1 Monday, 11 September 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 3.16 p.m.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the

7 case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour,

9 Case Number IT-04-74-PT, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Today is Monday, the 11 of

11 September, 2006. I would like to greet all those in the courtroom, Mr.

12 Scott and the Defence counsel as well as the accused. We have started one

13 hour late, apparently because of a problem of a logistical nature.

14 Somebody in the chain of command forgot to send the order of transfer of

15 the accused to the Tribunal. Because of this, we've lost one hour of

16 hearing. This of course will have an impact on the time that is left for

17 this hearing.

18 From what I understand, the Prosecution has used 252 minutes.

19 The Defence has used up four hours and 12 minutes up until now. In other

20 words, Mr. Praljak's counsel and all the other counsel who have not spoken

21 yet have six hours left plus possibly one or two additional hours. Today

22 we only have three hours of hearing, so we'll sit until 7.00 p.m. We'll

23 have only one break this afternoon around a quarter to 5.00 and we'll work

24 until 7.00 p.m. As a result, some of the time we've lost will have to be

25 recouped on another day because we will not be able to complete the hearing

1 of the witness. This will not cause any problems to the witness because he

2 works in the building so he will be able to come back at any time.

3 I wanted to turn to the Defence to ask the following question.

4 Last week I asked you if you had any comments about the document P09696

5 that was disclosed to the Prosecution following an application by the

6 Chamber. I asked the Defence to have a look at the document to see if

7 there were any comments about this document. Mr. Kovacic.

8 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, you gave us leave

9 to respond orally on Thursday afternoon. Although the motion was made in

10 writing, we could have responded in writing, but I will be very brief. We

11 oppose the introduction of that evidence.

12 If I may remind Your Honours on the 24th of August, 2004,

13 Witness BK testified under (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted) "death certificate." This was based on a decision

16 issued by the Prozor public security station 16-15-02-92-94 and the date

17 was the 3rd of April, 1994. The objection was based on the fact that the

18 entry was made pursuant to a document issued by the police rather than a

19 decision issued by a court. Under the valid legislation in Bosnia and

20 Herzegovina, this would be the only legal way of making such an entry into

21 the register of deaths declaring a missing person dead. This is a judicial

22 procedure pursuant to the law.

23 On the 29th of August, the Chamber asked that the Prosecutor

24 tender a judicial decision, these were the very words used, in order to

25 verify the entry into the deaths register. In response to this on the 5th

1 of September, 2006, the OTP delivered the document and asked that a (redacted)

2 (redacted). two

3 documents. The first document is a letter from the chief of the Prozor

4 public security station, the one that was mentioned in the certificate that

5 we saw on the 28th of August before the Court here. I won't repeat the

6 number again. And the Prosecutor -- or rather, this very fact shows that

7 the Prosecutor has not submitted the judicial decision but again a police

8 document. And this was actually the crux of the matter. The letter has an

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 which such an entry could be made into the register of deaths.

14 On the 24th of August, other death certificates were tendered,

15 and these were actually accompanied by judicial decisions pursuant to

16 procedures to declare a missing person dead, and we did not oppose those

17 documents because these are legally valid documents. We did not insist on

18 seeing on what basis the entries were made, although the Prosecutor was

19 kind enough to show us these. We oppose this exhibit because an entry was

20 made into the register of deaths in an irregular way, which is not legally

21 valid in the system of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I believe that it would not

22 be valid in most European countries. For this reason, we propose that this

23 exhibit be rejected. Thank you.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. The Chamber will make a

25 decision about this matter. Let's move -- let's move into private session

1 for a brief period of time.

2 [Private session]

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 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 [Open session]

7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session, Mr.

8 President.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. Let me now turn to

10 the Defence in order to proceed with the cross-examination of the witness.

11 I don't know who is going to take the floor first.

12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence of General

13 Praljak has given its time to the Defence of the accused Dr. Jadranko Prlic

14 so that both times will be used by my colleague.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Excellent news.

16 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

17 I only wish to say that the Defence of Mr. Valentin Coric will have

18 questions and most of these will be put by me and then Valentin Coric may

19 put a few questions at the end.

20 WITNESS: WILLIAM TOMLJANOVIC [Resumed]

21 Cross-examination by Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic:

22 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, sir, my name is Dijana Tomasegovic

23 Tomic and I am an attorney-at-law acting on behalf of Mr. Coric.

24 A. Good afternoon.

25 Q. I will base most of my cross-examination on your report and the

1 documents already shown to you by the Prosecutor, and I hope that, as you

2 have a very good memory being a historian, I will be able to go through

3 this very quickly because I believe you will be able to remember most of

4 it. At the very beginning before I proceed, I will explain a situation

5 to you, a question of yours to a question previously put to you by my

6 colleague, Ms. Alaburic. She asked you whether the military police,

7 showing the chart with little pictures and the organisational structure,

8 whether the military police was exclusively under the command of the

9 military police administration. And your response was that it was. Do you

10 remember that?

11 A. I don't remember having said it in those words. If I said it

12 with that little qualification, I misspoke or I wasn't careful enough. I

13 should have said that -- I'm not qualified as a non-military expert to say

14 exclusively under whose administration they were, although I know that they

15 did have responsibilities to the military police administration and to the

16 Department of Defence.

17 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please

18 be shown on e-court document P04262.

19 I know you are not a military expert, but I think this document

20 is very clear so we can clarify matters. This is a document issued by the

21 Main Staff of the HVO. The date is the 17th of August, 1993.

22 Could we scroll down a little so the signature is visible?

23 Q. It's signed by General Petkovic. I will try to read it for the

24 sake of the record, although I know you can see it.

25 Brigade military police, commanding authority.

1 "It has often occurred that commanders were turning to the chief

2 of the military police concerning the inefficiency of the brigade military

3 police. I hereby warn that the brigade military police is directly

4 subordinate to the brigade commanders. It is part of the brigade formation

5 and has the same status as other units within the brigade."

6 I'll skip over point 2.

7 Point 3 reads: "The chief of the military police can only be

8 asked for professional assistance."

9 4: "All problems within the brigade police are your problems and

10 should be solved through the command system."

11 Now that we've seen this document, tell me: Did you ever come

12 across the term "brigade military police" in the course of your work?

13 A. Yes, I have.

14 Q. And what we have just read out in this document concerning the

15 chain of command, would it correspond to what you discovered in the course

16 of your investigations?

17 A. Well, this corresponds to part of what I've seen in my

18 investigations. I should make very clear at the outset that this

19 particular warning here from General Petkovic deals only with the brigade

20 military police, and that's not all military police. And the other thing I

21 would add is that in other documents that I've seen in other cases, there's

22 a number of people putting forward various theories as to this very issue,

23 although this order from the chief of the General Staff would seem to make

24 this matter clearer, at least from the 17th of August, 1993, onwards.

25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tomljanovich. I will now move on. In your report

1 you say inter alia that the appointment on the 3rd of July, 1993, of --

2 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please give a reference to the

3 interpreters what she's reading?

4 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. I will repeat because I don't think the interpreters heard me.

6 In your report you said inter alia in paragraph 97 that the defence

7 department only began to fully function on the 3rd of July, 1992, from the

8 day when Stojic was appointed at its head -- or rather, when the head of

9 the defence department was appointed. Do you remember having said that?

10 Please try to focus now and recall in your memory a report shown to you by

11 the Prosecutor. It's a report on the work of the HVO for 1992.

12 You will tell me whether you remember what I will tell you; and

13 if you don't, we will look at the document. In this way, I hope to save

14 time. In that report inter alia, the tasks of the various HVO bodies

15 are considered. Crime prevention is an area where tasks are defined for

16 the SIS and the Department of Internal Affairs. With respect to SIS it

17 says that a special problem for the SIS in that area was the limited

18 activity of the civilian police or the organs of the MUP, the Ministry of

19 the Interior, as well as the nonfunctioning of the judiciary organs. For

20 this reason, action in certain situations was limited and determined by the

21 above, which had a considerable impact on efficiency in particular

22 instances. In this respect, contacts were established with representatives

23 of the Internal Affairs Department with a view to overcoming the problems

24 that have arisen and the misunderstandings, especially with respect to the

25 competences and powers regarding the sphere of activity of these services.

1 Do you remember this?

2 A. Well, in rough terms this does seem to be very similar to what

3 I've seen, although I should add the caution that whatever is actually in

4 the document is what's the evidence, not my recollection of it. Although,

5 in broad terms, yes, this seems to be -- this seems to be my memory of what

6 was in the 1992 semi-annual report.

7 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we have P00128 put

8 on e-court, please. The ERN number in B/C/S is 00405085.

9 Would you please look at the last paragraph, I won't read it out

10 loud, where the activities regarding the discovery of organised crime, drug

11 and arms trafficking, and so on is mentioned. You remember that.

12 Could we look at 00405086 ERN number. It's page 9 in the

13 Croatian version.

14 Q. And please read the second paragraph. That's what I was

15 referring to, and then we can establish with certainty that this is what

16 we're talking about.

17 A. A direct quote: [Interpretation] "A special problem was the very

18 limited activity of the civilian police, i.e., organs of the Ministry of

19 the Interior as well as the non-functioning of the judicial organs. For

20 this reason, action in certain situations was limited and determined by the

21 above which had a considerable impact on efficiency in particular

22 instances. In this respect, contacts were established with representatives

23 of the Department of Internal Affairs with a view to overcoming the

24 problems that have arisen and especially the misunderstandings with respect

25 to the competences and powers regarding the sphere of work of the above-

1 mentioned services."

2 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Tomljanovich. For the sake of time,

3 perhaps you could read it to yourself to save time because for me it's

4 sufficient that you tell me that this is it.

5 Now in the same document --

6 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we see ERN number,

7 because I want you to be sure, 0040596 -- or rather, page 19, paragraph 2.

8 Q. On this page we have a description of the activities of the

9 Department of Internal Affairs, the civilian police. And inter alia there

10 is a list of what the civil police does. It protects the life and personal

11 safety of people, prevents and discovers criminal offences, traces and

12 arrests the perpetrators of criminal offences, it investigates war crimes

13 and genocide. Is that correct? So previously we established that there

14 was the SIS, Security and Information Service, dealing with crime, but now

15 we also have the civil police in the same period of time. Is this correct?

16 A. [In English] Yes, that's correct, and I recall having cited this

17 passage in my report.

18 Q. I don't know whether you recall the decree on the organisation

19 and competences of the HVO commissions of 1992?

20 A. Yes, I do, and I believe I cited that as well.

21 Q. And in that decree, the Department of the Interior, within the

22 scope of its competences also has a crime detection and forensic work and

23 other kind of work usually done by the crime police as well as traffic

24 control and regulation, checking border crossings. Do you remember that

25 from that decree? If yes, please say so for the record.

1 A. Yes, I recall that the Ministry of the Interior was given all of

2 the law enforcement duties that would be given to a Ministry of the

3 Interior in most countries.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Considering the nature of your

5 questions that are highly legal in many respects, I'm wondering if you,

6 Witness, as an expert, you reviewed the laws of the former Yugoslavia, laws

7 dealing with investigations. And I wonder if you tried to find out who

8 conducts an investigation when a suspect is -- belongs to the military.

9 Then is the investigation conducted by the civilian police or by the

10 military police? Did you research the matter? Did you review the laws of

11 the former Yugoslavia? I'm now talking about the laws of Bosnia and

12 Herzegovina or Croatia. Did you review the texts in this matter? What can

13 you answer about this?

14 THE WITNESS: Well, Your Honour, since your question has two

15 parts I'll answer it in two parts. First of all, for this report I did not

16 make any systematic review of former Yugoslav law, although for various

17 reasons I have looked at laws of SFRJ for various purposes for other

18 research. I didn't look at any laws for interior affairs from the former

19 Yugoslavia for this report. However, in all of my work, not just the work

20 connected with this case but in general, it's always known that standard

21 practice in the former Yugoslavia was that all criminal activity - and I

22 believe it says so in the decrees of the HVO as well - any criminal

23 activity undertaken by military personnel is the responsibility of the

24 military police and not the civilian police because this comes up as an

25 issue very frequently in these cases.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm trying to understand what

2 you have said. You are saying that when a crime or misdemeanour is

3 committed within the framework of military activities, in the course of

4 military activities, it's the military police that deals with the

5 investigation, that conducts the investigation, and not the civilian

6 police?

7 THE WITNESS: With misdemeanours, I'm not absolutely positive off

8 the top of my head, although I know with more serious crimes that is the

9 case.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

11 Do carry on.

12 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Do you remember from this same report on work, the report from

14 1992, do you remember a part in that report that concerns the Department of

15 Interior Affairs and do you remember mention being made of the fact that

16 due to armed conflict there was more crime committed by people in uniform,

17 there was a rise in the level of crime committed by such individuals? And

18 my other question is: Do you remember that at the time the civilian police

19 was also concerned with crimes committed by men in uniform, by people in

20 uniform? This can be seen in the reports where they mention the number of

21 crimes -- criminal acts committed, the type of crime concerned, the

22 difficulties encountered when dealing with people in uniform who were

23 performing their duties. Do you remember coming across such matters?

24 A. Well, first of all, in connection with the first half of your

25 question, I do recall, not just in this report but in general, reports that

1 crime, both amongst uniformed persons and in general, was increasing during

2 the war. And I've seen that not just in this particular document. The

3 other -- as far as the other question is concerned, I do seem to recall

4 that the civilian police had statistics on the number of person -- crimes

5 committed by persons in uniform, although as far as I know they didn't have

6 any authority to arrest those persons or to process those crimes.

7 Q. Do you know that the civilian police, the Department of the

8 Interior, kept at least some of the equipment and staff that was part of

9 the former police force, the police force that was in existence before the

10 establishment of the HVO?

11 A. I don't remember having seen that specifically, but I'd be

12 surprised were that not the case.

13 Q. I'd like to remind you of something contained in your report now,

14 paragraph 117, which states the following. I'll read it out, and it

15 concerns the competence of the civilian police. It says: "The functioning

16 of the civilian and the MUP" -- do you have your report on you? It will be

17 easier for you to follow this passage. Do have a look at paragraph 117.

18 A. [Previous translation continues]... yes, paragraph 117, page 47

19 in English.

20 Q. Yes. It says: "The poor functioning of the civilian police and

21 the MUP as well as the judicial system in general was cited as a problem

22 for the HVO military police in September 1992 as well as HVO's military

23 counter-intelligence in the last half of 1992. The Department of Internal

24 Affairs was however able to provide law enforcement to Herceg-Bosna with a

25 2.580 personnel at their disposal as of the end of 1992."

1 Would I be correct to conclude on the basis of your report that

2 during that period there was an overlapping of the military police's

3 authority, the civilian police's authority, and the SIS's authority, the S-

4 I-S's authority, when it came to cracking down on crime?

5 A. Well, I believe all three of them had responsibilities in regards

6 to crime prevention, although I also think in the various decrees and

7 ordinances what their -- what their spheres of responsibility should have

8 been were fairly clearly outlined, although if an investigation's at the

9 stage where the perpetrator is unknown, then of course the responsibilities

10 of those three agencies could overlap.

11 Q. Thank you. I'll now go back to the report on the HVO's work from

12 1992. With regard to the military police during that period of time, the

13 following is stated in the report: In July and in August 1992, the

14 military police was still being established, commands were being

15 established, and it was being linked to the military police administration

16 at the time.

17 Do you remember anything of that sort from the report on the

18 development of the military police?

19 A. I don't remember that specifically being in this report, but once

20 again I would have been very surprised were that not the case at that time.

21 I would have suspected there would be a lot of appointments being made and

22 institutions being set up in this early period.

23 Q. Do you also remember from that very same report that reference is

24 made to a particular problem of the military police, namely that the

25 military police units did not have the adequate staff to prevent crime.

1 And therefore, attempts were made to cooperate with M-U-P, MUP, bodies in

2 this area. Do you remember this?

3 A. Well, I don't recall if I saw that in this document or other

4 documents, but I do recall repeatedly seeing references to the fact that

5 the military police had a shortage of personnel during most of this period.

6 Q. And please tell me, is one of the reasons for which the military

7 police didn't have sufficient staff and the fact that many military police

8 units were engaged in military units, they were engaged on the battle-

9 field?

10 A. Yes, and you see reports to that effect, particularly in 1993

11 when fighting is at its worst.

12 Q. Again I'd like to remind you of that same report which says that

13 it was only in September 1992 that the military police administration was

14 organised through the departments of the general and traffic police and the

15 department for crime prevention. Can you remember this passage or would

16 you like to be shown that part of the report?

17 A. Well, I don't recall that specifically in this report, so if you

18 have a specific question about that on -- yes, it would be good to look at

19 the report; although, if it's a general question, maybe I could answer

20 without it.

21 Q. No, I'd just like to see whether you could confirm that it was

22 only in September 1992 that the military police administration was

23 organised in the manner I have just mentioned. Since we mentioned up

24 earlier on, organisational matters, et cetera, that's why I'm asking this

25 question. Can you confirm that this actually took place in September? If

1 not, I'll show you the report.

2 A. No, unfortunately off the top of my head I can't remember the

3 exact date.

4 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I do understand you.

5 Could we see P00128 on the screen, that's the B/C/S version.

6 It's page 11 -- or the ERN is 00405088, that's the ERN number, and we're

7 interested in the second paragraph.

8 Q. Have a look at the second paragraph, please, and tell me whether

9 that is in fact what I have just been discussing.

10 A. Yes. It says here explicitly that over the course of September

11 there was a reorganisation in the military police administration and in the

12 units and that effective on the 1st of October there was a new

13 organisational scheme.

14 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'd now like

15 to move on to another subject, which still concerns crime, although I know

16 you're not a military expert --

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we move on to another

18 subject, there is a question I would like to put to the witness that

19 relates to a document P128. Could we have the following document on the

20 screen -- or, in fact could we see page 23 on the screen, page 23 in the

21 English version, 06618500 is the number. There it is.

22 Sir, could we read out the second paragraph, please?

23 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'll read it out in the English.

24 "A new aspect of criminal activity, war crimes and crimes of

25 genocide, has not received due attention because of the war operations in

1 this area. Efforts have been mainly directed to the collecting of data,

2 taking statements from eye-witnesses of crimes. In order to document these

3 criminal offences on-site investigations have been carried out on the sites

4 of mass executions of victims of genocide." And parenthetically here it

5 says in English "sentence as written."

6 "In this sphere, 15 war crimes and crimes of genocide over the

7 civilian population have been registered."

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This HVO report

9 which covers the entire year 1992 demonstrates that the -- made a list of

10 15 war crimes or genocide, we don't know what the distinction is, and

11 certain investigations were conducted. Were you familiar with this

12 paragraph and did you ask yourself anything about these 15 war crimes or

13 crimes of genocide? Did you try to delve into the matter?

14 THE WITNESS: Well, I did see it and I did find it interesting.

15 Unfortunately I believe this is part of the report of the Ministry of

16 Internal Affairs, and unfortunately if there were any investigations

17 undertaken at this time -- need to remember this is still just for the last

18 half of 1992. If there were any investigations undertaken, I've not seen

19 any documentation directly related to that nor do I know - and I'd be

20 curious to know - what specifically the 15 war crimes are, although given

21 the time period in which they're discussing, I would be extremely surprised

22 were they not discussing crimes committed by Bosnian Serb and JNA forces

23 during that period. Just from the time period from which it's taken you

24 would assume it was in reference to that, but not having seen specifics I

25 can't say that with any certainty.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There's another question. One

2 of the Judges would like to put.

3 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, if my memory serves me

4 well, I remember that last time you testified you said that a text have

5 been promulgated with regard to the establishment of military jurisdiction.

6 If that was the case, in the course of your investigations, did you find

7 out anything about these military courts in fact? Did these military

8 courts discover anything about these crimes referred to?

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, my colleague's question is

10 very precise. In this paragraph reference is made to crimes committed in

11 the course of combat, in the course of war, and those who are at war are

12 usually members of the military. So the court that would be responsible

13 would be the military court, the military prosecutor, the military police

14 would be responsible for such matters. Did you pose such questions to

15 yourself in order to direct your investigations, if any investigations were

16 in fact conducted?

17 THE WITNESS: Well, it did occur to me; however, unfortunately I

18 haven't seen any records from the military courts regarding such matters.

19 I've -- I -- as far as I know, we don't have access or I did not have

20 access to such materials. I understand that perhaps these matters should

21 have been dealt with by the military courts, and the military courts are

22 discussed in my report. But whether or not they did take up these sorts of

23 cases in this period, I don't know from the available documentation.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There's another question I have

25 on my mind. When an expert is drafting a report and the expert discovers

1 that there is a problem which requires the expert to make an additional

2 effort, shouldn't the expert then ask the person who requested that a

3 report be compiled, shouldn't the expert ask that person to provide him

4 with additional documents? In the light of this paragraph, didn't the idea

5 occur to you to ask the Prosecution to provide you with the files from

6 military courts if he had such files, files that made reference to 15 war

7 crimes or 15 acts of genocide? My -- just a minute, Mr. Scott, the witness

8 will answer the question and then you can take the floor.

9 Yes.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was under the impression that I was being

11 given access to everything which was in our possession. Now, the whole

12 question of should we go and make requests and make efforts to find other

13 documentation that the Prosecutor or the ICTY doesn't have physical

14 possession of, that's something we've been working on for years. And

15 generally speaking, in the months and weeks before the report is finished,

16 the prospect of finding anything new from -- based on my own initiative to

17 find something new would be -- the chances of that bearing fruit would be

18 very slim. But it was my understanding that I had access to all the

19 documentation that we had in-house for the purposes of putting this report

20 together.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

22 Mr. Scott, you wanted to take the floor.

23 MR. SCOTT: Just to point out, Your Honour, as I did last week on

24 several occasions. This was beyond the scope of the report. Mr.

25 Tomljanovich was never commissioned to conduct a detailed inquiry into the

1 workings of the military courts or an investigation of specific cases.

2 Only a broad generally overview of the governmental and political

3 structures. So he was never asked, it was never part of his job to look at

4 that. Thank you.

5 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, I may be off, but I do recall the

6 gentleman saying something to the effect that there were others in the

7 office of the Office of the Prosecution that were dealing with court

8 documents. Perhaps the witness could verify whether my memory serves me

9 correctly.

10 Secondly, in light of your questioning, perhaps you could ask the

11 gentleman if he made any efforts, specific efforts in the field to go to

12 the municipalities, to go to the -- to get these records. I understand he

13 says he didn't come across any, but did he actually make an effort?

14 Because he's claiming no fruit would be borne by efforts. What efforts

15 were made by the gentleman?

16 MR. SCOTT: He was never asked to do it, Your Honour. He was

17 never asked to do it, Your Honour. I think the point has been made.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, Mr. Scott has

19 provided the response. The witness was never asked to make this effort,

20 and as a result the witness didn't think it was necessary to pursue the

21 matter to ask his colleagues in the OTP whether they had such documents or

22 to go to the relevant sites themselves to look for such documents, that

23 wasn't part of the task assigned to the witness.

24 Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: Getting back to what I stated earlier, I believe

1 it was on -- somewhere between -- I believe it's 6230, page 6230, lines 21

2 to approximately 632 -- 6231, line -- line 4, where the gentleman indicated

3 that other - "other persons who I know from my office have looked at those

4 materials," meaning materials from courts. I'm just mentioning that to

5 just verify that my memory was indeed, you know, rather accurate.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you have understood the

7 purpose of the question, even if this wasn't, strictly speaking, the task

8 assigned to you, did you discuss this matter with your colleagues from the

9 Office of the Prosecutor? Because you said that there are other

10 individuals from the OTP who had documents. This was page 6230, is this

11 something you looked into or not because it wasn't part of your task?

12 THE WITNESS: No, this was something I looked into. Late in the

13 drafting of my report when I had a fairly final draft put together, I did

14 ask the lawyers responsible for different parts of the case which were

15 affected by this report if they'd thought I missed anything particularly

16 important. I did get suggestions of about -- gosh, maybe about a dozen

17 things to look into. Now, of the things that were recommended to me, some

18 of them were not included in the report just because the problem with the

19 report -- and it's in evidence here and elsewhere, for -- thank you.

20 In general, the problem always is with a report of this sort, I

21 could go into a great deal of detail on any one of these subjects, and

22 fortunately or unfortunately we have a great deal of documentation at the

23 lower level for many of these problems which are mentioned in the report.

24 The question is always with something that's intended to be an overview of

25 the structures broadly speaking and intended to assist the Judges in

1 understanding those structures and processes in a global sense, the

2 question is always how much local detail is appropriate. And that's

3 something which is a judgement call on my part. Certainly if I had gone

4 into details with every document which was available for every particular

5 office and every particular municipality, we'd have a much longer document

6 in front of us.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, perhaps we should

8 stop there.

9 MR. KARNAVAS: If I could -- if I may, Your Honour, because I

10 believe at the commencement of the cross-examination, Mr. Murphy indicated

11 -- had a certain request with respect to communication between the

12 gentleman and Office of the Prosecution. In his answer he's now just

13 admitted that during the drafts this OTP employee, who's a member of the

14 Prosecution team, asked that the drafts be looked at and what if anything

15 he missed so they could put in -- obviously into his report. In light of

16 that admission, I do -- I would like to renew now, renew the request made

17 by Mr. Murphy and I would like for the gentleman concretely to tell us what

18 if anything he was told was missing so he could put it in so he could

19 dovetail the Prosecution's theory and its indictment. And also, I would

20 like all communications between this gentleman and the members of the team

21 with respect to the writing of this particular report because it seems to

22 have taken a life of its own.

23 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, our position remains the same as it was

24 before. Nothing has changed. Absolutely nothing has changed since the

25 witness first began testifying. In fact, I indicated just a moment ago

1 that in very clear terms these were not matters of which he was

2 commissioned to conduct this work. There's further reason there's no basis

3 for any inquiry into any of this at all, and we continue to maintain our

4 position. We object to any such production under Rule 70. We think it's

5 not appropriate.

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Tomljanovich, did you write anything into

7 this report because members of the Prosecution team told you you must write

8 this in the report?

9 THE WITNESS: No one told me I must put anything into the report.

10 My question was: Have I forgotten anything? And is there anything,

11 broadly speaking, that should be addressed here that I don't know about

12 because of the limitations of my own knowledge that should be addressed

13 here where appropriate. I was told -- the only instance -- very little --

14 I got very little feedback in that regard. I was surprised I didn't get

15 more.

16 What I was told amongst other things was that I could not

17 include more specific documentation in regards to specifics on some of

18 these issues. I then asked: Well, wasn't the point of my report to be at

19 a higher level and not so specific? And I was told: No, in these

20 particular instances -- because the thing I was very worried about over the

21 whole course of the report is overlapping with evidence -- other witness's

22 evidence, which is something which would be very easy to do. So I had

23 thought that certain areas would be covered by other witnesses, but in two

24 small areas I was told that it would not. And so I did write on those

25 subjects, although I did not include all the documents which were suggested

1 to me because I did not think all of them were appropriate for a report at

2 this level and of this length.

3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: So can I understand you as saying that it was

4 you and not anyone from the Prosecutor's office who finally decided what

5 you put or did not put into the report?

6 THE WITNESS: Yes, absolutely. And I don't believe anyone saw my

7 final draft until it was disclosed. I don't think anyone read through it

8 beginning to end, other than myself. And one intern I had proofreading my

9 English and punctuation.

10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. We'll move on to

12 something else, but having listened to this exchange, apparently what I

13 understand is that you asked the Prosecutor or one of -- some of your

14 colleagues, you said: This is the first draft of my report. Can I add

15 anything else to it? And then you said that to your great surprise you

16 were told that it was excellent, that there was no need to inquire about

17 other subjects. Is that the way we should understand your answer?

18

19 THE WITNESS: Yes, and I should add that at the same time earlier

20 on in the drafting of this report, I was also told by a number of people

21 who'd looked at it: Well, this will be covered by other witnesses and you

22 don't need to go into great detail about, you know, matters which will be

23 dealt with in, say, the presidential transcript that will be dealt with by

24 other witnesses, so I didn't need to worry about those things. But my

25 motivation in asking was to see if there were any major issues or any major

1 funds of documents which I'd missed and with a few small exceptions I had

2 not missed anything, but I wanted to make sure I had not.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. So you've given us a

4 very specific answer.

5 Mr. Murphy.

6 MR. MURPHY: Well, Your Honour, it is specific, but it raises the

7 question again as I think Judge Trechsel's questions did as to whether

8 we're dealing here with an expert report or a coordinated piece of advocacy

9 prepared by the Office of the Prosecutor as a whole. And this is the

10 entire problem here as having someone who has played -- has been so

11 intimately connected with the preparation and investigation of the case in

12 posing as an expert before this Trial Chamber. This is exactly the sort of

13 problems we discussed.

14 Your Honour, I renew my objection to the admissibility of this

15 report, and indeed I renew my request, as Mr. Karnavas did on my behalf,

16 for access to whatever input other members of the team had to this

17 document.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We take note of your remarks.

19 You're raising again an issue that has already been debated, and because of

20 this Mr. Scott has to take the floor again.

21 MR. SCOTT: Only to say, Your Honour, that I submit that the

22 state of the record now is stronger than ever, stronger than it ever was

23 that this has been a fully independent report by Mr. Tomljanovich, that he

24 controlled the content of the report. The only thing he has talked about

25 this afternoon was requesting whether certain collections of information

1 had -- other collections should be considered. But the state of the record

2 now is stronger than ever that this was an independent report prepared by

3 Mr. Tomljanovich.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic.

5 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wish to formally

6 join with the Prlic Defence with respect to the request that the OTP

7 urgently disclose to us all the internal correspondence with the expert,

8 especially from the time when his first draft of the report was circulated.

9 It is not just the issue raised by my colleague Mr. Murphy, that is the

10 closeness of the link between the expert and the OTP, it's that these notes

11 could be used as evidence, that the Office of the Prosecutor actively

12 participated or may have actively participated in the preparation of this

13 report, even through their critique of it. And that is why I reiterate the

14 request that this correspondence be disclosed to us. It would clarify many

15 things.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. The Chamber has already

17 ruled on the matter. I don't see any reason for us to reconsider the

18 issue.

19 You can proceed, Madam.

20 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

21 I know that this discussion was useful, but it has taken a lot of time from

22 the Defence of Mr. Coric, so that when a count is made of the time we used,

23 could these 20 minutes be subtracted from my time, please?

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do not worry. You will have

25 these additional 20 minutes.

1 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. I wanted to go back after His Honour Judge Antonetti showed to

3 you this chapter concerning war crimes, you said that you assumed it was

4 part of a report referring to the work of the department Of Internal

5 Affairs, the MUP, but you weren't sure as far as I can recall?

6 A. Well, I assume it is but I'm not sure because I can't page

7 backwards on the electronic copy to be sure which chapter it's in. I can

8 only read this one part here on the screen.

9 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could the part beginning

10 with B be shown to the witness? It's page 18 in the B/C/S, 00405095, and

11 the title is B, internal affairs.

12 Q. And a concluding question about the topic raised by His Honour.

13 In view of the fact that this paragraph is in the part of the report

14 relating to internal affairs, may one conclude that it is the department of

15 internal affairs that dealt with investigating this kind of crime?

16 A. Well, certainly they must have at this time and in these

17 instances, that doesn't necessarily mean that at other times and other

18 instances other persons would not have been involved as well, because this

19 is prior to the founding of the War Crimes Commission, I think, that we

20 discussed earlier in my testimony.

21 Q. Thank you. I would now like to move on, and our text topic will

22 have to do with military justice department, the military courts and the

23 military prosecutor's offices. Although you're not a military expert, it's

24 usually the military police, after carrying out an investigation, that

25 sends a written report to the military prosecutor's office, and then the

1 military prosecutor institutes proceedings before military courts in cases

2 where the system is functioning normally. Is that correct?

3 A. Yes. If things get that far, that's the normal chain of events

4 with an investigation in the military.

5 Q. In your report you mention this, and I believe you will recall

6 that it was only on the 17th of October, 1992, that the HVO issued a decree

7 about district military courts and a decree about district prosecutor's

8 offices establishing these military courts and prosecutor's offices. Do

9 you recall that?

10 A. Yes, I recall that. I also recall the 3rd of July decree on

11 courts in general, but I recall this as well, yes.

12 Q. I'm asking you now only about military courts, and that was the

13 17th of October, 1992, the date of the decree establishing them.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. May one conclude from this that the military courts and military

16 prosecutor's offices did not in fact exist before the 17th of October,

17 1992, and after the establishment of the HVO, even on paper?

18 A. Well, certainly not on paper at this level. Whether or not

19 people were organising things locally, I can't say with any certainty. But

20 at this level, that's correct, not until the 17th of October.

21 Q. Tell me, please, in your report, if I interpret it correctly and

22 I believe I did, more than once you refer to particular documents and

23 reports from which it transpires that the military justice system in fact

24 was not functioning until the end of 1992 in a normal way.

25 A. Yes, it --

1 Q. Do you recall that from your report?

2 A. Yes, it's mentioned in the document we're looking at and it's

3 also mentioned in the minutes of the meetings of the HVO, HZ-HB around this

4 time, end of 1992, beginning of 1993.

5 Q. Do you recall from your report the part where you speak of the

6 competences of the military courts, where you say that they were authorised

7 to carry out proceedings against military personnel but also civilians if

8 they violated a military institution?

9 A. Yes, I do recall that -- or if they violated military statutes, I

10 think not violated a military institution. There might be a trouble with

11 the translation there.

12 Q. Do you recall from that same decree concerning district military

13 courts who was authorised to institute criminal proceedings, to submit a

14 criminal report, to carry out a police investigation in proceedings before

15 military courts?

16 A. Proceedings would be initiated by the military police, and then I

17 believe carried out by the district military prosecutors. That's my

18 recollection from the top of my head.

19 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we have on e-court

20 document P00592. That is the decree on district military courts, and could

21 we look at Article 27, please. Article 27, please. If we can open it.

22 Q. I will read the first paragraph to you which says: "The

23 commander of a military unit and a military institution is duty-bound to

24 take all necessary measures to prevent the perpetrator of a crime, under

25 official prosecution, from hiding or escaping, and must attempt to preserve

1 all the traces of the criminal act and all objects that may serve as

2 evidence. He must also obtain all information relevant to the criminal

3 proceedings."

4 "It is the duty of the commander of a military unit or

5 institution to inform the district military prosecutor or his superior

6 commander immediately of any information mentioned in paragraph 1 of this

7 article."

8 Now that you've read this passage, would you agree with me if I

9 were to say that the powers I asked you about previously under this decree

10 do not belong to the military police with respect to all military

11 personnel, but it is the commanders of each unit that have these powers

12 with respect to the members of their units. Am I right in saying this?

13 A. Well, I would say that this article here is intended to list the

14 duties of individual military commanders in the field, and it lists them in

15 the first paragraph. And in the second paragraph it gives them the duty to

16 inform the district military prosecutor of such things. Now, what that

17 might say about other instances which do not directly involve a military --

18 do not involve the intervention of a military commander I couldn't say from

19 this article. But from this article, yes, he's got a direct -- the

20 military commander has a direct duty to inform the district military

21 prosecutor of these particular things here.

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If I may just as a matter of precision, are you

23 saying that this is a competence which is not, according to the text before

24 us, an exclusive competence?

25 THE WITNESS: I don't see anything here and I hadn't thought of

1 it before, but I don't see anything in this article which would lead me to

2 believe it is exclusive necessarily.

3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

4 THE WITNESS: Which doesn't mean that it isn't necessarily, but I

5 don't see anything that indicates that.

6 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Tell us, please, in view of the fact that you've studied this

8 decree, did you find an article in it regulating the duties of the military

9 police towards the military court and the military prosecutor? Did you

10 find such an article? And if you did, could you tell us which article it

11 is? Since you didn't deal with it in your report; that's why I'm asking

12 you.

13 A. Off the top of my head, I can't say this is a relatively long

14 article -- or relatively long decree with many articles. Off the top of my

15 head, I can't say whether or not the specific duties of the military police

16 are anywhere in this.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic.

18 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I hesitate to

19 interrupt, but someone may have misread something here. Perhaps it might

20 be better to clarify it now than to have to come back to it later. The

21 article before Article 27, the one we've been discussing - and it's quite

22 clear from the text - speaks quite explicitly about the authority of a

23 military commander or a military member to detain someone so that this

24 select-specific tells us who has the right to detain a perpetrator. The

25 witness is reading this provision as if it relates to initiating

1 proceedings; that's not what is being dealt with here. And this was

2 discussed on the previous page as well. That's my understanding, but I

3 only wish to contribute to clarifying this article.

4 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I disagree with my

5 colleague Mr. Kovacic because I think that this article in a summary

6 fashion regulates several stages in the proceedings ending in arrest and

7 detention. But as Mr. Tomljanovich himself has said that he is not a legal

8 expert, there will be a time for us to analyse this with a witness who will

9 be a legal expert and who will be able to explain what this article is

10 about. I just wish to say that it's quite telling, that's why I read the

11 first paragraph, that there is a clear list of the duties of a commander to

12 preserve traces or evidence, to inform the prosecutor, to prevent a person

13 from escaping. This is not necessarily linked solely to detention.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, apparently you're not the

15 appropriate expert to deal with questions of a military nature, but in

16 Article 27 we have this provision about the commander of a military unit.

17 Is that the commander of a brigade or the commander of a unit positioned on

18 the ground? There might be an officer with three soldiers, and in that

19 configuration, is the officer with these three soldiers, is he the one who

20 is supposed to take action or is he supposed to report the matter to his

21 superior commander for the commander of the brigade to report the matter to

22 the military prosecutor? If you can answer this question, please answer;

23 if it's too complicated, just tell us that this does not come within your

24 domain of expertise.

25 THE WITNESS: Well, it doesn't necessarily come within my

1 expertise, although I can explain a few things that might make it clearer,

2 although I'm not sure that I can explain all aspects of your question. One

3 problem with B/C/S as opposed to, say, French or English is that there's no

4 such thing as a definite article or an indefinite article that would say

5 "a" or "the" the translator's assumption that puts it there or does not put

6 it there. However, my reading, if you look at the second paragraph in

7 Article 27, since it says that a commander of a unit or institution, I

8 would imagine that means any commander, a commander, as opposed to the

9 brigade commander. That, I think, sheds some light on the first half of

10 the question. It is my understanding then, which is not definitive, that

11 this would refer to any commanders, not just brigade commanders. Since

12 it's not specified and since they say here in one instance: "Commanders of

13 units or institutions."

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In other words, when you're

15 saying that it's -- it applies to any commander, it applies to all the

16 officers? Is that what you're saying?

17 THE WITNESS: That's how I would read it. I would read this as

18 being binding on any commander of a military unit or institution.

19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Witness, I put it to you that a military unit is

20 a relatively well-defined and general notion which in other languages is

21 called a company. That's a minimum, minimum size which -- which is

22 regarded as an essential entity. A commander is not someone below a

23 lieutenant who has just a platoon or even a corporal, a non-commissioned

24 officer, even less is not a commander. A staff officer in a battalion

25 regiment and so forth is not a commander. The commander is the chief of at

1 least a company. But a brigade commander is a commander, a battalion

2 commander is also a commander. Would you disagree with that?

3 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't -- I don't know enough to disagree

4 with that or agree with that. Apparently Your Honour knows a great deal

5 more about this than I do, and not being an expert in military affairs I

6 don't know if the term "commander" would only apply to -- I guess what

7 you're saying is captains and above if they have a specific unit to

8 command.

9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I wish to stress that I am not a military expert

10 either.

11 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one more question. I do

13 not remember, but tell us, yourself, did you do your military service in

14 the United States?

15 THE WITNESS: No, I did not. I spent three years in a military

16 high school which I didn't finish, and that's the extent of my military --

17 that's the extent of my military experience.

18 MR. KARNAVAS: During this pause, Your Honour, if I may, I'm

19 getting a little nervous about the line of the questioning, particularly

20 from the Bench because it's quite obvious that the gentleman is not

21 competent in this particular field. And I draw the attention to the -- the

22 first question posed by Judge Trechsel as to -- asking the gentleman to

23 give his opinion with respect to exclusivity. And the gentleman, knowing

24 that he's not an expert, knowing that he doesn't know how to read the law,

25 by his own admission from last week, nonetheless went ahead and speculated.

1 I am rather troubled, and I note this on the record because I saw Judge

2 Trechsel taking notes, and I speak very frankly, I am worried that at some

3 point we are going to accredit more than we should to this gentleman's

4 testimony. I think it's okay to speculate, but we're wasting our time

5 asking questions of this -- such technical nature to such someone as this

6 gentleman who obviously -- simply does not have the background or the

7 experience to answer these sorts of questions, and by his own admission is

8 not here to do so.

9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I hope you noted, Mr. Karnavas, that I took note

10 also of your sorrow and worries.

11 MR. KARNAVAS: I did, I did. And please keep doing that, Your

12 Honour.

13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I do.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Please proceed. We

15 have five minutes left before the break.

16 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, just a brief text from your report which I wish

18 to analyse because it seems to me there may be a mistranslation. It's

19 paragraph 129 which in the Croatian version says: "Stojic," that's line 4,

20 "claimed that the military courts were still not functioning, saying that

21 there were over 1.000 military police complaints which had still not been

22 processed by the courts."

23 Now, what bothers me here is complaints or tuzbena ibasterij

24 [phoen]. In the original it says "reports" and that is a significant

25 difference. I only wish to establish whether you would agree with me that

1 the B/C/S word prijava, as in criminal report, would be the correct

2 translation of this into B/C/S?

3 A. The correct translation of which English word? Complaint?

4 Q. [In English] Complaint.

5 A. Yes, and it's a legal police term of art, yes.

6 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you. I would now like to move on to

7 disciplinary responsibility. To the best of your recollection, who --

8 whose duty was it to establish disciplinary responsibility and carry out

9 disciplinary proceedings? Do you remember or should I show you the

10 document?

11 A. Off the top of my head, I think the decree on military discipline

12 from July 1992 lists the commanders themselves as responsible.

13 Q. Let's just establish this and put on e-court document P00293,

14 Article 19. I'll begin reading and then you can check. In Article 19 it

15 says: "Superior officers shall establish the disciplinary responsibility

16 of their subordinates according to the prescribed procedure and shall

17 pronounce disciplinary measures for which they are authorised hereby."

18 Would you now say that you recall that it is the superior

19 officers who are authorised?

20 A. Well, that's exactly what it says here in the first part of

21 Article 19.

22 Q. Now that we're here, could we have a look at Article 29? I'll

23 start reading it again. It says: "When an authorised officer assesses

24 that a violation of military discipline also constitutes a criminal

25 offence, this shall be handed over through the regular procedure to the

1 competent prosecutor."

2 I won't read any further. Does it follow from this that when a

3 criminal offence has been committed simultaneously as a breach of military

4 discipline, it is again the superior officer who is competent to establish

5 responsibility? Am I right? I'm not sure I'd use that wording. If it's

6 also a punishable act and not merely a disciplinary act, my reading of this

7 is that it will be handed over to the official prosecutor and he will deal

8 with the criminal problems. Insofar as it is a disciplinary problem, which

9 will be at a lower -- lower level of seriousness, that would be taken care

10 of by the commander.

11 Q. Yes, but the authorised officer is the person who forwards the

12 case to the authorised prosecutor in cases of criminal offences?

13 A. Well, it doesn't necessarily say "in all cases." It just says

14 that if a disciplinary violation represents something serious enough to be

15 a punishable act, then the superior officer should transfer it on to the

16 proper authorities, which I take to mean the military prosecutor.

17 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that was my

18 question. That's fine.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic.

20 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Perhaps

21 we could clarify a minor matter. There are two ways in which disciplinary

22 rules can be violated. There are disciplinary errors and there are

23 disciplinary violations. My colleague's question concerns disciplinary

24 errors, and the witness keeps talking about disciplinary violations, which

25 is quite a different matter regulated by -- it falls under paragraph 3,

1 Article 51 and onwards. I just wanted to avoid us confusing these two

2 separate terms, these two separate concepts.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll summarise the

4 problem because we have to have a break now.

5 Article 29 seems to say that when an officer is familiar with an

6 act that could require disciplinary measures and that it could be

7 punishable, in such a case he has to refer the matter to the Prosecutor.

8 Is that your reading of this article?

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, if it's something that is of that nature,

10 that's what he should do, he should forward this matter on to the

11 responsible authorities or to the authorities who have that duty.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, that seems clear to

13 me.

14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I must confess that I did not at all understand

15 the question of Madam Alaburic as to two types of disciplinary violations.

16 Maybe after the break I would need some clarification. There is a

17 plurality here I think of semi-medical -- semi-military experts and this

18 doesn't necessarily make it easier. Perhaps we would close the chapter of

19 these military special questions and wait for a real military expert to be

20 brought before us. We can think about this in the break.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, it's ten to 5.00. The

22 registrar has just told me that for technical reasons it's necessary to

23 have a half an hour break. So we will resume at 5.20 exactly.

24 --- Recess taken at 4.51 p.m.

25 --- On resuming at 5.21 p.m.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's 5.20 and we'll be working

2 until 7.00 p.m.

3 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Could we now see document P04699 on the screen. It's a report on

5 the HVO's work from the -- for the period from January to June. In the

6 B/C/S version -- could we first have a look at page 18 in the B/C/S

7 version. 00563781 is the number for the English translation, and we're

8 interested in page 11.

9 Q. While we're waiting for the document to appear I'll move on. I

10 don't think it says that it's a report for the HVO's work for the period

11 January to June 1993. I don't think that's been recorded in the

12 transcript. I'm interested in the third paragraph in the B/C/S version,

13 page 11 in the English version. I see that we haven't got that page on the

14 screen yet, but I'll read out the third paragraph. It's page 18 in the

15 B/C/S version, and page 11 in the English version. In paragraph 3 it says

16 -- well, mention is made to SIS's activities.

17 It says: "At the same time the service registered -- recorded a

18 number of criminal activities, theft, smuggling, rape, the misappropriation

19 of vehicles, and other crimes. Crimes which were committed by HVO members,

20 by members of the military, and by civilians, and these crimes were

21 committed in the territory of Central Bosnia, Travnik, Vitez, and Bugojno,

22 as well as in the territory of Mostar and other municipalities."

23 My question is whether one can draw the conclusion from the text

24 that we have just read out that the SIS was also involved in work that

25 concerned crime prevention, they were involved in crime prevention when

1 people in uniform were at stake, not necessarily the active military

2 forces.

3 A. Yes. In general it was the job of the SIS to keep an eye on the

4 military, as military counter-intelligence for any misbehaviour or trouble

5 within the military or any outside forces working within the military. And

6 criminal problems of soldiers would be involved within the area they were

7 looking into.

8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, could you indicate in the English

9 version the paragraph you have been quoting because on page 11 there is a

10 paragraph that starts with the words "at the same time" but it doesn't

11 follow at all as you have read.

12 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Your

13 Honour. I'll do so immediately. It's the last paragraph on page 11, and

14 it continues on the following page, page 12. And also the paragraph after

15 that one. I'll tell you the exact order now -- yes, it's in the middle. I

16 apologise. Perhaps I wasn't precise enough.

17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. But I like your yellow numbers, that

18 was very helpful. Thank you.

19 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Let's see page 20 in the

20 B/C/S version of the same document and in the English version it would be

21 page 13. In the B/C/S version it's the fourth paragraph, in the middle of

22 the page. And in the English version you can also see the paragraph that

23 starts with the words: "The department for crime prevention." We're now

24 talking about the military police for the same period of time. It says:

25 "The crime prevention unit in the military police administration has been

1 transformed in that its authority has been delegated to the level of the

2 operative zone, has been transferred to that level."

3 Q. My question is as follows: On the basis of this text, can we

4 conclude that during that period of time the responsibility for preventing

5 crime had been taken over by military police units within operative zones

6 and that therefore the bodies that have authority -- that had authority in

7 those zones were responsible for that matter -- for such matters and not

8 the military police administration?

9 A. Well, what you're asking there, the control over military police

10 who are inside the various operative zones is a matter which has been

11 litigated at great length in a number of different trials here. I don't

12 know what, if any, definitive answer has been made as to this question.

13 Although, this particular section here and in all of the HVO's reports, the

14 various sections reporting on themselves are responsible for writing these

15 things up. The military police administration here has indicated that

16 they're moving the powers of crime prevention down to the operative zone

17 level. So that's, I think, one piece of evidence which contributes to a

18 conclusion regarding that problem. But the whole problem of control of

19 military police is an extremely complicated problem, which unfortunately I

20 don't feel qualified to make any firm conclusions on.

21 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22 Could we now see document P09551 on the screen. It's a report

23 from the defence department for the period July to December 1993. So the

24 ERN number is 00405197, that's for the B/C/S version. Unfortunately I

25 don't know the number for the English version. Of course we seem to have a

1 problem with the translation, but I can read it out and Mr. Tomljanovich

2 can follow the text. The ERN number in the B/C/S version is 0040 -- yes,

3 that's the right page. Could we have a look at the last paragraph, the

4 last paragraph and the penultimate one. I'll read the text out now, the

5 part that I'm interested in. It says: "On the basis of the situation in

6 military police units and in the military police administration, the course

7 of December 1993 commenced to establish a new HVO military police as of the

8 1st of December, 1993. This new body came into existence as of the 1st of

9 December."

10 Then it says: "This new structure of the military police means

11 that the system of commanding the military police units has been changed so

12 that all military police units are under the command of the military police

13 administration and in the course of their daily duties the military police

14 shall be subordinated to HVO commanders."

15 Q. Does what I have just read out confirm my previous conclusion,

16 the conclusion I drew with regard to the previous document?

17 A. I -- just one correction, though, I think there's a mistake in

18 the transcript. When you read out the text of this the first reference to

19 a month said that over the course of December 1993, and in the original,

20 the month is Studeni, which would be November.

21 Q. Yes, November, that's correct.

22 A. This indicates that in -- at least of November -- well, from the

23 beginning of December 1993, the military police were re-formed into

24 different units. And as part of this, from that date onwards, they were to

25 be responsible in their day-to-day workings to the HVO commanders, from

1 that point onward.

2 Q. I'll now have to analyse this though. It says: "This new

3 structure of command and control in the military police has been changed so

4 that all military police units are now under the command of the military

5 police administration." I think the military police administration also

6 had command over all military police units before this, so would it be

7 necessary to say a change was at stake? Or if that had been the case, if

8 the military police had been in charge of them, it wouldn't be necessary to

9 say a change was at stake?

10 A. Although, and I'm having trouble reading the original here

11 because it's very small -- the changes could be in reference to reforming

12 and creating the light assault battalions and not - let me see -- not

13 necessarily in regards to whom they are responsible. Let's see here.

14 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, the text is more legible. It says: "The new

15 structure means that the system of command and control has also been

16 changed."

17 Can you see that part? That's what I'm trying to draw your

18 attention to.

19 A. It says that the -- I see that the -- the way in which they are

20 commanded has been changed and in their daily function -- carrying out of

21 their duties from -- within their sphere of responsibility of the military

22 police, they're subordinate to the commanders of -- individual commanders

23 of the HVO, which implies implicitly that that had not been the case before

24 but not explicitly.

25 Q. That -- you've avoided answering my question again. Maybe I

1 wasn't clear enough. I'm interested in the part that says the bodies being

2 structured -- changed in such a way that the military police administration

3 will be in command of all military police units. If we follow your

4 reasoning, then this means that the military police administration wasn't

5 in command of all those units until this new structure was established.

6 A. No, I don't believe that I would say that. Looking at this again

7 they say that under the new system for the daily carrying out of their

8 duties, the military police units are subordinated to unit commanders of

9 the HVO.

10 Q. Please, read out the first two lines of that paragraph again.

11 A. Yeah, with the new structure, so that meaning from December 1st,

12 1993, onwards.

13 Q. And then it says: "The system of command and control over the

14 military police units has been changed so that all military police units

15 are now under the command of the military police administration."

16 In my opinion, if the military police administration had been in

17 command of all units before this period of time, it wouldn't have been

18 necessary to write this sentence. Do you agree with me?

19 A. Yes -- I'm sorry I misunderstood you earlier. I was focussing

20 too much at the end of the -- of the paragraph. It also -- well, it's hard

21 to say how universally this can be applied because what they're saying here

22 is that all units from December 1st onwards which are commanded by the VP

23 administration, implying that not all were before that date, but it doesn't

24 necessarily mean that some were not prior to that date. Explicitly it just

25 says that all were subordinated from that date forward -- or are commanded

1 by -- I'm sorry, not subordinated, but commanded by the military police

2 administration.

3 Q. Thank you. I want to move on to another subject now. That --

4 the subject I'm interested in is this subject of check-points and border

5 crossings?

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we move on to another

7 subject, I would like to see document -- the last number of this document

8 is 5215. Could we see that document on the screen, please. I'd like to

9 see the English version of that document on the screen. The last part of

10 the number is 5215.

11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer].

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As we can't see it on the

13 screen, we'll put it on the ELMO.

14 Witness, I'd like you to read out the part that I've marked. It

15 starts -- the last paragraph starts with the words: "As regards crime ...

16 " and then it continues on the next page. And when you read it out, it

17 will also be interpreted into B/C/S. Please go ahead.

18 THE WITNESS: Yes.

19 "As regards crime of particular state interest (war crimes),

20 unchecked and successful work of crime officials dealing with it is

21 obvious, considering the fact that the enemy forces of MOS /Muslim armed

22 forces/" -- I'm sorry, in brackets, not in parenthesis, Muslim armed

23 forces, "committed several massacres against Croatian civilians at

24 different place in central Bosnia and Herzegovina. Processing these

25 serious war crimes and collecting qualitative evidence is ongoing and apart

1 from filed reports, the filing of criminal reports (as printed) against

2 Croats in Uzdol, Doljani, and Grabovica is expected."

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Does this report refer to any

4 procedures instituted against Croats for crimes committed in Uzdol,

5 Doljani, and Grabovica? How do you analyse this?

6 THE WITNESS: Well, I'd like to take a look at some point at the

7 B/C/S here again, because I think the reason that the translators here put

8 "as printed" inside brackets as -- was because it wouldn't necessarily or

9 it wouldn't at all make sentence to file criminal reports against Croats

10 for the crimes of Uzdol -- well, perhaps -- no, for Uzdol, Doljani, and

11 Grabovica because those were all crimes allegedly committed by ABiH forces.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, would it be

13 possible to see the B/C/S version of this paragraph?

14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It would be possible if we had

16 the B/C/S e-court number. I don't have it. Do you have it? If Defence

17 counsel has the number, please inform us of the e-court number and we'll

18 then be able to have a look at the B/C/S version.

19 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] In the B/C/S version it's

20 00405215.

21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

22 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] P09551.

23 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh, yeah.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do you have it in B/C/S now?

25 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continues]...

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Read out the paragraph in

2 B/C/S.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "In the area of crime of special

4 state interest, war crimes, the successful work of crime officials is

5 obvious, given that the enemy MOS forces have perpetrated a number of

6 massacres against the civilian Croat population at a number of locations in

7 Central Bosnia and Herzegovina. The processing of these grave war crimes

8 and the gathering of quality evidence is a permanent process. And in

9 addition to a number of reports filed, it is expected that criminal reports

10 will be filed with regard to the Croats in Uzdol, Doljani, and Grabovica."

11 [In English] My ...

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The French

13 interpretation was not very good because there was something that was a

14 little ambiguous. I'd like to know whether the last part of sentence in

15 B/C/S means that there were complaints or reports against Croats. That

16 concerns the three locations mentioned, Uzdol, Doljani, and Grabovica.

17 THE WITNESS: It's my assumption - and I'm fairly certain about

18 this - that this is a typo, that this was an error in this document the way

19 it was put together. I suspect what they intended to mean was that they

20 would be filing complaints against the persons who'd committed the crimes

21 against Croats in Uzdol, Doljani, and Grabovica. Partly I assume that,

22 too, because the word preceding "Croats" is nad hrvatina, upon the Croat,

23 and I assume that if they were going to be indicting Croats - and I could

24 be wrong about this - but I assume if they were going to be indicting

25 Croats they would say "protiv" instead of nad; against, instead of on top

1 of. And in these places it wouldn't make sense that you were indicting

2 Croats for that. And in this paragraph they mention it was by members of

3 the Muslim population against the Croats, so I assume this is a typo.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you're saying that the

5 translation in English "against" doesn't correspond to the phrase, the

6 Croats were probably victims and not the authors of these crimes. Is that

7 the gist of what you're saying?

8 THE WITNESS: That's the gist of what I'm saying based on a

9 number of things, the context of what happened, the first part of that

10 paragraph, and also the use of the particular word they're using here

11 before the Croats, who would have charges filed against them. It doesn't

12 seem the -- what would be the normal choice of words. So I'm assuming it's

13 a typo.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, because the question

15 I was asking myself was whether any investigations had been conducted which

16 put into question HVO Croats, and now you seem to be saying that this

17 paragraph says that there were investigations into massacres carried out by

18 the MOS and this concerned these three locations mentioned, but apparently

19 the Croats were victims in those locations. That's what you're saying.

20 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll give the floor back to the

22 Defence now.

23 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

24 For the sake of the transcript I'd just like to check something

25 with regard to the paragraph --

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'd like to get my document

2 back, please.

3 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] The paragraph is part of

4 the report on the work of the HVO for the period July-December 1993, the

5 specific paragraph is in the part entitled "the crime police sector."

6 Q. And now just tell me whether it would be correct to say that this

7 crime police sector was a part of the Department of Internal Affairs?

8 A. That depends on which part of the report we're talking about.

9 There was a criminal police sector for both the military police and for the

10 internal affairs department, and if it's in the part of the report dealing

11 with the ministry -- or the Department of Internal Affairs, then it would

12 be.

13 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] If

14 necessary, but I think it may not be because Their Honours have the hard

15 copy before them and can check that what I said about the titles is

16 correct, perhaps I can show the witness the B/C/S version. Could we have

17 the B/C/S version for identification. The ERN is 00405214, and then a page

18 later just for the sake of identifying the paragraph, paragraph 2, here it

19 is, and I would now like to go back to page 00405210.

20 Q. Can we establish that this concerns the criminal police sector

21 within the Department of Internal Affairs?

22 A. Yes, if the order of pages is what you're saying, yes, we could.

23 Q. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Tomljanovich. I would now like to

24 move on to control of traffic and border crossings. In your report you

25 dealt with several documents, and I'll put a few brief questions to you

1 from which it will become evident who controlled traffic and in what way in

2 1992 and 1993. According to my understanding of your report and the

3 documents cited, I conclude that traffic control and check-point control

4 was dealt with simultaneously by the military police, the civil police, the

5 border police, the SIS, and the customs service when it comes to checking

6 goods. Am I correct?

7 A. Yes, I believe all of them had some role in controlling the

8 borders, although exactly who was supposed to be doing what is beyond the

9 scope of what I was looking into.

10 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Well, to jog our

11 memories, could we have on e-court document P00128 again, it's again the

12 report on the work of the HVO for 1992. In the B/C/S version it's on page

13 11. I'll read the last paragraph in the B/C/S version. Can we have the

14 English version shown at the same time. Well, in B/C/S it says, and this

15 is in the section dealing with the work of the military police, it says:

16 "Border crossings and check-points of the military police have been

17 established at major communications and those leading towards the battle-

18 front. Control of all military and other convoys is being carried out

19 which are surreptitiously transporting military equipment."

20 Q. Would you agree with me that what I have read out describes the

21 activity of the military police in connection with control of traffic, it

22 describes what the military police does as opposed to the other bodies we

23 have mentioned?

24 A. Yes, and not simply in regard to the borders but also in regard

25 to check-points before the front -- actually, now that I see this here

1 again and look at the translation, I don't -- yes, no, it's both, yes.

2 Sorry.

3 Q. Would you agree with me that the same powers that the military

4 police had with regard to traffic control also obtained in 1993?

5 A. Yes. In the absence of any other evidence saying otherwise, yes.

6 Q. And now I would like to move on to my last line of questioning.

7 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we have on e-court

8 again P04699. It's a report referring to the period from January to June,

9 and it's 25 in B/C/S and page 16 in English. In English it's on page 16

10 and B/C/S it's 25.

11 THE INTERPRETER: The year is 1993, interpreter's correction.

12 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Let me read the second

13 passage in become. It's line 5. This is a report by the military police.

14 "A large number of prisoners is being taken to work, which makes

15 it impossible for them to escape. There have been several such instances,

16 but there is no possibility of increasing the number of military policemen.

17 Prisoners are being processed by employees of the SIS and the crime

18 prevention service."

19 Q. In view of this, would I be correct in concluding that in

20 connection with Heliodrom because it's the only place you have mentioned so

21 far, the criminal processing of prisoners was done not just by military

22 policemen but also by the SIS and the criminal service?

23 A. Yes, although with -- I believe I mentioned Gabela as well and

24 not just the Heliodrom, but in general I do know that the SIS had a role in

25 processing prisoners and have seen documents to that effect.

1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could you please explain what the verb

2 "processing" means in this context.

3 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not entirely sure what it does mean in

4 this context. What I would understand it to mean, based on the fact I've

5 seen records of SIS officers going into the camps and taking statements

6 from prisoners, that it would be in regards to their bureaucratic

7 processing. What exactly that would entail, I'm not sure from this

8 context. But I do know that the SIS agents did have a role in dealing with

9 these prisoners, and I also seem to remember that generally speaking before

10 somebody could be released, the SIS would also have to give its say-so that

11 they had no reason to want to keep that person in detention.

12 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. I'll go on reading from the same paragraph where it says:

14 "Prison governors have been appointed who undertake all coordination work.

15 The military police have the task of providing security for prisoners. The

16 phenomenon of forced entry and violent investigation by certain commanders

17 has been registered. Such behaviour should be definitely prohibited and

18 prevented."

19 Is it correct to conclude from the paragraph we have just read

20 that the military police had too few employees, that it was in charge of

21 providing security for these prisoners, and that because of this it was

22 able to conduct a criminal investigation processing only in part.

23 A. Well, no, I believe the - well, that, amongst many other things.

24 It also mentions that where the shortage of military policemen is mentioned

25 is in connection with of prisoners who have been taken out to work

1 escaping, and then later in the paragraph it mentions that, you know,

2 people coming in and forcibly -- taking prisoners and forcibly conducting

3 an investigation with them should be stopped, but you could imply that

4 that's because of the shortage of military police. But I don't know if

5 everything that's mentioned in that paragraph can be attributed solely to

6 the -- is being attributed to the shortage of military police, although

7 that would certainly be a reasonable inference.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you please read out the

9 last sentence again because it's very important for us and we need to be

10 extremely precise, extremely accurate. Can you please read out again the

11 last sentence, read out, please, for the interpreters to be able to

12 translate.

13 THE WITNESS: Yes.

14 In Croatian or -- in the Croatian original?

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the English version.

16 THE WITNESS: In the English version, the last sentence of that

17 paragraph reads: "Such behaviour should be definitively prohibited and

18 prevented."

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Such behaviour, I suppose it

20 relates to the preceding sentence. Can you read the sentence just before

21 that one?

22 THE WITNESS: Yes. The sentence before that reads: "The

23 phenomenon of forced entry and violent investigation by certain commanders

24 has been registered." For that sentence.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The interpreters in the French

1 booth tell me that "forced entry" should be replaced in French by

2 "intrusion," there seem to be two behaviour, forced entry by elements

3 coming from the outside and investigations conducted by, in English,

4 "commanders" but then we should look what the term is in B/C/S, it might be

5 the officers or the prison wardens. So we are faced with two different

6 types of incidents. How do you analyse this? What conclusions did you

7 draw from this?

8 THE WITNESS: Well, it was my understanding reading this and

9 perhaps we should just read the B/C/S again directly for a French

10 translation, but it's my understanding from the context here that the

11 commanders certain -- the certain commanders who are conducting

12 investigations forcibly are coming in from the outside as well. Because if

13 it was the camp director, he'd be a ravnate [phoen] or another word mean

14 being director and probably not zapoljetnik [phoen] but it was my

15 understanding that the commanders are commanders coming from outside as

16 well.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the sentence could be read

18 differently. There can be two types of incidents, people coming from the

19 outside who enter the premises of the prison, and then investigations

20 conducted by commanders. But what you seem to be saying is that the

21 investigations are conducted by the commanders in a forceful manner. In

22 other words, the commanders mentioned here are officers coming from the

23 outside who come inside in order to conduct investigations within the

24 premises of the prison. That's how you understand the sentence, isn't it?

25 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's how I read the sentence and I came to

1 that conclusion because the word "forcible" is repeated twice in the B/C/S

2 original. It's forcible entry and forcible conducting of investigations.

3 So both are forcible, and that's exactly how I read the sentence.

4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could one translate "forcible investigation"

5 into "investigation under ill treatment"?

6 THE WITNESS: I assumed when I read this that that was a

7 euphemism for that, that they weren't really conducting investigations.

8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: What puzzles me, I must say, is the term

9 "commander" here because I -- it sort of does not sound convincing that

10 commanders in the main sense that we had the word earlier today would go

11 and personally beat up prisoners for some investigation purposes.

12 THE WITNESS: Well, I think such things did happen in the camps.

13 I've certainly seen witness statements to that effect, although I don't --

14 aside from this I've never seen it being attributed to investigations

15 purposes.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Please proceed,

17 Madam.

18 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] My last question --

19 could we have on e-court document P02533? It's a report on the work of the

20 Office For Displaced Persons and Refugees of the 27th of July, 1993, and in

21 the paragraph before the last in the B/C/S version, the last few lines, it

22 reads as follows:

23 "We have secured considerable quantities of the most varied

24 kinds of humanitarian aid, several thousand tons. And owing to this we

25 have managed to secure normal conditions for about 2.000 persons to live on

1 the Heliodrom without the help of other organisations."

2 Q. What I'm interested in is whether one can conclude from this that

3 the Office for Displaced Persons and Refugees was tasked with supplying the

4 Heliodrom with food, medicines, and other basic necessities.

5 A. Well, it's left open here. They talk in this quote that they're

6 doing this along with other organisations and institutions. So certainly

7 they were one of the institutions involved in doing so, although it doesn't

8 make specific reference to what it was that authorised them to specifically

9 provide food to the Heliodrom or who authorised them to do so. Or, I'm

10 sorry, I'm looking at the wrong sentence. It says that they did secure

11 materials and food for those 2.000 persons at the Heliodrom without the

12 help of other organisations, although it doesn't say who it was who told

13 them to do that or if this was part of their normal operation or not.

14 Whether or not this was the sort of thing that -- one of their regular

15 duties, I mean to say.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This sentence does not mean

17 that the humanitarian organisations who supplied thousands of tons of aid

18 for the 150.000 displaced persons, that's what we read, and -- because then

19 to supply necessities, basic necessities, for 2.000 people at the Heliodrom

20 meant that there was no need to resort to other sources because there was

21 already enough aid for 150.000 people. Is that the meaning of this

22 sentence?

23 THE WITNESS: Well, it's the sentence prior that states in

24 general they've accommodated for 150.000 people and that they've -- and

25 then in addition it's the next sentence which talks about securing food and

1 material for persons at the Heliodrom. I take it that the Heliodrom, in

2 providing food and the proper conditions for the 2.000 people there, is

3 just one part of everything they've done. Now, the next sentence when they

4 say that during the collection of humanitarian aid, well I don't think we

5 got to that question -- we didn't get to that sentence yet. But those two

6 sentences, that's the relationship. The provision of material for the

7 Heliodrom is one example of how they've been providing for these 150.000

8 people.

9 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

10 Thank you, Mr. Tomljanovich. I have no further questions. I

11 don't know whether Mr. Coric has a few technical questions.

12 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

13

14

15 Cross-examination by the Accused Coric:

16 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, my name is Valentin Coric, accused. I would

17 like to attempt to clarify some issues with you which I believe remain

18 unclear after this examination. I will first use a document I cannot show,

19 but I will use only a small portion of the text. The 26th of December,

20 1992 -- on the 26th of December, 1992, a new organisation of the military

21 police of the HVO took place. The document I am holding in my hands is a

22 document issued by the Department of Defence, and it was signed on the

23 right-hand side by the head of the department, Bruno Stojic, and on the

24 left-hand side by the chief of the military police administration, Valentin

25 Coric. It's an OTP document. I can read out the number, although I don't

1 think it's necessary.

2 One of the most frequently mentioned questions which you also

3 pointed to today or issues is the issue of delineating responsibility

4 between the military police and the HVO. I ask for your patience and we

5 will comment later. I will read out two sentences which state clearly the

6 crux of the matter. I quote: "As regards the delineation of

7 responsibilities within the military police, the brigade military police --

8 polices are in charge of securing barracks and headquarters, command

9 headquarters, securing military transports for the brigade, securing entry

10 to the battle-field in the area of responsibility of the brigade, bringing

11 in and detaining for the brigade," this refers to soldiers belonging to the

12 brigade.

13 And then another category in the military police is mentioned.

14 "Other units, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Battalion of the

15 military police are in charge of all military police work in the operative

16 zones. Every operative zone had a military police battalion. The 1st

17 Military Police Battalion, that's an extra battalion, is linked directly to

18 the military police administration (the chief) and carries out, according

19 to orders, its activities on the entire territory of the Croatian community

20 of Herceg-Bosna."

21 And then there's a sentence unifying all this.

22 "The military police administration shall command and control all

23 military police units."

24 And the final part, the concluding part: "The commanders of

25 military police battalions attached to the operative zones," and that

1 refers to 2, 3, 4, and 5, "in their daily performance of tasks are directly

2 subordinated to the commander of the operative zone and shall carry out all

3 commands relating to the performance of military police tasks and are in

4 accordance with the powers and competences of the military police."

5 And the last sentence reads as follows: "Military police

6 platoons attached to the brigade," this refers to the brigade police,

7 "shall carry out the orders of the brigade commander within the sphere of

8 their competence."

9 That is the end of this text which contains a more extensive

10 explanation. As I personally created this text at the time, I was one of

11 its authors, and it was accepted at the defence department meeting of

12 department heads and it was implemented in practice and the implementation

13 continued in July and also assault battalions were added, the status of

14 which was defined, in my view these -- this issue which has been arising

15 for years before this Tribunal concerning lack of clarity, vagueness, and

16 so on in the organisation of the military police, I think if -- would you

17 agree with me that this vagueness is actually being manufactured according

18 to the needs of a particular trial? Because this organisation here is

19 confirmed by thousands of reports that this Tribunal has, speaking about

20 the daily activities of the military police. Do you agree with what I say?

21 MR. SCOTT: I'm going to object, Your Honour. For one thing,

22 we've had a five-minute or a five- or ten-minute question. I don't know

23 it's gone beyond the screen. I can't understand why we can't have a

24 reference to a document. Why are we referring to a document that no one

25 knows what it is. It's not clear to me why this is the case. I'd like to

1 see the document, please.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Coric, what is the number

3 of the document?

4 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] It's 01032246. As far as I

5 can see, it's from the Zagreb state archives. It has a little stamp on it.

6 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, could you please answer my question --

7 MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry, I object to the procedure.

8 Why couldn't we have been told this at the very beginning rather than

9 sitting here and listening to the document being read instead of having it

10 in front of us. The procedure should be that if the accused themselves are

11 going to put questions to the witness, Your Honour, notwithstanding the

12 fact that they may be laypersons, they have to follow the procedure. So I

13 object to this manner of proceeding.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, I don't agree with

15 you for the following reason: An expert witness was examined by you and by

16 Defence counsel with regard to the military police. One of the accused

17 presents a document, he provides us with a number, but it's not a

18 Prosecution number, apparently it's a number that concerns archival

19 documents from Zagreb. It seems that this document establishes a

20 distinction within the military police between five battalions. There's

21 military police battalion 1, which has to do with the military police

22 leadership, battalion number 1, as far as I have understood, is responsible

23 for security, a very general term, whereas battalions 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the

24 military police are attached to the brigade command. That's what I have

25 understood on the basis of this document. What's important for us is for

1 the witness to answer the question. Was he familiar with this document and

2 what does he think about the manner in which responsibility was divided

3 within the military police itself?

4 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, the Court misunderstands my objection.

5 My objection was not so much as this point to the question but to the

6 manner in which the document was put.

7 Mr. Coric, for some reason, stood up and said he couldn't give

8 the source of the document, he couldn't identified the document, but to

9 read from it for some period of time. Then when I raised the issue, he

10 gave us a number. A document should be identified by exhibit number and by

11 number when it's first put.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This document has

13 been identified. It's in the e-court system. Has it been registered in

14 the e-court system? Because I'm told that the ERN number is not

15 sufficient. What is this document's number?

16 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] It's a Prosecution

17 document, P00957.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We could perhaps have a look at

19 the document on the screen. So we have the document now.

20 Witness, what would your answer be to Mr. Coric's question?

21 According to what I have understood, the question concerned the fact that

22 the 1st Battalion was under the military police leadership, whereas the

23 other four battalions were under the brigade commands. What is your

24 response?

25 THE WITNESS: Well, I should first of all say that my response is

1 based on things I've seen prior to working on this report. In this report

2 it was not my intention to get into this whole issue or to deal with the

3 military police and issues of command and control in this detail. I do

4 know, however, from other things I've seen that the basic idea was that

5 these various police -- military police battalions were sent out into the

6 operational zones. And while they were in those operational zones for the

7 matter of day-to-day military commands, they were under the control of

8 their operational zone commanders. Now, I don't know and I'm not sure if

9 this document or other documents make it entirely clear, in the event of a

10 disciplinary problem involving soldiers in those military police

11 battalions, whether or not processing the disciplinary -- any disciplinary

12 or criminal proceedings against members of those units would be primarily

13 the responsibility of the operational zone commander or of the head of the

14 military police administration. And that's not a question I was intending

15 to get into, but I do know some things from it from prior cases.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I think perhaps the question Mr. Coric has asked

17 was slightly different. You have at one point this afternoon said that the

18 delineation of competencies of the military police and other authorities

19 was very difficult and complicated a matter, whereas I think Mr. Coric is

20 putting to you that it is something very simple according to the document.

21 Is that -- did I interpret you correctly, Mr. Coric?

22 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Yes, perfectly.

23 THE WITNESS: Well, if that's the case, I can only say that

24 people who are supposed to be more well-versed in these issues than I am

25 seem to think it's not a simple problem. And if it was as simple as

1 looking at the one document, it's a shame the one document wasn't

2 introduced by Mr. Coric and others in prior cases if it does answer all the

3 questions, which I wouldn't be in a position to know.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's take a specific case.

5 Let's take a given operative zone, operative zone X. There are check-

6 points in this operative zone because such question was put. The check-

7 points are there to provide security. According to what we have been told,

8 this would be the responsibility of the 1st Battalion. In the operative

9 zone, if any individuals arrested by the police and taken to prison Y, for

10 example, in such a case would this be the responsibility of the leader in

11 the operative zone, the brigade commander, and the leadership of the

12 military police, that is -- has responsibility of the 1st Battalion doesn't

13 necessarily have to be aware of the matter, they are not necessarily

14 responsible. That's the problem. How would you analyse this? What would

15 your response be?

16 THE WITNESS: Well, I would say again that first of all this is

17 outside the scope of what I was intending to deal with --

18 MR. SCOTT: And I'm going to intervene there, Your Honour. I

19 don't know how many more times I have to say this. We keep putting

20 questions to this witness that are beyond the scope of what he was asked to

21 do. So we can continue to do that and ask for this witness to speculate,

22 but this witness was never asked to look at the military -- the operations,

23 the detailed operations of the military police. And when we looked at

24 various charts, including the organisational charts, the witness has said a

25 number of times that he didn't make the charts on the bottom half of the

1 page and so I object myself because we're now going -- repeatedly made this

2 point, so we keep putting questions to this witness that are beyond the

3 scope of what he was asked to do, so it's pure speculation. The witness is

4 not qualified. He hasn't looked at it and he shouldn't speculate about it.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you've heard

6 the answer as suggested to you by the Prosecution, according to whom, you

7 are not competent to answer such questions. Or do you believe that you are

8 competent?

9 THE WITNESS: No. If it gets into questions of the day-to-day

10 operation of the armed forces and the military police, then I am not. If

11 it's just where the military police fits within the department and where

12 they're mentioned in broader references to broader structures and

13 processes, then I would be competent. But something like this that gets

14 into day-to-day operation, I would not be.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

16 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I'd just like to add

17 something. This document is called "The structure of the HVO military

18 police," Mr. Tomljanovich, and your report was entitled "The governing

19 bodies and organs." I think this is an important subject for your report.

20 Since this is a Prosecution document, I'd like to know whether when

21 drafting your report you had access to this document. Have you seen this

22 document before in fact?

23 THE WITNESS: Well, I'll answer -- there's a few questions there.

24 I'll answer them in order. First of all, it was my charge to deal with the

25 political and governing structures and processing, not the military

1 structures and processes. For example, if an order said: The structure of

2 the 3rd Platoon in whatever place in Vitez, that wouldn't make it subject

3 to my report. So I would not understand this particular order to be part

4 of the sphere of things I was supposed to be addressing in my report.

5 Now, to the rest of your question, this question -- this document

6 here, just looking at the ERNs on the translation and on the original -- if

7 we could scroll up to the top of the original. Yeah. This is the sort of

8 document I would have had access to. Now, I have all -- access to all

9 sorts of things, but they're not necessarily things I would be looking for.

10 I think in this instance this is something where, if I'd been told to look

11 at it, I would have been able to find it, but it wasn't the sort of thing I

12 was looking for in drafting my report because it gets down to a level of

13 detail beyond the sorts of things I was intending to deal with.

14 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I'm just not quite sure that the

15 answer -- that he answered the question. Did he look at this document?

16 And if so, we know why he didn't put it in his report, but I would like to

17 know: Was he aware of the existence of this document? He's the expert.

18 There is a section on the military, there's a section covering the military

19 police. Obviously as the expert, he decides what he's going to include

20 and/or exclude in his report. The question is: Was he aware of the

21 document? Did he know the document -- of the document's existence? Had he

22 read it? It's a yes, no, maybe, I can't remember, you know, the choices

23 are few.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you seen this document?

25 And if so, why didn't you refer to it in your report?

1 THE WITNESS: Well, few reasons. First of all, I may have seen

2 this document years ago when we initially went to the archives and found

3 these documents. That's conceivable, but I would not have seen it since

4 then, nor do I remember having seen it, nor have I had a chance to read

5 through this beginning to end yet here either. So I might not have ever

6 read this document. This document and other documents, as far as I

7 understand -- now, this is still -- remember a document I have not read

8 beginning to end, is a document which I assume, based on Mr. Coric's

9 characterisation of it, a document which would deal with command and

10 control issues inside the military police, which I would have, had I known

11 about it, I would have thought that this was something that was a military

12 problem which should be dealt with by the military expert, which the

13 Prosecution intends to call. However, as I was writing my report, I did

14 not know specifically about the existence of this document.

15 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, I don't want to take up --

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, we've understood

17 --

18 MR. KARNAVAS: [Previous translation continues]...

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- the answer. We should leave

20 -- we should allow Mr. Coric to continue.

21 MR. KARNAVAS: Absolutely. I was going to point out the de jure

22 part because it's part of his report.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Coric.

24 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, when preparing for the report you drafted, did

1 you come across any other documents that were drafted on the basis of this

2 one and define the role of command for the military police? There were

3 scores of them from the very highest level to the lowest level. Did you

4 ever come across a single such document that referred to the same subject I

5 have been discussing now, yes or no?

6 A. I may have earlier but not in preparation of this report, not

7 with these particular issues, no.

8 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr.

9 Tomljanovich. I have no further questions.

10 Thank you, Your Honours.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Coric's Defence

12 has concluded its cross-examination. We have another 25 minutes before we

13 adjourn. Who will start now? We do have 25 minutes, so obviously we won't

14 have time to conclude with the cross-examination.

15 Mr. Scott, I'm turning to you now because next week I see that

16 you have planned for a number of witnesses who will be appearing here. The

17 Judges have discussed this. It would be good if the cross-examination

18 could continue very rapidly and not one month or two months later. If the

19 witness could come on Monday again so that the cross-examination can be

20 completed, so on Monday, the 18th of September, in -- well, in that case it

21 would be necessary to have the other witnesses appearing a little later.

22 Is that possible or not?

23 MR. SCOTT: I don't know, Your Honour. I'd have to check with

24 Mr. Mundis and check on scheduling. If the witnesses have already arranged

25 their travel and are coming it may not be possible to change it at this

1 point since Mr. -- we, too, are anxious to conclude Mr. Tomljanovich's

2 testimony, as he is, so he can go on with his life without this hanging

3 over his head. But I don't know what the schedule is in terms of whether

4 people are coming from a great distance, and it -- unfortunately for Mr.

5 Tomljanovich, since he is here in The Hague, it is easier for him to fit in

6 on the available time spots, than it is to cancel people coming from a long

7 distance.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There are three reasons in

9 favour of continuing with his cross-examination next Monday. Firstly,

10 since he has taken the solemn declaration and he must avoid any form of

11 contact with the Prosecution, this constitutes a technical problem if he

12 remains in such a situation for a month, that might be difficult; and then

13 secondly, the Defence teams that have yet to cross-examine the witness must

14 have prepared their questions. If we postpone his testimony, this will

15 make things more difficult. And then if we return in a few weeks' time, it

16 will be necessary to take things up where we left off, to start all over

17 again. So see about this with Mr. Mundis, but it would be ideal if he

18 could come back on Monday and we'd have the other witnesses at a later --

19 the witness who was supposed to appear on Monday would appear on Tuesday

20 instead. So this concerns the week that commences on the 18th and finishes

21 on the 22nd. Discuss the matter with Mr. Mundis, but I've just provided

22 you with three reasons for which it would be good to call the witness back

23 on Monday. We have another witness tomorrow and the day after, and

24 Thursday it's not possible.

25 I'll now give the floor to Pusic's Defence counsel.

1 MR. SAHOTA: We started the session at 5.20 and I understand this

2 session is to be of 90 minutes' duration. I have approximately between

3 half an hour and 45 minutes of questions, and I would like to ask the

4 Tribunal if they would wish me to begin now with the prospect that I may

5 not finish and resume next week or alternatively if the Tribunal is of the

6 view that I may be allowed to resume next Monday when this witness returns.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ideally you would start now

8 because we have 25 precious minutes remaining, and then next Monday, if

9 possible, you will complete your cross-examination. Perhaps there are some

10 questions which are more important, others that are less important.

11 Perhaps you could deal with the important questions next time and deal with

12 the secondary questions now. I don't know. It's for you to decide. We

13 have another 25 minutes and it would be useful if you started now.

14 Cross-examination by Mr. Sahota:

15 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, my name is Roger Sahota. I am the co-counsel

16 for Mr. Pusic. I would like to ask you a few questions in regard to your

17 testimony and your report insofar as it relates to my client. I would like

18 to ask you to begin by turning to appendices B and C of your report found

19 at pages 123 and 127 of the English language version. Appendix B is

20 entitled "members of the HVO HZ-HB and other attendees" and appendix C is a

21 list of HR-HB government members as of February 1993. Could you clarify,

22 is it correct that Mr. Pusic never held the post of minister or deputy

23 minister within the HVO HZ-HB cabinet or its various incarnations; is that

24 correct?

25 A. No, he was never a minister nor a department head.

1 Q. Did he hold the post of assistant department head?

2 A. No, he did not as far as I am aware.

3 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, is it correct to state that Mr. Pusic is not

4 mentioned at all within either appendix B or C of your report?

5 A. Yes, that would be fair to say.

6 Q. I'd like you to turn now to appendix E of your report which can

7 be found at page 129. My first question is this: Is it correct to say

8 that cabinet meetings of the HVO HZ-HB and its various successors were not

9 just restricted to cabinet members; other interested individuals could

10 attend?

11 A. They could and did attend.

12 Q. Turning to appendix E, during the time-frame that you have logged

13 the attendance of individuals at cabinet meetings, is it correct to say

14 that Mr. Pusic has only been recorded as having attended one cabinet

15 meeting between 1992 and 1993?

16 A. I believe that's correct if you're referring to the 21st of

17 September, 1993. That's the only one I can think of off the top of my head

18 and that I see here.

19 Q. Thank you. I would like to turn now to the issue of exchange of

20 prisoners and displaced persons and would ask you and the Court to refer to

21 pages 61 and 62 of your report. Now, we have heard evidence that Mr. Pusic

22 was appointed head of the service for the exchange of prisoners on the 5th

23 of July, 1993. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes. Its full title was the service for the exchange of

25 prisoners and other persons, but yes it is that date, July 5th, 1993.

1 Q. Would you agree this was not the first body empowered to deal

2 this particular issue?

3 A. I'm sure it wasn't the first body to deal with this.

4 Q. And on paragraph 158 of your report, you refer to the existence

5 of the commission for the exchange of prisoners, which in itself is

6 referred to in the notes of a cabinet meeting dated the 17th of December,

7 2002. Is that right?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. [Microphone not activated]?

10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

11 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes.

12 MR. SAHOTA:

13 Q. Could you turn now to paragraph 160 of your report you begin by

14 saying: "The multitude of groups exchanged in exchanges presented

15 problems."

16 A. Yes, I do.

17 Q. Is it fair then to say that by the early part of 1993, that

18 prisoners exchanges were being dealt with not just by the commission for

19 the exchange of prisoners; there were lots of bodies involved?

20 A. Yes, and I based what I said there on the minutes of the 30th

21 Session of the HVO, which I cite below. And, yes, I think there were also

22 various local bodies that were involved that have been made reference to in

23 these meetings.

24 Q. You referred -- you used the phrase "multitude of groups." One

25 of the groups involved also included the office for the refugees, exiled

1 and displaced persons, which you referred to using the initials ODPR.

2 Would you agree with that?

3 A. Yes, I believe they were charged with some role in this as well.

4 Q. Thank you. I'd just like to turn quickly to the issue of

5 detention units, which you deal with in pages 93 to 101 of your report.

6 The first mention you make of my client in this section is at paragraph

7 261. You refer to the notes of a cabinet meeting on the 19th of July --

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. -- where a decision was made for a three-man delegation to visit

10 the facility at Capljina.

11 A. Yes, and I believe it was facilities, not just facility at

12 Capljina, yes.

13 Q. Thank you. Mr. Pusic was one of that delegation. Is that

14 correct?

15 A. Yes, I believe he was -- yes, he was. Yes, he was, definitely.

16 Q. Is it also correct that the following day after the inspection

17 had taken place, one member of the delegation reported back to the next

18 cabinet meeting on the 20th of July?

19 A. I am sure they reported back. I don't know which one of the

20 members it was off the top of my head who was responsible for doing so, but

21 they did respond the next day.

22 Q. Turning to appendix E of your report, it would appear that Mr.

23 Pusic did not attend the cabinet meeting of the 20th of July. Could you

24 verify that, please?

25 A. Well, just a second, although the definitive answer to that

1 wouldn't be my appendix, it would be the minutes of the meeting itself. I

2 may have made a mistake in transcribing -- in marking down who was present.

3 Now, let me check here. This is the 20th of July, and no, he's not listed

4 as being present, at least not in my appendix for that date.

5 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, I can assure you that I've read the notes for

6 that meeting and I can assure you that Mr. Pusic is not listed under those

7 attending, however due to lack of time I can't put the document to you. I

8 can put to you the suggestion that it was actually Mr. Buntic who was also

9 part of the delegation that reported back to the cabinet?

10 A. That certainly would make sense since he was a department head

11 and was attending these meetings regularly in any event.

12 Q. And can I also ask you to accept, Mr. Tomljanovich, my assertion

13 that there is no mention of Mr. Pusic at all in the cabinet meeting notes

14 of the 20th of July? Again, I don't -- for lack of time, I don't have the

15 opportunity to put the document to you, but you will have the opportunity

16 to examine it after.

17 A. If he's not in the document, he's not in the document, and

18 anything I know about that meeting is only based on the document.

19 Q. Now, the commission which we've heard so much about was set up on

20 the 6th of September. Is it correct to say by then, as you said when you

21 were giving evidence on the 6th of August before this Court -- 6th of

22 September before this Court, that no senior HVO official or body was taking

23 responsibility for the conditions within the detention camps. Is that a

24 fair characterisation of the general context in which the commission's

25 established?

1 A. Yes. Very quickly I think you're talking about the commission

2 which was created on 6th of August I referred to in my testimony in 6th of

3 September. But yes, in the sense that nobody stood up and said: This is

4 my job and I'm responsible for fixing all of these things. Individuals

5 took individual actions, but nobody stood up to claim responsibility for

6 the conditions.

7 Q. And in paragraph 265 of your report, you describe this purported

8 commission as having the sweeping power to take charge of all detention

9 units and prisons in which prisoners of war and military detainees are

10 held. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes, that's what it says in the order.

12 Q. I'd like now to examine some of the events that took place

13 shortly after the commission was set up on the 6th of August. A few days

14 later, there was a cabinet meeting that takes place on the 11th of August,

15 and that is followed by another cabinet meeting on the 18th of August.

16 There is a reference to both these meetings at paragraph 266 of your

17 report. Again, an examination of appendix E confirms that Mr. Pusic was

18 not present at either meeting. Would you agree with that?

19 A. I'll take your word for it. And if he's not in the -- if he's

20 not in the document, he's not in the document, and that's I know what is in

21 that particular document, but I would not be surprised were he not there.

22 Q. Well, Mr. Tomljanovich, I would also ask you to take my word for

23 this. I read through the notes of both those meetings and there was no

24 reference to either Mr. Pusic or the commission. Can I put that to you?

25 A. I don't recall any mention, so that would not surprise me.

1 Q. And again there is no mention of Mr. Pusic or the commission,

2 despite the fact that at the end of the extract at paragraph 266, despite

3 the fact that at the meeting it was discussed that departments should be

4 tasked with organising special military and civilian prisons in keeping

5 with HZ HB regulations and international conventions. So despite that

6 discussion, there was no mention of Mr. Pusic and the commission. Does

7 that surprise you?

8 A. Well, no mention in the minutes. It is somewhat surprising,

9 although quite a lot of the things which all of these persons were doing in

10 this period seems to be surprising, but that's what's in the documents.

11 Q. Could you turn now please to paragraph 268 of your report, it's

12 on the next page. This refers to a meeting that took place on the 2nd of

13 September, which we've heard a great deal about already in the course of

14 your testimony. Again, can you recall whether Mr. Pusic was attend -- was

15 present during that meeting?

16 A. I don't believe he was and I don't believe he should have been

17 because it would have only been the defence minister with his assistants

18 and the deputy defence minister, and I do not recall him being there. I

19 would have been surprised had he been there.

20 Q. I'd like to ask you to look again briefly at appendix E. As you

21 pointed out earlier, the only reference to Mr. Pusic ever having attended a

22 cabinet meeting relates to the meeting that took place on the 21st of

23 September?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Again, Mr. Tomljanovich, time pressures, I'm going to ask you to

1 take it from me that I've checked the notes of that meeting. Although Mr.

2 Pusic was present, there's no reference in that his name isn't mentioned

3 and there's no reference to the commission in the notes of that meeting.

4 Would you agree with that?

5 A. Well, do you mean that he was listed as being present but he's

6 not listed as saying anything specific inside it but he is mentioned as

7 being present at the --

8 Q. Exactly --

9 A. -- header of the list.

10 Q. And there's no mention of the commission?

11 A. That's entirely possible.

12 Q. Last Wednesday when you gave evidence, you were asked by the

13 President whether the director or wardens of any prisons or detention

14 facilities will have to follow the orders and instructions of the purported

15 commission, and you answered words to the effect that they wouldn't

16 necessarily be subordinate to the members of the commission in the

17 hierarchical structure. Do you agree with that?

18 A. Yes, because the -- that particular order is not specific about

19 that. It says that they have to follow any orders or instructions that are

20 given by members of the commission, but it doesn't necessarily change --

21 change the structure. You can be ordered by one superior to follow an

22 order by somebody else that he designates without changing the general

23 structure, yes.

24 Q. I just want to concentrate briefly on this topic of orders and

25 instructions emanating from the purported commission. You said earlier in

1 your testimony that you'd spent a great deal of space - and I would also

2 speculate time - working on your report, studying the handling of

3 prisoners. Is that correct?

4 A. Quite a bit of time, yes.

5 Q. Is it correct to say that there is no mention in your report of

6 any orders, of any reports emanating from the purported commission set up

7 on the 6th of August?

8 A. Yes, and I should add that I can only provide evidence from

9 archival collections to which we have access. I've never seen any

10 collection of documents coming from that -- from the service that Mr. Pusic

11 headed.

12 Q. And the commission?

13 A. Neither from the commission. I've never seen a collection of

14 documents from the commission.

15 Q. So just to be clear about this. You've searched the archives and

16 you've never come across any documents pertaining either to the service or

17 the commission?

18 A. Well, I wouldn't go that far, no. They are mentioned in other

19 documents, as indeed they're mentioned in a number of places in this

20 report. What I meant to say was the sorts of collections we've had access

21 to, we don't have the incoming and outcoming mail from other the commission

22 or the service, although they are referred to elsewhere.

23 Q. You can't rule out the possibility, though, can you, Mr.

24 Tomljanovich, that the reason you couldn't find any of this documentation

25 was that it simply didn't exist?

1 A. I would be very surprised if a service and a commission had been

2 established and didn't produce paper. The one thing that amazes me with

3 everything I've seen in the archives is how much paper every office

4 produces. So I would be very surprised if there was nothing.

5 Q. But if the commission was created in paper only, then it wouldn't

6 be surprising, would it, if it never had any practical influence or effect,

7 then it wouldn't be surprising?

8 A. Well, the less it did and the fewer employees, then indeed the

9 less there would be to find, but that doesn't mean it's not there or might

10 not be there -- or might not be there as well. You just don't know. I can

11 only speak from what I have evidence from.

12 Q. Well, Mr. Tomljanovich, I think my time is up. Thank you very

13 much.

14 A. Thank you.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It's time to

16 conclude.

17 Mr. Scott.

18 MR. SCOTT: I'm aware of the time, but to respond to the inquiry

19 the Court directed to the Prosecution earlier. It would assist the

20 Prosecution a great deal if the -- in the next day or two, preferably by

21 tomorrow, the Defence would be able to give us some sort of estimate for

22 the cross-examinations next week. This has come up before. If we knew,

23 had some idea, rough idea, not a specific, but a rough idea of the cross-

24 examinations time, then we could be better to say if we would be able to

25 fit Mr. Tomljanovich in. A number of the witnesses next week are crime-

1 base witnesses under 89(F) and may very well be -- based on past experience

2 that's all I'm saying that the cross-examinations may be very short. So if

3 we could get estimates, that would assist.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] From what I understand, after

5 the Defence of Mr. Pusic conclude, they still have 25 to 30 minutes, then

6 Mr. Karnavas will have the floor with the time that was given to him by Mr.

7 Praljak and -- unless I'm mistaken about the amount of time left to you,

8 Mr. Sahota.

9 MR. SAHOTA: If I may assist, Mr. President. It's unlikely that

10 I will require any more time. I will review my notes, but if that may

11 assist the Tribunal.

12 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I apologise. I may have been

13 misunderstood. It wasn't so much the time for Mr. Tomljanovich, although

14 that would assist, it was for the other witnesses scheduled for next week.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.

16 MR. KARNAVAS: As for the witnesses coming up next week, Your

17 Honour, it has been our practice to be extremely laconic when it comes to

18 crime-based witnesses. We do not expect to take up any time. There may be

19 a question or two combined for all the witnesses, but we do not expect at

20 this point in time. I cannot speak for my colleagues.

21 As for Mr. Tomljanovich, of course I would like any time that

22 wasn't used by the Pusic Defence team to also be added on, you know, for

23 the entire amount that was allotted to us. Thank you.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I look at the schedule you

25 gave me, the witness who was supposed to appear on Monday was supposed to

1 take place -- to take two hours and a half for examination-in-chief.

2 According to the Rules the Defence would have the same time. The witness

3 for the next day, 1.0, so I suppose that's one hour.

4 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So I suppose you were planning

6 to take one hour for that witness. So now if I look at the witness for

7 Wednesday, there were two witnesses. For one of the witnesses, one hour,

8 and the other was another witness that would take one hour. So if I

9 look at your schedule, at your chart, it seems to me that it will probably

10 be possible to fit in the witness we have here in the courtroom on Monday

11 and then to hear all the other witnesses because the Defence counsel tell

12 us that when it comes to crime-base witnesses they won't have many

13 questions to put to them. So if you say that you will need about one hour

14 for examination-in-chief, the Defence will probably need one hour to a

15 maximum of one hour and a half for cross-examination. So I think it's

16 possible for us to fit in the witness we have here today. That's why I was

17 putting my questions to Mr. Karnavas.

18 Mr. Karnavas, how much time do you think you will need for this

19 witness here? You have to know it?

20 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, Your Honour, as you can see --

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Apparently you've said it, but

22 I've missed that.

23 MR. KARNAVAS: I haven't committed myself, but if I could have

24 three days, fine; if I could have two days, that's fine; but if I can't

25 have three or two days, whatever time is available I would like. Now, if

1 the Court tells me I only have one day, one full day, Monday, then I will

2 do my level best to fit it all in one day. So I think I'm being reasonable

3 at this point in time. But realistically speaking I could spend three or

4 four days going over the testimony of this gentleman and it would be

5 interesting, but that's neither here nor there.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine, we'll do our own

7 calculations, and as early as tomorrow we'll tell you how much time you

8 will have.

9 Yes, Ms. Nozica.

10 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I only wish -- thank you, Your

11 Honours. I only wish to repeat my request from the last session for

12 additional questions after the examination of my colleague Mr. Karnavas. I

13 need some 15 to 20 minutes to correct some serious errors, especially in

14 errors in interpretation which would have very serious consequences. Thank

15 you.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. We take note of it, and

17 the Judges will discuss the matter.

18 Yes, Mr. Kovacic.

19 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I only wish you to

20 bear in mind when deciding on the time to be taken for these four witnesses

21 planned for next week, two of these four witnesses will be 80(F) [as

22 interpreted] witnesses. We have never yet worked according to this

23 pattern. So the witness may be in the witness box only half an hour, but

24 then we have to see how much that testimony is worth timewise The witness

25 can spend half an hour testifying, but if I have ten facts on which I have

1 to cross-examine, it comes to the same as if the witness had testified. So

2 I hope that a fair criterion will be used with these four witnesses because

3 if the same criteria are used as up till now, this will not be fair for

4 these two witnesses. I think there will be only two, although originally

5 there were to be three of these witnesses.

6 Also, as far as the Defence of General Praljak is concerned, we

7 have quite a few topics to deal with in the case of two of these witnesses,

8 but I do not wish to commit myself at this point. We can do that tomorrow

9 if necessary.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Judges will

11 look at the issue of Rule 89(F), but it would be paradoxical for witnesses

12 heard according -- under 89(F) to take longer than witnesses heard

13 traditionally. But we'll have time to discuss the matter by the end of

14 next week.

15 Witness, you've understood that your testimony has now been

16 concluded provisionally speaking, but you are still under oath. Therefore,

17 you shall not speak with Mr. Mundis or Mr. Scott about the essence of your

18 -- of the cross-examination, the questions put to you. But since you are a

19 staff member of the OTP, obviously you can keep working at the OTP, but you

20 should not discuss the essence or the subject of your cross-examination.

21 You've understood that, I'm sure. So no need to dwell on the matter.

22 We'll now conclude and we'll start again tomorrow at 9.00, and we

23 hope that the service in charge of bringing the accused here won't forget

24 them.

25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.10 p.m.,

1 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 12th day of

2 September, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25