1 Monday, 10 June 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.

5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Registrar.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number

7 IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Naletilic and Martinovic.

8 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, are you ready for your next witness?

9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour, yes, as

10 always, I'm ready for my next witness. It is the last background witness,

11 who will also cover areas covered by the indictment. And we are ready to

12 begin. Thank you.

13 JUDGE LIU: Are there any protective measures for this witness,

14 Mr. Krsnik?

15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

17 Could we have the witness, please? Yes, Mr. Meek?

18 MR. MEEK: Yes, Mr. President, Your Honours, for the record the

19 Defence of Mr. Naletilic and Mr. Martinovic would like to say happy

20 birthday to our Madam Registrar, Krystal Thompson and happy birthday to

21 Mr. Douglas Stringer who both share the same birthday, that being today.

22 Thank you.

23 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you.

25 [The witness entered court].

1 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, Witness. Can you hear me?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you.

3 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration in

4 accordance with the paper the usher is showing to you?

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

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

7 WITNESS: IVIC PASALIC

8 [Witness answered through interpreter]

9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.

10 Mr. Krsnik. I hope you could keep the momentum you had last week

11 for this witness.

12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Since last week,

13 our examinations are becoming increasingly concrete in line with the

14 indictment and we will continue to maintain that course.

15 Examined by Mr. Krsnik:

16 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness.

17 A. Good afternoon.

18 Q. May I give you a few pieces of advice so that we can carry out

19 this examination-in-chief smoothly? First of all, you see in front of you

20 a screen with the transcript, and you will see a dot moving on the

21 screen. So please pay attention, when the printing stops, then it would

22 be best for you to begin your answer. As we speak the same language, and

23 it needs to be translated into English and French so there should be no

24 overlapping between us. You are testifying according to your own wish in

25 public. Should there be any questions on my part or on the part of the

1 Prosecution that you feel you cannot answer in an open session, there is

2 the institution of a so-called private session. Then you can address

3 yourself to Their Honours and we will go into private session so that the

4 public will not be able to follow. Those are just some general

5 instructions for you.

6 A. Thank you.

7 Q. Would you please introduce yourself very briefly to the Court?

8 Where you were born, your educational background, a brief CV up to 1990,

9 please.

10 A. Your Honours, I was born in 1960 in a location called Suica in

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Ten years later my family moved to Zagreb, where I

12 completed my elementary and secondary schooling and the school of

13 medicine. In 1986, I served in the then Yugoslav People's Army. After

14 that I worked as a medical doctor in a hospital which is some 50

15 kilometres from Zagreb. That was up to 1990.

16 Q. Now we come to the second part of your CV, with a democratic

17 changes that occurred in 1990 and 1991, so you can tell us the positions

18 that you held and are still holding.

19 A. I became a member of the Croatian democratic union. The party

20 that won at the first elections in Croatia, at the end of 1989, the

21 beginning of 1990, when -- that is in 1990, I was elected deputy to the

22 first parliamentary session after the multi-party elections, and since

23 then, I have been elected to parliament for four mandates. In 1992, I was

24 appointed Secretary-General or rather president of the executive board of

25 the HDZ. In 1993, I -- in September, I became adviser for foreign policy

1 to President Tudjman, a position I held until the President's death.

2 Today, I am a member of the Croatian parliament or Sabor.

3 JUDGE LIU: Well, witness for the sake of the record would you

4 please identify yourself?

5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. That's my

6 mistake.

7 Q. You forgot to mention your name, please.

8 A. I do apologise. I am Dr. Ivic Pasalic, and everything I have said

9 is my curriculum vitae.

10 Q. Let us start with some introductory questions. Let me ask you

11 what I always try to do in my examinations. That is I will insist on your

12 direct knowledge. Things that you personally witnessed or heard or saw.

13 So though my questions will focus on those things, if you do not have

14 direct knowledge, then it is the custom of this Court to accept hearsay

15 evidence as well, but then we have to indicate who is the source, who is

16 the person you heard something from. So my introductory question would

17 be: What was the constitutional order in the Republic of Croatia

18 immediately after its independence in the period 1992-94, therefore?

19 A. After the first elections in Croatia in 1990, the Republic of

20 Croatia was quickly, after that, internationally recognised, and a

21 constitution was adopted according to which Croatia was defined as a

22 country with a semi-presidential constitutional system. So that power was

23 shared, as in all western countries, divided into executive and

24 legislative, and the main pillar of the executive was the government of

25 the Republic of Croatia and the president of the Republic of Croatia in

1 person. That is as far as the executive is concerned?

2 As for the legislative, as for all parliamentary democracies the

3 parliament is the main legislative body in the country. International

4 agreements were approved in parliament. Parliament always debated key

5 issues for the state. In those days, the Croatian parliament was

6 bicameral so that important issues were discussed in both chambers and in

7 view of the difficulties of the times, every effort was made in parliament

8 when the most important issues were on the agenda, to achieve a consensus

9 among all the parliamentary parties, all the parties represented in

10 parliament.

11 Q. Which decisions could the President make independently and a

12 subquestion to that, who created and implemented foreign policy?

13 A. According to the constitution of the Republic of Croatia.

14 Q. Excuse me, Mr. Pasalic, please slow down a little bit?

15 A. According to the Croatian constitution, it was clearly defined

16 what the powers of the President of the Republic were. He could

17 independently make a very limited number of decisions. In most cases

18 these were decisions that were made upon the proposal of the government of

19 the Republic of Croatia or decisions which needed to be confirmed in

20 parliament. For example, the President of the Republic would nominate the

21 Prime Minister, but for him to really become the Prime Minister he needed

22 to win the majority -- the approval of the majority in parliament. Or the

23 President of the Republic had the authority to appoint ambassadors but

24 those proposals needed to come from the ministry or rather the Minister of

25 Foreign Affairs. So that there was virtually no decision that the

1 President of the Republic could make autonomously and independently

2 without it having to be approved, either in parliament or that proposal

3 coming in the prior procedure from the government or from the appropriate

4 ministry. With respect to foreign policy, again, pursuant to the

5 constitution of the Republic of Croatia, the President of the Republic had

6 those powers and the government of the Republic of Croatia. The

7 government as such, and within the framework of the government, the

8 Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

9 Q. Mr. Pasalic, you were a close associate of the late President

10 Tudjman?

11 A. Yes. I was a close associate of President Tudjman and I worked

12 for him as a councillor ever since September, 1993, until the President's

13 death. Before that, I was active in my party, I began collaborating

14 closely with the President in his capacity then as president of the party.

15 Q. I have asked you this question because it has been suggested by

16 the Prosecution in this courtroom that President Tudjman was a dictator.

17 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stringer?

18 MR. STRINGER: It's not so, Your Honour we have no position on

19 that issue which is really not relevant to these proceedings, his status.

20 It's our position he was President of the Republic of Croatia.

21 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik --

22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Very well, I'll withdraw that

23 question. But then I don't understand, Your Honours, why articles are

24 being produced based on certain allegedly independent sources and then

25 witnesses are asked questions about that. For instance, such a question

1 was put to witness Kovac on the basis of an article in a daily newspaper

2 but never mind, we'll forget that question and I'm glad to hear the

3 position of the Prosecution. So let's move on.

4 Q. Who, in the Republic of Croatia, according to your knowledge, was

5 able to make a decision or had the authority to decide on sending Croatian

6 Army members in an organised manner to another state with the aim of

7 engaging in war operations? The Croatian Army going to the territory of

8 another country to do that, who had such authority?

9 A. Such a decision, according to the Croatian constitution, could

10 only have been made by the parliament of the Republic of Croatia or the

11 Sabor.

12 Q. Tell me, please, was such a decision ever adopted in the Croatian

13 Sabor? And more specifically, the decision for the Republic of Croatia or

14 rather the Croatian Army to take a direct part in the conflict in

15 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

16 A. Such a decision was never made by the Croatian parliament, to send

17 Croatian Army troops outside the territory of Croatia or to engage in any

18 kind of activities outside the borders of the Republic of Croatia.

19 Q. And if the President of the Republic were to make such a decision

20 would it be contrary to the constitution? Would that be a violation of

21 the constitutional order? And who would in such a case, let us assume,

22 let us take -- let us accept a hypothesis that the President may have made

23 such a decision?

24 A. Such a decision would be anti-constitutional in the first place,

25 and for violating the constitution, one is held accountable by the

1 constitutional court and there is no doubt that a reaction would have been

2 provoked either by the government of the Republic of Croatia or the Sabor

3 as a whole, and in particular, any political party, especially the

4 opposition parties, which, as in all democracies, monitors closely what

5 the government is doing, especially should it make any serious omissions

6 or act contrary to the constitution. As far as I'm aware, there was never

7 any proceedings conducted in the constitutional court to investigate any

8 decision made by the President of the Republic that would be contrary to

9 the constitution of the Republic of Croatia.

10 Q. And did the Sabor have a debate on this issue?

11 A. There was never any debate in parliament on any instance of

12 violations of the constitution by the President of the Republic.

13 Q. And tell me, please, did the Sabor adopt any conclusions, to your

14 knowledge, with respect to the behaviour of the Republic of Croatia in

15 relation to Bosnia-Herzegovina?

16 A. On several occasions, there was a debate in parliament on this

17 issue, and the latest such debate was in the beginning of January in

18 1991. And the -- I'm sorry, 2001. And in view of the changed conditions

19 a declaration was adopted by consensus in parliament in which it is

20 explicitly stated that the Republic of Croatia never engaged in any kind

21 of aggressive war, nor did it commit aggression against any other state.

22 In fact, it was emphasised that the Republic of Croatia engaged in a

23 defensive war.

24 Q. It's the declaration on the homeland war of the 13th of October,

25 2000. I have provided Their Honours with a copy of this declaration. Do

1 you have -- are you aware that President Tudjman supervised or designated

2 anyone in the Republic of Croatia to directly interfere in the military

3 operations and activities of the Croatian Army?

4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stringer?

5 MR. STRINGER: Object to the leading question, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, you have to rephrase your question.

7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I will rephrase it.

8 Q. Are you aware that President Tudjman may have directly designated

9 someone to supervise or plan operations of the Croatian Army?

10 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, it's the same question, you know.

11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE LIU: You have to put your question another way.

13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly. Maybe I'll leave it

14 out. It doesn't occur to me how to put it in more general terms.

15 Q. Do you know whether anyone --

16 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Krsnik, just say to him generally what was

17 President Tudjman's position in relation to the Croatian Army?

18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

19 Q. You have heard the question. So please answer it, if you can.

20 A. In relation to the Croatian Army --

21 Q. Yes. What was his position in relation to the Croatian Army?

22 A. The President of the Republic is the Commander-in-Chief of the

23 Croatian Army, according to the constitution, and as such, he had all the

24 powers stipulated by the law and the constitution. In the chain of

25 command, he was the Minister of the Defence and the Chief of the Main

1 Staff, but the operative command authority was in the hands of the

2 President of the Republic and the Chief of the Main Staff. The President

3 of the Republic, pursuant to the constitution and the law, appointed

4 officers, relieved officers, gave decorations, awards. That was more or

5 less the position of the President in relation to the Croatian Army.

6 Q. How were ranks awarded, according to your own knowledge, ranks in

7 the Croatian Army?

8 A. As an adviser for home policy, I was not responsible for those

9 matters, nor did I -- was I involved in those activities. All I know is

10 that that was the responsibility of other people in the first place of the

11 Minister of Defence, and the staff of the President's military cabinet.

12 The procedure of awarding of ranks is regulated by the constitution and

13 the law, and concisely, upon the proposal of the Chief of Staff or the

14 Defence Minister, the President of the Republic would issue a decree on

15 military appointments and the awarding of ranks, especially high-level

16 officers' ranks. I don't know about the lower ranks, lower level ranks.

17 Q. Now, tell me now, generally, the position of President Tudjman as

18 the Commander-in-Chief in relation to Bosnia-Herzegovina? I hope this is

19 not leading now.

20 A. I have nothing to say about that, as Bosnia-Herzegovina is another

21 state, and the President of the Republic of Croatia had no authority in

22 relation to that state.

23 Q. Did he interfere in any way in the activities of the HVO?

24 A. No, none whatsoever.

25 Q. Mr. Pasalic, as far as you are aware, did the Republic of Croatia

1 directly and in a decisive manner participate in the conflict between the

2 HVO and the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

3 A. The Republic of Croatia did not in any way take part, never mind

4 in a decisive manner in the conflicts in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This

5 conflict or any other conflict that may have occurred in

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Quite on the contrary, the policies of the

7 Republic of Croatia and the policies of President Tudjman, was to

8 establish and promote peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina, to halt the war, to

9 stop the suffering, for a whole series of reasons. In any war, and

10 especially in that war, there were very high casualties. This

11 destabilised the entire region. The Republic of Croatia had direct and

12 indirect damages due to everything that was happening, through the

13 Republic of Croatia, hundreds of thousands of refugees from

14 Bosnia-Herzegovina passed. The wounded from Bosnia-Herzegovina were

15 treated in Croatian hospitals regardless of whether they were Croats or

16 Muslims. So it was in the interests of the Republic of Croatia that peace

17 be restored in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

18 Q. Let me continue with this group of questions and ask you very

19 concretely and very directly whether you have any knowledge as to whether

20 the Republic of Croatia may have participated in the planning and the

21 supervision of military operations in the conflict that took place in

22 Bosnia-Herzegovina, although we already discussed that issue. Do you know

23 if there was a decision made at any point in time about sending the

24 Croatian Army to Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to participate in

25 conflicts with Muslims and take territories in Bosnia-Herzegovina that

1 would subsequently belong exclusively to the Croats from Bosnia and

2 Herzegovina?

3 A. According to my knowledge, the Republic of Croatia never prepared

4 or planned or supervised any military operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

5 And secondly, never did the Republic of Croatia plan or implement any

6 military operations against or towards Bosnia and Herzegovina in the way

7 you put it, in order to occupy an area or to win it exclusively for the

8 Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina. So these two allegations are absolutely --

9 cannot be -- I cannot confirm.

10 Q. Were there any special relations between the Republic of Croatia

11 and the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially with regard to the

12 provisions of the constitution of the Republic of Croatia? Was there any

13 exclusivity in the relations between the Republic of Croatia and the

14 Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

15 A. According to the constitution of the Republic of Croatia I believe

16 it's Article 10 of the Croatian constitution, the Republic of Croatia is

17 obliged to look after Croats who live outside Croatia, and especially of

18 those Croats who are particularly threatened. The Croats in Bosnia and

19 Herzegovina, together with the Republic of Croatia for that matter, were

20 the victims of the greatest Serbian aggression. They went through all

21 sorts of suffering. And in that sense, the Republic of Croatia did look

22 after them by sending them humanitarian aid, by looking after them, after

23 those who were expelled from their homes, and this was the type of

24 relationship and the type of assistance that was given to them.

25 Q. Do you know how many Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina live in

1 the Republic of Croatia, who were born in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

2 A. There are different statistical sources but the rough number is

3 about 300.000 to 350.000 people altogether.

4 Q. Do you know why the international negotiations about Bosnia and

5 Herzegovina involved the late Franjo Tudjman? Why did he participate in

6 these negotiations?

7 A. There is a whole number of reasons, and the key reason.

8 Q. I have to warn you, we have another translation -- interpretation

9 into French for the honourable Judge Diarra, so can you please slow down

10 for the sake of that translation?

11 A. So the key reason for which President Tudjman participated in the

12 peace negotiations about the resolution of the crisis in Bosnia and

13 Herzegovina was at the request by the international community. The second

14 reason was that the Republic of Croatia, as a state, was interested in the

15 restoration of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The third reason was that

16 the Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina very often in these negotiations

17 gave President Tudjman the power of attorney to negotiate on their

18 behalf. All of these three reasons could be explained at length.

19 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Krsnik can I interrupt and ask a question that's

20 troubling me at this stage? This witness was a very young doctor in 1992

21 and 1993. You haven't laid any foundation as to how he is now giving

22 evidence to us, how he's qualified to talk about what President Tudjman's

23 military operations were. We -- I'm becoming increasingly disturbed about

24 the testimony which he's giving which sounds like he's an expert on

25 constitutional law, on military law and the military relations between the

1 two parties. Perhaps you can put my mind at ease on that. For instance,

2 what did Dr. Pasalic actually advise Dr. Tudjman on in 1992 and 1993? It

3 could have been on the health situation or setting up of hospitals for all

4 we know.

5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Clark, we will

6 come to all that and we will give you the foundation for this testimony,

7 because Mr. Pasalic was a close associate for eight years of President

8 Tudjman's and he spent -- he would spend entire days working along with

9 President Tudjman. I attended a number of meetings with international

10 participation, meetings at a local level, and if there is anybody who is

11 to give evidence on that, it is Dr. Pasalic. That's why the Defence has

12 asked Dr. Pasalic to come here and to clarify some issues. He is the

13 person who has the foundations to testify about that. He interrupted his

14 medical career in 1992, when he became the Secretary-General of the HDZ

15 and in 1993, the closest associate of the late president and he discharged

16 this duty every day, day in, day out, for the following eight years.

17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stringer?

18 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President we are grateful for counsel's

19 clarification. We share the views expressed by Judge Clark about the

20 foundation for what the witness is testifying about. I don't have any

21 reason to disagree with the resume that's just been given by Mr. Krsnik

22 but I suggest that we do need to it hear about this from the witness

23 rather than in the form of testimony from Mr. Krsnik. The witness really

24 hasn't told us any of the things about himself that we just heard from

25 Mr. Krsnik.

1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik, you may ask some specific questions

2 concerning those issues.

3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honours, but I

4 thought that Dr. Pasalic's CV was clear enough, what he said in the

5 introduction, but obviously we can ask him a few questions about that.

6 Q. All these things we have discussed so far, and that we are going

7 to discuss from now on, where did you get all this knowledge from? Is

8 this your personal knowledge, you've heard Judge Clark and you have heard

9 the Prosecutor. So can you clarify that for us?

10 A. Certainly, with pleasure. As I've already stated, in 1990, I was

11 elected deputy in the Croatian parliament, the Sabor, and ever since, I

12 have participated in the political life of Croatia. In 1992, in September

13 of 1992, I was appointed the President of the executive board of the HDZ.

14 That is a duty which corresponds to the duty of the general secretary --

15 Secretary-General of a party, and I cooperated closely, day in, day out,

16 with President Tudjman, because besides being the President of the state,

17 he was also the President of the party. In that capacity, I participated

18 in a number of meetings and from 1993, the September of 1993, onwards, I

19 discharged the duty of the adviser on home affairs, on internal affairs,

20 and in that capacity, I cooperated with President Tudjman on a daily

21 basis, until his death.

22 Q. How many personal meetings did you have, eye to eye, with the

23 President, and in how many -- at how many meetings did you participate

24 during that period of seven to eight years?

25 A. It's very difficult for me to give you the number of these

1 meetings that I had with President Tudjman. There must have been hundreds

2 or thousands of meetings, because every day I would spend 12 days in the

3 office, sometimes even longer, so I would very often meet with

4 President Tudjman and those meetings were daily, regular operational

5 meetings. Some of them were shorter, some of them took longer so during

6 that period of eight years there must have been thousands of such

7 meetings. As regards official meetings, I believe that I have attended

8 hundreds of them. I have never counted them. I have never maintained any

9 statistics, but I know that there were a number of these meetings.

10 Q. Besides attending these meetings personally, in any capacity,

11 either as an active participant or a passive participant, you also had

12 confidential meetings and talks with the late president and discussed

13 various issues. Can you tell us something about that?

14 A. My duty was such that I had to discuss confidential issues with

15 the late president very often. These were the issues of the most

16 confidential nature and they pertained to my duties as the adviser for the

17 home affairs and on the other hand, the procedures and the manner of work

18 in the Office of the President were such that every day we would lunch

19 together so this was a very -- lunch organised in a close, intimate circle

20 of associates and it was always a working lunch, and this is where we

21 discussed various issues, exchanged information. So that it was only

22 logical that as the adviser for internal affairs, I was briefed on a

23 number of issues.

24 JUDGE CLARK: Can I ask you something, Dr. Pasalic, just to put

25 my mind at ease while I'm listening to this evidence. In 1993 and 1994,

1 were you a frequent attender when the events in Herzegovina especially

2 that's what we are interested in, Herzegovina, were raised by the

3 President with Mr. Susak, the late minister for defence? Would you have

4 been a regular attender at those meetings?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did attend some of these meetings.

6 I can't say that I was at all of these meetings, because the President of

7 the Republic had the -- made a note of all of these meetings and he

8 invited to these meetings the officials that he wanted to invite, and it

9 is very hard for me to say, to give you the percentage of these meetings

10 that I attended, but, yes, I did attend a number, a certain number of

11 these meetings.

12 JUDGE CLARK: Can I ask you a further question, Dr. Pasalic? When

13 the late President Tudjman had meetings with generals from the army and

14 with Mr. Susak, would it be normal for you also to be included in the list

15 of attendees at those meetings when they were talking about the progress

16 or otherwise of the war?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When it comes to military issues, I

18 was a rarely invited to such meetings. Sometimes I would be attending

19 such meetings but that was rarely.

20 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Krsnik, I think you understand my concerns, that

21 the type of evidence this witness is giving when he is clearly not an

22 expert on those matters. Perhaps you would confine his evidence to the

23 areas that he is totally at home with and he would have been a special

24 adviser to Dr. Tudjman on.

25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, maybe we should clarify

1 matters completely. I shall ask questions instead of giving testimony.

2 Q. Regardless of the fact whether you attended these meetings or not,

3 did the President discuss things with you? Did he inform you about the

4 things which happened at the meetings? Did he confide in you? Did he ask

5 for your opinion regardless of the type of the meetings? In your daily

6 contacts, that is?

7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stringer?

8 MR. STRINGER: Your Honour, I was going to object to the first

9 part of that string of questions, as leading. I think that there are some

10 aspects which are leading but I think I can just withdraw it and allow the

11 witness to go ahead, to try to frame an answer.

12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, let's hear what the witness is going to tell us.

13 Witness, you may answer that question put by the Defence counsel.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So when it comes to the important

15 political issues, and the issues of the state policy, as I have already

16 said, I had a number of working meetings with President Tudjman, very many

17 tete-a-tete meetings, and as regards important issues, even the issues

18 which fell beyond the scope of my advisory duty, I was informed to the

19 extent it was needed, i.e. to the extent to which it was important for me

20 to know about the most important things that were happening in the state.

21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Let me move on. You have heard the doubts about -- as to what

23 specific questions you should be asked. So let me be more concrete and

24 tell you, and ask you that if you do not have any personal knowledge, you

25 can tell us, "No, I don't have." If you do, please tell us, "Yes, I was

1 attending such and such meeting or I discussed the issue with the late

2 president." So let's be more specific. Did you personally or in any of

3 your conversations with the late president, could say something about the

4 allegation that we heard here in the courtroom and that is that President

5 Tudjman, the HDZ and even the Republic of Croatia determined positions,

6 run political moves, of the HZ HB or the HR HB?

7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stringer.

8 MR. STRINGER: I object to the question as leading, Mr. President.

9 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, I believe that you have to take this

10 witness step by step.

11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I don't know why my direct

12 examination is being interrupted so often today. I have invited this

13 witness because of the position that he has held, and I wanted to -- him

14 to be my last background witness, because this witness has a lot of

15 knowledge about what happened in the late President Tudjman's office,

16 things that are very often referred to in this courtroom. If my questions

17 have been leading, I'm going to rephrase them.

18 Q. So let me ask you this: According to your knowledge, did anybody

19 have any influence on the political or any other issues in the HZ HB or HR

20 HB?

21 A. As far as I know, the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who were

22 organised either as the HZ HB and later on HR HB, and their key top

23 officials who discharged various duties were absolutely autonomous in

24 their decisions, be it the personnel decisions or political decisions. In

25 some crisis situations, situations of the peace negotiations, I remember

1 that on several occasions, representatives of the international community

2 asked President Tudjman to exert his influence on the personnel changes

3 because they considered some people unacceptable, either because of the

4 fact that they were contaminated by the war events or they were perceived

5 as the persons who provoked the opposite side, and it is only in this

6 context that one can talk about a certain influence that the President of

7 the Republic of Croatia had. I know several such examples but in all of

8 these cases, it was only the matter of the President putting forth his

9 opinion, his position, which only served to speed up the peace process in

10 Bosnia and Herzegovina, but even under these circumstances, he did not

11 have any power to order somebody to do something. That was absolutely

12 impossible. But due to the fact that the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina

13 respected President Tudjman as a person, that they trusted him, that in

14 the peace negotiations he very often had their mandate to negotiate on

15 their behalf, his proposals and his opinions were accepted as such in

16 several situations that I'm aware of.

17 Q. Do you know anything about the resignation of Mr. Mate Boban and

18 what brought to that resignation? Do you have any personal knowledge?

19 A. What I personally know about that is that in the early 1994, Mate

20 Boban resigned from the duties that he had discharged up to then. In a

21 conversation with the President, and in a conversation with some

22 international representatives at some meetings that I attended, Mr. Boban

23 was directly asked to resign because he was in a way a symbol of the war

24 events and as such was an obstacle to the -- to reaching the peace

25 agreement. When the President discussed that with Mr. Boban, the latter

1 did not accept these arguments, i.e., he -- it was his opinion that

2 Mr. Izetbegovic and Mr. Silajdzic and Mr. Ganic and some other top

3 military officials should have resigned along the line of the same

4 arguments. He did not want that to be only unilateral because he believed

5 that this would not contribute towards the peace process, i.e., that it

6 would provoke resistance in the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And I

7 believe that after some time, when the pressure became even more -- even

8 stronger, that it was then that Mr. Boban finally resigned, at a Sabor or

9 rally of Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina, he was relieved of his duty.

10 Q. Can you tell me, Mr. Pasalic, as far as you can remember, did you

11 personally attend meetings where the representatives of the international

12 community in the Office of the President or elsewhere which meetings were

13 these, if you can remember, and what was the position of the international

14 community you have now told us their position about Mate Boban but what

15 were the positions about the peace processes, whether this was an active

16 position or passive position? What were their general positions on the

17 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e., on the peace process?

18 A. There were a number of such conversations and meetings, a number

19 of them which took place abroad. So very many of them abroad, very many

20 of them in Croatia. I did not attend any of the meetings abroad, because

21 other officials attended those meetings. I participated in a number of

22 talks that -- which took place in the Office of the President of the

23 Republic, or in some other places in the Republic of Croatia.

24 Representatives of the international community were actively involved in

25 various forms of peace negotiations.

1 Q. I apologise for the interruption, would you please be so kind and

2 name people? When you say, when one says the international community, it

3 is nameless. Can you please mention any of the names of the people who

4 actually attended these meetings, what did they say, what was the course

5 of these talks, regarding the crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

6 A. Certainly. I can give you the names but as for the details of

7 this -- these talks, I would kindly ask you if we could go into private

8 session because some of the -- my knowledge about the details of who said

9 what, I believe, are confidential and fall under the confidentiality of

10 the duties that I discharged. So when it comes to the names of these

11 people, I can say, tell the names of these people openly.

12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Can we go into the private session?

13 Because as I believe you have the duty to keep the state secret. Is that

14 the reason why you are asking for the private session?

15 A. Yes, that is exactly the reason, because the delicate data which

16 are secret, we have to bear that in mind.

17 Q. So can you please give us the names and as for the details we will

18 move into the private session?

19 A. The peace negotiators were Mr. Owen, Mr. Vance, Mr. Stoltenberg.

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will go to the private session.

21 [Private session]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Page 12209 – redacted – private session

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Page 12210 – redacted – private session

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [Open session]

18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Tell me, please, what is your personal knowledge and were you

20 personally present at meetings between Dr. Tudjman and Mr. Alija

21 Izetbegovic? What was their relationship? Did it change? What do you

22 personally know about it?

23 A. I was present at a number of such meetings. I think a couple were

24 held in Zagreb and I think I was in Sarajevo once or twice with the

25 President, with President Tudjman. President Tudjman accepted and

1 respected Mr. Izetbegovic as the leader of the Muslims of

2 Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was aware that he was the key figure for achieving

3 peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as regards the Muslims. Unfortunately,

4 on the other hand, and we discussed this quite often, he was disappointed

5 by the way in which Mr. Izetbegovic was behaving. Namely, he changed his

6 opinions very often, especially after certain agreements would be reached

7 or certain solutions agreed upon, and President Tudjman was disappointed

8 precisely because he was a man who held to his word. He considered

9 agreements to be binding, and Mr. Izetbegovic would agree on one thing and

10 even sign something, whereas in practice, and on the ground, they acted

11 differently. And this was something that President Tudjman was deeply

12 annoyed by.

13 Q. Do you know whether this relationship between them changed or did

14 he continue to have this attitude of respect for Mr. Izetbegovic?

15 A. In spite of everything, President Tudjman continued to have

16 respectful attitude towards Mr. Izetbegovic, and I think that this was

17 after the Dayton agreements were reached, it went so far that President

18 Tudjman wishing to demonstrate in that way too how keen he was on there

19 being, in spite of everything, confidence between Muslims and Croats in

20 particular, President Tudjman awarded the highest Croatian decoration to

21 President Izetbegovic.

22 Q. We have another five minutes until the break, so let me try and

23 round off this topic with the question: Do you personally know, and what

24 is your personal knowledge about, the so-called, I'm going to use the word

25 famous or infamous, napkin of Paddy Ashdown? This is Exhibit P796. And

1 could the usher please show Mr. Pasalic this exhibit?

2 JUDGE LIU: Could the English version be put on the ELMO?

3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think we only have an

4 English version. There is no Croatian version. Could the usher place the

5 other, much more important, exhibit on the ELMO?

6 Q. Did you talk to the President, or rather what do you personally

7 know about this napkin? Let me ask you first, do you recognise

8 Mr. Tudjman's handwriting?

9 A. Yes, I do know President Tudjman's handwriting.

10 Q. Is it this his handwriting?

11 A. No this is not President Tudjman's handwriting.

12 Q. What do you personally know about this incident?

13 A. I discussed with President Tudjman this incident on a number of

14 occasions, and he was saddened but more than that, because he said it was

15 inconceivable to him what people are prepared to make up and lie about,

16 especially people that he had met during the celebrations of the victory

17 of the antifascist coalition, highly respectable people. So he found it

18 strange that Mr. Ashdown should have made this story public and I asked

19 the President what happened at that luncheon and did he write anything on

20 this napkin because I found it quite unbelievable, and he said that he was

21 really sorry that anyone could make up something like that, and that he

22 had only tried to explain to the gentleman something that can be found in

23 all professional magazines and that is the map from 1992 and 1993, the

24 line of separation, which was drawn by NATO circles, that is the

25 separation between east and west Europe. And he said to me that he had

1 tried to explain to this gentleman that this kind of line was drawn

2 probably with the idea that some global solution should be sought along

3 those lines, but it was quite outside any context of the division of

4 Bosnia or any other land. These were simply professional arguments about

5 things that are far beyond the boundaries of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the

6 former Yugoslavia or the like.

7 Q. On the 6th of May, 1995, on that day, in fact, did the army of the

8 Republic of Croatia and the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina in those days, were

9 they acting together? They were allies in the war. What is the meaning

10 of this story dating back to the 6th of May, 1993?

11 A. In those days, there was -- I'm sorry, 1995.

12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter corrects herself.

13 A. Because all military conflicts ceased by then. Croatia had been

14 occupied almost a third of its territory but there were no military

15 conflicts.

16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think it is time for

17 the break. Perhaps before the break, I could show this map on the ELMO.

18 This whole booklet is being translated so could we just place this map on

19 the ELMO? I hope my learned friends won't mind. I will have a copy ready

20 for you when I receive the translation. Could the usher please assist

21 and show this map. We do have an exhibit number, ID D1/400. I'm still

22 waiting for the translation. I hope it will be ready in the course of

23 this week.

24 Q. Would you please be kind enough and tell me, do you recognise this

25 map? Is this the map published by NATO headquarters in Brussels with this

1 separation line?

2 A. Yes. I saw this map on President Tudjman. I don't know the exact

3 name of the book but that is the map I was referring to.

4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think it is time for

5 the break.

6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will resume at 4.00 sharp.

7 --- Recess taken at 3.31 p.m.

8 --- On resuming at 4.01 p.m.

9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik. You may continue.

10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Q. Let us now move on to another topic, again I shall be asking you

12 about your own personal knowledge. Tell me, was there a difference

13 between the policy of the state and the policy of the HDZ as a party in

14 the Republic of Croatia, or could we place an equation sign between the

15 two?

16 A. There was the party policy, and of course the policy of the

17 country. I think that it goes without saying that every party has its own

18 programme, its objectives, its methods of political struggle, and state

19 policy, though it varies from situation to situation, and the balance of

20 forces in parliament, but in our particular case, there were differences

21 between state policies and narrow party policies, as President Tudjman

22 would often indicate. So I think there is no dilemma when the policies of

23 the party were defined, party members would be involved exclusively,

24 whereas in the creation of state policies, state officials would be

25 involved, and in various stages of the development of government, there

1 were members of government that were not members of the HDZ. In fact

2 belonged to other parties. So that in defining state policies, experts

3 were often invited to participate. That is people who were not party

4 members. As for parliament, where many important issues were debated,

5 proceeding from the definition of key state policies, beyond the narrow

6 legislative frameworks, there were attempts to achieve consensus,

7 especially in view of the backdrop of the war that was ongoing, so that

8 very frequently, questions that were important for the state of Croatia, a

9 consensus was sought and achieved so that that would be the state policy

10 and not party policy.

11 Q. Tell me what you personally know about the relationship with the

12 HDZ of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Was it a special kind of relationship? Who

13 defined that relationship, who determined their policies? A little about

14 that.

15 A. The HDZ of Bosnia-Herzegovina developed as an independent party,

16 as one of the parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It came into being as

17 democracy was making its initial steps in the former Yugoslavia. Their

18 documents and their registration were regulated by the laws of Bosnia and

19 Herzegovina, and within the framework of their programme objectives, they

20 pursued their party policies. The HDZ of Croatia was an independent party

21 in the Republic of Croatia. With regard to the relationship between the

22 two parties, I can say that that relationship was based on the similarity

23 between our two parties, in terms of programmes, similar to what in

24 democracies you have social democratic parties, people's parties, so that

25 the HDZ of Bosnia-Herzegovina was a related party to the HDZ of Croatia,

1 but in terms of personnel policy, decision-making and everything else,

2 they were and remained two separate parties.

3 Q. Mr. Pasalic, let me now move on to the so-called transcripts

4 produced in the President's office. So again, will you limit your remarks

5 to your personal knowledge? My first question is: What do you personally

6 know about the conversations that were recorded, those that were not and

7 in general terms what you know about that?

8 A. I can say that certain conversations in the President's office

9 were recorded, in the first place, international contacts by the President

10 of the Republic, and it was an unwritten rule, as everywhere else, that

11 talks of that nature should be recorded. Secondly, official meetings of

12 state bodies chaired by the President of the Republic were also recorded.

13 And this was obligatory, daily operative talks, tete-a-tete talks

14 of the President with us, who would spend several hours with him on a

15 daily basis. Those were not recorded. That would be an answer in brief.

16 Q. Tell me, please, the people attending those meetings, are they

17 informed that they are being recorded?

18 A. The people coming from abroad, they were senior state officials,

19 and they knew that this was part of the protocol, part of the regular

20 procedure. As for meetings with the domestic participants, President

21 Tudjman, who chaired those meetings would usually in the course of the

22 meeting warn somebody and say, "Please introduce yourself for the

23 transcript." So this was customary. At the beginning of the meeting, no

24 one would say, "This meeting is going to be recorded." But while chairing

25 the meeting the President would say something to that effect, several

1 times.

2 Q. As far as you know, were copies of the transcript given for

3 authorisation, authentication?

4 A. No, copies were never distributed for authentication purposes.

5 Q. Were copies of the transcript given to anyone at all for any

6 purpose?

7 A. No. As far as I know, copies were not made, nor were they given

8 to anyone. If there should be a need for any reason whatsoever, if

9 somebody wanted to read the transcript for some reason, then the procedure

10 to obtain the original would be for the person to read them in the chief

11 of cabinet's office and return it to him immediately afterwards. I'm not

12 aware that it was ever possible for anyone to have a copy of that

13 transcript or for that transcript to be copied at all.

14 Q. In 1991, were you in the President's office?

15 A. No, I was not in the President's office at the time. I was a

16 deputy at the time.

17 Q. Do you know anything about the possibility of a copy of the

18 transcript being distributed in 1991?

19 A. I can only answer on the basis of my conversations with people who

20 were chiefs of cabinet. There were only two persons in that position, and

21 on the basis of my conversations with those two persons regarding

22 procedures in general, the protocol that was observed in the Office of the

23 President, it was never the practice for copies of the transcript to be

24 made or to be distributed to anyone.

25 Q. Do you know who was chief of cabinet in 1991?

1 A. I think it was Mrs. Zdravka Busic.

2 Q. And if a copy were to be given, who would be responsible for

3 that? Let us assume that that was the case.

4 A. The permission to do such a thing would have to be given by the

5 President of the Republic, and then the actual act would be carried out by

6 the chief of cabinet.

7 Q. Exclusively?

8 A. Yes, exclusively the chief of cabinet.

9 Q. I have asked you all these questions because in another trial, a

10 witness claimed that a transcript was given to him by President Tudjman,

11 and that is why I felt it necessary to ask you about the procedure and the

12 official who would be responsible for this. And this happened to be a

13 transcript from 1991.

14 Let us move on now. Do you know whether we have just heard what

15 you said about copies but was there any authentication ever?

16 A. No, never.

17 Q. Tell me, what you personally know about who was in charge, let us

18 call it the archives. Who was in charge of those transcripts emanating

19 from conversations in the President's office?

20 A. That was the responsibility of the chief of cabinet of the

21 President of the Republic.

22 Q. Was it possible to make any handwritten notes on those

23 transcripts?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Would it be possible for pages of transcripts to be missing? Who

1 would check these things, as far as you know?

2 A. Something like that, as far as I know, is simply not possible,

3 because of the procedure applied with respect to those transcripts. It

4 was impossible for pages to go missing.

5 Q. Tell me, would it be possible for such transcripts from meetings

6 in the President's office not to indicate the name of the speaker?

7 A. No. That was not possible, because the technology was such.

8 Q. Would you please describe to Their Honours the actual procedure?

9 A. There were two rooms in the office where meetings were held and

10 recorded. That is official meetings. There was a big room, a big office,

11 and another one somewhat smaller, adjacent to the President's cabinet

12 where he worked. There were microphones on the desks and there was a room

13 in the President's -- within the President's office which housed the

14 recording equipment. There was a technician who was in charge of that,

15 and when the meeting started or during the course of the meeting,

16 depending on the technical capabilities, a transcript of the meeting would

17 be done. As soon as the transcript was completed, the technician would

18 send the transcript to the chief of cabinet. The chief of cabinet would

19 put a state secret on the envelope and he would file the transcript away.

20 In brief, that was the procedure.

21 Q. So every transcript -- a transcript for certain meeting, would be

22 sealed in an envelope so the envelope would be closed and marked with the

23 degree of confidentiality?

24 A. All meetings which were recorded were recorded following the same

25 procedure. The transcript would be sealed in an envelope. The envelope

1 would be marked with the "state secret."

2 Q. Is that the highest degree of confidentiality?

3 A. According to the Croatian law, this is the highest of

4 confidentiality.

5 Q. Who had access to the archives? Who was in charge of the

6 archives?

7 A. The access was rather limited and reduced to the chief of cabinet,

8 obviously, he, whenever accessed the archives it would be with the

9 permission of the President of the Republic.

10 Q. Do you know what happened with these transcripts after President

11 Tudjman's death?

12 A. I can tell you that only on the basis of what I heard in my

13 conversations with the people who were in charge of that part of work.

14 After the death of the President of the Republic, the government issued a

15 decree on handling these transcripts and all other documents which at that

16 time were in the President's office. By that decree issued by the

17 government in late 1999, the whole bulk of the documentation was grouped

18 in three groups, into documents that arose from the work of the President

19 as a statesman. The second group was the documentation that was his

20 documentation as the President of the party. And the third was his

21 personal documentation. The third group should have been stored in the

22 office for national security. The first part, that is. The party

23 documentation should have been taken over by HDZ officials and the private

24 documentation should have been handed to the family of the late President

25 Tudjman.

1 Q. Have you ever testified in front of any body regarding transcripts

2 from President Tudjman's office and the authenticity of these

3 transcripts?

4 A. I have testified before the Croatian parliament. I have testified

5 before the parliamentary commission which was dealing with the

6 privatisation of a daily paper in Croatia. And one of the documents which

7 was discussed and about which I testified were papers which were

8 represented to me as a witness as transcripts from the Office of President

9 Tudjman. The commission, after having heard all the witnesses, refused to

10 accept this document, disputing its authenticity. The same documents were

11 later on used by some state bodies. I believe this was the state Attorney

12 General, and the transcript or the papers which looked like a transcript,

13 again were rejected as not being authentic.

14 Q. Do you know why did they appear in the media? Were you personally

15 involved in the media regarding these transcripts?

16 A. When the new President of the Republic was elected, the Croatian

17 media were swarming with various papers which were allegedly transcripts

18 from the Office of the President of the Republic. What I found very

19 strange was that one or some of these transcripts contained conversations

20 between President Tudjman and myself, tete-a-tete. And there were also

21 conversations between President Tudjman and some other people, again

22 tete-a-tete meetings, private meetings. In the case of my alleged

23 conversations it was clear that it was a forgery because my conversations

24 were never recorded, nor were working meetings ever recorded, that is

25 meetings between the President and us who worked in his office. Some

1 other persons also filed charges in order to dispute the authenticity of

2 such papers and only recently, in a procedure, the Judge refused to accept

3 these documents as not being authentic.

4 Q. What is the role of the person who actually gave these documents

5 to the media? Who gave them this document -- these documents? Has that

6 resulted in any new laws being passed by the current government as a

7 result of all the doubts about the authenticity of these documents?

8 A. I can only tell you what has appeared in the media and what the

9 current President of the Republic has told the media. It is obvious that

10 it was him who gave these papers to the media because that is what the

11 journalists have said, but he himself has also said that he would furnish

12 the media with these documents for as long as there is any interest in

13 having these documents. Pressure was made on the people who, for various

14 reasons, were considered to be the late president's opponents, his

15 political opponents. As soon as something like that appeared in the

16 press, a few days later, documents would appear to discredit such persons,

17 being politicians or athletes. I'm not going to go into the reasons of

18 the government, I suppose that they had their reasons and I suppose the

19 government issued a decree to the effect of all the documentation arising

20 from the Office of the President of the Republic which was compiled during

21 the -- President Tudjman's tenure should be transferred into the archives

22 of the state without actually establishing whether these documents are

23 authentic or not. So much about that.

24 Q. And how can one know now where the authentic transcripts are? An

25 issue has been raised here regardless of whether this is confidential or

1 not, but it would help this Court to establish whether some of the

2 documents are actually authentic. How is it possible today to establish

3 that the authenticity of these documents, you were there, you would

4 probably know?

5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stringer?

6 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, the witness it's my understanding so

7 far he's been testifying about things that he learned from other people

8 after the death of President Tudjman, at which time I believe the witness

9 no longer held his position within the government of Croatia so what he

10 knows is what other people told him after he was no longer part of the

11 government, or what he knows is information that he's read in the media,

12 from what I can gather from his testimony. So on this particular point,

13 it's not clear that a foundation has been laid for the witness to give

14 evidence as to the -- whether the transcripts in an authentic or correct

15 fashion, can be found at any particular place. I don't know what he knows

16 about that at this point.

17 JUDGE LIU: Well, I quite agree with you on your argument but this

18 Trial Chamber would like to hear what this witness is going to tell us

19 about the authenticity of those documents. We'll give the proper weight

20 to his testimony at a later stage.

21 Witness, you may answer that question put by the Defence counsel.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have told you what I

23 know from my personal knowledge and one of those things is the testimony

24 and the debate before the parliamentary body, and the papers which were

25 referred to as transcripts were rejected by that same parliamentary body

1 as not being authentic. So this is my direct knowledge and experience

2 illustrated by one example. Secondly, I know that in a trial before a

3 court, a Judge also refused to accept these so-called transcripts as

4 authentic.

5 JUDGE CLARK: Can I ask a question, Dr. Pasalic while we are on

6 that. Because it might be several hours before I come back and we'll have

7 lost its value. What was the issue that was actually being determined by

8 the parliamentary commission? Was it the transcripts in general or a

9 particular portion which had been shown to them? We need to know what the

10 commission was determining.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The task of that commission was to

12 establish the circumstances around the sale of a daily paper in Croatia,

13 and one of the documents which were considered were the papers which did

14 look like transcripts from the present of the state's office. They were

15 presented as transcripts which were to serve to prove a certain fact. The

16 parliamentary commission refused to accept these papers as authentic.

17 JUDGE CLARK: Do I understand from that, Dr. Pasalic, that the

18 main issue which was being determined was the sale of a daily newspaper

19 and a side issue was a selection of documents which purported to be or had

20 been held out by that newspaper to be original transcripts?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So one of the key documents which

22 were considered during that procedure was to establish the possible

23 credibility of the papers or the so-called transcripts. That was one of

24 the key issues. So the parliamentary commission, and later on the -- a

25 judiciary body, refused to accept these papers, the so-called transcripts,

1 as authentic.

2 JUDGE CLARK: I may not have expressed myself very clearly,

3 Dr. Pasalic. I think I asked you, certainly I meant to ask you, whether

4 the main issue was the sale of the newspaper and the side issue was a

5 selection of documents which purported to be transcripts. I want you to

6 be quite clear about my question. I'm asking you, can you make a

7 distinction between the transcripts in general, the entire body of the

8 transcripts, as being true documents, and documents which were used by the

9 newspaper and purported to be from the archive of the transcripts? Do you

10 see the distinction? One is the authenticity of the general transcripts

11 which you appear to have verified any way that they were existed, they

12 were made, they were kept, and the side issue a selection of documents

13 which were rejected by the commission. Could you clarify that for me,

14 please?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll try and be more

16 precise. So the main issue in the work of that parliamentary body was the

17 sale of a daily paper. So that was the main issue discussed. Within the

18 decision on that main issue, one of the arguments or a piece of evidence

19 or proof, was a paper that was presented as a transcript. In making the

20 decision on the main issue, the parliamentary decision rejected that

21 paper, that document, as not being authentic.

22 JUDGE CLARK: So the parliamentary commission, as I understand you

23 now, did not make any determination on the validity, authenticity or

24 otherwise of the vast body of documents known as the presidential

25 transcripts?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, because it was not its duty. On

2 that particular occasion, it was given just one paper, that was presented

3 as transcript. It did not discuss or consider or made a decision on the

4 body of the transcripts, because it was not its task. It was not its

5 duty.

6 JUDGE CLARK: That's very helpful. Could I just ask you one

7 question because obviously it's very important for us arising out of

8 that. Was the one paper which the commission declared to be unauthentic,

9 was that paper a document that's relied upon, if you know, in this trial?

10 If you don't know that, can you tell us what the paper was about so that

11 we know that we are ad idem on the findings of the commission and the

12 documents that we are considering.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The commission was determining the

14 suspicion about illegal acts that may have occurred during the sale of a

15 daily newspaper, and these papers suggested that the President of the

16 state played a role in that transaction. And the -- the parliamentary

17 commission refused this piece of paper as not being authentic.

18 JUDGE CLARK: Was that -- that was the commission related to a

19 paper that has nothing whatever to do with the events in

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now, in relation to the Court's determination, you

21 referred to two determinations in relation to documents which purported to

22 come from the parliamentary -- sorry, the presidential transcripts, one

23 being the commission and the second one being a court determination

24 recently. Do you know what that particular document was about?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the second case, I can only tell

1 you about this document, what was published in the Croatian media. It was

2 a trial, a court trial, in which a former Croatian official was brought to

3 trial under the suspicion that he committed some illegal acts, and the key

4 argument to prove that were papers which were presented as transcripts.

5 The judge refused to accept these papers as authentic. So she refused to

6 accept them as evidence in the court proceedings.

7 JUDGE CLARK: If we were to try and establish or try and obtain a

8 copy of that court order, how would we go about it? When was that

9 decision made and at what level of court was it made by? Was it

10 investigating magistrate? Was it a constitutional court?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was some ten days ago, and the

12 Court was -- it was a regular court proceedings before the municipal court

13 in Zagreb.

14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you remember, I have

15 already announced that I have already asked for that decision. I'm

16 waiting for this decision to be brought to me, and this was not a

17 municipal court but the county court in Zagreb but this is not the only

18 decision. There are several such decisions. But I was going to inform

19 the Honourable Court with that any way.

20 JUDGE CLARK: Forgive me for taking over. This is my last

21 question now and I'll let you get on. It's just appropriate. Otherwise

22 it gets lost in the re-examination. Are decisions of the county court

23 subject to appeal in Croatia? Do they operate like they do in other

24 countries, before it's finalised so many weeks have to go by?

25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes.

1 JUDGE CLARK: It's subject to appeal, so in other words it's not

2 a final order?

3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No. This is not a final order. It's

4 subject to it appeal. And we are impatiently awaiting that, because our

5 appeals are two instance appeals and I believe that the matter will be

6 finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Croatia because the general

7 public also waits for the resolution of that enigma, and this has brought

8 me to the end of my investigation. I apologise, Your Honours. My

9 colleague is suggesting that I ask something else. Actually he reminds me

10 to ask whether recently you have heard anything about the initiative of

11 the group of parliamentarians in the Croatian parliament, the initiative

12 to establish a new parliamentary commission that would deal with nothing

13 else but the presidential transcripts?

14 A. Tomorrow, preparations start for the new regular session of the

15 Croatian parliament. And one of the items on the agenda is the

16 establishment of an investigation commission, investigative committee,

17 that will deal with nothing but the presidential transcripts.

18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] This will be all from me,

19 Dr. Pasalic. Thank you for coming here and thank you for helping this

20 Court to it make an objective picture of the time that is the topic of

21 this trial.

22 JUDGE CLARK: If I had known that Dr. Pasalic was at the end of

23 his evidence, I wouldn't have interrupted I'm really sorry to both of you

24 for asking so many questions but I thought you had many more. Thank you.

25 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Seric?

1 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have given

2 my questions to my colleague Krsnik and he has actually been the one to

3 ask them. Thank you very much.

4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Cross-examination,

5 Mr. Stringer?

6 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President. Mr. President, we do have some

7 documents that we wanted to use during the cross-examination, and we have

8 in the courtroom binders and copies that we could distribute to counsel

9 and to the Trial Chamber and the registry. And I need to get organised.

10 Could I suggest that we take an early break now and then come back? It

11 may than we could simply go through to the end of the day today, and I

12 could complete the cross-examination today. But that during the break we

13 could distribute all of the materials and really save the time that we

14 would be taking now to do that. I'm in your hands, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE LIU: Well we could take an early break but you have to

16 finish the cross-examination today.

17 MR. STRINGER: I'm confident that I can do that.

18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. We'll resume at --

19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour?

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?

21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Certainly, I don't have anything

22 against an early break but I would like the Prosecutor to use as much time

23 as I used in the direct examination, because I would like to leave the

24 Honourable Court sometime for their questions, because I'm -- I believe

25 that we certainly have to finish by the end of the day.

1 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll resume at ten minutes past 5.00.

2 --- Break taken at 4.40 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 5.10 p.m.

4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?

5 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, Mr. President. Mr. President, a procedural

6 matter and I appreciate the Chamber giving me a moment. In terms of the

7 lineup of witnesses for the rest of the week, it appears that possibly we

8 may be picking up some speed. We were given as the Chamber may know some

9 names last week, as the Court had directed the Defence to do. However,

10 after this witness, perhaps, Your Honour, it would be simplest and save

11 time if we just went into private session for a moment.

12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will go to private session, please.

13 [Private session]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts. Pages 12232 to 12244.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Page 12245 – redacted – private session

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Page 12246 – redacted – private session

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Page 12247 – redacted – private session

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [Open session]

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stringer, your cross-examination?

1 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.

2 Cross-examined by Mr. Stringer:

3 MR. STRINGER: Could the witness be shown Exhibit P930, please?

4 It's in the binder that was just distributed.

5 Q. Witness, there are a number of papers that I'm going to ask you to

6 look at during the course of your cross-examination, they are in this

7 binder. Organised numerically, chronologically at the bottom of the first

8 page of each Exhibit you'll find an Exhibit number with a P in front of

9 it. Perhaps the usher could find you -- or assist you in finding Exhibit

10 P930.

11 Q. Dr. Pasalic while he's doing that, I can tell you what this is.

12 We got this off of your web site. You have a web site, I understand, www

13 Ivic Pasalic dot-com; is that correct?

14 A. Yes, that's correct.

15 Q. And I have, according to the CV we have here you're fluent in

16 English and in fact the CV we pulled off your web site is in fact in the

17 English language. That's it.

18 A. I understand English quite well but I can't say that I speak it

19 fluently. So I understand.

20 Q. Well, it says on your CV that you're fluent in English so you

21 might want to have them change that. Just looking at this, sir, it

22 appeared to me, appears to me that you were born in a place called Suica

23 in Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that correct?

24 A. Yes, that is correct.

25 Q. And I understand that is located in the region or in the

1 municipality of Tomislavgrad, is that so?

2 A. Yes, that is correct.

3 Q. You were trained as a medical doctor and I see that, among the

4 medical experience that you have is that you have been a doctor, a

5 physician, at the correctional facility in Zagreb and have been, in fact,

6 the director of that facility in 1992; is that correct?

7 A. For three months, I was in charge of that facility, yes.

8 Q. Is that the facility where Mladen Naletilic was held subsequently

9 in 1997 to 1999 before he was transferred to The Hague?

10 A. There is only one prison hospital in Zagreb. I don't know exactly

11 where Mr. Naletilic was, if he was in Zagreb this is the only hospital of

12 a correctional facility in Zagreb.

13 Q. Subsequently, when you were a member of President Tudjman's --

14 when you were one of his advisers, did you ever go to meet Mr. Naletilic

15 when he was being held at the prison in Zagreb?

16 A. As far as I can recollect, no.

17 Q. Is that yes or no or you just are simply unable to recall?

18 A. I think not.

19 Q. But you're not sure?

20 A. No, I did not visit Mr. Naletilic. If I had, I would remember.

21 Q. Not in a personal or in an official capacity, then?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Have you ever met him before, in any place?

24 A. No. I did not have occasion to meet Mr. Naletilic.

25 Q. You have been, it's my understanding, a member of the Croatian

1 Democratic Union, the HDZ in Croatia, essentially since the time it was

2 founded; is that correct?

3 A. I have been a member of the HDZ since the end of 1989.

4 Q. And you have been a member of the Croatian parliament or the Sabor

5 essentially continuously, on a continuous basis since you were first

6 elected in 1990; is that correct?

7 A. I was elected to the Croatian Sabor in all its sessions.

8 Q. And as of today, sir, you're still a sitting member of the

9 Croatian parliament?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Now, it's my understanding, sir, that recently, you were a

12 candidate for the position of President of the HDZ of Croatia but that you

13 were unsuccessful in your bid to take that position; is that correct?

14 A. Yes, that is correct. I was a candidate for the Presidency of the

15 HDZ, and I won 47 per cent of the votes, whereas my opposing candidate got

16 51 per cent of the votes.

17 Q. And really, I think the most significant for our purposes is the

18 fact that you were what sounds to me to be an important councillor or

19 adviser to President Tudjman during the years 1992 to the time of his

20 death in late 1999; is that correct?

21 A. That is not correct. I was appointed adviser to the President of

22 the Republic in September, 1993.

23 Q. And the sphere of your responsibilities was to be an adviser or a

24 counsellor to the President in matters involving domestic or home affairs;

25 is that correct?

1 A. Yes, that is correct.

2 Q. Is it true, sir, that during the time that you were an adviser,

3 President Tudjman's adviser on internal affairs that were you in fact an

4 opponent and opposed to Croatia's cooperating with this organisation, this

5 Tribunal?

6 A. No, that is not correct. When we in Croatia in parliament,

7 discussed the adoption of a law on cooperation with the International

8 criminal Tribunal, I was one of those who played an important role in the

9 adoption of that law, because among the Croatian public and within my

10 party, there were certain reservations with respect to the adoption of

11 that law, and at the time, in parliament, I urged that the law be adopted,

12 though personally I had my doubts as to whether it was the best solution.

13 And in parliament, I believe I played an important role in the adoption of

14 that law, hoping and believing that the role of this Tribunal, as we saw

15 it at the time, would be fulfilled, and that meant that all those who

16 have committed serious war crimes should be held responsible for those

17 crimes. Also, we firmly believed that facts would be adhered to, the

18 truth would be upheld, with respect to everything that occurred in the

19 territory of the former Yugoslavia, and in particular, that crimes would

20 be punished that occurred in -- within the framework of the greater

21 Serbian aggression against the Republic of Croatia. That was my position

22 when the constitutional law on cooperation was being adopted.

23 Q. Subsequently sir you've spoken and been highly critical of the

24 Tribunal in its efforts to investigate, for example, Croatian generals who

25 were in charge of the operations called Storm and Flash. Haven't you been

1 opposed to Croatia's cooperation with the Tribunal in respect of Storm and

2 Flash?

3 A. In the Croatian parliament, we had debates on that issue, and my

4 position at the time was, and still is today, that it is my belief that

5 there are legal arguments leading to doubts as to whether the

6 International Criminal Tribunal is responsible for the Storm and Flash

7 operations. While the HDZ was in power, at the legal level, we presented

8 arguments calling that in question, and that was the position of the HDZ

9 while we were in power. That is there were doubts as to whether this

10 Tribunal is the place to deal with these two operations.

11 Q. Sir, did you say in December of 1998 that, "It would certainly put

12 into question Croatia's cooperation with the Tribunal, all the way to

13 possible annulment of Croatia's law on cooperation with the Tribunal

14 should Croatia's top generals be indicted by this Tribunal"? Were those

15 your words, sir?

16 A. I don't know whether the quotation is quite correct, but it would

17 be much simpler if you have a document indicating that I said that. Then

18 I would be able to answer your question quite directly.

19 Q. Exhibit 581.01, sir, I think if you go back toward the front of

20 the binder, what I have, sir, is an article from a publication called the

21 Feral Tribune. In this article which is actually an article or an

22 editorial written by someone named Banac, in this article, sir, that

23 very quote is attributed to you as having been a statement that you gave

24 to a different periodical called Jutarnji List. Exhibit 851.01.

25 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I object to this

1 question, because it would be fairer to the witness to show him that

2 newspaper. Vecernji List, not a commentary of another journalist

3 commenting on something that somebody else had written.

4 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Seric, Mr. Krsnik, I believe that this

5 witness has the full right to recognise what he said or deny what he did

6 not say. This is a newspaper article.

7 Yes, Mr. Stringer.

8 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.

9 JUDGE LIU: But you have to indicate on which page this is.

10 MR. STRINGER: Yes, I can do that.

11 Q. Dr. Pasalic, I can point you if you look at me, the very bottom of

12 the last column the part I highlighted that contains the quotes I'm asking

13 you about?

14 MR. STRINGER: The English version, Mr. President, it is the last

15 full paragraph, I'm sorry, the second to last full paragraph on the

16 second page of the English translation. I'll read it again, sir, and

17 perhaps you'll be able to follow along with me. It's reported, and this

18 is the quote: "If Croatian generals will really be called to The Hague,

19 it is entirely sure that our patience will be brought to an end. That

20 will certainly bring into question Croatian cooperation with The Hague

21 Tribunal to the point where the act on cooperation with the Tribunal might

22 be annulled. I would not say that such a possibility is being discussed

23 but it remains to be a very realistic option in case the indictments we

24 talked about are really going to be issued." My question, sir, is simply:

25 Are those your words?

1 A. I don't remember that interview with precision, and I can't tell

2 you with certainty whether I said that or not, since this has been carried

3 by Mr. Banac I think, but it would be much easier for me to comment if I

4 had the interview from Vecernji List.

5 Q. Unfortunately sir, I don't have them at my fingertips all the

6 dailies from Zagreb dating back even to 1998. If we had the Vecernji

7 List, if I'd been able to get it on short notice, I promise you that we

8 would have had that in front of you instead of this particular article?

9 JUDGE CLARK: Dr. Pasalic perhaps you could approach the question

10 this way: Is the quote in substance what you might have said, if not in

11 actual accurate wording? Is it in substance -- is it in substance

12 something that you might have said?

13 A. I can tell you what my position was at the time regarding

14 cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal, Your Honour, if that

15 would satisfy you or the question put by the Prosecutor.

16 JUDGE LIU: Just very briefly, very, very briefly.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time, my personal position

18 was, as I said a moment ago, that we felt that the International Criminal

19 Tribunal is not competent for the military operations Storm and Flash.

20 And the government of the Republic of Croatia engaged in legal activities

21 to deny the competence of the Tribunal by legal means. That was my

22 position.

23 MR. STRINGER:

24 Q. And I take it, sir, that was your advice to the President of the

25 Republic, Mr. Tudjman: "Don't recognise the competence of the Tribunal to

1 investigate this particular matter"? Is that what you told him?

2 A. What I have just said regarding my position was also the position

3 shared by a large majority of Members of Parliament in Croatia. And this

4 was nothing unknown. I don't remember that I put my position to President

5 Tudjman precisely in those terms, but there were no secrets about it. I

6 can't remember any specific situation when I needed to tell the President

7 that, but in any event, that was my position.

8 Q. It's interesting to me, sir, that you are a sitting member of the

9 parliament which, as you said in your direct, is one branch of the

10 government, that being the legislative branch but that at the same time,

11 you are an inner circle, high level adviser to President Tudjman, who was

12 of course running a different branch of your government, that being the

13 executive. I want to ask you -- I'm asking you this now in your capacity

14 as an adviser to President Tudjman. It was your advice, sir, as an

15 adviser on internal or home affairs, that the Tribunal or that the

16 Republic of Croatia should not cooperate with the Tribunal on this issue?

17 A. I can only repeat what I have already said. For me personally, at

18 the time, the question of breaking off relations did not arise, for me

19 personally, and I repeat, that was my position then and still is today,

20 that through means of law, the competence of the International Tribunal

21 should have been questioned through a procedure that is permissible by

22 international law, and that we should try to present arguments to show

23 that the International Criminal Tribunal has no competence over the

24 operations Storm and Flash.

25 Q. Now, one of the Croatian generals that we are talking about, I

1 believe, is a gentleman named Gotovina. Do you know that name?

2 A. Yes, I do.

3 Q. And in fact, Mr. Gotovina has been indicted by this Tribunal and

4 he's currently a fugitive; is that correct?

5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric?

6 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I object to this

7 question, because according to Rule 90, paragraph(H), the

8 cross-examination must be limited to the topics covered by the

9 examination-in-chief. I don't see what General Ante Gotovina has to do

10 with Mr. Pasalic's testimony during the examination in chief.

11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you see that I don't

12 wish to object and I haven't objected often in the cross-examination,

13 because I understand the tactics. It is important to put the right

14 question rather than to wait for the answer, but it is true that we have

15 to observe the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Prosecutor is going

16 outside the examination-in-chief, and they use as a pretext the

17 credibility of the witness. So all these questions up to now have nothing

18 to do with the questions put to the witness during the

19 examination-in-chief.

20 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Krsnik, the President at least once a week gives

21 you a lecture on the difference between cross-examination and

22 re-examination. And let me try and see if collectively we can tell you

23 the difference. In cross-examination, one can ask any questions that go

24 to credibility and relevance, and they are not confined to the questions

25 raised in direct examination. In re-examination, you can only raise

1 issues that have been raised in cross-examination. So, Mr. Seric, and

2 Mr. Krsnik, we should not need to tell you that again. The issue is

3 relevance. And if the Trial Chamber rules that the issue is irrelevant,

4 it doesn't matter whether it was raised. If it's irrelevant, it stays

5 irrelevant. But if the question is relevant, anything can be asked in

6 cross-examination.

7 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe in this case, the witness has answered

8 this question and we are waiting for the following up questions raised by

9 the Prosecution in this direction. Later on, we will know whether this

10 question is relevant to the subject matter of this issue or not. Yes,

11 Mr. Krsnik?

12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for the transcript, I

13 wish to convey my position. When I was cross-examining, I was not allowed

14 to put questions that were beyond the scope of the direct examination.

15 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President if I could just -- the rule which

16 counsel have cited explicitly says that the cross shall be limited --

17 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stringer, we are not discussing legal

18 matters at this moment. You may proceed with your question. We are

19 waiting for your follow-up questions on this very issue.

20 MR. STRINGER:

21 Q. Witness, my last question was whether in fact you know that

22 Mr. Gotovina has been indicted by this Tribunal and that he's currently a

23 fugitive, that is he's on the run. Do you know that?

24 A. I know that there -- an indictment has been issued against General

25 Gotovina and the rest, I don't know.

1 Q. It's been reported, sir, that you spoke with him shortly before he

2 disappeared last July. When is the last time that you saw him?

3 A. I don't exactly remember the date. I think it was last summer.

4 Whether it was May or June, I don't know. It's very hard for me to recall

5 the exact date. But it was last summer in May or in June, and that is

6 when I saw General Gotovina last.

7 Q. Where did you see him?

8 A. I saw him in Zagreb.

9 Q. Do you know his whereabouts today, sir?

10 A. No, I don't know his present whereabouts.

11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if the

12 cross-examination continues to follow this course, I'm really worried as

13 to how am I going to invite witnesses here? Because these are not

14 examinations. These are investigations. I bring my factual witnesses and

15 then they are investigated by the Prosecution. That's what investigative

16 organs are for and if the Prosecution continues to examine my witnesses in

17 this way, then I really don't know what is the point of a

18 cross-examination. They had six years for this indictment and everything

19 they are asking now is absolutely irrelevant to this particular case.

20 JUDGE LIU: I believe Mr. Stringer is going to change the subject

21 of the cross-examination.

22 MR. STRINGER: I've got one last question on this point,

23 Mr. President with your permission, and I will move on.

24 JUDGE LIU: Is that related to the credibility of this witness?

25 Or attitude of this witness to this it Tribunal?

1 MR. STRINGER: Yes, I believe it is, Mr. President, yes.

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, you may.

3 MR. STRINGER:

4 Q. Knowing your views in respect to the Tribunal's competence to

5 investigate or Prosecutor Storm and Flash, is it your view, sir, that

6 Mr. Gotovina should turn himself into the Tribunal or should he remain a

7 fugitive?

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes?

9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Again, objection. Irrelevant.

10 JUDGE LIU: Skip this question, Mr. Stringer.

11 MR. STRINGER:

12 Q. Dr. Pasalic you have also criticised this Tribunal's finding in

13 the Kordic decision which was handed down a year or so ago. It's been

14 reported that you said that I think that this sentence, that is the

15 sentence --

16 JUDGE CLARK: Sorry, Mr. Stringer I think it's fluff to say he

17 criticised the Kordic decision. He should not say anything more and we

18 should move on and secondly Kordic is under appeal, is that right?

19 MR. STRINGER: It's under appeal, that's right.

20 JUDGE CLARK: I think we should move on. If he agrees that he

21 criticised Kordic, that's as far as we need to go.

22 MR. STRINGER: Let me put this question to you, sir.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can you please show me

24 a document or a statement about Kordic's case? I would like to see that.

25 MR. STRINGER:

1 Q. Let me just first ask you and then we will show you. I think

2 that's how Judge Clark would prefer to proceed. Did you criticise the

3 Kordic judgement as being absolutely political, a political decision?

4 A. I was dissatisfied personally with such a decision but I don't

5 remember precisely what I said, but personally I was not happy with that

6 decision, and that was my position vis-a-vis that decision.

7 Q. The next exhibit is 868.1. For the ELMO, please. It's a letter

8 dated 25 August, 1999. While we are looking for that one, Dr. Pasalic,

9 I'll ask you a lead-up question on this. I don't have this one in the

10 Croatian language. Dr. Pasalic, in August, 1999, when you were an adviser

11 to President Tudjman on domestic affairs, did the President of this

12 Tribunal in fact complain to the UN Security Council about the

13 non-cooperation of Croatia in respect of Storm and Flash but also in

14 respect of Croatia's refusal to transfer Mladen Naletilic to this

15 Tribunal?

16 A. At that time, I was the President's adviser for internal affairs

17 and as for your question, I do not recall that.

18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would ask when the

19 witness is being shown documents that we need a translation in Croatian

20 for the witness to see it. This document has no translation into

21 Croatian. Thank you.

22 JUDGE LIU: Well, at the very beginning, I think the Prosecution

23 asked about the knowledge of English of this witness, and this witness

24 told us that he could understand English.

25 MR. STRINGER: Your Honour I didn't ask the witness about the

1 document in any event. I asked him if he recalls whether, in fact, this

2 was reported to the Security Council. I believe he testified that he

3 doesn't remember that.

4 JUDGE LIU: Well, we had better hear from the witness. Witness,

5 you may answer that question.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already replied, and I can say

7 that I do not recall that objection that was addressed to the Security

8 Council. There may have been such an objection, such a complaint, but I

9 do not recall it.

10 MR. STRINGER:

11 Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that you were not involved in the

12 formation of Croatia's policy in respect of the Tribunal during the years

13 that you were an adviser to President Tudjman?

14 A. No. That is not what I'm saying. As an adviser, I did have the

15 opportunity to present my position and partly influence as an adviser and

16 as a deputy -- as a member of government -- of parliament, I could

17 influence the policy and there are a number of people who could present

18 their views and to a certain extent influence the policy of the Republic

19 of Croatia vis-a-vis cooperation with the International Tribunal. But the

20 final decision in every specific case was made by the government of the

21 Republic of Croatia because the government of the Republic of Croatia

22 according to our constitutional law is competent and has the jurisdiction

23 to make all the relevant decisions with regard to the International

24 Criminal Tribunal, together with the government, there were other advisory

25 bodies which could state their opinion but the final decision was always

1 made by the government of the Republic of Croatia.

2 Q. And the final decision of the government, sir, in respect at least

3 to Storm and Flash and also the transfer of Mr. Naletilic to the Tribunal,

4 those are both positions that were supported by you, I take it? You were

5 against the investigation on Storm and Flash?

6 A. No. This is wrong. I was not against investigations. I was

7 against the competence, i.e., I believed that there were convincing legal

8 arguments to the effect -- corroborating the thesis that the International

9 Criminal Tribunal is not competent to judge the military operations

10 carried out during the operations Storm and Flash. That was my position.

11 Q. Did you issue a press release from The Hague yesterday that in

12 fact you'd be testifying in these proceedings today? You've been quoted

13 in the media today as having issued a press release from The Hague.

14 A. No. I did not watch the Croatian media, I did not read the

15 Croatian media because they are not available here. What press release

16 are you referring to?

17 Q. It's one of the dailies in Zagreb. I don't have it in front of

18 me, sir. It was just shown to me at the break. Have you made any

19 statements publicly about your testimony today?

20 A. During the break, I was on my own in the witness room. I have not

21 received any documents or anything.

22 Q. I'll move on.

23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just want to put

24 forth an objection. My -- my usual objection is that the witness should

25 be approached correctly. HINA is not a daily and the Prosecutor has

1 that document and he could have shown it to the witness. HINA is a news

2 agency, a Croatian news agency like Reuters, and when he examines the

3 witness first he tells him it's a daily and then he fails to show him the

4 press release and we know he has it because he has shown it to us.

5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stringer, you have to ask this witness a

6 very simple question: Did you issue the press release? It's very simple.

7 MR. STRINGER:

8 Q. I'll ask you again, witness, I'll repeat the question, I'll just

9 read it again from the transcript. Did you issue a press release from The

10 Hague yesterday that in fact you'd be testifying in these proceedings

11 today?

12 A. Yes. That is correct. I did do that yesterday.

13 Q. Did do you that, sir, because you view your testimony here today

14 as in the nature of a political statement being given for the benefit of

15 your constituents back in Croatia?

16 A. No absolutely not. I came to testify for the benefit of the truth

17 upon the invitation of the Defence. I wanted to testify and I wanted

18 to say this Honourable Court the truth about the topics that I'm going to

19 be asked about. And not for any political reasons.

20 Q. Let me ask you some questions about the presidential transcripts

21 that you've talked about on your direct examination. My recollection,

22 sir, is that there were certain times of meetings for which it was the

23 normal, customary practice, to record. Those would be meetings involving

24 international people, or also meetings, I believe, in which President

25 Tudjman was acting as a statesman or in his capacity as a statesman with a

1 group of people.

2 A. I was very precise and allow me to repeat that: There were

3 meetings which were as a rule recorded. Those were the meetings between

4 the President of the Republic with international officials, and those were

5 meetings presided by the President of the Republic, and those were state

6 bodies, such as the Defence counsel -- and counsel for the defence and

7 security. So these meetings were recorded and everything else was --

8 differed from one occasion to another. The meetings of us who worked in

9 the office as a rule were not recorded because we had dozens of

10 conversations every day and what was recorded regularly were the meetings

11 that I have just mentioned.

12 Q. That's right. I understand that you drew a distinction between

13 meetings that you've just described as opposed to the tete-a-tete type

14 meetings, one on one, which were not transcribed or taped. Is that a

15 correct distinction for me to draw?

16 A. No. This is not correct. I believe that your conclusion is

17 wrong, i.e., it is incomplete. What I wanted to say was that for some

18 types of meetings that I've mentioned and those were international

19 meetings and meetings of advisory or state bodies of the president, the

20 practice was that they were regularly recorded. It was also customary not

21 to record working meetings of the people who worked in the Office of the

22 President. This is what I wanted to say.

23 Q. Thank you for that clarification. Sir, do you recall that at

24 various times in 1993, 1994, 1995, even later, delegation would come,

25 Bosnian Croats from Bosnia-Herzegovina, would come as a delegation and

1 would be received by President Tudjman in Zagreb for meetings? Do you

2 know that to be true?

3 A. Yes. There were such meetings.

4 Q. And I take it that those meetings would fall into the

5 international category of meetings for which it would have been normal

6 procedure to tape record?

7 A. These meetings certainly were international meetings, but earlier

8 on, when I mentioned international meetings, what I had in mind were the

9 meetings of the President of the Republic with the representatives of

10 western states in various -- which were held in various contexts. They

11 were either -- either meetings with peace mediators or high state

12 officials of foreign states so I did not -- I did not -- I didn't mean

13 these meetings, but the meetings that belonged to that category with those

14 people, yes, there were such meetings.

15 Q. You did participate in meetings between President Tudjman and the

16 Bosnian Croat delegation, isn't that true? On a number of occasions

17 during the years 1993 through even 1997, 1998?

18 A. It is very hard for me to say anything precisely about 1993, 1995,

19 1997. Yes, I did attend some of these meetings but it is very difficult

20 for me to recall whether I attended a meeting in -- a meeting in 1993.

21 There were no strict rules that one of the advisers was supposed to be

22 present at all the meetings. This depended on the decision of the

23 President of the Republic, and his opinion whether the presence of a

24 certain adviser was required at a certain meeting.

25 Q. The tape recording procedure, sir, it sounds to me as though it

1 was something that President Tudjman in fact desired to have in place. Is

2 that correct?

3 A. Recording of these meetings was obviously something that the

4 President of the Republic had to decide and want.

5 Q. It was being done for his benefit, correct?

6 A. I don't think that it was done for his benefit, but the President

7 of the Republic was the person who was authorised to set up such a

8 request, or issue such an order to the personnel that a certain meeting

9 was to be recorded, and the President of the Republic certainly used these

10 documents in discharging his duties.

11 Q. And it's for that reason, sir, that it was very important that the

12 transcripts be an accurate reflection of the conversation that in fact

13 took place. Would you agree with me?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Do you recall, sir, whether meetings with the Bosnian Croat

16 delegation were tape recorded or not?

17 A. I do not remember exactly. I would assume that some of them were

18 recorded but I do not have any direct knowledge dating back to that time.

19 MR. STRINGER: Show the witness PT 14, please.

20 Q. Dr. Pasalic we are going to it take you to one of the transcripts

21 that has already been admitted into evidence.

22 MR. STRINGER: Not sure if PT 14 is in the binder or not. I've

23 got a clean copy, Mr. President, that I can give the usher. It doesn't

24 have any markings on it. In fact, what I'll do is separate the English

25 translation from the original language, the Croatian.

1 Q. Dr. Pasalic this is a transcript of a meeting that took place in

2 the presidential palace on the 10th of November, 1993. What I'd first

3 like to do is to direct you to certain parts of it where your name appears

4 and then hopefully to refresh your recollection as to whether you were in

5 fact present during this meeting. And I'm going to do that by referring

6 you to the reference numbers that appear on the top right-hand corner of

7 that document. The top, right-hand corner contains a reference number. I

8 think the first page is R, if I can direct to you R 0157037, can you find

9 that page number in your version?

10 A. Yes. I have located the page.

11 Q. And do you see your name appearing as one of the people speaking

12 on this particular page?

13 A. Yes, I can see that.

14 Q. Some of the other names appearing here are those of

15 Jadranko Prlic, the President of the Republic, and also Dr. Mate Granic.

16 A. Yes. That is what I see on the page.

17 Q. Then on the next page, ending with the digits 038, you see your

18 name there? This is all again in the Croatian version.

19 A. Yes, correct.

20 Q. Your name appears again on page 50? 050?

21 A. Yes. It is on page 050.

22 Q. This is a meeting, as I mentioned, Dr. Tudjman, Mate Granic,

23 yourself, Mate Boban, Jadranko Prlic, and I believe some others. Do you

24 recall attending meetings with Mr. Boban and Mr. Prlic in the presidential

25 palace?

1 A. I remember that I did attend some meetings with Mr. Boban and

2 Mr. Prlic but I'm not sure that this was this exactly this meeting.

3 Q. Well, let's discuss some of the points raised in this and perhaps

4 it will refresh your recollection. I want to take you first, sir, in your

5 version, to the page ending with the numbers 7021, English reference is

6 page number R0183340. Ending digits 3340. Dr. Pasalic, as I mentioned,

7 this is a meeting held on the 10th of November, 1993. What's being

8 discussed here is a recent military operation of the HVO in a place called

9 Stupni Do where is located in the municipality of Varos,

10 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And I want to take you to a statement by President

11 Tudjman, where he says, "Let's move on to your problems. Who is that

12 Ivica Rajic of yours?" Can you see that?

13 A. Yes, I can see that question.

14 Q. And then continuing, he's being informed by Mr. Boban who Ivica

15 Rajic is. Continuing on to the next page. President Tudjman asks,"When

16 was Stupni Do?" Mr. Boban responds, "The 24th." And then continuing on

17 now, the page ending 342, in the English version, 024 in your version, do

18 you have that?

19 A. Yes, I have.

20 Q. Mr. Tudjman says, "Dear friends, you're being in question, you are

21 bringing into question the position of Croatia and not only yours with

22 such actions as happened with Stupni Do." Now, are you aware, sir, that

23 Stupni Do is the location of a massacre of Bosnian Muslim civilians that

24 occurred in late October, 1993?

25 A. I must admit I didn't understand your question.

1 Q. Do you know that in Stupni Do, on the 23rd and 24th of October,

2 1993, units of the HVO under the command of Ivica Rajic massacred Bosnian

3 Muslim civilians?

4 A. I remember that in the media, there were reports about the problem

5 of Stupni Do but I don't know the details.

6 Q. Do you recall discussing that incident in the presidential palace

7 with Dr. Tudjman and the others as indicated in this transcript?

8 A. I don't remember this particular meeting, and I don't remember

9 attending such a meeting at which this problem was discussed.

10 Q. Sir, did you keep notes of the meetings that you attended with

11 President Tudjman?

12 A. Mostly no, those were just daily notes, when I needed to write

13 something upon instructions from the President. It was a daily memo, a

14 reminder for the next day or the next few days but for no other purpose.

15 Q. So all you have to go on is your memory, then, you don't remember

16 anything else about these meetings with President Tudjman and other

17 members of the Bosnian Croat delegation?

18 A. That is right.

19 Q. You're not in a position, sir, to say one way or the other whether

20 these transcripts such as the one we are looking at are in fact authentic

21 transcripts of tape recordings of meetings that took place on the dates

22 indicated?

23 A. I cannot speak about all the transcripts because certainly there

24 may be events and dates and topics which I would recall. Regarding this

25 one I have in front of me, I truly cannot remember that I attended any

1 such meeting.

2 Q. Continuing back to the transcript, page -- ending 343 in the

3 English version and for you, sir, I think it's the same page ending with

4 the digits 024. President Tudjman says, talking about the latest issue

5 of Newsweek, "I appointed you there and that is the policy of Croatia

6 over there." Now, sir, my question is this: In fact, when he's talking

7 about who he appointed, he's talking about Mate Boban, and when he's

8 talking about the policy of Croatia, he's talking about the policy of

9 Croatia in respect of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Isn't that true?

10 A. No. I think you misunderstood the context. If you're quoting

11 this particular sentence from the transcript.

12 Q. Just then to continue on, sir: Pages 028 to 029 of your version?

13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise but again

14 there is a misinterpretation in the cross-examination. The facts are

15 being distorted. It doesn't say Newsweek anywhere in the Croatian

16 original. It's not there. This can just be guess work. I'm over there

17 AAS. That is the Croatian original. And I don't know where the

18 Prosecutor found Newsweek because it doesn't say that in the Croatian

19 original.

20 JUDGE LIU: In the English translation of course we saw the words

21 Newsweek. But any way it's a matter of translation. We will ask the

22 professional interpreters to look into this matter. But that's not an

23 important issue, Mr. Krsnik.

24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour, but we don't

25 need an interpreter to read the Croatian original. We really don't need

1 an interpreter.

2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much for drawing our attention to that

3 point. We will do that at a later stage. You may proceed, Mr. Stringer.

4 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.

5 Q. Is it true, sir, that events like Stupni Do and then subsequently

6 the destruction of the old bridge, the Stari Most in Mostar, are what

7 led to the criticism and ultimately the resignation of Mate Boban as

8 president of the HDZ for Bosnia-Herzegovina?

9 A. With reference to Mr. Mate Boban, the late Mr. Mate Boban, the

10 context of his resignation is completely a different one. Mr. Boban

11 resigned on the eve of the achievement of the peace accords in Washington,

12 when as far as I know, the international -- representatives of the

13 international community demanded that Mr. Boban withdraw because he was

14 thought to be an unacceptable symbol for achieving a peace agreement at

15 the beginning of 1994, and it was directly requested of Mr. Tudjman that

16 he bring his influence to bear for Mr. Boban to withdraw as he was

17 considered to be an obstacle to reaching an agreement. So that was the

18 background and the context within which Mr. Mate Boban resigned. This

19 negotiating within the context of the negotiating process for a peace

20 settlement in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

21 Q. So Mr. Boban resigned because Mr. Tudjman brought his own

22 influence to bear and decided that he would not support Mr. Boban staying

23 in that position?

24 A. No. I wouldn't say that you are right. Mr. Boban could have not

25 resigned. It was up to his own political judgement as to how he would

1 behave. What I do know is that there were requests that Mr. Tudjman

2 influence Mr. Boban, but the final decision was up to Mr. Boban, whether

3 he would make such a move or not. Obviously, it was his judgement at the

4 time that though I know that he believed that that request was unfounded,

5 he resigned so as not to be an obstacle, though he didn't feel that he was

6 an obstacle, as far as I can remember. He did that because this was

7 required of him, concessions, if concessions are being required of Croats

8 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, then at the same time, Mr. Alija Izetbegovic as a

9 symbol of Muslim policies, or Mr. Silajdzic should also resign because

10 otherwise it was felt that the pressure was being brought to bear

11 unilaterally on Croatia only, on the Croats only, I beg your pardon.

12 Q. In any event, Mr. Tudjman used his influence and Mr. Boban

13 resigned. Can we agree on that?

14 A. I think that that is simplifying things. Relations were far more

15 complex and the times were far more difficult and more complex. It is

16 difficult to give a proper picture of them in such a simplified -- in such

17 simplified terms.

18 Q. Let's go back to the transcript. Your version, sir, the Croatian

19 version, the pages ending 028 and 029, the English, 346 and 347, in the

20 English 346, President Tudjman says, and they are talking about --

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric?

22 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I wanted my learned

23 friend to complete his question but since you are giving me the chance to

24 object, I object because it has to do with the transcript, namely the

25 question relates to a transcript of an alleged meeting that the witness

1 does not recollect, and any further insistence and examination on it, in

2 my view, is quite inappropriate. How can one insist on a witness

3 commenting on something that he does not remember? Only if the

4 Prosecution wishes here in public to read something from these transcripts

5 for the benefit of the Croatian media, something that may possibly suit

6 him. Thank you.

7 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Seric, those meetings happened about seven or

8 eight years ago. Nobody has a long memory to remember everything, every

9 detail of a certain meeting. I believe the Prosecutor is trying his best

10 to refresh the memory of this witness. We have to give the Prosecutor a

11 chance to do that. And later on, we'll assess the testimony given by this

12 witness at a later stage.

13 Yes, Mr. Stringer. You may proceed.

14 MR. STRINGER:

15 Q. Dr. Pasalic I want to direct you now to it a passage of the

16 President where he says, "You will now issue an order that he has been

17 replaced and send him, if there is fighting going on now, for Gornji Vakuf

18 send him over there to fight, right away not quietly, instead give a

19 statement, inform UNPROFOR and UNHCR." Now, Mr. Pasalic, my question is

20 this: He's talking about Ivica Rajic and dealing with him because he's

21 being held responsible for the events at Stupni Do. Do you recall

22 discussing this matter? Do you recall being present when this was

23 discussed, what to do with Ivica Rajic?

24 A. No, I don't remember that.

25 Q. Do you recall, sir, that in fact, President Tudjman did have the

1 authority, as indicated here, to direct the Bosnian Croat leadership to

2 take specific action with respect to military members of the HVO? He had

3 the authority to direct that Rajic be replaced, that he be sent to Gornji

4 Vakuf, and that statements be issued informing the internationals of that

5 fact?

6 A. I think that you're absolutely wrong. President Tudjman had no

7 authority to replace anyone or to order the replacement of anyone within

8 the units outside the units of the Croatian Army.

9 Q. And then continuing on the next page of the English, I believe for

10 you, Dr. Pasalic, your page 029, they are discussing the fact that he is

11 going to be accused as a war criminal, that is Ivica Rajic, and the fact

12 that merely replacing him is not enough, that it's necessary to institute

13 proceedings. And there is an a passage here three-quarters of the way

14 down the English version by Dr. Granic saying, "It's very important to say

15 that. I think it facilitates matters. That is a court inquiry." So

16 again, isn't this, sir, the leadership of Croatia discussing --

17 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, may it please the Court, the Prosecution

18 is not trying to refresh this witness's recollection any longer. He has

19 not been for the last five to ten minutes, and I apologise for being on

20 my feet, but I speak English fluently and my lead counsel does not.

21 But Your Honour, Mr. Stringer is no longer trying to refresh the

22 recollection of this witness. This witness has stated several times he

23 does not recall this meeting, Mr. Stringer is simply directing the

24 Tribunal --

25 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Meek, don't given any hints to this

1 witness. I have already said that we will give another chance to the

2 Prosecutor to refresh the memory of this witness. We could arrive at a

3 conclusion about the testimony of this witness at a late later stage.

4 Let's go on.

5 MR. STRINGER:

6 Q. Dr. Pasalic speaking today, now, many years after all of these

7 events, do you know that in fact there was an incident a military

8 operation, at Stupni Do in October of 1993? Have you heard about

9 that?

10 A. I know that there were some casualties there, but the actual

11 circumstances, I don't know. I know that there were casualties and this

12 was reported in the media.

13 Q. You don't know that Ivica Rajic was indicted by this Tribunal?

14 A. There were several Rajics. There were various men mentioned with

15 the same surname. So that I'm not quite sure whether it was Ivica Rajic.

16 I know that the surname Rajic did appear frequently in the media, because

17 if I may just add a sentence or two about these surnames, in the Croatian

18 media, every so often there is a report that somebody has been indicted or

19 will be indicted and there are hundreds of names appearing. So that in

20 this host of names in the media, during the past few years, it is

21 difficult to remember whether it was Ivica Rajic or some other Rajic

22 because in Bosnia-Herzegovina there were several people with that same

23 surname.

24 Q. The next passage I want to take you to, sir, is on your page

25 ending 7031. The English ending 348. The bottom of 348. This is the

1 President again speaking. "So that we have on one hand a firmly organised

2 government, and accordingly, the entire structure of the Croatian Republic

3 of Herceg-Bosna with its tasks and the military, which I sent down there.

4 You know that I sent a new commander and ordered that new volunteers be

5 sent to defend the Vitez line, that is to say Novi Travnik, Vitez,

6 Busovaca, Kiseljak and to bring this Gornji Vakuf to an end and later

7 Bugojno." Now, sir, my question to you is whether this is in fact a true

8 statement, that at this very time, in early November, 1993, President

9 Tudjman did send a new commander down to take over the HVO, Ante Roso, who

10 went down there and replaced Slobodan Praljak. Do you know that to have

11 taken place?

12 A. No, I don't know that it took place but what I'm quite certain of

13 is that President Tudjman could not send anyone, order anyone, nor did he

14 do so on any occasion with respect to events outside Croatia. If certain

15 soldiers or officers went to Bosnia-Herzegovina, they did so certainly on

16 the basis of their own decision. In most cases, these were people who

17 were born in Bosnia-Herzegovina and who, because of the aggression on

18 Bosnia and Herzegovina, went there as volunteers.

19 Q. And in fact, President Tudjman says right here that he ordered new

20 volunteers be sent to defend the Vitez line. Do you know in fact -- do

21 you know in fact, sir, that Ante Roso replaced Slobodan Praljak during

22 this period of time as commander of the HVO in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

23 A. With respect to your first question, I just wish to add, and

24 assert, that I'm certain that President Tudjman did not send any

25 volunteers to Bosnia-Herzegovina. If somebody is a volunteer, he goes on

1 his own. No one needs to send him there. And as for Mr. Roso, I don't

2 know whether -- or rather if he was there, then his going there was not

3 following orders of the President of the Republic but on his own free

4 will, on his own initiative.

5 Q. If you aren't completely informed on all these matters sir it's

6 because military affairs was in fact not within your area of competence,

7 as you testified on direct. Isn't that correct?

8 A. No. That is not correct. I said very clearly that my duties

9 within the Office of the President of the Republic, as adviser, did not

10 cover military matters in the strict sense but sending soldiers or

11 officers to another country is a political issue in every sense, and if it

12 had taken place, I would certainly be aware of it.

13 Q. Isn't it true, sir, that men in Croatia who refused to go fight in

14 Bosnia-Herzegovina were prosecuted?

15 A. No. I'm not aware of any such cases, that in such cases, that you

16 are referring to, if any, first of all, I don't know of any such cases and

17 still less do I know that any kind of court proceedings were conducted

18 against them.

19 Q. Are you aware, sir, that Ante Roso was a general of the Croatian

20 Army before he went down to take command over the HVO?

21 A. I know that Mr. Roso was a member of the Croatian Army, but I

22 don't know exactly in which period of time he had which rank.

23 Q. Could I direct you, sir, to Exhibit 654.2? It's in the binder.

24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before the next

25 question, to avoid interruption, I would like to ask the Prosecutor to

1 tell us whether it is a new exhibit, and it says, "Source," and it says

2 Anto Nobilo. Could the Prosecutor tell us who Anto Nobilo is, who

3 provided him with this document?

4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, if you could.

5 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President, this is an exhibit from the

6 Blaskic trial, the reference to Mr. Nobilo is Defence attorney for

7 Mr. Blaskic and this document was provided by Mr. Blaskic's attorney

8 during the course of the Blaskic proceedings and admitted into evidence in

9 that case.

10 Q. Witness, my question, this is a document dated 20 October, 1993,

11 some 20 days before the meeting in Zagreb that we have just been talking

12 about. Over the signature of brigadier Miljenko Crnjac. This indicates

13 that on the 15th of October, 1993 Major General Ante Roso submitted a

14 request to leave for the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that his

15 request was granted.

16 Sir, does this assist you in recalling the time frame in which

17 Mr. Roso took command of the HVO?

18 A. No.

19 Q. The next document is Exhibit 793.01. Sir, this is dated 23

20 February, 1995. This is General Roso's request for re-engagement in the

21 Croatian Army. Do you know, sir, whether he rejoined the Croatian Army on

22 or about February of 1995?

23 A. No, I don't remember that.

24 Q. And during the intervening period, sir, that is the period of time

25 when Ante Roso was not a member of the Croatian Army, isn't it true, sir,

1 that he was commanding the HVO?

2 A. What I do remember from that period is, I think, that Mr. Roso,

3 with regard to duties linked to Sarajevo, if I remember correctly the

4 period, that he had some military duties over there, but I really don't

5 remember anything else with precision.

6 Q. Coming back to this passage that we were just reading from,

7 besides the comment or the statement in which President Tudjman says that

8 I sent down there, I sent a new commander, it says he also ordered new

9 volunteers be sent to these places, Vitez, Novi Travnik, Busovaca, those

10 are all located in central Bosnia, isn't that true, sir?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Despite whatever de jure powers the President may have had under

13 your constitution, sir, isn't it true that President Tudjman had, in

14 effect, the power to deploy units of the HV, the Croatian Army, into

15 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1993?

16 A. The President had no authority along those lines, and it is quite

17 certain that President Tudjman did not do that.

18 Q. Were you aware, sir, at the time that the international community

19 in fact had concluded otherwise, and was subjecting President Tudjman and

20 his government to intense criticism for their involvement in the conflict

21 in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

22 A. From that period of time, I do remember that there were some

23 criticisms of that kind. I also remember from meetings with

24 representatives of the international community their opinion that the

25 Bosnian Muslims or rather Mr. Izetbegovic had launched an offensive

1 against the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, because there was a large

2 concentration of the Muslim population, that had been expelled from

3 occupied areas of eastern Bosnia and their judgement was that

4 Mr. Izetbegovic had reneged on some earlier peace proposals and

5 arrangements --

6 Q. I was asking you about this specific issue, which is the

7 involvement or the presence of the Croatian Army. Time is a bit limited

8 and so if you'll forgive me I needed to cut you off. Mr. Krsnik can ask

9 you about the offensive that you've just mentioned in his redirect if he

10 wishes to do so. Could you look at Exhibit IAC82? It's the third exhibit

11 from the end in the binder. Now this is an United Nations document, sir.

12 I have it in English and French. I don't have it in your language. Sir,

13 this is a letter dated 1 February 1994, from the Secretary-General of the

14 United Nations to the President of the UN Security Council. IAC82, third

15 from the end. You've got it. I apologise, sir, if you're not able to

16 read the English text. I'm just going to read you a very short passage

17 from this letter. In the third paragraph. "As the offensives of the

18 Bosnia-Herzegovina government forces against the HVO have become

19 successful, the numbers of Croatian soldiers appear to have increased. It

20 is assessed that in total there is the equivalent of three Croatian

21 brigades of regular army personnel in Bosnia-Herzegovina, approximately

22 3.000 to 5.000. This is an estimation." Sir, now, as indicated in this

23 letter and also in the transcript here which is a conversation taking

24 place in November of 1993, isn't it true that as a result of military

25 successes of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, President Tudjman found it

1 necessary to send additional units of the HV, the Croatian Army, into

2 Bosnia-Herzegovina to support units of the HVO?

3 A. That is quite certainly incorrect. This period, February, 1994,

4 was the period just before the achievement of the Washington peace

5 agreement and all the activities of the President of the Republic at the

6 time, as far as I know, were focused on achieving a peace agreement rather

7 than assisting and fanning the conflict. This is quite the opposite to

8 what President Tudjman was doing. You probably know that it was thanks to

9 the President's efforts that a peace was achieved and the Washington

10 Agreement signed.

11 Q. Dr. Pasalic, I want to take you now to, in the Croatian language

12 version, back to the transcript, page ending 0 -- I'm sorry, 7031, page

13 ending 349 in the English version. We could just take the transcript out

14 of the binder. I think it would -- because we are going to move around a

15 little bit more. It's the Croatian language version.

16 Dr. Pasalic you've got a piece of paper in front of you. I want

17 to direct you to the text that surrounds the name Zulfo Robovic. Do you

18 see that?

19 A. No, I don't have that.

20 Q. Your page 7032 perhaps. Do you see it now?

21 A. Yes. The top part of that page.

22 Q. Okay. While we are doing this, perhaps I could ask the usher to

23 pull 666.2 which is going to be the next exhibit. Just to save some time.

24 What's happening, Mr. Pasalic or Dr. Pasalic in this part of the

25 transcript is that a number of persons are being proposed and discussed to

1 form the government of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, and this

2 discussion begins with President Tudjman saying, "Let's follow a set

3 order. What kind of proposals do you have for the government?" And then

4 Mr. Prlic speaks, this is on page 349 of the English, "Renewal and

5 development, that's a ministry. Renewal and development, Zulfo Robovic."

6 And President Tudjman asks a little about him. Where is he from? What

7 does he do? And said -- there is further discussion. And then moving

8 across to page 7035 on your version, 353 in the English, there is another

9 person discussed, proposed to take over the ministry on agriculture, water

10 resources management, forestry, Marko Bozanovic. And then a few lines

11 down, there is the name of Ilija Kozen for traffic and communication,

12 Ilija Zuljevic for employment, social and family welfare.

13 Now, Dr. Pasalic I want to ask you whether you recall whether in

14 fact those gentlemen were approved by President Tudjman and their

15 positions in the government as indicated here were in fact announced

16 publicly on that day? And I'm going to take you to Exhibit 666.2.

17 A. What I can say about this is just to repeat what I have said

18 before, and that is that I don't remember this it particular meeting. I

19 can only say that President Tudjman never appointed, nor did he indeed

20 have any authority to appoint, any officials from the ranks of the

21 Croatian people and that is all. The decision on that, decisions on that

22 were made by the competent body of the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina,

23 whether these people were appointed or not is something that I cannot

24 answer.

25 Q. Sir, I'm going to put it to you, the report that's now in front of

1 you, and that's also on the ELMO, is a report from -- that's been picked

2 up -- issued by the Zagreb Radio Croatia on the 10th of November, 1993,

3 same day as this meeting. And this report is in fact the announcement of

4 the selection of the government members. And some of the names appearing

5 on this report are the very names that are being mentioned in this

6 transcript, Marko Bozanovic, Zulfo Robovic, Ilija Zuljevic, my question

7 to you, sir, is whether in fact --

8 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stringer, I'm sorry to interrupt you but

9 could you tell me how long you're going to take for this

10 cross-examination?

11 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President. It's going to take me more

12 than five minutes, Mr. President. I think that I can -- I think that I'm

13 going to need to use all the time that's been allotted, which I think is

14 at least an hour and 55 minutes. I think that takes us beyond 7.00, and

15 I'm in your hands, Mr. President. We are drawing to the very end of the

16 transcript. I'm certain that we can conclude on the transcript today, and

17 then beyond that, there are a couple of additional items which I think are

18 of interest to the Trial Chamber relating to some of the questions raised

19 by Judge Clark on -- during the direct in respect of some of the inquiries

20 in Zagreb on the transcripts.

21 JUDGE LIU: The problem is that we run out of tapes. I've been

22 informed by the radio booths that they have to have one minute break so

23 that they can change the tapes, right now.

24 MR. STRINGER: Well, my proposal would then be to continue

25 tomorrow, Mr. President, but again, it's --

1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?

2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] --

3 JUDGE LIU: Let us stop. Let us wait for one minute and then

4 we'll hear what Mr. Krsnik will tell us. We wanted to have everything

5 recorded in the tapes.

6 Well, I think we need some consultations to see whether we can

7 continue our sittings after 7.00 because the interpreters have been

8 working for almost two hours. They deserved to have a break and we also

9 want to know whether the accused, Mr. Naletilic, is okay to continue for

10 maybe 30 minutes more after 7.00. So we'll break now for 20 minutes to

11 see the results from the consultations with your client, Mr. Krsnik, and

12 with the interpreters, with the Registrar. We'll resume at 7.20.

13 Yes, Witness? Do you have something to say?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I can just -- my

15 request -- I have a request, when you're deciding this matter. Tomorrow

16 preparations start for the new parliamentary session and if at all

17 possible, I would have to be in the parliament tomorrow, please.

18 JUDGE LIU: We have already taken your request into consideration

19 and we will conduct the consultations during the break. We'll resume at

20 20 past 7.00.

21 --- Break taken at 7.00 p.m.

22 --- On resuming at 7.22 p.m.

23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, did you talk with your client about

24 his health?

25 MR. KRSNIK: Yes, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE LIU: Is your client ready to be with us for another 30

2 minutes?

3 MR. KRSNIK: Yes.

4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You have to remember that this

5 Trial Chamber has done superhuman effort to accommodate the request of

6 this witness to sit at this late hour. So we have to finish this witness

7 in 30 minutes.

8 Yes, Mr. Stringer. You may proceed.

9 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.

10 Q. Dr. Pasalic just one more short series of questions about this

11 transcript we have been looking at. One last name I want to direct your

12 attention to. Beginning, sir, the Croatian language version, page 035 to

13 036. English version ending with the digits 353.

14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can I maybe assist my

15 learned friend? What transcript are we talking about? Which PT numbers,

16 we don't know that.

17 MR. STRINGER: I'm sorry, it's the same one, PT 14.

18 Q. Dr. Pasalic I just wanted to ask if you can find the name, there

19 is a reference to a Dr. Vladimir Simunovic from Sarajevo. Do you see his

20 name on the page in front of you?

21 A. Yes, on page 35 at the bottom of that page.

22 Q. Okay. And if you'll just follow along with me, what's happening

23 here is that Jadranko Prlic again is mentioning names of persons proposed

24 for different positions, and as we see here, Dr. Vladimir Simunovic is

25 proposed to be the Minister of Health. The President asks, "What is he

1 doing now?" Prlic says, "He's one of the best known neurosurgeons."

2 Passing to the next page in the English version, the President

3 asks, a couple lines down, "Who is your chief of the health service now?"

4 Prlic says, "Bagaric. Do you know him?" The President says, "I do. He

5 even came to Zagreb and was very active in Zagreb and in regard to

6 everything. Why couldn't he hold the post?" Prlic responds, "He's in the

7 medical corps of the Main Staff." Again, continuing, passing to the next

8 page in the English now, 355, there is a reference here to a statement

9 made by you, "That would be in the political and organisational respect."

10 Prlic says, "I absolutely have nothing against that. He is the

11 representative." And then going down, Granic says, "Excellent continuity,

12 in cooperation I mean." Prlic says, "So we are going ahead with Bagaric.

13 We will have to change this one down there, two Bagarics especially from

14 Tomislavgrad." And then passing to the next page in the English version,

15 356, Dr. Pasalic, this statement is attributed to you. "Beside Mate and

16 you he is the most prominent person from those fields in the Croatian

17 media." Prlic then says, "Then it will have to be done."

18 Now, Dr. Pasalic, my question is whether this again is evidence

19 that in fact President Tudjman played a leading role in the selection of

20 persons who were to hold positions in the Bosnian -- excuse me, in the

21 government of the Croatian Republic or Croatian Community of

22 Herceg-Bosna. Initially someone was proposed, Dr. Tudjman indicated that

23 he favoured Bagaric, and then it was Bagaric who was agreed.

24 A. What I can tell you with regard to your opinion is that President

25 Tudjman certainly did not engage in the appointment of officials in the

1 governmental bodies of the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina. His influence

2 was mostly at some critical moments when major events were taking place,

3 first and foremost within the peace process, and on the request of the top

4 representatives of the international community. I am positive when I say

5 that President Tudjman would never deal in issues such as who would hold

6 the post of health minister, agriculture minister and other such persons.

7 Q. Taking you back, sir, to Exhibit 666.2, which is the press release

8 from Zagreb Radio dated the same day as this transcript, again, sir, we

9 found the name Bagaric as being identified as the person who will take the

10 Ministry of health. Are you able to find his name on that document?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. So it would seem to me, sir, that this press release is an

13 accurate reflection of what actually happened in this meeting. Isn't that

14 true?

15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?

16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we all have this

17 document in front of us. This is not the Zagreb Radio. And the source

18 here is east European unclassified, Radio Zagreb in Serbo-Croatian. This

19 is certainly not Radio Zagreb in 1994, and here there is no evidence that

20 this is a report by the Zagreb Radio. As far as I can see, this is the

21 English daily report from Bosnia-Herzegovina. Who wrote this, who carried

22 this? I don't know but this is not Radio Zagreb. I kept quiet. I waited

23 until the end of the question, but again, I object because the witness is

24 given a wrong interpretation of the evidence.

25 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stringer maybe you can give us indications

1 about the source of the document.

2 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President, the document is from an open

3 source called FIBIS, which is a report that is made of -- in which the

4 various media broadcasts are monitored, and written down in a number of

5 languages. This is an open source that we regularly search and refer to

6 when we are looking to find information about events. This is a FIBIS

7 report which is based upon a media report from the Zagreb Radio Croatia

8 network which is what's indicated on the top left-hand corner of this

9 document dated 10 November, 1993, report by Zdrenko Vranjes original

10 language, I'm sorry, Croatian network in Serbo-Croatian, 1800 GMT, which

11 is the time, on the 10th of November, 1993.

12 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Let us hear what the witness is going to tell

13 us.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say anything specific,

15 Mr. Prosecutor is drawing his own conclusions. Here I can see a number of

16 names which are not mentioned in the transcript, and now when I looked at

17 the transcript, I am more and more certain that I was never present at the

18 meeting, although I said earlier on that I did not remember this meeting,

19 but after so many details, I would certainly remember the meeting had I

20 attended this meeting, because after all these details, and the host of

21 names, I would have remembered had I been present at the meeting. And

22 this thing that the Prosecution -- Prosecutor has presented does not mean

23 anything to me.

24 MR. STRINGER:

25 Q. Well, sir, as you testified you attended hundreds even thousands

1 of meetings with President Tudjman. Isn't it a fact, sir, that you just

2 aren't in a position to remember one way or another whether you were at

3 this meeting? You have no notes, or at least you've brought no notes,

4 nothing you can consult other than your memory.

5 A. Yes, you are right. I cannot consult anything but my own memory,

6 and this did indeed take place a long time ago, if it did take place in

7 this way. I told you that I do not believe that this happened in the --

8 in this way because President Tudjman did not interfere in appointment or

9 resignations, save for the context of Mr. Mate Boban. After all these

10 details, after reading the transcripts in more details, after all the

11 things that you have mentioned, Mr. Prosecutor, I believe that I would

12 remember had I attended this meeting.

13 Q. Exhibit 876.001, please. Dr. Pasalic, on your direct examination,

14 you talked about this inquiry related to the purchase of a newspaper, and

15 I want to ask you some questions about that, just to clarify. It's my

16 understanding, sir, that a transcript of a meeting between you and

17 President Tudjman has been made public, the meeting said to have occurred

18 on December 27th of 1997. In this meeting it's alleged that you discussed

19 with President Tudjman the use of off-shore bank accounts in the Channel

20 Islands, in the Caribbean, as part of an effort to surreptitiously

21 purchase a newspaper called Vecernji List. The transcript, I believe,

22 sir, is the one that you've testified about on your direct examination

23 which you said that it was not accepted by the inquiry that was appointed

24 to look into this matter. Do you remember that testimony? Are we talking

25 about the same incident?

1 A. Yes. We are talking about the same incident.

2 Q. Now, it's your position, and it's been your assertion in the

3 media, I see, that you assert that the tape or the transcript in which

4 this recording or discussion is alleged to have occurred, this transcript

5 is not accurate or that it's a fictitious transcript; is that correct?

6 A. That is correct.

7 Q. The allegation that you were involved in an attempt to

8 surreptitiously purchase the newspaper called Vecernji List is a very

9 serious allegation which could subject you potentially to criminal

10 investigation. Isn't that true?

11 A. No. This is not correct, because the fictitious transcript --

12 so-called transcripts were seriously considered first by the parliamentary

13 commission and then the -- a judiciary body and they both established that

14 the document was not authentic. It was not accepted as evidence in that

15 procedure, and it was established subsequently that in the privatisation

16 of the newspaper that you're referring to, there were no irregularities.

17 This is -- this was thoroughly investigated from -- by the Croatian

18 judiciary system, and this process was finalised a long time ago.

19 Q. Did you bring any papers --

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?

21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can it be allowed for

22 this document to be read and can we hear the source of this document?

23 Again, this is not a newspaper article or -- but excerpts from something,

24 and we don't know where from, who from, whether it -- what newspaper it

25 is. So we don't know anything about this piece of evidence.

1 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stringer, if you could?

2 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. The second of the two

3 pages indicates the source which is the Sunday Times article dated June

4 18th, 2000. And again I'm happy to read it but the gist of the article is

5 that there are indications based upon the transcript of 27 December, 1997,

6 in which Doctor Pasalic explained how a smoke screen of companies would

7 hide the President's role, the use of offshore funds in an attempt to

8 surreptitiously purchase the Vecernji List.

9 Q. Now, Dr. Pasalic, my question to you is first: I'm not -- I don't

10 have any papers on the ultimate findings of this commission, and I take it

11 you haven't brought any with you. So at this stage we are just going to

12 have to take your word in terms of the outcome or the findings of this

13 commission.

14 A. It is no problem at all to obtain the relevant documents. I don't

15 have it on me obviously because I didn't know it would be of any interest

16 to you. Otherwise I would have brought it with me but what is absolutely

17 correct and what was published in the media and you can certainly access

18 this data, if not, I will be only glad to send them to you so you will be

19 able to find out that after several months of investigation, that these

20 allegations were rejected as incorrect and that all the documents were

21 handed over to the Croatian judicial organs whose decision was also

22 published. The decision -- their ruling is final in the legal procedure.

23 This ruling is known to everybody because it was published in the media,

24 and as for this ruling, there was no irregularity in the privatisation of

25 this particular newspaper which means that any prior article to the

1 contrary is false.

2 Q. You were the focus or the subject of this investigation, isn't

3 that correct?

4 A. No. This is not correct. I was one of the persons who testified

5 before this commission, but there were a number of other officials who

6 also testified.

7 Q. And, sir, it benefited you and it benefits you personally, then,

8 if in fact the presidential transcripts or this particular one is

9 discredited. Then you have a personal interest in seeing it discredited

10 because of this inquiry.

11 A. This is not correct. There are -- is a number of other pieces of

12 evidence for the possible crime, and in this particular case, it does not

13 benefit my position in any way to discredit this or any other transcript.

14 So this is -- so what you said is not correct.

15 Q. So if the transcript were true, sir, if it were an accurate

16 statement, wouldn't that create some serious problems for you in respect

17 of those allegations on the Vecernji List?

18 A. This transcript was the subject of conversations, investigation,

19 and it was clearly established that that particular transcript was not

20 authentic. I don't know what else I could add to that. In addition to

21 the transcript, as a possible argument, there was also debate on other

22 things and evidence -- testimonies were given by others who had any

23 information about the matter. Finally the proceedings were finalised and

24 they did not -- they had not established any irregularities or illegal

25 dealings, i.e. it was established that the sale had complied -- had been

1 in compliance with the law.

2 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, may I have just one moment to confer

3 with my colleague?

4 JUDGE LIU: Well, I have to remind you that your time is up.

5 MR. STRINGER: I'm just going to make sure that there isn't just

6 one last point but I think I've finished, Mr. President.

7 [Prosecution counsel confer].

8 MR. STRINGER: I have one last question, Mr. President.

9 Q. Dr. Pasalic I want to put this to you: Is it true that there have

10 been reports in publications of another transcript which indicates that in

11 October of 1999, you had a discussion with President Tudjman about

12 possibly arranging for Mr. Naletilic to escape from the prison hospital he

13 was being held in Zagreb? And on that day, and also on the 1st of

14 October, 1999, you discussed various methods and strategies, legal and

15 medical, that could be employed to delay or to prevent Mr. Naletilic from

16 being transferred to The Hague?

17 A. I don't know what you are referring to when you say published in

18 the media. I would like to see what was published in the media. What I

19 can say is that I never discussed these issues with the President.

20 MR. STRINGER: My last exhibit, Mr. President, I will just show it

21 to the witness 876.002.

22 Q. Dr. Pasalic this is an article from Nacional dated the 12th of

23 July, 2000 referring to audiotapes of a conversation between you and

24 President Tudjman. Sir, are you familiar with these reports? Do you

25 recall these reports when they came out, suggesting your involvement in an

1 attempt to prevent Mr. Naletilic from being transferred to the Tribunal?

2 A. We have here the Croatian weekly Nacional against which I have

3 raised charges before a Croatian court. This weekly has published

4 thousands of negative pages about me. Very recently I have won in a court

5 case against one of the journalists of this paper, who printed lies about

6 me, and that's why the Court decided in my favour. Recently, a Prosecutor

7 ex officio raised charges against the editor-in-chief of this paper

8 because there is a reasonable grounds to suspect that he committed a crime

9 in order to discredit me. So I don't remember this particular article

10 because it is just a -- one in a host of articles that this weekly has

11 published about me, and this weekly, as is well known in Croatia, is very

12 close to the current President of the Republic, and that it may be

13 considered a semi-official voice of the President of the Republic.

14 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, sir. I have no further questions.

15 JUDGE LIU: Any re-examination?

16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Very briefly, Your Honour,, I don't

17 wish to it take any more time

18 Re-examined by Mr. Krsnik:

19 Q. [Interpretation] These transcripts when we are talking about this

20 newspaper, was this a typical example of fabrications by this weekly?

21 A. That weekly published a wide variety of fabrications.

22 MR. STRINGER: I'm going to object to leading questions on

23 redirect examination.

24 JUDGE LIU: At this late hour I think Mr. Krsnik is asking a

25 question on the point. Yes, you may proceed, Mr. Krsnik.

1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

2 Q. You heard the question.

3 A. The question is clear. Articles of this kind with were very

4 numerous. I can give you just one example that illustrates what those

5 transcripts mean. In one of those transcripts that was also published by

6 the weekly Nacional it was suggested that the former Minister of finances

7 in cohorts with President Tudjman concealed 100 million dollars through

8 the purchase of telecom of Croatia. Several days later that was proven

9 false and was denied by the Minister of Finance. So there were articles

10 of this kind in large numbers circulating in the Croatian media.

11 Q. Because of these and similar fictitious reports, did the President

12 and the government pass this new law?

13 A. I cannot tell you the motives for the government to pass its

14 decree but it was my feeling that the government was under great pressure

15 of these pieces of paper that were being circulated and on the basis of

16 these papers, some court proceedings have been instituted and all of them

17 ended by being proven to be unfounded.

18 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I believe that this testimony now

19 about new laws or the new laws is beyond the scope of the

20 cross-examination.

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, your objection is registered in the transcript.

22 Mr. Krsnik?

23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Mr. Pasalic, I don't wish to ask you any more questions except for

25 this one last question. Tell me, please, I have looked through the

1 transcripts disclosed to me, and that I have seen that pages are missing

2 in many of them. Is it possible for pages to be missing and not to be in

3 order? And is it possible for anyone to write down anything on these

4 transcripts in free hand?

5 A. As far as I know, that is absolutely --

6 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Stringer?

7 MR. STRINGER: I object to the question. I believe it's beyond

8 the scope of cross. It's also something that was gone into on direct.

9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, it's out of the scope of the cross-examination.

10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in view of the fact

11 that the Prosecutor spent an hour discussing P14 and read out the

12 transcript, to refresh the memory of the witness, my final question:

13 Q. Please look at page 03 -- oh, you don't have it in front of you.

14 Tell me, please, finally, and once and for all, were you at this meeting?

15 Can you now remember, after this hour of refreshing your memory, were you

16 at that meeting? And after the words uttered by the President in that

17 have no meaning in the context, do you remember yourself saying at that

18 meeting, according to this transcript that we have been listening to for

19 an hour, with Mato and you, we don't know who the "you" is, it cannot be

20 seen from the transcript, "He is the most prominent person from that area

21 in the Croatian media." It is page 7038. It is out of context entirely

22 that you utter this sentence. Did you say that?

23 A. All I can say is something similar to what I answered to the

24 Prosecutor, that after a whole series of events that are described in this

25 document, and everything that is said there, I can only repeat that I

1 would certainly have remembered if I had attended such a meeting, and

2 after all the details presented, I am quite sure that I did not attend

3 that meeting.

4 Q. Well, who, then produced this transcript?

5 A. I'm unable to answer that question.

6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further

7 questions.

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric?

9 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 Re-examined by Mr. Seric.

11 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher once again give the

12 witness document PT14, please?

13 Q. Dr. Pasalic, will you please look at this transcript, page 1?

14 When was -- did this alleged meeting actually begin?

15 A. It says at 9.30 hours.

16 Q. Now look at the last page, please. When did it end?

17 A. It says here that the meeting ended at 10.55.

18 Q. Can you quickly work out how long the meeting lasted?

19 A. According to this transcript, one hour 25 minutes.

20 Q. Could you read the top number on -- in the right-hand corner? How

21 many pages were there. The first page is 014 and it ends 072. So that

22 would be about 58 pages.

23 Q. According to your own experience, as you attended many political

24 meetings, is it possible for so much to have been said in one hour 25

25 minutes? As we see on more than 50 pages?

1 A. Meetings of that kind, with so much text, would normally last much

2 longer.

3 Q. Will you please look at the page 023? The last digits being 023?

4 A. Yes, I've found it.

5 Q. In the top left-hand corner, we have some numbers again.

6 A. Yes 2/6, LJ.

7 Q. Now, next page, what do you see there?

8 A. It says 3/1/JG.

9 Q. And the end of the text on the previous page, does the text follow

10 on to that text?

11 A. As far as I'm able to judge, the end of the text on page 023 does

12 not seem to be logically connected to what we find on page 024.

13 Q. Please look at page 028. Last three digits?

14 A. Yes, I've found it.

15 Q. And the next one is 029. In the top left-hand corner are numbers

16 missing?

17 A. Which one?

18 Q. 028, we have the upper left-hand corner, in the left?

19 A. In the upper left-hand corner we see 3/5/JG.

20 Q. And on the next page?

21 A. On the next page, 4/1/LJ.

22 Q. Then look at page 032, please.

23 A. Yes. I have.

24 Q. In the top left-hand corner, what numbers do you see?

25 A. 4/4/LJ.

1 Q. And on the next page?

2 A. On the next page, we have 5/1.

3 Q. Then look at page 038, please.

4 A. 038, yes, I've found it.

5 Q. In the top left-hand corner, what are the numbers?

6 A. 5/6/JG.

7 Q. Next page?

8 A. 6/1/LJ.

9 Q. Let's go on. Page 044.

10 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Seric, it's not necessary to point every

11 place that is inconsistent. Yes, Mr. Stringer?

12 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President, I won't go

13 any further. I just want the witness to see that a whole series of pages

14 are missing.

15 JUDGE LIU: Well, --

16 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] And that the text does not have

17 continuity. Thank you, I have no further questions.

18 JUDGE LIU: The purpose is to let us see. Yes, Mr. Stringer.

19 MR. STRINGER: Well, Mr. President, sit setting aside whether one

20 can have a redirect when one never had a direct, I just want to bring the

21 Trial Chamber's attention to the fact that the notations on the upper

22 left-hand corner are addressed in transcript testimony that's been

23 presented to the Trial Chamber earlier.

24 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

25 JUDGE CLARK: Very clearly explained, I might say so. So Dr.

1 Seric you might read these transcripts and you might know exactly what

2 those mean. It was explained by the people who prepared the documents

3 exactly what those letters meant, they are to do with the tapes and the

4 people who typed them.

5 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honour, I just wanted

6 to say that my learned friend is not right. These are joint witnesses. I

7 allowed my colleague Krsnik to question him simply to gain time. So he's

8 not right in saying I have no -- I'm not entitled to redirect.

9 JUDGE LIU: This Trial Chamber has noticed that. That's why we

10 allowed you to re-examine this witness.

11 Witness, thank you very much for coming here to give your

12 evidence. We appreciate it very much. We wish you a pleasant journey

13 back home. Could I give you a piece of advice? If in the future you have

14 another chance to be in The Hague to be a witness, do not talk to any

15 person from the media and do not get in touch with them.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was a pleasure to

17 testify here. If I might -- if I may just make a brief explanation, I'm a

18 member of parliament of the Republic of Croatia.

19 JUDGE LIU: We quite understand that. It's just my advice to

20 you. You may take it or not. The usher will show you out of the room.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22 JUDGE LIU: As for the documents tendered, I hope both parties

23 will submit a list for the documents they are going to tender for this

24 witness.

25 THE WITNESS: Out.

1 JUDGE LIU: We are at a very late hour. At this moment I would

2 like to thank the interpreters, the court reporters and all the security

3 people for their cooperation. We'll make the time up. Maybe for the next

4 sitting. Yes, Mr. Krsnik?

5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I would like to thank this honourable

6 Trial Chamber for allowing the witness to go home. I'm most grateful.

7 Thank you.

8 JUDGE LIU: We'll resume tomorrow afternoon.

9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

10 8.01 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,

11 the 11th day of June, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25