute, and that is requiring, at
4 the same time, respect of the Rules , but also respect
5 of the rights of the Defence and a fair and equitable
6 trial, and we would propose a flexible interpretation
7 of the Rules which would satisfy these three
8 imperatives, respect of the Rules, respect of the
9 rights of the Defence and a fair trial.
10 What would that mean? That would mean that
11 the three witnesses who have been named in this
12 document of the 16th of January, 1999, could be heard
13 first by -- interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor
14 before their appearance in court, and secondly, they
15 would be admitted into the proceedings on the basis of
16 this defence of alibi.
17 I underline that we are not reiterating a
18 previous document of December 1997, in which six
19 witness were is cited, whereas in January 1999 only
20 three witnesses have been cited, two of whose names
21 have already appeared and the third being a new name,
22 at least a new name in these proceedings. The
23 witnesses could be heard by your Trial Chamber, and it
24 would be admissible for them to support the alibi of
25 Vlado Santic, but we would also say that the accused
1 Vlado Santic must testify in accordance with Rule 67(B)
2 in application of this defence of alibi.
3 That would be a flexible interpretation of
4 the Rules that I have referred to, and unless the
5 accused decides otherwise, the Defence would question
6 the accused on the alibi as well as the Prosecution on
7 the same issue except if Defence counsel decide
8 otherwise. In that way, the accused would testify
9 about his own alibi. We would be respecting, if not
10 the letter, then at least the spirit of the Rules, and
11 the right of the Defence and the accused of Vlado
12 Santic would be fully observed and the imperative of a
13 fair process and an equality of arms of the two armies
14 would be ensured.
15 That would be my first point.
16 My second point is the following: It has to
17 do with your directive issued last Friday according to
18 which the Prosecutor must, several days in advance,
19 communicate to the Defence the documents it intends to
20 use in its cross-examination. This directive causes
21 great difficulty for us which I would like to refer to
22 briefly.
23 Today, we are in the following situation: A
24 procedural decision having to do with the procedure was
25 taken on Friday. Yesterday, five of the Defence
1 attorneys submitted an appeal. Your Trial Chamber, by
2 majority decision, decided that we proceed with the
3 proceedings and that we should agree to the requests of
4 the Defence. I must say that we accept your ruling,
5 and we fully understand the spirit behind it, and we
6 understand and support the imperative of fairness; and
7 if the Appeals Chamber admits the appeal of the
8 attorneys, we could find ourselves in a very difficult
9 situation.
10 We do understand your decision. We just wish
11 to ask that the appeal be dealt with with the greatest
12 possible expediency, but we are aware that this may be
13 difficult for various reasons.
14 However, in view of the situation we find
15 ourselves in now and regarding the future of these
16 proceedings, until the Appeals Chamber makes a ruling
17 in any event, all the attorneys who have called a
18 witness may, at least regarding the first count, may
19 examine the witness and also re-examine after the
20 cross-examination by the Prosecution, and in view of
21 this decision, we would ask the Trial Chamber to
22 reconsider its directive, which is a cause of
23 difficulty for us, from the point of view of law and
24 from the point of view of fact.
25 In law -- your Trial Chamber is fully aware
1 of this but I wish to underline it -- that in law, we
2 have no obligation to communicate in advance to the
3 Defence the documents that we intend to use as
4 evidence. Rule 66 of the Rules envisages only that at
5 the request of the Defence, we should disclose or,
6 rather, give access to the Defence to those documents;
7 and, on the other hand, the Prosecution must have
8 access to the documents which the Defence intends to
9 use.
10 On the other hand, and still within the legal
11 framework, in the interests of preserving the
12 continuation of proceedings, if a document is submitted
13 that it is not aware of and we know that a document may
14 always be prompted by another testimony, so that again
15 the rights of the Defence are fully respected and
16 especially in the stage of the proceedings we are in
17 now.
18 From the standpoint of fact, the decision of
19 the Trial Chamber is difficult to implement strictly by
20 the Prosecution; in certain circumstances, it can
21 constrain the activities of the Prosecution, and even
22 if the decision is applied flexibly, which I understand
23 the position of the Tribunal to be, it can cause
24 incidents and endless discussions.
25 Why is this instruction difficult to
1 implement? Because a cross-examination is prepared not
2 many days in advance, as you know, but it is prepared
3 in the course of the examination-in-chief, and it is
4 then when documents are selected that may be used for
5 the cross-examination; and it is above all true that in
6 the situation we are in and in view of the fact that we
7 have very little information about the witnesses that
8 are being called by the Defence, we have very little
9 information of their status, their competencies, their
10 fields of work and, above all, very little information
11 of what the substance of their testimony will be.
12 We had two examples. The first witness,
13 Mr. Cilic, elaborated in great detail what was referred
14 to in his summary. As for the second witness,
15 Mr. Alilovic, the areas that he touched upon in the
16 course of the examination-in-chief were very many, and
17 we did not expect them to be the subject of his
18 testimony.
19 Just one example. He stated that he knew
20 closely or personally two of the accused and referred
21 to the professional activities of one of the accused,
22 and this is an area of testimony which affects the
23 first count of the indictment, and clearly our
24 questions and our documents that we will use cannot be
25 identified until we hear the examination-in-chief, and
1 we also respectfully ask the Trial Chamber to
2 reconsider its instructions -- the Appeals Chamber may
3 take a different position regarding the organisation of
4 the proceedings -- but bearing in mind the position
5 taken by the attorneys of the Defence and their right
6 to re-examine, so we are back in the situation that we
7 had prior to those instructions.
8 Those are all the remarks I wanted to make
9 today, Mr. President. Thank you.
10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you very much,
11 Mr. Terrier. I suggest that we deal with these two
12 matters separately. They are very important.
13 First, there is the question having to do
14 with the defence of alibi and which affects
15 Mr. Pavkovic, so we are going to deal with that, and
16 then there is another question that affects all the
17 attorneys.
18 I suggest that before we proceed to ask you
19 for a point of clarification, Mr. Terrier, after that I
20 will ask Mr. Pavkovic to take a position on the
21 questions that have just been raised by Mr. Terrier.
22 As for the second point, I would suggest that after the
23 break, one of the Defence attorneys can summarise, on
24 behalf of all the attorneys, the position of the
25 Defence on the position of the Prosecution regarding
1 the documents or the exhibits that the Prosecution has
2 been asked to disclose to the Defence in advance.
3 Mr. Terrier, let me ask you: If I understood
4 you well, you suggested that regarding the three
5 witnesses that are going to be called by Mr. Pavkovic,
6 that they should be interviewed by you, by the
7 Prosecution first, in private or in the presence of
8 counsel, Mr. Pavkovic?
9 MR. TERRIER: I will be guided by your
10 ruling. Those witnesses may be in Bosnia and it may be
11 difficult. We would like to interview them, not on the
12 eve of their testimony, we would like to hear them
13 several days in advance so that we can do the
14 verification. If such a decision is taken, we would
15 contact those witnesses. Of course, if the witnesses
16 refuse, we have no way of forcing them, but if they
17 accept, we would meet them wherever they are, which
18 means probably in Bosnia, I don't have the specifics,
19 and then we can proceed to verify, to make the
20 necessary verifications, and then we can proceed with
21 the defence of alibi here before your Trial Chamber.
22 JUDGE CASSESE: But you would be ready to
23 agree that the interview be held in the presence of the
24 attorneys of the three witnesses, Mr. Pavkovic?
25 MR. TERRIER: A representative of the
1 Defence, yes, and a reservation that that should not be
2 an impediment to that interview so that it can be done
3 quite quickly.
4 JUDGE CASSESE: Another question before
5 giving the floor to Mr. Pavkovic.
6 Mr. Terrier, how much time would you need to
7 interview the three witnesses?
8 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, you mean ahead
9 of their appearance in court? I think a month, a month
10 and a half would be desirable. I think it should be
11 done as soon as possible because of the necessary
12 verification later on.
13 JUDGE CASSESE: So let me correct what I just
14 said. The question that I addressed to you regarding
15 the presence of an attorney, it would be better to
16 envisage the presence of an investigator named by the
17 Defence rather than the attorney himself.
18 Having said that, my question is addressed to
19 Mr. Pavkovic to see what his reaction is to the
20 proposal just made by the Prosecution regarding the
21 defence of alibi.
22 MR. PAVKOVIC: Your Honours, I listened very
23 carefully to the arguments of the Prosecution, and in
24 brief, because it is already time for a break, I would
25 like to say the following:
1 If I understood it correctly, the Prosecutor
2 supports the view that the Defence cannot refer to the
3 regulations of Rule 67(A), but this would really be the
4 application of Rule 67(B).
5 First of all, I would like to point out that
6 I support the stand of the Prosecution as far as the
7 application of Article 21 of the Statute of this
8 Tribunal is concerned. The Defence of Vlado Santic, in
9 the motion of the 16th of this month that was mentioned
10 by the Prosecution, briefly explained its position,
11 keeping in mind, first of all, the decision of this
12 Court of the 11th of January under point 5.
13 We submitted the required supporting
14 documents with this motion with which we confirm what
15 we cite in the motion. What we submitted, for
16 understandable reasons, was not known to the Court
17 before and it was not known to the Court particularly
18 before the ruling of the 11th of January of 1999, of
19 this year, so that is why we submitted these documents.
20 I would like to make two key points. The
21 first, when we are talking about the motion by the
22 Defence of January 21st of 1998, which was also
23 referred to by the Prosecution, for which he requires
24 additional explanations, and I state now, which is
25 contrary to what the Prosecutor has stated, and that is
1 that the Defence of Vlado Santic never withdrew its
2 information from December of 1997 that Vlado Santic
3 intends to defend himself by alibi. In this document
4 of the 21st of January of 1998, it states that the
5 Defence does not insist on the alibi.
6 Permit me to clarify what this means. I
7 would like to remind you that the time then was when
8 the amended indictment was announced and in view of the
9 fact that the Defence by alibi related to the
10 indictment prior to that, out of caution we then stated
11 that we do not insist. When the amended indictment was
12 issued, it became obvious that the accusations that we
13 intended to defend ourselves from by alibi had been
14 unchanged; therefore, in the amended indictment, the
15 same count numbers were kept so that the incriminating
16 points for Vlado Santic were cited in points 16 --
17 Counts 16 to 19, so this is where our intention to
18 defend from alibi still stand.
19 The second key point that I would like to
20 state before this Tribunal is the knowledge of the
21 Defence or the fact that the Defence has found out
22 about an important witness, Mr. Slavko Marin, who
23 testified in the Blaskic case. His testimony was given
24 after these proceedings started, after the 17th of
25 August of last year. His testimony is very important
1 regarding the defence by alibi, so we were not in a
2 position, according with Rule 67(A)(ii), to find out
3 about this matter before proceedings started, and we
4 were not able to inform the Prosecutor.
5 In conclusion, I would like to state the
6 following: In our motion of the 16th of January, 1999,
7 we repeated and did not state for the first time, for
8 the reasons that I have stated, and we have proposed
9 these witnesses. I agree at this moment for the
10 Prosecution to meet with the witnesses and talk with
11 them in my presence, but permit me to consult the
12 accused before that and to see if the witnesses are
13 able to comply with this request.
14 Your Honours, these would be the reasons that
15 need to be kept in mind when ruling on this matter.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you, Counsel Pavkovic.
18 However, Counsel Pavkovic, with all due respect, let me
19 put the record straight. It is very clear from your
20 fax of the 21st of January, '98, to the Office of the
21 Prosecutor, Mr. Mark Harmon, that, (1), you said: "As
22 the new indictment is about to be raised, the aforesaid
23 decision of the accused's intention to defend himself
24 by the existence of alibi is now not valid." Point 1.
25 Point 2. You said, "You will be" -- "you,"
1 the Prosecution -- "will be informed about his decision
2 pursuant to sub-Rule 67(A)(ii)."
3 So it is very clear, therefore, that you are
4 under Rule 5, noncompliance with the Rules of Procedure
5 and Evidence. You have simply not complied with Rule
6 67, and so therefore, I think it is only fair for the
7 Prosecution to propose a suggestion which does take
8 into account the rights of the Defence. But it is
9 clear -- and this is the assumption of the Court --
10 that you have not complied with Rule 67(A), and this is
11 very clear from the very wording of your letter, fax
12 sent on the 21st of January, 1998.
13 In light of all this, I would welcome, as
14 soon as possible, your stating a position on the
15 proposal of the Prosecutor, first of all, that the
16 three witnesses be interviewed in the presence of one
17 of your investigators a few weeks or at least a month
18 before they are called here and about the position of
19 the accused; namely, the request of the Prosecution
20 that the accused should testify, of course, only on the
21 question of alibi, as Mr. Terrier pointed out quite
22 clearly.
23 This being so, let us now wait for your
24 further comments on this matter and then we will make a
25 ruling.
1 I propose that we now break for 15 minutes,
2 and when we reconvene, I hope that one of the Defence
3 counsel will state the common position, if any, of the
4 various Defence counsel on the second issue raised by
5 Mr. Terrier, namely, whether or not this Court should
6 stick to the ruling we made concerning the passing of
7 documents to Defence counsel prior to cross-examination
8 of witnesses. As I said, before making a ruling, we
9 would like to have your comments.
10 So we are adjourned now for 15 minutes.
11 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 12.40 p.m.
13 JUDGE CASSESE: Shall we deal with the matter
14 we left in abeyance before reconvening so that we
15 settle this matter before the new witness is brought
16 in? I wonder whether any Defence counsel is prepared
17 to state the views of the Defence counsel on the second
18 issue raised by the Prosecutor. All right. If not, we
19 will make a ruling on this matter.
20 Counsel Pavkovic, do you want to clarify your
21 condition with respect to the alibi question?
22 MR. PAVKOVIC: If Your Honours permit me, I
23 would like to add to what I've already said. I must
24 say once again, of course I will see later if your
25 ruling on the fact that the accused must testify and he
1 decides not to testify, whether I will accept such a
2 decision, because this is the only reason why I believe
3 that this defence would not be acceptable for the
4 defence of Vlado Santic, but the person who wrote the
5 motion of -- when you see the entire motion, especially
6 the first sentence, when you keep in mind what was
7 happening at the time, that this was a new indictment,
8 we did not insist -- we never gave up. This, according
9 to me, is the substance of the matter. So this is not
10 the first time that I have stated the intention of the
11 accused to defend himself by alibi; I did that before.
12 I do not have any other explanation Your
13 Honours. I think that the whole motion, the spirit of
14 the motion should be interpreted in this way, because
15 that was my intention. I allow that it was -- this
16 position was not precisely defined later, but this
17 notification was never withdrawn about the defence of
18 alibi from December of 1997.
19 Thank you. I don't want to take up any more
20 of your time, but this is the substance of my position,
21 and I think in that instance, Rule 67(A)(ii) should be
22 applied. Thank you.
23 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. We may move on
24 then to our next witness, and I understand from my
25 documents that the next witness, who is a protected
1 witness, has been called by counsel for Zoran Kupreskic
2 and Mirjan Kupreskic only. No? Counsel
3 Slokovic-Glumac?
4 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Mr. President, this is
5 precisely the confusion that I was talking about.
6 Joint witnesses are on this list, and this witness is
7 on a separate list of Mr. Puliselic, and Mr. Puliselic
8 has called this witness. So he is the one -- so this
9 is a witness of Defence Counsel Puliselic.
10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you so much. Only
11 Counsel Puliselic has called the next witness. Thank
12 you. All right. So we can bring in the witness.
13 MR. PULISELIC: Mr. President, if I could be
14 allowed, this witness I propose protective measures
15 because of a specific situation in accordance with
16 Rule 79. I propose a closed session throughout the
17 testimony in order to protect the identity of this
18 witness and also for other reasons, namely the witness
19 would like -- requests a closed session. The witness
20 works on matters -- duties of defence.
21 JUDGE CASSESE: The registrar has rightly
22 suggested that even when you are explaining the reasons
23 for justifying protective measures we should be in
24 closed session. So we will now go into a closed
25 session and you can very briefly state the reasons for
1 the protective measures and we will grant them.
2 (Closed session).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Pages 5629 to 5649 redacted – in closed session
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
23 at 1.30 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday
24, the 21st day of January, 1999, at 9.00 a.m.
25