1 Friday, 12 April 2002
2 [The accused entered court]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
7 IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Naletilic and Martinovic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, before we start with the next witness, the Trial
9 Chamber is seized with the Prosecution's motion to preclude two Defence
10 witnesses and the Prosecution refers to the quality of the Rule 65 ter
11 filing with regard to these witnesses. We would like to hear from both
12 parties on this issue. We might spend about 20 minutes on that. Since
13 this motion is filed by the Prosecution, we would like to hear the
14 Prosecution first. Mr. Stringer?
15 MR. STRINGER: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. President and Your
16 Honours. I will indeed be brief. It's our position or the position that
17 we take on this issue is found in the written submissions that we made,
18 Mr. President. I think there is very little to add. Beyond what I think
19 is simply a reassertion of the position that we have asserted ever since
20 the Defence first began submitting witness summaries under Rule 65. Our
21 position has always been, both in written submissions and oral submissions
22 to the Trial Chamber at various times since the proceedings began, that
23 the summaries are insufficient and do not satisfy the terms of the Rule.
24 Now, I looked again at the Rule this morning, Mr. President, 65
25 ter (G). The Rule requires both parties, including the Defence, to
1 provide a summary of the facts on which each witness will testify, the
2 facts. It's our position, Mr. President, that the summaries that have
3 been filed and continue to be filed by the Defence, because there have
4 been a series of summaries that have been filed in different forms over
5 the last three weeks or so. The summaries provided do not contain a
6 summary of the facts; they contain a summary of the issues or the topics,
7 I think read generously to the Defence. We are getting a list of the
8 topics, general idea of the subject matter, but we are not getting the
9 facts. And that is the basic crux of our submission, and the point on
10 which we argue that the summaries are insufficient under the letter of the
12 Now, with respect to the two witnesses who are subject of this
13 motion, and just out of an abundance of caution I won't name them. I
14 don't think it's necessary. I think they are both public or so far intend
15 to testify publicly but it's not necessary I think to identify them. And
16 this goes partially to the assertion by the Defence that this motion is
17 filed too late or that we somehow went along for two or three weeks
18 without having expressed any objections and now here at the last moment
19 comes the Prosecution with this motion, and it's too late.
20 What the Defence response fails to point out is that there has
21 since been a subsequent submission by the Defence dated the 4th of April.
22 The two most recent summaries filed by the Defence are filed on the 21st
23 of March, and then most recently on the 4th of April.
24 If you look at these two witnesses, and the manner in which their
25 summaries change, what you find is that with Witness Z, I call him Witness
1 Z, the most recent filing contains even less information than the previous
2 filing. That's number 1. Secondly, the time envisioned for his direct
3 testimony increases from one hour to two and a half hours. So in the most
4 recent submission, not referred to by the Defence in their response, we
5 see now that this witness is going to testify 2 and a half hours on direct
6 instead of one hour, while at the same time, there is even less
7 information contained in the most recent summary than was contained in the
8 earlier summary of 21 March.
9 And that's the same for Witness K. His testimony goes from one
10 and a half now to three hours on direct, as indicated in the most recent
11 witness summary filed the 4th of April, and yet again, his witness summary
12 contains less information than that contained in the earlier summary. So
13 that's a new fact, and it's something that we think is -- one of the
14 reasons why we felt it necessary to bring this motion to the Trial
15 Chamber's attention at this time.
16 Secondly, I think in terms of new information or new facts, why
17 did we wait? We've now been through three Defence witnesses. We've been
18 in a position for our part, Mr. President, to gauge the extent to which
19 the summaries were being provided are of any use in preparing a meaningful
20 cross-examination and after having seen three Defence witnesses come and
21 go, I think I can say with confidence on behalf of the Prosecution, that
22 the summaries being provided do not provide any assistance, or the sort of
23 assistance that we are entitled to under the Rule. And so, those are two
24 factors which have led us to believe that it was necessary to file this
25 motion at the time that we did. And beyond that, Mr. President, I can --
1 I don't think I have anything more to add.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, I have two questions to you. The first one is
3 that if indeed it is too late to file that motion at this stage, I
4 understand that those two witnesses are the fourth of six witnesses in the
5 order provided by Defence counsel for time. If you have any objections,
6 we believe that you have to leave some time for the response from Defence
7 counsel. I'm still not very clear why don't you move a little bit
9 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, maybe my perception is wrong. I
10 think we've attempted to express our objections to the summaries at
11 various points along the way. The Defence at one point said, "Well, why
12 do not you choose the ones that you think are insufficient and we'll see
13 about trying to remedy that." I think it's our position that we shouldn't
14 be put in that position of choosing, picking and choosing, among the
15 summaries. The Rule entitles us to a summary of facts. We are not
16 getting facts for any witness. And we would resist being put in a
17 position of having to select those for whom we would like greater
18 information when in fact it's our view that the summaries don't comply
19 with the Rule; any of them.
20 I understand that the timing of this motion raises difficulties if
21 in fact the witnesses are here. All I can say, Mr. President, like I've
22 said already, is that the most recent filing of summaries dated the 4th of
23 April is one in which we are seeing greater testimony time for these
24 witnesses at the same time that the summaries are becoming shorter. And
25 also, it's become clear to us after these first three witnesses that the
1 summaries that we've gotten simply aren't satisfactory. We can't work
2 with them. They put us in a very difficult situation in attempting to
3 conduct a cross. We've tried to go along as best we can with what we've
4 got but I think the trend based on what we've seen today and based upon
5 the information that appears to be getting smaller in the summaries, the
6 trend is what led us to file this motion at the time that we filed it,
7 recognising that it does raise logistical difficulties in respect of
8 witnesses who are in The Hague.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes. The second question is, you asked the Trial
10 Chamber to move to preclude two witnesses. I would like to know on what
11 legal basis should the Trial Chamber act? I believe in your filings, you
12 have to indicate or invoke the specific Articles in the Rules of
13 Procedures. We found that there are two Rules that seem to be applicable,
14 that is the Rule 65 ter (N), and the Rule 68 bis. We believe that in the
15 later filings, if you ask us to do something, you have to indicate at
16 least the legal basis for that.
17 MR. STRINGER: Point well taken, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE LIU: You still did not answer my question.
19 MR. STRINGER: I think that clearly both of those Rules supply the
20 legal basis for excluding evidence. It's not clear to me, Mr. President,
21 that we've gotten -- well, I think in order to get to that point, the
22 Trial Chamber first has to make a finding as to whether the summaries
23 provided satisfy the terms of Rule 65 ter (G), whether we are getting a
24 summary of facts, and if, in fact, the Trial Chamber concludes that these
25 summaries do not comply with the Rule, which I don't believe we have
1 gotten to that point yet with the Trial Chamber, if you so find, then
2 clearly, 65 ter (N) and 68 bis provide the basis for them taking the next
3 step which is to exclude the testimony or to provide other remedies. And
4 on this point, Mr. President, let me say excluding the witnesses from
5 testifying entirely is certainly a remedy that in our view could be
7 However, there are other remedies possible, such as postponing
8 cross-examination, bringing the witnesses back for cross-examination at a
9 later time, which would enable us to more effectively prepare a
10 cross-examination. So there are other remedies that fall short of the
11 most severe remedy of exclusion but we think that based on the witnesses,
12 the summaries, and the situation that we are being increasingly placed in,
13 we think that exclusion is something that the Trial Chamber is going to
14 have to consider if we are not supplied with summaries that in our view
15 comply with the Rule.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes. May I turn to Mr. Krsnik? Mr. Meek, please?
17 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE LIU: We want to hear your response to this motion.
19 MR. MEEK: Yes. I will respond to my learned colleague. First,
20 Your Honour, I believe that I want to make it absolutely clear that the
21 filing on April 4th was only to increase the hours. The Defence believed
22 after the first witness and the commencement of the second witness on the
23 2nd of April, that we had miscalculated on the hours that we had put
24 down. The hours were, as you know, on these two witnesses who are in
25 question, modified and it was only out of an abundance of caution that we
1 increased the possible hours for direct examination. I will tell the
2 Court, the Trial Chamber, that we do not intend to use any more than the
3 originally allotted time but we believed in good faith that it would be
4 better to err on the side of caution when it came to informing the Trial
5 Chamber of how many hours we intended on direct examination.
6 In regards to the motion itself, I will agree with Your Honours
7 that the Prosecution did not state a basis in their motion as to what Rule
8 they relied upon, and further, Your Honours, I will -- would like to point
9 out that the key factor in the argument of the Prosecution seems to be
10 that they are looking for witness summaries which will comply with what
11 they believe -- their view of what the Rule encompasses. This, Your
12 Honours, puts the Defence into a situation of never being able to make the
13 Prosecution happy. If we come back and make supplements to our 65 ter
14 rulings on summaries, there is absolutely nothing to stop the Prosecution
15 from coming back with another motion, yet another motion, yet another
17 I do not believe, Your Honours, that the Prosecution, and I
18 believe the Trial Chamber can adequately and amply see that during the
19 first three witnesses the Defence has called, and these three witnesses
20 have been completed, that the right of the cross-examination by the
21 Prosecution has not been hindered in any fashion. The Trial Chamber has
22 granted extra time for the cross-examination. There has been no objection
23 on the Defence to some extra time for cross-examination over the amount of
24 direct examination. And there is one thing I would like to say, Your
25 Honours in regards to Mr. Stringer's argument. My learned colleague
1 indicated to you just now orally that we had approached them and talked
2 with the Prosecution team and indicated to them that -- asked them to
3 point out which ones they believed were not sufficient in regards to
4 witness summaries.
5 And Your Honours, we met in good faith on the 20th of March,
6 in the morning, prior to the Pre-Defence Conference to talk about this
7 very same subject. Upon a question to the Prosecution team, which is, "Do
8 you maintain that each and every witness summary that we have filed under
9 65 ter is insufficient?" The answer was no. The question that was
10 specifically asked to the Prosecution team on that day: "If you will
11 point out one, two, or three, or four summaries you believe are
12 sufficient, then we will know what standard you believe we need to meet to
13 make you happy."
14 They will think about it, was the answer. They will get back to
15 us, was the answer. We haven't heard that. We didn't ask for them to go
16 through every one and say which ones were insufficient. We wanted to know
17 whether they believed all were insufficient. They said no, they didn't
18 believe all were insufficient. So all we asked for was a couple of
19 examples and then we would try to help them with their wishes. That never
20 came about. We are still very open to that possibility. And we will be
21 happy to meet with them at any time to give them more information.
22 We believe, Your Honours, that this motion is filed at such a late
23 hour that we have now no possibility -- well, actually we do have a
24 possibility of informing the Prosecution team, either orally, which I
25 believe would be probably more appropriate, and I think Mr. Seric, these
1 are joint witnesses by the way, these are joint witnesses, they are not
2 witnesses to the actual Counts against either of the accused. They are
3 witnesses to general allegations, background and international armed
5 We, as stated in the motion or response, Your Honours, we stand by
6 the filings, we believe that they are adequate, we believe that the
7 Prosecution is not prejudiced whatsoever. We believe that the Honourable
8 Trial Chamber can see from the cross-examination that the Prosecution has
9 made with the last three defence witnesses, that they are more than up to
10 the task of cross-examining our witnesses with the abundance of evidence,
11 documents, staff that they have at their fingertips, and we believe that
12 they are not prejudiced.
13 Since this is a joint witness, Mr. Seric is also I believe going
14 to address the Court briefly and Mr. Seric can certainly answer any
15 questions more fully than I can in regards to the substance of the
16 proposed testimony of these two witnesses.
17 We do, Your Honour, stand by the fact that we only added the time
18 on April 4th in those filings out of an abundance of caution. We do not
19 believe that the direct examination will take any longer than is
20 originally envisioned.
21 We believe, Your Honours, that granting this motion would cause
22 irreparable damage and prejudice to the Defence of both Mr. Naletilic and
23 Mr. Martinovic. We believe that it would be unfair to have a direct
24 examination, send these witnesses back home to have them return in a week
25 or two weeks while they are still under oath. And Your Honours, I'm not
1 going to take up much more of your time but we do not believe, like the
2 Prosecution believes or appears to believe, that they have set some
3 standard for this Tribunal on 65 ter filings. And we are wondering, no
4 matter what we do, how can we satisfy the Prosecution? So we don't want
5 to be caught in a catch-22 situation where we file separately and we get
6 the same response we have now, and that is it's not good enough.
7 Your Honours, with all due respect, we respectfully request that
8 the Prosecution's motions be denied and I believe Mr. Seric would like to
9 address the Court briefly. Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric?
11 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I apologise. My mike
12 was not on. I'll repeat. Good morning, Your Honours. I will be very
13 brief since we are limited in time. I endorse everything mentioned by
14 Mr. Meek but I'd like to draw your attention to a fact which I'm of course
15 sure that you are fully familiar with, much better than myself. As far as
16 Rule 65 ter (N) is concerned, it stresses that upon a report of the
17 Pre-Trial Judge, the Trial Chamber shall decide should the case arise on
18 sanctions to be imposed on party and 65 ter (G) point B is particularly
19 relevant here, a summary of the facts on which each witness will testify.
20 We submitted the summaries of facts, obviously this has been covered.
21 Now, whether the summaries are in coherence with the taste and
22 expectations of the Prosecution, whether they contain all the facts that
23 the Prosecution deems to be relevant is an arbitrary question. However,
24 whether the sanctions under this Rule can -- it doesn't say that it will
25 exclude preclusion of a witness's testimony. So the Trial Chamber may
1 refer to exclusion as a remedy which we believe is the ultimate remedy to
2 be imposed by the Trial Chamber. We believe, however, that this is not
3 the case, and that Rule 68 bis is not relevant here.
4 To conclude, Your Honours, we have the witnesses here. The
5 witnesses are waiting to be examined. Therefore we believe that the
6 wisest proposal for the future practice would be to meet again with the
7 other party and to clarify the situation which we have now been brought
8 into. Given the circumstances and the speed with which the proceedings
9 have been proceeding and we apologise, Your Honours for bringing you in a
10 situation in which you have to arbitrate in this manner. Both parties,
11 the Defence and the Prosecution, in our view, could have resolved this
12 situation without your being involved but we would humbly plead with you
13 not to exclude our witness. Thank you, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE LIU: Well, let me make two comments on the submissions from
15 Mr. Meek. First of all, this Trial Chamber does not believe that
16 efficient cross-examination is an excuse for you not to apply the 65 ter
17 obligations. It is your obligation to file the summaries of the facts on
18 which each witness will testify according to that Rule, no matter how the
19 other side will conduct its cross-examination.
20 Secondly, Mr. Meek, the standards for the sufficient summary of
21 the facts, according to that Rule, lies in the Rule itself, rather than
22 depends on the request from the other party, because you have to satisfy
23 the Chamber that you performed your duty according to that Rule.
24 That's all I want to say at this moment.
25 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stringer?
2 MR. STRINGER: If I could offer two brief comments, Mr. President?
3 Firstly, in our view, it's perhaps an issue or a question that's less
4 subjective than the Defence has framed it and I think that it is possible
5 from an objective point of view to distinguish between a list of facts or
6 a summary of facts and simply a more generic summary of the topics without
7 going into what they are going to it say about each of those topics, and
8 as we move away from witnesses who come to it speak about the broader
9 political issues in the case, as we get down to street level on the front
10 line in Mostar, for example, when those witnesses start to come, it's even
11 going to be a greater difficulty to cross-examine when we don't know what
12 the facts are.
13 My second comment is perhaps something that we could mention
14 informally to the Defence, but if the witnesses are here, in this
15 situation, is it possible we could consider having them each testify on
16 direct, one after the other, and then come back to the cross-examination
17 of the first one and then follow that with the cross-examination of the
18 second one? It would give us a bit more time to prepare based on what is
19 said in the direct, because in our view, the summary doesn't provide any
20 meaningful information. So that if we were to do both of them on direct
21 and then do both of them on cross, it would stagger things out a little
22 bit, which may enable us to prepare to cross them more effectively rather
23 than asking that they be sent home and come back at a later time. It's
24 just something that I offer off the top of my head actually. I don't know
25 how the Trial Chamber or the Defence would respond to that.
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, this Trial Chamber will make its decisions this
2 afternoon after deliberations. But at this point, I would like to mention
3 certain issues concerning with the filings from the Defence counsel.
4 During the proceedings and during the Pre-Trial, Pre-Defence
5 Conference, this Trial Chamber mentioned several times -- asked for the
6 timely and sufficient submission of the filings according to the Rule 65
7 ter. We are a little bit disappointed up to now, there is no sufficient
8 filings according to that Rule. We hope that the Defence counsel could
9 refile its summaries as soon as possible. In the meantime, I would like
10 to remind the Defence counsel we need the full, summary of the facts, of
11 the testimony by the expert witness, at least in two weeks' time;
12 otherwise, we believe that this Trial Chamber will be in the position to
13 preclude those expert witnesses.
14 Having said that, we'll hear the next witness.
15 Mr. Usher, would you please bring in the next witness.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE LIU: Good morning, Witness. Can you hear me?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can. Thank you.
19 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration in
20 accordance with the paper the usher is showing to you.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
22 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 WITNESS: JOZO Witness L
24 [Witness answered through Interpreter]
25 JUDGE LIU: You may sit down, please.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Examined by Mr. Krsnik:
4 Q. Good morning, Witness?
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. I should like to remind you at the outset of the following in view
7 of the fact that we speak the same language and in order to facilitate the
8 work of our very precious interpreters and for the best possible quality
9 of the interpretation of what you say, have a look at the screen and try
10 to follow the transcript on the screen, and when you see that the text has
11 stopped, you may proceed with your answer. Thank you for allowing me to
12 give you this warning. I think we can now start with a very brief
13 introduction of yourself, Witness. That is if you could please tell us
14 the place of birth, the date of birth, what kind of educational background
15 you have and what you did up until 1990?
16 A. Your Honours, gentlemen, I'm Jozo Maric, I was born on the 5th of
17 September, 1948, in Donji Amici, in the municipality of Grude in
19 Q. And also I should like to ask you to speak slowly. Thank you.
20 A. I completed my primary education in Grude in 1963. Thereafter, I
21 left for Vinkovci which is in the Republic of Croatia where I
22 completed my secondary education, the grammar school in 1967. In 1967, I
23 enrolled in Sarajevo, in college for land surveying, which I completed in
24 1969. In 1970, I became a student of the Faculty of Philosophy at the
25 literature and art history department in the town of Zadar. I obtained my
1 degree from this university in 1974. And as early as the 1st of October,
2 1974, I started to work as a secondary school teacher in the town of
3 Bugojno in the secondary technical school, school for engineering. I
4 remained in the town of Bugojno until 1981 when I returned to Grude, where
5 I continued to teach at the local grammar school. I taught literature and
6 history of art. I was a secondary school professor or teacher until the
7 first multi-party elections which took part in 1990.
8 In the meantime, in 1978 and 1979, I took a course at the law
9 school in Split. Having spent one year there, I enrolled in a masters
10 programme at the University of Zagreb, where I majored in the so-called
11 auxiliary historical sciences, and perhaps another point of interest, I
12 completed my compulsory military service with the JNA in 1975-76 in the
13 town of Pivka in Slovenia.
14 Q. Thank you for your answer, Witness. Let us move on. Again, I
15 have to ask you to be very brief and tell the Court something about your
16 political involvement since 1990. What kind of political activities you
17 performed, what kind of positions you held, and so on and so forth, but
18 please try to be very brief and I will lead you later on.
19 A. My political involvement does not start in 1990. It actually
20 began as early as 1968 when in Sarajevo...
21 Q. I'm really sorry to interrupt you, Witness. This is just for the
22 purposes of introduction and that is why I'm interested only in the period
23 of time following 1990. Later on, we can come back with the assistance of
24 my questions.
25 A. In 1990, at the first democratic elections which were held on the
1 18th of November, I was elected a deputy to the municipal assembly in
2 Grude. On the 3rd of December, 1990, during the first session of this
3 assembly, I was elected president of the then Grude municipal assembly,
4 the position I held until mid-1992, when I was elected president of the
5 civilian section of the HVO. I did not hold this position for very long,
6 only until autumn, 1992, when I became commissioner for the educational
7 and physical educational department within the Croatian Community
9 At the same time, I was acting president of the war prisoners
10 exchange commission, between the warring parties in Bosnia and
11 Herzegovina, but only insofar as the work pertained to the conflict
12 between Serbs and Croats or Bosniaks. In that capacity, I participated in
13 the winter of 1993 at the international conference of the ICRC in Geneva.
14 The same year, 1993, when the Croatian government -- when the government
15 of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna was established I was elected
16 Minister of Education, Culture, and Physical Education in that government,
17 the position which I held up until the constitutional changes, that is,
18 the beginning of the implementation of the Washington and Dayton Accords,
19 when in 1996 I was elected president of the western Hercegovinian
20 province. That is the president of the so-called Zupanija. Well, that
21 would conclude my political activities until 1996.
22 Q. After your introduction, I should like to begin with my actual
23 examination, Witness. My first question would be as follows: Could you
24 describe for us the way the government functioned in 1992 and 1993?
25 A. I'll be happy to do that. In 1992, despite the conflict that had
1 already started in the area of the former Yugoslavia, in the territory of
2 my municipality in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the local government behaved
3 the same -- in the same manner as it did in 1990, that is, it was not
4 faced with any major difficulties at the time. Unfortunately, after the
5 outbreak of the conflict, that is the first hostilities in 1991 in the
6 area of eastern Herzegovina, precisely in the village of Ravno, and with
7 the arrival of the JNA and the Serbian and Montenegrin reservists, in the
8 western hills of the Mostar area, we were forced to think about the
9 future. That is, we were faced with a very serious question, what would
10 happen if the so-called JNA moved on towards the municipalities of the
11 western Herzegovina, including Grude? Their positions in Krusevo, for
12 example, were less than 25 kilometres as the crow flies from Grude.
13 Therefore, any serious artillery piece, such as the JNA obviously had,
14 could have at any moment endangered the area by opening fire.
15 Consequently, we had to take care of the security issues and the
16 organisation of the defence, not only in our municipality but beyond our
17 municipality as well.
18 Q. Sorry once again for interrupting you. I would like to know,
19 whether at that point in time, some organisations were established and did
20 you participate in any such bodies of authority at the time? How did the
21 government function at the time?
22 A. The Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina had 107 or 108 municipalities.
23 It was an unitary entity at the time. We did not change anything as far
24 as the legal setup was concerned but there was an association at the time
25 which was called the association of municipalities; it was an old
1 political and administrative term. These associations functioned on a
2 regional level. My municipality, the municipality of Grude, belonged to
3 the so-called association of municipalities of the southern Herzegovina
4 which also included municipalities such as Neum, Capljina, Citluk, Grude
5 and Ljubuski. The president of these local municipalities, but also
6 representatives of other service, very often conducted talks pertaining to
7 the various problems that these municipalities were faced with.
8 Q. When was HZ HB established and what were the reasons of its
10 A. When we realised that the central government in Sarajevo was not
11 taking any steps, faced with the danger which was not only present beyond
12 the borders of Bosnia-Herzegovina but could already be felt in -- inside
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina in a very serious way -- let me just remind you of
14 the month of October, and the destruction of the village of Ravno in the
15 eastern Herzegovina and the expulsion of the Croatian population from that
16 village, also the positions held by the JNA and the Serbian and
17 Montenegrin reservists on the western bank of the Neretva River.
18 Q. Let me remind you once again of the need to speak slowly for the
19 benefit of the interpreters, please.
20 A. Thank you. Therefore, faced with a danger of that kind, it was
21 our belief that the reasons why we were elected to our positions was not
22 -- were not only to organise every day life in normal conditions but that
23 we were also required to prepare ourselves for the potentially necessary
24 defence of these areas. In particular, in view of the fact that in the
25 month of May, 1991, a huge column consisting of large number of tanks had
1 passed in a rather threatening manner through the area of the western
2 Herzegovina, I believe that this is something that you are aware of. The
3 column was stopped at the outskirts of the town of Siroki Brijeg but was
4 peacefully let go without any major incident. Once a promise had been
5 made by them that they were going to an ordinary and normal military
6 exercise, that that was the purpose of this passage.
7 Unfortunately, nothing was ordinary any longer, which could be
8 plainly seen from the deployment of the tank units in the area of Kupres.
9 We were no longer allowed access to this area, which had before been
10 common practice by the JNA, that is this kind of access in the past had
11 been allowed. I as a soldier of the JNA, I participated in Slovenia in
12 such military exercise, which could freely be attended by and observed by
13 civilians, even children. So all these considerations, all these facts,
14 were telling us that those were not normal military exercises, especially
15 in view of what had already happened in Croatia and in view of the tragedy
16 that had befallen the village of Ravno.
17 So it was at that point in time that we started to think seriously
18 about the defence of the population. It was then that we realised that
19 there could not be any form of volunteerism as far as the defence is
20 concerned, that in terms of defence, we could not count on the will of the
21 people. We had recourse to the then constitutional possibilities in the
22 then Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is the association of municipalities
23 which I have described. We simply enlarged an administrative form, an
24 administrative unit, which was already provided for legally. We were
25 aware of the fact that the defence could not be organised in restricted
1 areas, therefore, we established the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.
2 Q. Are you familiar with the basic characteristics of this type of
3 association? Was it a state? Was it a form of government or authority?
4 Was it provisional or temporary in nature? Could you briefly describe its
6 A. Obviously it is possible to describe the Croatian Community of
7 Herceg-Bosna. Its characteristics can be plainly seen from its founding
8 document, one of them being the recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
9 That is the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna took into account the
10 overall Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, mention was also
11 made of the need to take into account the extraordinary circumstances and
12 the extraordinary situation and to organise everyday life in view of
13 that. It was therefore an association which comprised the municipalities
14 where Croats, according to the 1991 census, had majority or rather where
15 they were the majority population. We had already observed that the
16 central government in Sarajevo, at least this was our opinion, was rather
17 naive in their belief that they or, rather, Bosnia and Herzegovina, would
18 be spared by war. We, on the other hand, knew that what was going on in
19 Croatia, what had happened in Vukovar and the village of Ravno, would only
20 happen to us, but in a more serious way.
21 Q. Thank you. Witness, can you tell us, if you know, when the HVO
22 was established and also describe for us the section of the HVO where you
24 A. The HVO was established on the 8th of April, 1992, after the
25 so-called peace brigade, which we had peacefully let go in the spring of
1 1991, destroyed the municipality of Kupres and evicted its population. An
2 incident in which hundreds of civilians from Kupres were killed and the
3 rest expelled. So it was after this incident on the 8th of April, 1992,
4 we believed that it was no longer possible for us to defend our areas in a
5 non-organised, voluntary manner. We were faced with a very well-organised
6 JNA. Accordingly, the defence had to be organised in accordance with all
7 positive international regulations governing conflicts, defence and war in
9 Q. Could you tell us what your function within the HVO was? And you
10 also haven't told us -- I'm sorry. I have to interrupt you and lead you a
11 little bit because your answers tend to be rather longish.
12 A. Thank you. Immediately upon April the 8th, 1992, two HVOs were
14 Q. Could you please tell us the following? I cannot submit to you
15 leading questions. Could you tell me what are the components and
16 organisations within the HVO?
17 A. This is what I was going to say. The HVO comprises two units, two
18 components, the civilian and the defence, military component. I became
19 president of the HVO in the municipality of Grude. In other words, this
20 was the municipal government, consisting of the same people but operating
21 under extraordinary wartime conditions.
22 Q. Which is the component in which you were active?
23 A. I was involved in the civilian component.
24 Q. What was your function?
25 A. I was president -- I was president of the HVO of the Grude
2 Q. Could you tell us when, as testified by you before in front of
3 this Tribunal, when do you start working in the HVO social affairs
4 department? When do you get involved with sports, education, physical
5 education and culture?
6 A. It is only in autumn of 1992 that, upon the establishment of the
7 civilian HVO, that is HZ HB, I became the head of the subdepartment for
8 education, culture, and sports.
9 Q. So at that time, you became responsible for the area of education.
10 Could you tell us what were the conditions under which schools were
11 operating? Were schools open and working in 1992?
12 A. No sooner had in April, 1992, an open and widespread offensive
13 been launched by the JNA, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, from the area Posavina
14 Bijeljina, further on to Kupres, Sarajevo, and when all the capabilities
15 were used by the JNA to launch these attacks, and these did not only
16 include the infantry and the artillery units but also the air force. Then
17 we, for the sake of the safety and security of the children, and given the
18 daily air attacks, decided to interrupt the instruction at school.
19 Q. When was the school year interrupted, in which month to be
20 specific? And when was the work of the schools resumed?
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, is that a relevant question?
22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think it is relevant
23 because we are now entering the most relevant part that has to do with the
24 direct examinations by the learned friend. We are entering now the most
25 important matters about the HZ HB, the organisation of education and
1 training system, and everything that goes with that, i.e., the right to
2 use one's mother tongue, the teachers, the professors, whether they were
3 expelled or not. These are the matters that we are now entering, the
4 HZ HB now is already a fact, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, there is only three matters, major
6 matters, we want to hear from this witness. First, the internal structure
7 of the HVO, as the witness testified just now, there are two sections, two
8 components of the HVO. One is military, the other is civilian. This
9 witness told us that he held a position in the civilian part of the HVO.
10 That's what we want to hear. Secondly, is that the life in Mostar during
11 the period from 1992 to 1993?
12 Thirdly, the witness told us that he was in charge of the
13 exchanging of detainees between the parties. This is the three aspects we
14 want to hear.
15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, certainly, all the
16 three topics mentioned by you will be covered, but the prisoners of war is
17 the situation somewhere in 1999 -- beginning of 1993. This is not the
18 situation from May, 1992 onward. However, the witness will certainly
19 describe these aspects as well for Their Honours to be able to get a full
21 Your Honours, we are following the indictment. This witness was
22 a professor, was a teacher. We heard about the expulsions of the
23 professors. We heard about the difficulties concerning the use of their
24 mother tongue. This witness was the Minister of Education and it seems to
25 me that we invited the most meritorious witness and this, Your Honours, is
1 also one of the counts of the indictments and it is not my fault that I
2 have to respond to all the counts of the indictment. Of course, I will
3 certainly bear in mind that the three major topics you outlined need to be
4 focused. You also know, Your Honours, that we were tendered statements
5 and testimonies made by an incompetent witness who was a mufti in Mostar
6 and through this witness, the learned friend made an attempt to paint the
7 picture and now the Defence is trying to shed a few shreds of truth on
8 that -- to that picture.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes. You may proceed, but as concise as possible.
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honours.
11 Q. Very briefly in two sentences, when was the school year
12 interrupted and when was it resumed?
13 A. The school year 1991-92 was interrupted mainly at the beginning of
14 April of 1992.
15 Q. And when was the school work resumed?
16 A. The usual start of a school year, which was September, was delayed
17 but we still did resume the work of the schools in September, and it went
18 on until the new year of 1993. Given the wartime situation, given the
19 expelled population, the refugees, and given the destroyed school
20 buildings, unfortunately some schools never resumed with their work, and
21 I'm referring to the period under discussion here. This could not be done
22 because people were expelled and because some areas were occupied.
23 Q. Could you tell us what was the curriculum and the programme in
24 schools and let us now, from now onward, focus only upon the year 1992.
25 Where could the curriculum and the programme be implemented and how did
1 they look like?
2 A. For the sake of the whole truth, I should describe in a sentence
3 or two the curricula and programmes in the former Yugoslavia. The
4 curricula and the school programmes in the former Yugoslavia were
5 practically identical, regardless of the fact that the drafting of the
6 curricula and programmes was within the authority of the governments of
7 the former republics. In other words, the former Yugoslavia's school
8 system, it is a universally known fact, was a centralised one, and as far
9 as these curricula and programmes are concerned, we changed nothing in the
10 school year 1991-92. In the school year 1992-93, we continued with the
11 implementation of the same curricula, the same programme. However, an
12 intervention was made within the curriculum and the programme in terms of
13 de-idealisation of the curriculum and the programmes, i.e., stripping them
14 of the communist elements that they had contained. The only one more
15 radical change made was the elimination of the subject titled "defence and
16 protection" and that at the level of the secondary schools only.
17 Q. Witness, could you please focus a bit more in your answers? Of
18 course, you are not quite sure what we are particularly interested in.
19 However, let us not confuse this Tribunal. Therefore, let us focus upon
20 that aspect of the curriculum and the programme of the mother tongue in
21 1992-93, 1993 and 1994 school years. I will therefore proceed with very
22 specific questions.
23 Were there any textbooks at that time in the Bosniak language or
24 the Bosnian language? I apologise. I have to interrupt you. Let us
25 therefore focus, if we started talking about the school programmes
1 and curricula in the former Yugoslavia, of course I understand your
2 interest but we unfortunately do not have the time for that. So once
3 again, were there any textbooks in general in the Bosniak language at that
5 A. I am profoundly convinced that Their Honours also understand these
6 issues, of course, not to the same degree to which we understand it. In
7 the school year 1991-92, no changes were made as far as the subject titled
8 "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language" were made in the -- and so --
9 and nothing was changed in the entire period of the development of the
10 socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
11 Q. Unfortunately, I have to interrupt you here because it seems to me
12 that we now have the break and we will resume afterwards. We will
13 continue exploring this question.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We will resume at quarter to 11.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 10.46 a.m.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, before we have the witness here, I would like to
18 say that Judge Clark won't be able to sit with us because of personal
19 health, so in accordance with the Rule 15 bis (A), the remaining Judges of
20 the Chamber decided to sit and continue to hear the case. It is so
22 Bring in the witness, please.
23 Yes, Mr. Bos?
24 MR. BOS: Mr. President, before we continue, I'd like to make an
25 objection of some -- about something which was said prior to the break by
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Mr. Krsnik and I'm referring to the transcript page 23, when Mr. Krsnik
2 said the following, "Your Honours, we were tendered statements and
3 testimonies made by an incompetent witness who was a mufti in Mostar and
4 through this witness the learned friend made an attempt to paint a picture
5 and now the Defence is trying to shed a few shreds of truth to that
7 Your Honours, I object to the -- I'm sorry, I went a bit fast. I
8 object to the way Mr. Krsnik has characterised one of our Prosecution
9 witnesses and I think witnesses for both parties should be treated with
10 respect and that's my objection.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes. The objection is taken, and the -- but we
12 believe that you have to make that objection right after his statement.
13 MR. BOS: Yes. My apologies for that.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I really do not know
16 and see the exact point in the transcript of what I was in fact trying
17 to say. I just said that we had witnesses that discussed this issue,
18 linguistic and other issues, and now we have brought in a witness who is
19 competent to speak about these issues, who is a meritorious witness, and
20 this, Mr. Bos, was in fact the meaning of my words. I did not intend to
21 describe it that way. I'm not going to comment on your witnesses. I will
22 comment, if you will, your witnesses through my witnesses, and I will
23 bring the competent people here.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, your statement is in the record. You may
25 proceed with this witness, please.
1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
2 Q. So Mr. Maric, we discussed the question before the break whether
3 there were textbooks in the Bosnian language, whether there were these
4 textbooks in the Bosnian curricula and programme and could you please be
5 brief and focus? And I'm sure you can focus. You're a highly educated
6 person and you will thus facilitate the work of both this Trial Chamber
7 and the interpreters.
8 A. Thank you. I'll try to do my best but I have to share with you
9 the facts that -- the facts. In school year 1992-93, in
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina, we still used the same curriculum, the same programme
11 and the same textbooks. So once again, the same school programme and the
12 same textbooks, and these were the textbooks that were published by the
13 Sujetlost and Veselin Maslesa publishing houses in Sarajevo. These
14 textbooks were approved by the Ministry of Education of the Socialist
15 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. As to the new school year, 1993-94, in
16 fact -- I apologise.
17 First 1992 and 1993, we initially started using these very
18 same textbooks. Unfortunately, however, given the wartime situation in
19 Sarajevo, new textbooks that were be used in the new school year could not
20 be printed. Therefore, everybody concerned, from the territory of
21 Posavina onward to Sarajevo and Herzegovina, had to do with what was
22 available. In other words, we had to use the textbooks from the previous
23 school year. However, since it regularly happens, as we all know, and we
24 all went to school, that textbooks suffer from wear and tear. We were
25 obliged to request assistance in terms of textbooks, supplies from
1 Zagreb. Unfortunately in this very same school year, the publishing house
2 called Skolska Knjiga of Zagreb only published those textbooks and in the
3 number which they anticipated to be needed in the Republic of Croatia. So
4 the school year in 1992-93, as far as textbooks are concerned, was a
5 difficult year indeed.
6 In the school year 1993-1994, given the fact that in Sarajevo that
7 publishing and printing facilities were still not operating, and given the
8 fact that not a single textbook could be published and printed there, we
9 were compelled to once again ask the Ministry of Education of the Republic
10 of Croatia to help us out. The ministry did help us, both for -- in terms
11 of the students and pupils in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina as
12 well as helped tens of thousands of refugee students and pupils, refugees
13 from Bosnia-Herzegovina, who were present in the Republic of Croatia where
14 they went to school, together with the local students and pupils, either
15 thus going to the regular classes of the regular schools in the Republic
16 of Croatia or to special newly-established and opened schools and thus
17 both the Bosniaks and the Croats went to the same classes and to the same
19 Q. With your permission, Mr. Maric, were there any separate curricula
20 and programmes for Bosnians and were there ever any such things as Bosnian
22 A. This is what I was going to say.
23 Q. Could you be perhaps more specific and more concise? I know that
24 you have to explain these things but let us not do it at too great a
1 A. Sir, Your Honours, it was only in school year 1994-95 that for the
2 first time, it was outside our country that textbooks were published on
3 the basis of the programmes and curricula adopted and approved by the
4 central government in Sarajevo. So it was only in the school year 1994-95
5 that this happened.
6 May I continue?
7 In December of 1997, it was in Sarajevo that the ombudsman
8 organised a round-table discussion devoted to the system of schools and
9 education in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the course of the discussions of the
10 round-table participants and the participants were former ministers of the
11 government of Bosnia-Herzegovina for education, then the ministers of
12 cantons, furthermore, four professors from the United States of America.
13 The data were tabled which of course I had been familiar with even before
14 that, namely, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and now I'm only referring to
15 that part that was usually referred to as Bosnian and Herzegovinian. We
16 had no local textbooks.
17 Q. Would you be kind enough to answer the following question. Did
18 you too make changes in the curriculum and the programme? And were, in
19 the first place, you at a position which allowed to you make these
21 A. Somewhere at the beginning of my testimony, I stressed that using
22 the existing curricula and school programmes, we tried only to eliminate
23 from them only those elements which are alien to a democratic society, and
24 in comparison with the curricula and school programmes that had been in
25 use until the year 1992, through such a comparison one can easily see that
1 no radical changes were made.
2 Furthermore, in the course of the discussions held at the round
3 table mentioned before, the ombudsman also submitted a report emphasising
4 that these very same curricula and school programmes were also used in the
5 territories of the Zupanijas or provinces with majority Croat population
6 in the year 1997, and that there was no criticism voiced as far as their
7 contents and substance are concerned.
8 Q. Witness, are you not familiar with the programme of the HDZ
9 regarding the education and school programmes? Was their programme
10 proposed by them any different? And do you know generally speaking what
11 their position was?
12 A. I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question.
13 Q. My apologies. Let me try to rephrase it. What was the HDZ
14 programme as far as schools and education were concerned, if you're
16 A. Yes, I am aware of that. In our political declarations, there was
17 always a chapter on education, culture, and science, and our position was
18 always the same, that is that following the new democratic elections and
19 changes, our education, our school system, should follow the best
20 traditions of the free world and Europe.
21 Of course, every school system is based on the national language
22 and the national culture, and in multicultural communities, this aspect,
23 this multiculturality is also taken into account. So on the basis of this
24 political position, or these political principles, we reached two decrees
25 in wartime circumstances of course, in 1993. One of them being a decree
1 on elementary education --
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honours. I think
3 that my client is not feeling well.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I just turned around and I
6 realised that he's sick. May I go to my client, please?
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, of course, of course. You may look into the
8 matter and report to this Trial Chamber.
9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] He can leave?
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. I didn't
12 have time to ask you whether he can be allowed to leave the courtroom. We
13 can by all means proceed without his presence.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, the accused could be excused and be escorted out
15 of the room and we will continue with the proceedings without his
16 presence, with the agreement from the Defence counsel.
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my colleague has just
18 told me that the security does not allow my client to have his
19 nitroglycerine with him at all times. I should like to ask the permission
20 for him to have his medication in case of emergency. I don't know what
21 the situation is and what will happen. I hope that he will be examined
22 today. As far as the health of my client is concerned, generally
23 speaking, I do hope that the issue will be taken more seriously in the
24 future. In the past seven or eight months, he has had only one medical
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, if your client needs a medical
2 examination, we will entrust the Registrar to conduct it in due time, but
3 we are not in the position to order your client to have certain medicines
4 at hand. I think it is the job for the doctors, not for the Judges.
5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] By all means, Your Honour, but I
6 think that he should be allowed to have them in the courtroom. It is the
7 security that doesn't allow him to have his medication at all times, not
8 the physicians, and a moment ago, he didn't have this medication with
9 him. It was the guard who brought the medication and the doctor
10 prescribed him this medication and recommended that he should have it with
11 him at all times. It is a matter of security concerns. I think that he
12 should be allowed to have his medication on him at all times.
13 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
14 JUDGE LIU: Well, I'll ask the Registrar to look into this
15 matter. You may proceed, Mr. Krsnik.
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Much obliged, Your Honour.
17 Q. Witness, I think that we were discussing the school programme and
18 curricula and the position of the HDZ regarding these issues. I'm sure
19 you're more concentrated than I am. Would you please continue where you
20 left off.
21 A. I was talking about the decrees governing the school system in the
22 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. We, and I am referring to the HZ HB
23 government, adopted two such decrees. One was related to the elementary
24 education and one to the secondary education in times of war, and in the
25 presence of war danger. The decrees were published in the Official
1 Gazette which is called Narodni List HZ HB, 293 and 1393, their respective
2 numbers, that is. After the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna was
3 established in 1993, these decrees, with some minor amendments, became the
4 law on elementary and secondary education. These two statutory texts
5 regulated the school system and education in the Croatian Community of
6 Herceg-Bosna. They were in existence until the Washington Accords, which
7 stipulated that all existing arrangements should continue to apply until
8 new relevant laws are passed by the constitutional assembly.
9 Q. Thank you. What was the position as far as the language is
11 A. In the socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, officially
12 speaking, there were three languages, which were called the Macedonian
13 language in Macedonia, the Slovenian language in Slovenia, and in the four
14 remaining republics, that is the Republic of Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
15 Serbia and Montenegro, the language was called differently. It actually
16 consisted of -- the title consisted of two words; it was called
17 Serbo-Croat or Croato-Serbian language. This phrase, which was actually
18 the name of the official language, is indicative of its components.
19 With the break-up of Yugoslavia, the language in the Republic of
20 Croatia was renamed and became the Croatian language, the Croatian
21 standard language. As for Bosnia and Herzegovina, every ethnic community
22 in their relevant statutory text referred to the language which was spoken
23 in Bosnia-Herzegovina and which differed slightly, not in any major way --
24 I want to make this point very clear -- as, in accordance with linguistic
25 customs, normal linguistic customs, was referred to by using the name of
1 the relevant ethnic community. Therefore, Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina
2 called their language the Serbian language, the Croats referred to it as
3 the Croatian language, whereas the Bosniaks, the group which at the time
4 was still officially called Muslims, called their language the Bosnian
5 language. It was only later on, a year or two later, that the language
6 was called or became the Bosnian language. That was the situation, that
7 was the reality in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the conflict, and it is the
8 reality today.
9 Q. What language was spoken in the Croatian Community of
11 A. As far as the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna is concerned, but
12 let me generally say that I believe that we all know that there is always
13 a standard language, and the everyday language, which is characterised by
14 numerous cultural, regional differences. Therefore, in HZ HB, the
15 official language of the school system and the media, and for the purposes
16 of public communication in general, was the Croatian standard language.
17 However, we were very clear and explicit in saying that the area in
18 question is also inhabited by other ethnic communities, the members of
19 which, both in the official and everyday use of the language, were able or
20 could refer to their language as the Bosnian language or the Serbian
21 language, and use it accordingly.
22 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, there is one thing I want to clarify
23 at this point. There should be no mystery in these proceedings for all
24 those activities going on. This Trial Chamber has made a decision to
25 allow Mr. Naletilic to go back to the Detention Unit just now, just for
1 the information of the Prosecution. I'm sorry for the interruption.
2 Mr. Krsnik, you may continue.
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, very much,
4 for this information. I'm sure that you could also see that I too was a
5 bit impatient and confused as to what was going on.
6 Q. Witness, was it possible to learn the Bosniak language in schools
7 and was there a department, an official linguistic department, for the
8 Bosniak language? Were there any professors, any experts in the Bosniak
9 language in the area at the time? I am referring to the year 1992 and
11 A. Speaking of 1992 and 1993, there were three departments, there
12 were three chairs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the relevant universities
13 or colleges, which taught the so-called Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian
14 language. During the war, Serbs in Croatia, at the teachers college, were
15 referring to the language as the Serbian language. In Tuzla, Sarajevo and
16 Mostar, for example, the language was officially called, as can be seen
17 from students' official booklets, was described generally speaking in
18 three ways, as the Bosnian language or the Serbo-Croatian or
19 Croato-Serbian language or only as the Croatian language. One should note
20 here that the structure of the language, the vocabulary and the syntax
21 were in practical terms not changed in any way due to the change in the
22 official name of the language. Up until then, the official language
23 textbooks, the grammar books, at the time, both in schools and at the
24 universities, were using the name Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian
25 language, depending on the origin of the author of the official grammar
1 book in a given linguistic area, with the so-called linguistic variations
2 or linguistic variants of the language.
3 Here in The Hague, I had an opportunity to contact some people who
4 studied the language here in Amsterdam, and I was able to see that they
5 make a very clear distinction in these terms. This distinction is also
6 made by this Tribunal because the documents that I have received are
7 written in the so-called western variant of the language, if we are using
8 the terms which were in use up until 1990 and which today, after the
9 political changes, this variant of the language would be officially
10 referred to as the Croatian standard language. It is probable -- actually
11 I'm quite sure that the members of the Serb ethnic community, and this is
12 something which I was able to observe from an interpreter here who is
13 expressing herself in the Serbian language, I have seen that the practice
14 of this Tribunal is such that it has accepted all three variants of the
15 language, including the third one, which is today officially called the
16 Bosnian language.
17 Q. I merely wanted to ask you whether in 1991, 1992 and 1993, there
18 were any professors of the Bosnian -- Bosniak language, and was this
19 language being taught?
20 A. In 1991 and 1992, there were no official grammar books of the
21 Bosniak or the Bosnian language. Of course, there was a whole range of
22 scientific texts written on the issue, including the book written by
23 Professor Dzevad Bihac [phoen] who is a professor at the University of
24 Sarajevo. He published a book entitled, "The Language of Bosnian
25 Muslims." He, as a linguistic authority amongst the Bosniak population, as
1 early as 1991, he still did not refer to the language as the Bosnian or
2 the Bosniak language. I don't know exactly when it was that the decision
3 was made within the Bosniak component, that the official use of the title,
4 that is that the official title would be the Bosniak or the Bosniak
5 language. I don't know when that happened. As for the possibilities of
6 teaching this language, be it the Croatian, the Serbian or the Bosniak
7 language, all of us who have a degree in Slavic studies, including my
8 colleagues which I had an opportunity to meet here in Amsterdam, know
9 perfectly well that they are competent enough to teach the language which
10 used to be called the Serbo-Croatian language or the Croato-Serbian
11 language and which today is officially called either the Bosnian, the
12 Croatian or the Serbian language.
13 Q. Witness, let me show you a document at this point, ID D1/95, 96
14 and 97.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could we have all these three documents,
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] For the interpreters, my colleague,
18 Mr. Pinter, provided the relevant documents yesterday.
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Bos?
20 MR. BOS: We were just wondering if there is an English
21 translation of these documents, and if not, we object.
22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that Mr. Bos
23 knows perfectly well that we do not have translation of this -- these
24 documents. Mr. Bos, I think I informed you of this fact yesterday. I
25 don't know why you are asking the question now. That is exactly the
1 reason why we provided the interpretation booths with the -- with these
2 originals and I think I already told you that we didn't have the
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, you understand that this Trial
5 Chamber is seized with a motion filed by the Prosecution, objecting to the
6 proceedings without the translation, and we have already entrusted the
7 Registrar to look into this matter. I hope this matter will be solved
8 next week. With this understanding -- with this understanding, shall we
9 proceed without translation for a while, since those documents are very
10 simple documents, we could know the contents through the oral
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour. These are
13 very simple documents indeed.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Bos?
15 MR. BOS: Well, Your Honours, we object for the record, and it may
16 be if there is more documents which are not in the English version, we may
17 need more time for cross-examination, so -- but I'm in your hands if you
18 need to continue.
19 JUDGE LIU: Well, my suggestion is that we proceed based on those
20 documents, with the understanding that this translation will be supplied
21 as soon as possible.
22 Yes, Mr. Krsnik, you may proceed.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is not the time for
24 me to say that at this point in time, but let me tell you that some of the
25 documents we tendered in for translation were not translated so far, and
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 some are still being translated, but we didn't want to interrupt, to halt,
2 to slow down the proceedings. I just want to mention it for the record.
3 It is not for the first time that we have entered the situation. It is
4 not for the first time that we have shared this concern of ours with the
5 Trial Chambers but the learned friend got the documents, they know what
6 the documents are, they have their own translation service. This is just
7 a tactic. I will not go on, Your Honours. I apologise.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stringer?
9 MR. STRINGER: I apologise to Mr. Krsnik. The last statement,
10 Mr. President, is untrue. Speaking on behalf of the Prosecution, the
11 Office of the Prosecutor, we share with the Defence the same translation
12 unit. It's the translation unit for this Tribunal. We all share the same
13 people. We all receive translations from the same people, under the same
14 conditions, and under the same time constraints. We are not in a better
15 position than the Defence in respect of translations.
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, I got some letters from the Registrar. He
17 promised me that he will put the translation for this case as the priority
18 in the translation. They promise to do the translation and supply it to
19 us as soon as possible. In the meantime, we will make decisions on the
20 motions filed by the Prosecution.
21 Mr. Krsnik, shall we drop this issue and proceed with the direct
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honours.
24 Q. Could you please have a look at this document and tell us, one
25 after the other, what you can see from these documents?
1 A. Can I start?
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, could you please put on
3 the first document, namely, on the ELMO, ID D -- D1/95?
4 Q. You can watch it on the ELMO.
5 A. Very well. Can I start? What I see in front of me is a report
6 card on the completion of the first grade of grammar school in Zenica in
7 school year 1992-93.
8 Q. Can you briefly tell us where is Zenica located, under whose
9 authority it is?
10 A. Zenica is a town in central Bosnia, northwest of Sarajevo, some
11 50 kilometres distance to Sarajevo. At this point in time, when this
12 report card was issued, it was under the authority of the BIH army. First
13 let me tell you something about the form itself of this school report.
14 This form continues the practice of similar forms that were issued and
15 used by schools until the outbreak of the war in 1991-92. I am, however,
16 surprised to see that this is called Uvjerenje, which is a certificate,
17 although usually students, at the end of the school year, would receive
18 what is called Svjedodzba or Svjedocanstvo, a report. Svjedocanstvo, the
19 latter term, was the Bosniak term used.
20 Secondly, the only change or novelty I can see here is the
21 following. The box which is entitled "subjects taught", nastavni
22 predmeti, were in the past, the first item usually was Serbo-Croatian or
23 Croato-Serbian. This item is empty.
24 Q. Could you show us where specifically you're referring to?
25 A. It is empty, it's just a dotted line, and it is here inserted
1 "mother" maternji, mother tongue. Officially, no ministry at all used
2 this category, "mother tongue." Neither in the period of the socialist
3 regime nor in the course of the war.
4 Secondly, what I can also note here is the following. The
5 language in which this report or this certificate, in terms of its form,
6 is concerned, i.e., the printed part of the text and not the part which is
7 written by hand, simply continues the practice of the two variants, the
8 two language variants used, which can very easily be seen, for example, if
9 we go down here to the subject concerning history, historija, then the
10 next one, geography, geografija zemejopis, and the same applies to
11 chemistry, although the two linguistic alternatives have not been used
12 consistently through this document. For example, if consistency were to
13 be observed, instead of fizicko vaspitanje, which is physical education,
14 the wording should also be fizicko odgoj. And then in some other parts,
15 this two-language pattern was not used. For example, where it says
16 opstina, municipality, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we usually
17 used opcina, opstina, both forms.
18 Q. Witness, this is very difficult to interpret because unfortunately
19 or fortunately in English, there is only one word for all these two
20 linguistic alternatives. So to expedite the matters, I'd like you to tell
21 us, are you familiar with the ethnic background, ethnicity of the person
22 who graduated from this first grade?
23 A. Obviously, on the basis of this document, because it is not said
24 anything as to that matter, apart from the citizenship, I cannot say
25 anything as to what is the ethnicity of this individual student.
1 Q. Well, this was the year 1992-93. Can you tell us whether the
2 person concerned is a Muslim, a Croat, a Serb?
3 A. Judging by the first name, the family name, and the father's name,
4 I can say that this is a student, a female student to be more specific,
5 who most probably is of Croat origin but of course, that is something for
6 her to decide personally.
7 Q. Of course.
8 A. Let me add something else and draw your attention to another
9 fact. Have a look at the top. It says, "The Republic of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina" at the very beginning of this document. So if we were
11 to follow the same analogy in terms of the name of the state or country
12 concerned, the same should be repeated in the seal, the seal, the state
13 seal, through which the state had authorised this document. However, down
14 here, it says, "The Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" in the
15 seal. In other words, one cannot, on the basis of this document, know
16 what state is referred to. One name is used at the top, and another
17 within the seal. I should also like to draw your attention to this seal
18 here which is the seal of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
19 which on the basis of the democratic elections was changed, or avoided if
20 anything else.
21 Q. Could you proceed to the next document, ID D1/96?
22 A. This is the same female student that we had before. Now we are in
23 the next school year, 1993-94, second grade of this secondary school. Now
24 I can see that we have two coats of arms, one which is an integral part of
25 the form itself, which is this coat of arms on top of the name [B/C/S
1 spoken], certificate, and this very same coat of arms is repeated in the
2 seal, which, as far as I can see it from this document, says, "The
3 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina" in Cyrillic and in Latin script, the
4 grammar school in Zenica. Furthermore, what is new in this form is that
5 there is no category called "mother tongue" anymore. This tongue in this
6 document is called the Bosnian language. We still have this dual
7 linguistic dual use of certain subjects which was a characteristic feature
8 of the eastern and western linguistic models, that is historija povijest
9 for history, geografija zemljopis is for geography, and we can also note
10 that here, the subjects' titles were changed. For example, now we have a
11 subject called [indiscernible], which used -- which would be translated
12 into English, physical and health education. It used to be vaspitanje,
13 and now we have the same term, which is used both by the Bosniaks and the
14 Croats, which is odgoj in English, education.
15 Q. Could we proceed? Let us have document ID D1/97. Did you say
16 that this was the same female student?
17 A. Yes, as far as I can see, it's the same school, the grammar school
18 of Zenica, school year 1994-95. This student seemed to have performed
19 very well. Now, as far as the form itself is concerned, it remains
20 unchanged compared to the one before, but I see that in the list of
21 subjects, we have a different reference to the mother tongue. In school
22 year 1994-95, when the clashes ceased, when the Washington constitution
23 had been passed, it was now also recognised, namely the fact was
24 recognised that in Bosnia, the official languages were Serbian, Croat and
25 Bosnian, and this student, probably her headmaster identified her as of
1 Croatian background, has, under the mother tongue, Croatian language.
2 Q. Mr. Maric, are you familiar with any protests lodged by Croats or
3 other individuals of ethnic -- of different ethnic background as to the
4 fact that they are not learning Bosniak language?
5 A. Yes, of course, there were such protests or reactions. We heard
6 about them. And they were manifested in terms of silent protests because
7 at wartime, in a wartime situation, it's not always good to voice your
8 concerns aloud particularly if you're a student or a parent of a student.
9 Q. I will now show you the document, P168.1, and I will tell you that
10 it was said in this courthouse that this very document is a proof of the
11 fact that HDZHB was imposing the Croatian language and that the government
12 HDZHB was thus trying to show that the Bosniaks were prevented from using
13 their mother tongue.
14 A. Can I continue? Well, here, I can see certificate on top, we have
15 the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Croat Community of Herceg-Bosna.
16 If you compare these two forms, in terms of the printed text, you can see
17 that there was one single choice, those certificates which were uniform
18 throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina in school year
19 1990-1991. However, since, as it says, the date at which it was issued
20 was the 18th of August, 1992, since at that time, in Sarajevo, no
21 certificates were printed or at least we didn't have any access to them,
22 therefore I, as the head of this department, decided to have these forms
23 printed and to follow the earlier form and pattern of these certificates.
24 The only thing we did do is the following: Upon the decision of
25 the government of the Croat Community of Herceg-Bosna, we added in the
1 certificate the national, Croatian coat of arms which was usually and
2 generally used in this type of documents before, in the period until 1990,
3 the coat of arms of the republics were used and since the coat of arms of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina was a socialist coat of arm without any national
5 elements in it and it was not accepted by any of the three peoples which
6 one could see from the earlier documents. We saw that the Bosniaks
7 decided to use the new coat of arms with the fleur-de-lis, the Serbs used
8 the coat of arms with the eagles and the Croats, following their historic
9 traditions, decided to use the Croatian historical coat of arms.
10 Here in the list of subjects, the Croatian standard language was
11 used but you will note that this language is indeed very understandable to
12 each student coming from all three ethnic backgrounds in
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina and just like the female student in Zenica, had no
14 problems to understand when it said here, under "mother tongue," Bosnian,
15 it was not a problem for the pupils and students in this part of
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina to accept this terminology, particularly since the
17 terminology used was the terminology which was used by the teachers, and
18 no teacher changed these certificates in any radical way. The teachers
19 were not offering new terminology, new grammar rules, et cetera. It was
20 only in political terms that after the democratic elections, it was
21 established that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in a country of three peoples,
22 and in conformity with the traditions of democratic society, every people
23 is -- each people are allowed to use their own language.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down.
25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Were you using the Bosnian language?
2 A. No, no.
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I apologise. You see, I myself have
4 made the life of interpreters more difficult.
5 Q. Could you then please tell us if somebody insisted, could the word
6 "Bosniak language" be used under the subject "mother tongue"?
7 A. Certainly. Meetings of headmasters of both elementary and
8 secondary schools that were held regularly. To be able to tackle the
9 daily issues that cropped up in our schools, there were statements made by
10 the headmasters that in practice, apart from the subject "mother tongue",
11 practically nothing was changed, and it was particularly emphasised that
12 no professor, no teacher, is allowed to coerce or influence students and
13 pupils, bring them into an unpleasant position because of the fact that
14 perhaps they do not always know each of the double alternatives.
15 Q. I have to interrupt you. Now, I'm a bit confused. You say that
16 the Bosniak language is not being allowed, and in 1991, 1992, 1993, in
17 fact there was no Bosniak language, was there?
18 A. Of course not. It is -- you cannot find it in any official
19 document. The government of Bosnia and Herzegovina had not adopted any
20 new grammar or other rules, but of course the political parties that were
21 established in Bosnia and Herzegovina used in both written and spoken
22 language, which was different because of the new democratic changes. It
23 was the language which they, as individuals, referred to as Bosniak, as
24 Serbian, as Croatian.
25 Q. Very well. I will now share with you a statement repeatedly made
1 here in this courtroom. It was said that teachers and professors on a
2 systematic basis were expelling -- so were teachers and professors
3 systematically persecuted, fired, expelled from schools if they were
5 A. May I?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. All our documents, I'm referring to the documents of the Ministry
8 of Education of the Croat Community Herceg-Bosna and later on of the Croat
9 Republic of Herceg-Bosna, indicate that all teachers and professors remain
10 on their jobs and there is no single act or regulation issued by the
11 ministry demanding from the headmasters to fire anyone from their job on
12 grounds of their ethnic -- their ethnicity. But what was going on in
13 those territories where war was raging, where clashes took place, whether
14 at the local levels there were certain difficulties and problems, well, of
15 course, they did crop up because it was not just schools but entire towns,
16 or entire parts of the population that were abandoning certain territories
17 because of war conflicts. Among those who were leaving their territories
18 for one reason or another, which all had to do with wartime situation, a
19 certain number were also teachers and professors.
20 Q. I have to interrupt you. I'll show you document ID D1/98, and
21 will ask you to tell this Court what this is all about.
22 Witness, could you please give the usher the book you have in your
23 hand and tell us whether this document makes part of this book and what
24 the book is all about?
25 A. Well, this is a collection of publications and articles on the
1 elementary and secondary schools in Mostar during the war. It was
2 published by the social affairs department office in Mostar. This
3 collection is not an official document issued by the ministry, but rather
4 published by the social affairs service of Mostar, and it was published in
5 June, 1994.
6 Q. Can you tell us what does this collection tell us, cover?
7 A. As far as I can recall, this collection consists of publications
8 and articles by different authors who come from the town of Mostar, most
9 of them are professors or teachers who here describe the organisation of
10 the school system in the school year 1992-93.
11 Q. Does it also discuss the general personnel issues, in terms of the
12 teaching staff in -- under wartime circumstances?
13 A. Here in front of us we have an article of this sort, which
14 describes the teaching staff personnel issues and wartime circumstances,
15 using, for the sake of illustration, the example of the secondary
16 construction engineering school in Mostar. One can very easily see here
17 that in school year 1992-93, classes were organised and held, and here we
18 have a list of those teachers and professors who were full time employees
19 of this school. We have in total 27 professors and then in the next
20 section, the author says that the professors, under numbers 1 to 9 above,
21 abandoned their jobs prior to the open aggression on Mostar and this
22 happened in the so-called war between the JNA or Serbian war, waged
23 against the Bosniaks and Croats.
24 These individuals, therefore, listed under 1 to 9, as far as we
25 can tell by their names and surnames, can be identified as members of the
1 Serbian people. So it was before the attack of the JNA and the so-called
2 reservists. It seems that these teachers, these professors, had known
3 about the upcoming attacks. They left their jobs and only Muslims and
4 Croats remained in the school. But as far as I can tell, some Serbs as
6 Q. Sorry to interrupt you. Can you tell us whether these teachers --
7 JUDGE LIU: Well, it's time.
8 MR. KRSNIK: Sorry.
9 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, you spent a lot of time on the issue of
10 education which did not appear in your 65 ter filings. I hope you could
11 get over this section as soon as possible so that we could hear more about
12 the other two issues, that is his life in Mostar during the war in 1992
13 and 1993, as well as about exchanging of detainees between the parties to
14 the conflict.
15 We will resume at 12.30.
16 --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, how long are you going to take in
19 your direct examination?
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please?
21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] My apologies. Another 30 minutes.
22 But my witness is very talkative and his answers are rather long, but I do
23 hope to be able to finish within half an hour.
24 JUDGE LIU: According to your filings, it's about 90 minutes for
25 the direct examination. I have to remind you about that.
1 Bring the witness, please, Mr. Usher.
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Witness, we will have to proceed faster. I will try to phrase my
4 questions with that in view. Were Bosniaks, according to this text, ever
5 sacked and expelled from work, or did they retain their employment
6 throughout 1993?
7 A. Most of them held their employment, whether some of them left or
8 not, I don't really know. This was not part of my competences but I know
9 that no official school body ever requested any teacher or professor --
10 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Please, Mr. Krsnik, I hope that the
11 witness did not interpret Mr. Krsnik's warning that he should speed up in
12 his speech.
13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Witness, you have heard Her Honour Judge Diarra. Do not speak
15 faster but let us try to shorten the answers and make them more concise.
16 Witness, was anyone expelled on account of Bosniak ethnicity?
17 A. No, no one. This was never said publicly by any member of the
18 ministry, nor was it done in any official manner through any statutory
19 provision or other.
20 Q. Who was the director of the grammar school in Mostar? Did these
21 people continue working throughout this period of time?
22 A. I cannot know in precise terms what the personnel issues were in
23 detail in 1992 and 1993 and 1993-1994. However, what I do know is that
24 the schoolmasters of elementary and secondary schools were mostly people,
25 who throughout 1990 and 1991, had held the same post, that is who had
1 already been schoolmasters, Croats and Bosniaks alike. Specifically I
2 know that the head of the Mostar grammar school remained on his post
3 throughout the war, including the Croatian and Bosniak conflict, and he
4 was a Muslim or a Bosniak.
5 Q. What was the situation at the university? Was there any
6 discrimination there?
7 A. As for the University of Mostar, throughout this period of time,
8 that is the school year 1992-93, as can be seen from the list of
9 employees, and I am referring to the professors at the university and at
10 the local colleges, over 35 of them. As far as I know, and in view of the
11 information I had, were Bosniaks. There was a small number of Serbs as
13 As for the school year of 1993 and 1994, in the midst of the
14 conflict in Mostar, both Croats and Muslims fled on account of the
15 hostilities. Therefore, in that school year, the number of both of them
16 decreased. However, over 20 or 25 Bosniaks were still working at the
17 universities as full-time professors or teaching assistants. Some of them
18 were members of the board of the university, such as Mr. Dedic. I think
19 that at the beginning of the school year, the dean of the construction --
20 of the civil engineering department was also -- was Mr. Behmen.
21 Q. A Bosniak as well?
22 A. Yes. I cannot recall all of them, all of the professors who
23 taught at the Mostar university at the time.
24 Q. Was the University of Mostar or parts thereof ever relocated
25 during that period of time?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Yes. Unfortunately on two occasions, first during the attack by
2 the JNA, the faculty was forced to discontinue their classes, as was the
3 case with teachers in elementary and secondary schools, and proceed with
4 their examinations outside Mostar. Unfortunately, the same situation
5 reoccurred during the conflict between Bosniaks and Croats, when the
6 conflict was raging in the town itself. In order not to lose that school
7 year, the head of the university, the dean, decided to relocate certain
8 departments of the University of Mostar and organised classes in the town
9 of Neum, where, thanks to numerous hotel facilities, it was possible to
10 organise instruction. Part of instruction was going on in Siroki Brijeg.
11 Q. Including Bosniaks, that is Bosniak professors who also continued
12 to teach?
13 A. Yes, of course, those who remained continued with their work. I
14 did not follow directly their attendance and their work but they proceeded
15 with the normal work, to the extent it was possible.
16 Q. Did Bosniak professors during the conflict between Bosniaks and
17 Croats also teach in Neum and Siroki Brijeg, that is where the faculty was
19 A. Yes, and after we returned to Mostar, they continued with their
21 Q. Once again, my apologies to the Court. It was me who sped up this
22 time. Judge Diarra, I believe my remark was accurately entered into the
23 record. Let us move on.
24 Would you be so kind to tell us something about your membership in
25 the commission for exchange of war prisoners? Could you tell us when that
1 was and what your duties included?
2 A. After the breakout of the conflict in April, 1992, and the
3 fighting which took place in the area of Kupres, both sides, that is
4 the JNA, the Serb side, and the then Bosniak and Croat side in
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, there were prisoners of war, that is both sides
6 detained a certain number of prisoners of war. At the beginning of the
7 conflict, as early as April, 1992, only a week into the conflict, after
8 the fighting in Kupres calmed down a little bit, we started negotiations
9 on the exchange of POWs. Initially I was a member of this commission and
10 I subsequently became its head.
11 The negotiations were conducted under the auspices of the European
12 observers and the Red Cross. Between April, 1992 and sometime in autumn,
13 1992, during that period of time, we held talks almost twice a week in the
14 villages of Zitnic and Pakovo Selo. At the separation line with the UNPA,
15 UN protected areas, we were also accompanied by Mr. Dieter Wolfmann who is
16 the deputy high representative in Sarajevo today and later on, with
17 Mr. Castella. Each meeting was attended of course by the representatives
18 of the International Red Cross and we were very fast in agreeing on the
19 exchanges of POWs on both sides. However, a smaller -- small part of
20 those POWs spent quite some time in detention. They were the subject of
21 our talks for a long time, and then due to some practical reasons, the
22 negotiations were relocated to the separation line in Bosnia and
23 Herzegovina, to the area of Livansko Polje, the area of the town of Livno,
24 in particular, in the towns of Kovacic and Celibici.
25 Q. I don't think we need to go into such details. My question was
1 whether you were the president of the commission who took equal care of
2 the exchange of Bosniak and Croat POWs.
3 A. Yes. Of course. Because the JNA, who was party to those
4 negotiations at that time, held mostly Croat and Muslim prisoners.
5 However, there were individual members of other ethnic groups. As you
6 probably know, the town of Kupres counted all three ethnic communities as
7 their inhabitants, and all three were captured and detained alike. So
8 with no -- we spoke about prisoners of war, not about members of such and
9 such ethnic community.
10 Q. Thank you. When did your mandate in the commission cease?
11 A. I negotiated with the Serb side, as we used to call them, until
12 the autumn of 1993, until most of the POWs on both sides, in the southern
13 part, were released, and when unfortunately, the conflict opposing
14 Bosniaks and Croats started. I stopped conducting these negotiations but
15 I continued negotiating -- I'm sorry, but my deputy, Mr. Zeljko Radic and
16 Mr. Berislav Busic continued with these negotiations.
17 Q. We are moving towards the end of the examination. I have only two
18 or three questions left for you. Before I show you some documents, let me
19 ask you whether you personally know, Seid Smajkic, the mufti?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. Did he ever tell you any of his objections as to the
22 discrimination going on?
23 A. Mr. Mukic and myself, together with another multi-national
24 delegation participated in January 1993 in the prayers which were
25 organised in Asisi, together with Cardinal Puljic.
1 Q. Excuse me, what country?
2 A. In Italy. So together with Cardinal Puljic, Mr. Mandelbaum
3 who was a member of the Jewish community in Mostar, the prayers were also
4 attended by a representative of the Islamic religious community, including
5 Mr. Smajkic. We travelled together. From Mostar we travelled by bus to
6 Split, where we took a plane to Italy, to Rome. We stayed there for a
7 week. We were accommodated in the same hotel. We used the same means of
8 transport to reach Asisi and we participated in the same congregation
9 which conducted these prayers. We returned together. I got off at Grude,
10 some 40 kilometres before Mostar, and I parted in a very friendly manner
11 with Mr. Smajkic.
12 Q. Did he have any objections that I mentioned?
13 A. Unfortunately, this was the last time that we met. I haven't
14 spoken to him since but as far as that period of time is concerned, he
15 voiced no such objections.
16 Q. I can tell you this because he was a public witness. He was the
17 one who showed us the school report which I produced, and he testified
18 about discrimination against Muslims who were allegedly expelled from
19 schools, solely on account of their ethnicity. He also testified that no
20 other language but the Croatian language was allowed in schools. How do
21 you respond to that?
22 A. During the five days that we spent travelling together, me and
23 Mr. Smajkic talked, we spent several hours talking, and I did not notice
24 that he didn't understand me. I could perfectly understand him, and as
25 far as I am concerned, I didn't in any way alternate the way I speak. And
1 I know our teachers didn't do it either, that there were no changes in the
2 way they spoke. I don't know what kind of educational background
3 Mr. Smajkic has in terms of linguistics but I do believe that as far as
4 the issues of the language are concerned, he is not quite an expert.
5 Q. Sir, the people who lived in HZ HB, were they able to choose
6 religious instruction according to their wishes?
7 A. Yes. At the beginning, when we started with the religious
8 instruction, my ministry drafted a questionnaire --
9 Q. I'm sorry, let me ask the assistance of the usher. Is this the
10 questionnaire you're talking about? I believe we provided the Prosecution
11 with the questionnaire in question but my colleague is telling me she is
12 not so sure about that. You'll be able to check. It will be on the ELMO
13 in a moment. If you have not received it I will withdraw it of course and
14 I will rely solely on the witness.
15 Do you have the questionnaire in -- that we are talking about,
16 Mr. Prosecutor? It bears number ID D1/99.
17 MR. BOS: No, sorry, we don't have that document.
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll withdraw the
19 document and the witness will simply provide us with an oral explanation
20 of the issue.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I continue?
22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Please do.
24 A. In accordance with the practice of the religious instruction in
25 school, in general terms, as it is in certain countries in Europe, we did
1 not impose the subject but we made it an optional subject in schools. So
2 it was not obligatory for the student to take up religious instruction.
3 So in order to find out who wishes to study -- to have religious
4 instruction as a school subject, and which religious instruction in
5 particular, we drafted a questionnaire which is of course no invention of
6 ours. I presume that this is how it is done in other places as well. So
7 as far as the students of elementary schools are concerned, we asked the
8 parents of those students to state whether they want their children to
9 have religious instruction in school.
10 We also asked them to sign the questionnaire and also to circle
11 the kind of religious instruction they wanted to choose. The Orthodox
12 one, the Islamic one, or the Catholic one, or the Jewish one. So it was
13 only after the parents of the elementary school students made it clear and
14 expressed their wish, did we organise, on the basis of this information,
15 or enable the religious instruction in elementary school.
16 As for secondary schools, it was the students who expressed their
17 wishes in this questionnaire because we believe them to be more mature
18 enough to take that decision. One more thing, those who choose on an
19 optional basis to attend religious instruction, were then, of course,
20 obliged to continue with the practice throughout the school year. Of
21 course, it is possible for them to give it up at one point in time but
22 this was specifically stated in the papers.
23 Q. We have to hurry up a little bit, Mr. Maric. Let me show you now
24 three documents: 102, 103, and 104, that is ID D1/102, 3, and 4.
25 This is my penultimate question and then we will finally have the
1 ultimate question.
2 Witness, would you please have a look at this document and tell us
3 what it purports to be? But try to be as brief as possible because we
4 have to wind up.
5 A. I'm afraid I will to have read this document.
6 Q. Please do.
7 A. Well, I will need some time to do that.
8 Q. Please, take your time but try to read as fast as you can. Tell
9 us briefly about the contents of this document, please?
10 A. First of all, in the preamble of the document, that is in the
11 heading of the document I can see "Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina."
12 Q. What document are you reading, please?
13 A. 102, D1/102, so in the heading of the document, I can see, "Army
14 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the command of the 4th Corps." The
15 addressee is the headquarters of the supreme command and in the brackets
16 for the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports. The contents of the
17 document pertain to the school system, hence I'm somewhat surprised that
18 the command of the 4th Corps with Mr. Arif Pasalic as the signatory of the
19 document who I know completed a military academy and does not have an
20 educational background, should write to an institution which, as far as I
21 know, did not exist. The staff of the supreme command -- I don't know
22 whether there was a Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports, which
23 would have been linked to the supreme command or it may have been
24 subordinated to the supreme command.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Boss?
1 MR. BOS: I don't think that the witness should speculate on what
2 Mr. Pasalic could do on the basis of this document. He doesn't have
3 knowledge on that.
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik?
5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I'm very sorry, Your Honours, that we
6 do not have the translation of the document, which was signed by Mr. Arif
7 Pasalic, the document in which he discusses the educational issues. That
8 is what is contained in the document. It was not the speculation on the
9 part of the witness.
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, since we don't have the translation at our
11 hands, you may ask several questions to lay the foundation of this
12 document first, then proceed with your questions.
13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Very well.
14 Q. Would you please tell us the date of the document?
15 A. 31st March, 1993. Only several days after my return from Rome
16 with Mr. Smajkic did the outbreak between the Muslims and Croats in Mostar
18 Q. Does this constitute direct interference and influence in the
19 army, that is the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in matters pertaining to
20 education and is this an imposition of school programmes?
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Bos?
22 MR. BOS: I object to the leading nature of this question.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik. Rephrase your question.
24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Very well.
25 Q. Can you explain for us, then, the contents of this document,
1 briefly, please? We are really pressed with time.
2 A. What surprises me here in this document is the fact that the
3 command of the 4th Corps of the BH Army, which does not have education
4 within its competences, should order to the Minister of Education what
5 they should do, that they should report to them what was going on in
6 Mostar. At least, that's what is written in the document.
7 Q. Very well. Can we have document 103 and 104 at the same time?
8 Would you please read both of them and make a joint comment on these two
9 documents? I believe that once we've heard the -- once we receive the
10 translation, the documents will speak for themselves.
11 Did you read both documents through?
12 A. No. This is a lengthy document indeed, and, you know, there is a
13 certain speed of reading which I cannot go beyond. From the part that I
14 was able to read, I could see that here, schools and school systems are
15 discussed by somebody who is not an expert in this area, how it functions,
16 et cetera, because once again, it is Mr. Arif Pasalic, the commander of
17 the 4th Corps that signed the document.
18 Q. Are you referring to document ID D1/103?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What is the date of the document?
21 A. 19th May [sic], 1993. In this document, the author entertains a
22 variety of statements that are not true, so in fact, I would have to go
23 through the document, sentence by sentence, to show to you that the facts
24 are not true. The second document I have to go on reading, the second
1 Q. We have a correction to make in the transcript. The witness said
2 19th of March, 1993 and not May. Would you please correct this? The date
3 of the document is 19th of March, 1993.
4 A. May I?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. This second document is in fact a continuation of the former.
7 Q. This is document ID D1/104, date?
8 A. March 23, 1993. Now, the same author, the commander of the 4th
9 Corps, signed as commander Mr. Pasalic.
10 Q. What does it say here?
11 A. It says the army of BIH, commander of the 4th Corps. Here he is
12 trying to describe the situation in -- at the university, which he is
13 evidently not familiar with. He describes the confiscation of the
14 university's property, who confiscated this, if we know that the
15 buildings, what was left after the Serb destruction was still there with
16 the same chancellor, with the same deans. Let me remind you that the
17 conflict between Bosniaks and Croats had not started yet on the 23rd of
18 March, 1993 in Mostar. What, however, I'm particularly surprised by, in
19 fact I'm not surprised by it because this really happened, because
20 Mr. Arif Pasalic in fact was the very person that tried to be the master
21 of the war there. In the last paragraph he says, I quote, "Not -- well
22 quite a few teachers are getting ready to reject further work in -- at the
23 university. It is very probable they will do it in an organised manner."
24 I wonder where the commander of the 4th Corps learned about the plans and
25 intentions of the university professors of Bosniak nationality.
1 Now, this date is the 23rd of March, 1993. Unfortunately,
2 however, this turned out to be true. It was then later on that it was
3 demanded from the university professors to withdraw from their posts at
4 the university. This happened later on, with the elementary school
5 teachers, the secondary school professors, but at the university level,
6 the other professors remained.
7 Q. Now, let us proceed to the last document, Prosecution document
8 P102 -- sorry, of the date of the document is November 12, 1991.
9 Prosecution document IC/2 [sic].
10 MR. BOS: It's IAC/2. The record reflects IC/2.
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Bos.
12 JUDGE LIU: Could the English version be put on the ELMO?
13 MR. KRSNIK: Do we have it? I have it. I will give it to you.
14 Here it is.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Could you tell us whether this is you? Are you
16 familiar with this document?
17 A. I'm not familiar with this document. I note that it does not
18 feature my signature. Now, why am I saying that this is not an authentic
19 document? With your permission, have a look at the preamble, where it
20 says, "The Croatian Democratic Union, the Travnik regional union," et
21 cetera, "the Herzegovina regional community, the Travnik regional
22 community." And then later on, Regional Crisis Staff for the Travnik
23 regional community is referred to.
24 Had this been an authentic document, had this been a document that
25 I could sign, then I certainly would have paid enough attention to the
1 fact that in administrative and legal terms, it be drafted correctly.
2 This is one thing to say.
3 Secondly, in this period, in November, 1991, I was the President
4 of the HVO, under my leadership of the civilian HVO -- no, actually this
5 is the year 1991. This is not the HVO. So I am the President of the
6 municipality in Grude and I have about 100 employees in my administration,
7 of which some ten were lawyers, and their job description included the
8 request that they keep minutes, to be those who will keep minutes, and
9 this can very clearly be seen from the documents.
10 As to the text, I did not analyse it in great detail but I cannot
11 recognise this document as my document.
12 Q. If by any coincidence you were the person who kept the minutes,
13 would you have signed it?
14 A. I probably would have signed it. As far as I can recall, from my
15 entry into the municipal administration, I was not the person who would
16 keep the records. There were people either at the municipal level or the
17 ministry level, when I had people who were knowledgeable in administration
18 matters, and they were those who made sure that this type of illiterate
19 document be drafted in an administrative and correspondence-related
21 Q. Another question. Mr. Maric, on the 17th of September, 1992, did
22 you visit Dr. Franjo Tudjman?
23 A. When?
24 Q. On the 17th of September, 1992.
25 A. I went to visit President Tudjman with certain delegations but
1 whether on that very same date I visited him as well, I would have to --
2 my memory would have to be refreshed through a document. At this point in
3 time, I couldn't tell you the exact date.
4 Q. I will now show you the document PT number 5. PT 5.
5 MR. KRSNIK: I have also the English version.
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Did you get the Croatian version?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did I show you this document before?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. This is a transcript?
12 A. I did not see it. May I be allowed some time to go through the
13 first few pages so as to refresh my memory?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Yes. On the basis of the first few pages, judging by the names
16 mentioned here, Mr. Brkic and some others whom I can recognise, and I'm
17 just going through the names of those who spoke, I also attended one
18 meeting where some of these people were also present. It might have been
19 September 17, 1992.
20 Q. Could you take page P5L, P/5L.
21 A. I found it.
22 Q. Here we can see your name -- family name. My first question,
23 would you read this through and tell us --
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Bos?
25 MR. BOS: Could we have the English version on the ELMO so that we
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 can follow?
2 JUDGE LIU: I think Mr. Usher is trying to find the right page.
3 MR. KRSNIK: I will tell you in the English version, it's page --
4 [Interpretation] Unfortunately, Your Honours, unfortunately, this text was
5 not translated into English in its entirety. I have just been warned
6 about that fact by my colleague. Your Honours, the entire translation of
7 the transcript into English was not brought in, only parts of the
8 translation were brought in. This page is page 9 in the English
9 transcript. It's a very short page.
10 Your Honours, let me just tell you this. In the English language,
11 you see this very short paragraph, while in the Croatian language, we have
12 three pages and a half of this text.
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that there are some experts on
14 translation in this Tribunal. They could verify the corresponding pages
15 of this translation. You may proceed with your question, Mr. Krsnik.
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Did you read it?
18 A. Can I have a few more moments?
19 Q. Can we proceed?
20 A. Just two more sentences, if I may.
21 Q. My first question, Mr. Maric. Did anybody tell you at any moment
22 in time that the discussion was taped?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you or anyone else ever get a copy of it?
25 A. No, I didn't get it.
1 Q. Is what is written here true?
2 A. I read it very quickly and on the basis of what I have testified
3 in this courtroom and upon a subtle analysis, one could see that this is
4 not my style. Therefore, I cannot sign it, endorse it, as an authentic
5 style of mine. It's a transcript, it's a recording which reflects my
6 opinions but I would never be able to authorise them as mine.
7 Q. Thank you very much, Witness. Thank you, Your Honours. This was
8 my last question.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, you took about 190 minutes in your
10 direct examination. You promised us to finish your direct examination in
11 90 minutes. The time you used doubled. I think this Trial Chamber has
12 the right to stop you, or cut you short, for the following witnesses in
13 the future.
14 Yes, Mr. Bos, your cross-examination.
15 MR. BOS: Thank you, Mr. President. If I may just organise
17 Cross-examined by Mr. Bos:
18 MR. BOS: Mr. President, we have a set of exhibits which we would
19 like to use in the cross-examination of this witness and can hand over the
20 copies of those exhibits right now.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
22 MR. BOS: There is one exhibit which is not in this binder, and
23 that's the exhibit I'd like to start off with, and I have it here. It's a
24 map of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
25 JUDGE LIU: Are you going to furnish us with this map? All we
1 have -- or we already have it.
2 MR. BOS: No, I have one map which is in colour and I have black
3 and white copies. I could furnish the black and white copies. And
4 perhaps we could put the colour copy on the ELMO.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please. Well, Mr. Bos, does this map have a
7 MR. BOS: I believe that this would be then Exhibit P906, if I'm
8 not mistaken. May I proceed?
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.
10 Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Who prepared this map? Who is the
12 author of this map and on what basis and grounds was it drafted?
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, this map only serves as a kind of
14 indicative purpose to facilitate the proceedings. It's not very important
15 unless later on you found it very essential to your case. You may raise
16 this issue.
17 Mr. Bos, you may proceed, please.
18 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the origin of the
19 map can be found in the right corner.
20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Judge Diarra.
21 MR. BOS: Thank you, Judge Diarra, that's correct. Indeed, and
22 in fact, it's a map which is produced by the Office of the Prosecutor from
23 our mapping department.
24 Q. Mr. Maric, good afternoon. My name is Roland Bos from the Office
25 of the Prosecutor and I'm going to ask you some questions in
1 cross-examination. I'd like to start off with this map and I think you
2 have already had a chance to familiarise yourself. Is it correct,
3 Mr. Maric, that this is a map of Bosnia-Herzegovina and -- with the
4 municipalities of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that the municipalities indicated
5 in the orange-red colour are in fact the municipalities that were included
6 in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, on the basis of the
7 establishment of Herceg-Bosna on 18 November, 1991?
8 A. And what are your specific questions?
9 Q. Well, I'll get to that. You've stated in your
10 examination-in-chief that all the municipalities of Herceg-Bosna comprised
11 of a majority of Croats; is that correct?
12 A. I do not understand your question.
13 Q. Is it true that the municipalities in Herceg-Bosna -- isn't it
14 true that you said that they were comprised of all the municipalities in
15 which the population on the basis of the 1991 census, comprised -- that
16 the municipalities comprised -- that each municipality of the Herceg-Bosna
17 had a majority of Croatian people?
18 A. I can here see a map, the external boundaries of which are the
19 recognised boundaries of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Furthermore, I can see
20 the section whose author I do not, which is in a different colour, and I
21 know that these municipalities here were, but not in their totality at
22 the meeting held on November 18, 1991, were merged into the Croat
23 Community Herceg-Bosna.
24 Q. Yes. And isn't it true that in your statements, you said that all
25 these municipalities, which are indicated here as the territory of the --
1 of the Community of Herceg-Bosna, that for each municipality, the majority
2 -- that the Croatian population in each of the municipalities had a
3 majority in that municipality? That's what you stated in your
4 examination-in-chief. Is that correct?
5 A. I would like us to go back. This is not true, because I am very
6 well familiar with the general structure of the population of these
7 municipalities. Kotor Varos, for example, and Kakanj, for these two
8 municipalities I know for sure that the Croatian population was not a
9 majority. And the same applies to the municipality of Jablanica.
10 Q. But in your examination-in-chief, you stated that all the
11 municipalities of Herceg-Bosna all had a majority of Croats. That's what
12 you stated in your examination-in-chief.
13 A. Over the last two, three hours, I know more or less what I said,
14 but I was certainly -- I didn't put it that way, or maybe it was not
15 interpreted properly.
16 Q. Now, isn't it true that Herceg-Bosna consisted of 28
18 A. I wouldn't know it, the number of the municipalities off the cuff.
19 Q. All right. Well, what would you say to this statement, that if I
20 say that the Herceg-Bosna had 28 municipalities and of those 28
21 municipalities, there were only 12 municipalities where the Croatian
22 population had an absolute majority, meaning that more than 50 per cent of
23 the population was Croat? Four of those 28 municipalities, there was a
24 relative majority of the Croats, meaning there was -- the majority was
25 Croat but not an absolute majority. And 12 of these municipalities, there
1 wasn't neither an absolute majority or a relative majority of Croatian
2 population. Would you agree with that?
3 A. Well, I know that in the municipality of Jablanica, which had
4 12.000 inhabitants, there were 2.000 or so Croats. The Skender Vakuf
5 municipality had, I think, 25 inhabitants and 4.000 to 5 and a half
6 thousand Croats. All these municipalities can be discussed and compared
7 in these terms, the municipalities you're asking me about.
8 Q. The statement I just put to you, would you agree with this, that
9 on the basis of the 1991 census, that there were, as I just said, only 12
10 municipalities with an absolute majority and four with a relative majority
11 of Croatian people and 12 where there wasn't any majority? Would you
12 agree with that statement?
13 A. I would have to look at the statistical data once again. I'm not
14 an expert in statistics and I'm not a lawyer either. You could see from
15 my previous testimony that I was involved in linguistic and educational
16 matters in general. These are the issues that I don't feel competent
17 enough to talk about.
18 Q. Now, you testified on three exhibits of the Defence which were
19 Exhibits D1/95, 96, and 97, which -- if those documents could be placed in
20 front of the witness again. Now, Witness, I don't have an English
21 translation of this document so it's a bit difficult for me to work with
22 this, but you explained this document -- let me first ask you. Was this
23 the first time that you saw this document, when it was shown to you in
24 court? Did you have any prior knowledge of this document?
25 A. Yes, because within my ministry, the regional or Zupanija
1 ministry, I have a whole range of documents which were brought by the
2 students who had in the meantime changed schools, and all of them who had
3 come either from Republika Srpska or some Bosniak schools, had to bring
4 with them all the documents when moving to a new school and these old
5 documents as it is customary are then examined and then stored in the
6 files, and if necessary, the appropriate inspection is done and again if
7 necessary, the documents are being approved as acceptable. That is, the
8 document is valid enough and meets the relevant criteria as they are in
9 accordance with the school programme.
10 There weren't such documents from the area of Republika Srpska or
11 the area which -- areas which were under the Bosniak control -- excuse
12 me. There are such documents coming from both areas. And regardless of
13 whether they are from elementary schools or secondary schools, they were
14 -- they had to be approved as valid for us, and that was the case with
15 these documents here.
16 Q. If I may interrupt you, Witness, because the point I want to make
17 is if we look at -- well, any document. Let's put the first one. I don't
18 know if you have D1/95 in front of you. Which municipality is mentioned
19 on this document?
20 A. No mention is made of the municipality of the school in question.
21 The town of Zenica is mentioned here. I don't know whether it comprises
22 one or more municipalities, so that goes -- this is as far as Zenica is
23 concerned. We have the place of birth of the student, as far as I can
24 see, and also -- yes, only the place of birth, which is the municipality
25 of Zenica. So I'm making a different distinction here between --
1 Q. Would you agree that this is probably a document which comes from
2 a school in the municipality of Zenica?
3 A. Yes, yes. That is obvious.
4 Q. That's the only thing I wanted to know. My next question is: Did
5 the municipality of Zenica, did that fall within the territory of the
6 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?
7 A. No.
8 Q. That's all I wanted to know. Thank you. Now, would be -- I'd
9 like to ask you some questions about your political views, and first of
10 all, do you remember -- and I'm going back now to the 2nd of February,
11 1992. Do you remember that a meeting was held by the Croatian Democratic
12 Community in Siroki Brijeg? And this is the period just before the
13 referendum. Do you recall that meeting? And the meeting was discussing
14 the Croatian position on the referendum on the independence of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Maybe to refresh your memory a bit more, the meeting
16 was chaired by Mr. Stjepan Kljujic, who was then the President of the HDZ,
17 and it was also attended by a high-ranking delegation from the Republic of
18 Croatia headed by Stjepan Mesic. Do you recall that meeting and were you
19 present at that meeting?
20 A. I did attend that meeting. I remember this meeting, not in
21 detail, though, because it was a long time ago, but generally speaking, I
22 know about this meeting and I remember attending it.
23 Q. Do you recall what was your political opinion on the functioning
24 of Mr. Kljujic as president of the HDZ at that time?
25 A. Yes. Mr. Kljujic and myself had opposing political views on
1 certain issues.
2 Q. Can you be a -- elaborate a bit on that? What was the difference
3 in opinion?
4 A. I think that the basis of our political differences can be summed
5 as follows: Mr. Kljujic, for reasons unknown to me, changed his political
6 views from the time he became the President of the HDZ until this date,
7 and his views and positions were not consistent with the political
8 programme and platform of the HDZ of Bosnia-Herzegovina, although he was
9 the leader of the party. What I didn't accept, and what I objected to
10 politically speaking was the fact that we could not accept an unitary
11 Bosnia and Herzegovina of a democratic type -- of the civic type
12 especially at the time that it was already clear that the Serbs had
13 conducted an aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina and one could feel
14 in the air that Ravno would not be the last place of attack but that we
15 could expect many more.
16 So in the eve of the war, which according to what had happened in
17 Vukovar, could be expected to be worse and more serious, it was an
18 illusion to speak about peaceful solutions while warmongering was going
19 on, and it was [indiscernible] to accept an unitary concept of Bosnia and
20 Herzegovina. I presented them with my views, my concept of a
21 decentralised Bosnia and Herzegovina, and during the political
22 negotiations which were supposed to be led by Mr. Kljujic and others who
23 occupied even higher political and administrative posts than myself, I
24 advocated the position that it was necessary to clearly articulate the
25 position of the Croatian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina, because that
1 segment of the population in Bosnia and Herzegovina, both during the old
2 Yugoslavia and the socialist Yugoslavia was marginalised and discriminated
3 against. After the democratic elections which were given the kind of
4 support as they were, I expressed my position to Mr. Kljujic that the
5 electorate which in -- which -- in large percentages voted for the HDZ,
6 that he should expect a different kind of political attitude, a different
7 kind of political behaviour.
8 Q. And Mr. Maric, was your opinion shared by many of the party
9 members from the Herceg-Bosna region, your political views on this?
10 A. I cannot speak about percentages, but I can tell you my personal
11 opinion. Also I think I can tell you what my impression was and what my
12 knowledge at the time was.
13 Q. Sorry, I'm going to interrupt you because the question was quite
14 clear. I mean, were the party members from the Herceg-Bosna region, did
15 they share your view? That was the question and I think you should try to
16 answer a bit more summarily if possible, also for the time considerations.
17 A. I will. First of all, the Croatian Democratic Union, the Croatian
18 Community of -- the HDZ did only concern the Croatian community of
19 Herceg-Bosna in at that meeting in Siroki Brijeg. The meeting was
20 attended by the representatives of the party coming from Bihac, Banja
21 Luka, Tuzla, that is the area which went beyond the boundaries of HDZ HB.
22 Obviously, the views expressed differed. However, for the most part,
23 and which would later become apparent at various congresses of the party,
24 was against -- that they were against the concept which was advocated by
25 Mr. Kljujic, a concept which I myself opposed as well.
1 Q. Isn't it true, Mr. Maric, that during that meeting, several
2 Bosnian Croats and I'm talking about the ones from the Herceg-Bosna region
3 openly accused Stjepan Kljujic for being a traitor of the Croatian
4 interests because he cooperated with the Muslim parties and brought the
5 Croats into an inferior position? Isn't that the type of accusations that
6 were made to Mr. Kljujic?
7 A. That was a political debate, which had a certain amount of
8 emotional impact and influence. Very often the words themselves, the heat
9 of the discussion, could also be inappropriate or exaggerated. However,
10 Mr. Kljujic remained in his position of the president of the HDZ of Bosnia
11 and Herzegovina. As for disagreements and differences, they remained
12 within the framework of a political debate or discussion, and the same
13 goes for Mr. Kljujic and myself. However, you're not right when you say
14 that this was a problem which involved disagreements as to the positions
15 of the HDZ and Kljujic's position towards other political parties in
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Bosnian population in general. We were
17 very clear --
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Bos.
19 MR. BOS: I'd like to make one more statement on this.
20 Q. Because isn't it true that in this political debate that you were
21 having in Siroki Brijeg that you literally said to Mr. Kljujic that
22 the Croatian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina refused to be ruled by the Turks
23 for another 500 years? Are those your literal words said at that
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I should like to know
2 about the foundation for this question. Is Mr. Bos reading from a
3 document? Does he have any specific document or a transcript from the
4 meeting? Where do these questions spring from?
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, we come across this issue many
6 times. I believe that the Prosecution, in his cross-examination, will ask
7 a question to this witness. If the witness did not remember what he said,
8 then the Prosecution will furnish a document to refresh his memory. Let's
9 hear the witness first.
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me remind you that
11 I was not in the same position during my cross-examinations. I was
12 required to provide the same explanation. I will prepare myself. I will
13 read the transcript, and I will compose a written motion containing
14 references to all your relevant decisions, as to the behaviour of the
15 parties during the cross-examination, especially in view of the fact that
16 we are receiving documents at the last notice.
17 JUDGE LIU: Your point will be.
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I will expose my views in writing.
19 JUDGE LIU: Your point will be taken but we have to hear the
20 witness first.
21 MR. BOS:
22 Q. Witness, could you answer my question? Did you say that the
23 Croatian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina refused to be ruled by the Turks
24 tore another 500 years at that meeting in Siroki Brijeg?
25 A. I know that I was very emotional during that meeting. You have to
1 take into account my profession. I'm an art historian. I know very well
2 who lives in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I know that no Turks live in
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina but Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs. So at the heat of the
4 debate, I may have used emotional language but I should like to have the
5 transcript. It was not customary for me to communicate in this manner
6 during such meetings. It was customary for me at all to offend the
7 Muslim people and to use derogatory terms and I also hold in deep respects
8 the Turkish people as well. I'm aware of the nuances. I'm aware of the
9 sensitivity of the language and I should be reminded exactly of what
10 happened on the 2nd of February if I'm not mistaken in 1992. Is that --
11 is that the date that you or, rather, the meeting that you had in mind?
12 So ten years down the road, I think that I can speak about the atmosphere
13 in general but I cannot be required to recall the specific language that I
14 allegedly used and that you are now quoting in such express terms.
15 MR. BOS: I will leave it there for now, Your Honour. Maybe just
16 for counsel, this is taken from the transcript of Stjepan Kljujic which is
17 one of our transcript witnesses and he's referring to this meeting.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Well, you see, Your Honours, that I
20 am right in my position. It would have been appropriate for the
21 Prosecutor to lay the relevant foundation and say that Mr. Kljujic, in his
22 testimony, said words to the effect so and so.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well --
24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I shall refrain from any further
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE LIU: Me too. Me neither will say anything about that. We
2 are five minutes over the time.
3 Witness, I'm afraid we have to keep you over the weekend here in
4 The Hague and I have to warn you, as I did to other witnesses, that you
5 are still under the oath during this period, so do not talk to anybody
6 about your testimony and do not let anybody talk to you about it. Do you
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We will resume next Monday.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.53 p.m., to
11 be reconvened on Monday, the 15th day of April,
12 2002, at 9.00 a.m.