1 Thursday, 9 November 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call

7 the case, please.

8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Case number IT-04-74-T, the

9 Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'd like to greet

11 everyone, and without wasting any more time I'll give the floor to the

12 first Defence team for 30 minutes.

13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

14 WITNESS: SAFET IDRIZOVIC [Resumed]

15 [Witness answered through interpreter]

16 Cross-examination by Ms. Nozica:

17 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Idrizovic.

18 A. Good morning.

19 Q. First I'd like to provide you with some information. This morning

20 the Judges received a new bundle of documents or exhibits. These are

21 Prosecution exhibits that relate to this witness. You have them so that

22 we can follow everything more easily. So you have in the new file, in the

23 new bundle Prosecution exhibits, and in the old one you have my own

24 exhibits, the Defence exhibits.

25 Mr. Idrizovic, you have a pink file in front of you, and let's go

1 through things in order. Let's first have a look at some of the

2 Prosecution exhibits. The first one, and could we please have it on the

3 screen. It's P 01164. P 01164. That's right.

4 Mr. Idrizovic, do you have that before you? It's an order from

5 the Military Police Administration Jablanica. Have you got it in the

6 bundle? Can you see it?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. I'd like to ask you something about the signature at the bottom.

9 As far as I can see this is your signature in the middle?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Could you briefly tell us why your signature is here and how was

12 this document found, and in fact, did you give the Prosecution this

13 document?

14 A. It's my signature. I signed it. I signed the document when the

15 investigators asked me to do so.

16 Q. Is this one of the documents that the ABiH, after entering Doljani

17 on the 27th of July, 1993, found in the headquarters in Doljani?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can you explain to us what happened to these documents? When they

20 found them, where did they take the documents?

21 A. I think this has been explained in the Tuta and Stela case. If

22 you want me to repeat it, I will.

23 Q. What was said there won't help us. Just be brief. A couple of

24 sentences.

25 A. That's not a problem. Some units of the ABiH 44th Brigade took

1 over part of the village of Doljani and also the HVO command. When they

2 did this, all the documents remained there. And the HVO also took over

3 the command of the 44th Corps. So you have the documents I don't have,

4 and I have the documents you don't have. That's the way things worked.

5 When searching the facility -- well, as far as I know, the

6 military police searched the facility.

7 Q. Very well. But when they took the documents, where did they take

8 the documents, to you or --

9 A. No, to the command of the 44th Mountain Brigade, because those

10 brigade units participated in that action.

11 Q. Did you then copy these documents, and who did you give the ones

12 that you had found to and who did you give the copies to?

13 A. Several days after that event, after the situation up there had

14 calmed down, once the conditions had been met, people from the security of

15 the 44th Mountain Brigade examined the documents. They discovered a lot

16 of interesting documents, and they thought that they might be useful at

17 some point in the future.

18 I was in the command where we all were until the 21st of January,

19 and I had a lot of room there. I had fairly good equipment given the

20 wartime conditions, and I had staff members at my disposal. We didn't

21 have any particular tasks apart from providing security for various

22 buildings, so we had time to deal with this. And as a result, most of the

23 documents were photocopied in the staff where I was and that's that.

24 Q. On that occasion do you know whether stamps and a typewriter and

25 other equipment were found in the HVO headquarters in Doljani?

1 A. I don't know about that. I didn't see anything of that kind.

2 Q. Now, please have a look at the bottom of the document and tell

3 me --

4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Ms. Nozica. I'm not quite

5 clear what document you are actually talking about. I saw in the

6 transcript 01164. Is that it?

7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, that's the document. Yes. And

8 it's on the screen, we have it in the electronic system, too, dated the

9 16th of January, 1993.

10 Q. Let's have a look at the bottom of the document. I can't see the

11 signature of Livaja. Perhaps you can't see it either.

12 A. It's a bad copy.

13 Q. If it's a bad copy, let's have a look at the stamp. What does it

14 say? Does it say the Municipal Staff, and does it say Jablanica beneath

15 that, the Croatian Defence Council, and I'm just reading the stamp now.

16 It says the Municipal Staff at the bottom and it says Jablanica

17 underneath?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. We can't see.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do we agree on that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Let's look at the following document that you have in the file,

24 P 00539. It's a report on the work of the military police in Jablanica

25 for the period of the 24th of September till the 1st of October, 1992.

1 You've been shown this document by the Prosecution.

2 Let's have it on the screen. It will be easier to see the stamp

3 then. Let's scroll down a bit.

4 It says commander of the military police, and we have the stamp.

5 Have a look at it. This document is dated the 1st of October, 1992. You

6 also signed it. It's one of the documents that was found; is that

7 correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Have a look at what the stamp says here. Does it say the Main

10 Staff below and then military police?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Can we see a difference between these two stamps?

13 A. Yes. And we can see a difference between the dates. I can also

14 show various stamps from this period of time because they would change.

15 Sometimes we had the 4th Corps, and then the 6th Corps, and then there was

16 the Municipal Staff of the TO, and then there was the Defence Staff. So

17 the name changed three times.

18 So in September and in January, well, I can't really say what we

19 had at that time. Perhaps someone who was there could say that the stamp

20 was changed.

21 Q. Mr. Idrizovic, all I want to do is to show that the military

22 police of the Main Staff of Jablanica municipality in September 1992 had

23 its own stamp, number 19, and it's called the Main Staff of the military

24 police. Later on in a document that was apparently made on the 16th of

25 January, 1991, the stamp Municipal Staff Jablanica was used. That's all I

1 have to say about that.

2 Let's continue. You have in your file P 02218. It's a report on

3 the work of the assistant commander for SIS, Mijat Tomic. Is that

4 correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Let's have a look at the last page of the document. There are

7 only two pages. It's dated the 17th of April, 1993. There's no doubt

8 about that. And on the second page it reads as follows: "After the

9 operation, there was misappropriation of Muslim vehicles and of other

10 goods, and as a result we reinforced the military police at the

11 Sovicka Vrata check-point and issued a specific order to them so that they

12 could prevent such things from occurring."

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Let's have a look at the next exhibit that the Prosecution showed

15 you, P 02372. This is a decision apparently taken -- well, in fact, we

16 don't know when, but there is a date on it. It's the 13th of May, 1993,

17 at the top of the document. Can you see that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Apparently it was signed by Marko --

20 THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreter didn't hear the surname.

21 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation].

22 Q. We don't know what the month is. Previously we saw a document

23 dated the 17th of April, 1993. This was obviously a document or a

24 decision taken on the 13th of May, 1993.

25 I'd like to remind you of what you said on page 48, line 20, up to

1 page 49, line 2, and then you repeated this on page 49, line 21 and 22,

2 and in fact after these events in April no mobile goods remained in

3 Doljani. Would you agree with me?

4 A. Well, after that period of time everything had been destroyed. I

5 said they probably weren't torching houses. If there were goods in the

6 houses, then they would be destroying them. I said that all the houses,

7 all the stables, all the chicken coops, and all the mosques had been

8 destroyed.

9 Q. If you can answer this question do; if not, just say so. Does it

10 seem logical to you that someone would take a decision on the

11 misappropriation of mobile goods or, rather, do you think this is logical

12 or not? This is not your document. You can't comment on it, but just

13 tell me briefly.

14 A. Well, this second document should precede the first one, I think,

15 but I don't think this really changes anything. The situation in the

16 field was such as it was. As to whether it was -- as to whether something

17 was set on fire in the house or taken out of the house, that changes

18 nothing.

19 Q. Have you ever seen a decree on the armed forces of the HZ HB? Did

20 you ever have an opportunity to see that?

21 A. The Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, no. That was in Grude.

22 Q. A decree.

23 A. I thought you meant office, so a decree.

24 Q. A decree on the armed forces of the HZ HB.

25 A. No, not at that time.

1 Q. Did you ever hear or see any other documents about the existence

2 of a military police administration in Mostar?

3 A. Well, as far as those police forces are concerned, well, there was

4 the military police, the civilian. I don't know what the names were

5 anymore. Don't ask me about that.

6 Q. You don't like to discuss the military police, but I have to

7 discuss this subject.

8 A. Go ahead.

9 Q. Tell me what you know then. Can we assume that the chief of the

10 defence office, Marko Rozic, should have known what the real name of the

11 military police or the military police administration in Mostar was? Can

12 we assume that?

13 A. Well, he should have known that.

14 MR. SCOTT: Sorry. We're getting into sheer speculation now, Your

15 Honour. It's been going on actually for some time and this certainly is.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, you shouldn't

17 speculate in your questions.

18 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I'm just asking the witness about

19 what he knows. What he doesn't know is not important. Thank you. We can

20 move on.

21 Q. Please, sir, are you aware of the fact that in the course of 1992

22 or 1993 --

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Coric.

24 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have a

25 question I would like to put to the witness, given what he has said on a

1 number of occasions about the military police.

2 My question is as follows: Witness, your animosity towards the

3 military police, does this concern the military police of the ABiH or the

4 military police of the HVO or both police forces?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, all military police forces and

6 that includes the MUP.

7 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to finish this. If

8 it concerns the HVO military police, please tell me why.

9 Thank you, Your Honours.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, I think they had and

11 should have had an honourable task. I'm speaking in general. I'm not

12 referring to the HVO, to the armija, but they did something else. They

13 operated in a different manner. Unfortunately, today the police force in

14 our country is still a force that provokes and encourages crime. It

15 supports crime either directly or indirectly.

16 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] My question concerned the

17 military police of the HVO. Can you provide us with any reasons for

18 feeling animosity towards the HVO military police?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. I've understood your

20 question. At this point in time there's nothing in particular I'd like to

21 say against the HVO military police. I was talking in general terms. I

22 didn't have any particular examples in mind.

23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation].

24 Q. Let's move on to another subject. Have a look at 2D 00253. And

25 I'd like to inform the Judges that they can find this document among the

1 bundle of documents I provided yesterday.

2 This is a Defence exhibit. You have it before you, and I hope it

3 will appear on the screen. 2D 00253. You can have a look at it now,

4 Mr. Idrizovic. Can you see it?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Do you have the document in front of you?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Did you find the hard copy?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Very well. Since we have it on the screen, we can move on.

11 Have a look at the last page. Can we have a look at the last page

12 in the B/C/S version. It's page 4. Page 4. The previous page. It says

13 page 4 on the document. That's it.

14 We can see your signature under item 5; is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You attended this meeting?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And certain conclusions were adopted at the meeting?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. It was held on the 20th of March, 1993?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And you signed the document to show that you attended the meeting

23 and accepted the conclusions?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Let's have a look at 3D -- this is a Defence exhibit, Defence for

1 Praljak. 3D 00556. And I'd like to inform the Judges that they have the

2 document in the file provided today, but we'll also see it on the screen.

3 So 3D 00556.

4 It is an order. You have it before you so you can read it.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. It is about the command of the 4th Corps, and I said that

7 unfortunately we would have to talk about the military police again. Let

8 us take a look at the bottom of the order and see who the author of this

9 order is or who issued it. It is the 4th Corps commander, Arif Pasalic;

10 is that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Let's see what this is about, although I'm sure you remember it.

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 Q. This is an order, and I'm going to read it out for Their Honours'

15 benefit and for the transcript. "Pursuant to an order on the formation of

16 the military police, the battalion of the 4th Corps of the army of the

17 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and with the aim of fully establishing a

18 military police battalion, a company of the military police in Jablanica,

19 I hereby order," not to read it all.

20 A. Well, I know what rule this is about.

21 Q. I have to do it for the record.

22 Now, point 2 says -- well, we have to read point 1. "Team of the

23 4th Corps command of the RBiH army led by the commander for security,

24 Dziho Sevkija [phoen], Sead Brankovic, and the clerk for the military

25 police and command of the military police battalion, Sekic Nosrid [phoen],

1 will organise a military police company in Jablanica -- shall organise a

2 military police company in Jablanica."

3 "The direct organisation of the military police company and

4 ensuring all the conditions necessary for its establishment will be

5 secured by the commander of the staff defence of the RBiH army of

6 Jablanica, Idrizovic Safet."

7 Is that what it says?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. So you had some assignments, too, linked to the military police

10 during the war, did you not?

11 A. Just that one there.

12 Q. Let us look at point 5. "The commander of the defence staff of

13 the BH army of Jablanica shall regulate by way of written orders that the

14 museum facility should be evacuated within 24 hours by -- that all forces

15 shall leave the building and the museum and that security should be

16 provided by the RBiH army. The museum shall be used as a centre --

17 training centre for the BiH army."

18 Is that right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. This is the 11th of January, 1993, and it is the museum which will

21 later on be the location for the holding of prisoners of war, right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Now, did you act upon this order?

24 A. Of course.

25 Q. Thank you. What did you do?

1 A. Well, I was supposed to provide logistical support; that is to

2 say, to provide security for the area, for people to be put up there, to

3 ensure that they had food, and they were -- received meals together with

4 members of the BH army. There were a number of centres in town preparing

5 food. So that was my task, to provide logistical support.

6 And from point number 1, you can -- of this order, you can see who

7 was placed in charge of establishing the military police in the first

8 place, and it was my job to create the conditions for its functioning. So

9 I was playing the role of host in a way.

10 Q. But you had to move the military police of the HVO.

11 A. The army too. Someone mentioned the Green Berets yesterday.

12 There were soldiers of both sides. There were refugees from Gacko at the

13 time as well. And the facility, in view of its size, was just taken up in

14 part, in -- a small part of it was occupied. So it was supposed to be

15 freed up, not only for the military police battalion, and we're actually

16 doing here -- am I speaking too fast? We're talking about the military

17 police company. So a part of the battalion in fact.

18 Q. You mean the military police company?

19 A. Yes. So if you look at the date, this is the 11th of January. I

20 received an order to form a brigade by the 20th of January. So my role

21 there was somebody who was supposed to do that, and it was the time when

22 the 4th Corps -- when attempts were made to establish the 4th Corps.

23 Q. I'm interested in the military police company now and some other

24 HVO units that were located there. But anyway, your task was to move them

25 out of there?

1 A. Yes. There was Daidza. There was some HVO police members and

2 some Green Berets, those unfortunate Green Berets of ours. It was a mixed

3 composition there.

4 Q. Can we take a look at another order of yours that you issued the

5 very next day. You were very expedient and issued the order the very next

6 day. The document is the one that you will find after this document that

7 we're looking at now in your binder. Have you found it?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. It's an order dated the 12th of January, 1993. Isn't that right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And in that order of the 12th of January, 1993 it says --

12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It would be useful for the record if you could

13 name the document because later it will not be in this form of a bundle.

14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed. Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Just a moment, please.

16 It was put into e-court yesterday, and it is document 263.

17 Can we have a look at document 263 now, please.

18 I apologise for just a moment. If I can take a moment to look.

19 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, while we're doing this, I've been

20 reluctant to raise this because I didn't want to interrupt counsel, but we

21 seem to be having an increasing problem with getting the bundles from a

22 number of -- from a number of the Defence. Some are very good about it, I

23 must say, and I want to be fair about that. Some are very good to give us

24 the materials, but others are not so consistent. It's very difficult when

25 we're moving as quickly as this to find and work with the documents. And

1 I know the Judges have the same problem.

2 We have -- I have nothing. I have absolutely nothing over here

3 with this witness. The document comes up on our screen as the B/C/S

4 version. It doesn't do us any good, to be perfectly honest. And it would

5 be most helpful -- I think the Chamber's order was that all

6 cross-examination materials would be provided to the Prosecution at the

7 end of examination-in-chief and we would much appreciate that.

8 Thank you.

9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Could the usher just place this

10 document on the ELMO.

11 And with respect to the comment made to the Prosecution, I'd like

12 to say as the Prosecution knows full well, the Defence of Bruno Stojic

13 always provided a hard copy to the Prosecution until we passed on to the

14 system of disclosing them one day before we start our cross-examination.

15 So the Prosecution has been given all the documents that the Defence of

16 Mr. Stojic intends to use. But I will find the number of the document

17 since it was placed in e-court yesterday. It might not be there yet. But

18 the witness has it now. It's on the ELMO.

19 Can we pan down a bit so that we can see the signature on this

20 document.

21 Q. Witness, can you take a look at the signature?

22 A. Well, I have the document. The signature is mine. There's

23 nothing that I challenge about that.

24 Q. Now, is this the 12th of January, 1993, when you issued an order

25 ordering the military police company and the HVO units located in the

1 museum facility to leave the building within a 24-hour deadline so that

2 the building can -- could be used for the purpose it was intended for and

3 that --

4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, this doesn't do. We have a document

5 now in B/C/S on the screen. We do not know what number it has. We still

6 do not know, and we do not have an English translation. I'm sorry, this

7 is not the way it can be done. Excuse me.

8 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. You have

9 the translation in English. Since the witness has found it, could he read

10 out the number?

11 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Your Honour, might I be of

12 assistance. In e-court for General Praljak the same document is 3D 00554.

13 It's the same document. Both the English and Croatian versions. So

14 perhaps that will be of assistance.

15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly request that the English

16 version be placed on the screen so they could read what it says. Thank

17 you.

18 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] [No interpretation].

19 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] [No interpretation].

20 Q. Can you tell us what the number of the document is?

21 A. 2D 00264.

22 Q. I see. 264. And I think that that is the document that Their

23 Honours have. 2D 00264. And it was in yesterday's binder.

24 [In English] 266.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [No interpretation].

1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. I obviously had

2 the wrong number. 266. Have you found the document, Your Honours? Okay.

3 Q. Now, we read point 1, did we not? In point 2 it says: "The

4 military police company of Jablanica is to be situated in the armed forces

5 barracks in Jablanica, and all the materiel not assigned is to be returned

6 to the Jablanica defence staff warehouse together with the record on the

7 hand-over."

8 Is that what it says? Was the order complied with?

9 A. Well, I'm sure that you'll find something unclear here as will

10 Their Honours. Now, when I spoke about animosity towards the military

11 police earlier on, we're now establishing a military police company, and

12 now I'm throwing out a military police company from the museum now.

13 Q. I don't have much time. Would you refrain from expounding?

14 A. It was the Green Berets unit which proclaimed itself to be the

15 military police. It was not within the effective chain of command of the

16 BH army.

17 Q. Mr. Idrizovic, I'm speaking about the military police as it refers

18 to the HVO units and military police company pursuant to this order, and

19 we can see that you complied with that order. You carried it out.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Tell me, what was the -- or, rather, there was a document

22 previously, and we saw that all this was done in order to create a

23 training centre there for the BH army.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Coric, your time has

25 expired, but go ahead and ask your question quickly.

1 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] I have to intervene. If

2 somebody says that the HVO had a military police company, that is just not

3 true. That is not correct.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say that.

5 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Counsel said that just now.

6 Look at her last sentence, and she said the military police company in

7 Jablanica HVO.

8 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I'm not sure I understood what

9 Mr. Coric's comment related to. I'm just reading the document. I'm

10 reading the document and it says under number 1 "The military police

11 company and HVO units."

12 A. Yes, it meant our company, the BH army company and the HVO units.

13 Q. Yes. That's what it says in the document, and I base my knowledge

14 exclusively on what it says in these documents.

15 Now, in the previous order issued by Mr. Arif Pasalic, it said

16 that the premises of the museum were earmarked to be a training centre.

17 Did it actually become a training centre ever?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Can we now look at what we know already, go through what we know

20 already? It became a centre for holding prisoners of war, did it not?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And a centre where civilians were put up as we saw yesterday.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, was there any idea for having this centre, this compound,

25 which included the museum to make it into an Islamic centre?

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. May we look at document 1D 01030 now, please. It is a document

3 from the Prlic defence, a very brief conclusion, and we have the

4 translation of it, too, so could you place the two documents on e-court,

5 please.

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could you please repeat the number because it is

7 not in the transcript.

8 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] 1D 01030. It is a document by the

9 Prlic Defence, and Your Honours have it in the Croatian version in your

10 binders which you received today, but you'll be able to see the English

11 version on e-court because the Prlic defence lent us the document

12 yesterday. So 1D 01030 is the document number. 1D 01030.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For the transcript, the 1D 01030

14 is not on e-court.

15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Although I received information that

16 it was already in e-court, obviously it is not, so may we have the

17 document placed on the overhead projector, please.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, may we have the

19 calculations for the time used, please.

20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] May I continue? I'll get through the

21 document.

22 Q. We can see that it is the 14th of September, 1993. Can we see the

23 signature. Pan down for the signature, please.

24 This is a document which is the municipality of Jablanica, signed

25 by Mr. Cibo, right?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. It is the 14th of September, 1993. That is the date of the

3 document. And the president, Safet Cibo, brings in the following

4 conclusions: He grants permission or gives agreement for the initiative

5 launched to build an Islamic centre on the free space of the memorial

6 complex called the battle on the river Neretva in Jablanica, which

7 includes the mosque, the shops, the children's nursery, the cemetery, and

8 other facilities.

9 Point number II speaks about the plans and projects for the area.

10 And the conclusion comes into force on the day it was issued; that's what

11 point III says.

12 Now, Mr. Cibo was president of the Assembly at that time; is that

13 right?

14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Ms. Nozica, I would be interested to learn how

15 this is related to our case. I must confess that I fail to follow the

16 thread that you probably spun.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. I wanted to add this,

18 Counsel Nozica: We've spent 30 minutes, exactly 30 minutes for the

19 witness to confirm that he had a certain responsibility vis-a-vis the

20 museum, that they placed detainees there, and that now there was this

21 project for the museum. Now, how is that relevant and useful for our case

22 with regard to Articles 73, et cetera, regarding Sovici, Doljani, and the

23 HVO actions? What do you wish to prove? What is your case here?

24 Ask him your questions -- everything you've been doing for the

25 past 30 minutes was not useful, because I do not see what I can use with

1 respect to a judgement on the basis of what you've put forward in your 30

2 minutes. It is not a trial of either the witness or the BiH -- ABiH.

3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on a number of

4 occasions the witness said that if we bear in mind the relevant period,

5 the relationship between the HVO and the ABiH up until the time the

6 conflict broke out was correct, and documents that concern transfer of the

7 military police obviously show that the intention wasn't to do what the

8 armija had written in the order. The intention was to expel or to

9 transfer units from that centre, units of the HVO and the ABiH, and that

10 shows that the relationship between the HVO and the ABiH wasn't correct as

11 the witness has said, in fact.

12 As far as my questions and the paragraphs of the indictment are

13 concerned, my questions remained within the framework, within the scope of

14 the Prosecution's questions to the witness. And there was much about the

15 relationship between the HVO and the ABiH throughout 1993 up until the

16 17th of April, 1993.

17 If these answers don't assist the Chamber, I regret that, but I

18 hoped that his answers would show what the relationship was --

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Put a brief question summarising

20 everything that you want to demonstrate. Put a question to the witness

21 and he'll answer the question. Would you like to ask the witness whether

22 the ABiH and the HVO were on very good terms up until a certain date, and

23 after that date this relationship deteriorated? If you do that, that

24 would be useful, but it's not necessary to pass 30 minutes in order to

25 arrive at such a conclusion.

1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you for that suggestion, Your

2 Honours. On the basis of the witness's answers during the last 10

3 minutes, that's how much we've spent on this subject matter. On the basis

4 of his answers, I came to the understanding that the HVO and the ABiH

5 units were transferred from these facilities but not for the reasons

6 stated in the order. How this could have affected and whether it could

7 have affected the relationship between the HVO and the ABiH, well, we will

8 come to that ourselves or with the help of the following witness. I

9 believe that the question that I might put to the witness, if I asked

10 whether the relationship deteriorated after their activities, well, I'm

11 afraid that his answer wouldn't help Mr. Stojic's defence or the -- or the

12 Chamber, because I don't believe the answer would correspond to the

13 documents we have seen.

14 Thank you.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Answer what counsel

16 has just said.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I regret the fact that Ms. Nozica

18 came to the -- came to a completely erroneous conclusion. I carried out

19 the order of my superior, and I had to make a great effort. He had more

20 problems with the HVO than with the company of military police that was,

21 to a large extent, outside of the chain of command.

22 The reason for which in mid-January, and these people were moved

23 from the centre, well, the reason for -- is that -- in fact, this was

24 never done. So all these activities were in vain. I think the HVO units

25 and the municipality didn't have great problems when it came to securing

1 premises. Those who were in Jablanica in the course of the war know that

2 they had this premises in a construction company. They know that the HVO

3 headquarters were a hundred metres away from the command I was in. There

4 was the military police company that did enter this building on one

5 occasion without any authorisation, but later I think that this problem

6 was solved. So as far as the town is concerned, there were no problems.

7 After the war we found this out: One of the reasons which Safet

8 Cibo came to Jablanica was that we allowed the formation of parallel

9 authorities in Jablanica. I have the documents, but this isn't what we're

10 dealing with here today in this case. We had Cibo because of good term --

11 because of the good relationship with the HVO.

12 If Ms. Nozica returns to Bosnia and wants to have a look at the

13 documents about this, she can. I think I'm right when I say what I'm

14 saying, but naturally this is isn't what we're discussing now. We had

15 problems because we acted in a correct way.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So we've heard Mr. Stojic's

17 version, your version, and the Judges will determine and assess what is

18 true and what is not.

19 For the next Defence team, please.

20 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

21 Cross-examination by Ms. Pinter:

22 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Idrizovic.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have a lot of documents here

24 for 30 minutes, so try and be brief.

25 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the bundle of

1 documents for the Praljak Defence there are lots of documents that have

2 already been used. This was prepared after -- immediately after the

3 examination-in-chief. I won't be going through all the documents. I'll

4 go through the documents that have not yet been referred to with the

5 exception of one document. So we'll be taking up 20 minutes, and General

6 Praljak will take the floor for 10 minutes.

7 Q. Mr. Idrizovic, as you can see, we are a little short of time.

8 Could we see P 00708. Could this be shown to the witness. It's

9 3D 00290 in the bundle. P 00708 is in the Prosecution file that was

10 provided before the examination of this witness. It's an order dated the

11 6th of November, 1992. Could we have a look on the second page.

12 You can't see it right now. Have you got a hard copy?

13 We can provide the witness with a hard copy.

14 It was signed by General Praljak. It was about establishing

15 check-points. You can see what it's about.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And the document also relates to what you said in the course of

18 the examination-in-chief. You said that in November you would meet

19 General Praljak. He would come to Jablanica, and he then promised to calm

20 the situation down. You were asked whether you knew what the results of

21 his activities were, whether General Praljak did what he promised to do.

22 So now that you see this document, this order, does the order show that

23 what was said would be done was actually done; namely, that they would

24 work together, there would be mixed check-points or jointly-held

25 check-points, joint patrols. You understand what I'm saying. Do you

1 agree that they started implementing these things?

2 A. Some things were carried out. There were these joint patrols,

3 jointly held check-points, et cetera. Sometimes this took a little

4 longer. Sometimes it went faster. Sometimes orders weren't carried out.

5 Q. But they did exist?

6 A. Yes, they did.

7 Q. Thank you. I don't have much time. We have to hurry.

8 Have a look at General Praljak's signature. Next to the signature

9 you can see a stamp?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And can you see that the stamp is a joint stamp or, rather, it's a

12 stamp of the ABiH and the HVO?

13 A. Yes. But we never received any information about the existence of

14 such a staff. Had we seen -- we never saw such a stamp. I'm not saying

15 this document isn't correct.

16 Q. In Jablanica you weren't informed about this?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Could we see P 002 -- P 00727. And this also concerns joint

19 action. The 10th of November, 1992 is the date. P 00727 is the number.

20 It's on appointing temporary members of the command. Again, it's

21 been signed by General Praljak, and it's a joint stamp again. You know

22 who Ante Prkacin was?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. He was the Chief of Staff in the HVO, and Arif Pasalic represented

25 the ABiH. Thank you.

1 Let's have a look at the next document. P 00795. If you could

2 show this to the witness because I don't think it's in the binder. It's a

3 Prosecution exhibit.

4 Mr. Idrizovic, you know who Zdravko Sagolj is. We've heard about

5 him. He was the commander of the Herceg Stjepan Brigade. In Konjic on

6 the 24th of November, 1992, Zdravko Sagolj appointed two individuals,

7 Ivica Tomic and Soldo Berislav. Did you know Soldo Berislav?

8 A. Yes. He works in the MUP in Jablanica now.

9 Q. Yes. He was appointed to a joint commission, so this had to do

10 with establishing joint check-points, joint patrols, and as a result two

11 individuals were appointed, and on this basis of parity, and this is

12 something we can also see in the first order, one policeman who was

13 appointed from the HVO and three HVO members. They were appointed to

14 these -- this joint commission. Did you receive this document?

15 A. Yes. Yes.

16 Q. Thank you. Now, could the witness please be shown 3D 00561.

17 Let's immediately go to page 3D 20/0072. And for the Bench, the page is

18 3D 20-0090, or in the upper right corner L0068585.

19 These are minutes from the meeting held in the office of the -- of

20 President Tudjman on the 27th of March, 1993, upon the return of the

21 delegation of Alija Izetbegovic and Mate Boban from New York.

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Ms. Pinter, I quite understand the difficulties

23 the Defence has to identify and put into order and label the documents and

24 so forth, but we also should be able to find them. This document again I

25 have not found. There is no number that has a slash in it. You gave a

1 number 3D 20/0072. This is not an element of our numbering, and I do not

2 manage to find this document. I didn't manage to find the previous one

3 either.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter apologises the Defence counsel said

5 hyphen, or dash, not a slash.

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Well, Hyphen or slash or whatever. The numbers

7 run through, and I do not find it here. 3D 00 ...

8 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] 3D00561. To assist the Bench to fine

9 the page, I also said the number at the bottom of the page or in the right

10 upper corner. It would help you to find the page.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But the number at the bottom of

12 the page is the B/C/S number, and perhaps the English version doesn't

13 correspond to 3D72.

14 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours, I said that the

15 page was 3D20-0090. I emphasised that and I said in the upper right-hand

16 corner it says L0068585. That's the number. That's the number of the

17 translation.

18 Could we have this on the screen perhaps. I'd like to move on so

19 as not to waste more time. 3D20-0090. That's the number at the bottom in

20 the English translation.

21 Q. Have you had the opportunity of looking at the document now?

22 A. Yes.

23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: In fairness, you must know what we have, of

24 course, and we have this thick bundle, and in the beginning of the bundle

25 there's a list of the documents it's supposed to contain. My file stops

1 at 3D 00559. So no wonder I cannot find 561, because the bundle ends

2 before that. Is there another bundle maybe somewhere in this sea or

3 avalanche of paper that we are in?

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'd like to point this problem

5 out to all Defence teams. When you prepare your file for your

6 cross-examination, do so so that the questions that you put are followed

7 by the documents so that we can go to the first document, the second, the

8 third, the fourth, as you put your questions. But if we have to first go

9 to the back of the bundle then to the middle and to the beginning, we get

10 lost. I know it's very complicated, but you have the means. So prepare

11 your files and follow a certain order so that we can start with the first

12 document and continue to the last. Otherwise, things will be very

13 complicated.

14 This also concerns the Prosecution, because the Prosecution has

15 very good files, but they don't go through them in order, and this means

16 that the Judges have to try and find the relevant documents. It would be

17 a lot simpler if we followed a certain order.

18 Mr. Karnavas, for example, has his files prepared, and he has them

19 in a certain order. He goes through that order.

20 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour -- sorry.

21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Ms. Pinter, in fact you may have proceeded the

22 way the President suggests. I now find 3D 00561, and while in the list it

23 is at the end, it is in the beginning in the file, and I have found it

24 now. But it took some time, as you can see, and it's not very economical

25 if we have to do this, and it's not futile for us to see it. So please do

1 not take this as formalism. It's a real problem.

2 Thank you.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Scott.

4 MR. SCOTT: I don't want to belabour this now, Your Honour, but in

5 defence of both some of the Defence teams and the Prosecution, the reason

6 they're put in the order that they're in, frankly, we've actively

7 considered the various options and have opted to date to keep them in

8 numerical order for this reason. A numerical order is an order that can

9 remain the same for all purposes. Once you start shifting them around and

10 if the order changes for some reason, then it does become very difficult

11 because there is no rhyme or reason to it. And, quite frankly, Your

12 Honours, some of the bundles are put together two weeks before the witness

13 comes when the exhibits are sent out, then there's the proofing, there's

14 decisions made not to use documents, the order of documents changes, and

15 if we have to re-order them every time it changes, frankly some of that

16 would be done on the morning of court. And I realise the problems it

17 creates, as we can all see, but we have come to the option, decision or

18 practice that if we at least keep them in the numerical order, that order

19 will never change and everyone can find it at least by that system.

20 I do apologise that it's sometimes not the best, but it does seem

21 to be the best general approach to it.

22 I must say we do appreciate the assistance that we generally get

23 from the Praljak Defence team, and they're usually very good about

24 providing the bundles of the documents. It is difficult when we're moving

25 this quickly, I think, for everyone in the courtroom, including the Judges

1 and the Prosecution, frankly to keep up with finding the documents.

2 Especially when the counsel and the witness are speaking the same

3 language, we find that by the time we find the document the questions and

4 the answers -- we're already behind the question and answer, and that's

5 also part of the problem.

6 Thank you.

7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: While we're talking about this, the Prosecution,

8 of courses has the luxurious way of numbering the documents which makes it

9 much easy to handle it, because here now and then, as you must have

10 experienced, suddenly a number just falls off. That doesn't assist

11 either. But I agree that it is of course much more work to do it the way

12 the Prosecution does. I just say this as a suggestion.

13 And I would -- personally I would also agree that the numerical

14 system is probably the soundest one because this is something one can

15 always go by and one knows that five comes under four -- after four.

16 Usually.

17 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] I have to just give one explanation,

18 and I thank the Prosecutor for prompting me there.

19 The preparation of the Defence documents was conducted on Tuesday,

20 when the examination-in-chief was completed, and according to guidelines

21 from the Bench, from the Trial Chamber, we were supposed to send in the

22 list of documents that we're going to present and tender immediately after

23 that. But I didn't know which other documents would be tendered from the

24 other Defence teams, which is why there is so many documents in the file.

25 But I'd now like to move on and discuss this document.

1 Q. Mr. Idrizovic, this is a speech by Alija Izetbegovic, and he was

2 interrupted by asking that Konjic be solved first, and Alija Izetbegovic

3 says, "But we'll solve that in Konjic." So that is the 27th of March when

4 the conflicts were already under way. And then Gojko Susak takes the

5 floor, and you know of course who Gojko Susak was, and he says Alija --

6 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please slow down. It's impossible

7 to translate at this speed.

8 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation]

9 Q. -- Praljak. Nobody can accuse me of that?

10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You are much too fast. The translation doesn't

11 follow.

12 This is -- it's like when you have to give a speech somewhere they

13 tell you you have 45 minutes and some speakers then think they double the

14 speed to say all they want to say and it -- it invariably fails. It is

15 just like this. It doesn't work.

16 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Yes, but you have the translated

17 document in front of you and I have to get through this with the witness.

18 I only have 20 minutes at my disposal, and I have a lot of areas which I

19 wish to deal with which I think are very important as far as the Defence

20 is concerned, and that is why I'm hurrying through this.

21 Q. Now, Witness, have you had a chance of reading through what Gojko

22 Susak says?

23 A. Yes, I have.

24 Q. Do you know who Jasmin Jaganjac is?

25 A. Yes. General of the Croatian army.

1 Q. Do you know what Jasmin Jaganjac was on the 27th of March, 1993?

2 Do you know that --

3 A. I don't.

4 Q. Did you hear that he was an advisor to President Izetbegovic, a

5 military advisor?

6 A. Yes. I was with Mr. Izetbegovic and Jaganjac on the 1st of

7 January, 1993, in Mostar and then he was there.

8 Q. Yes, that's right. And that was later on. That's March?

9 A. That's another paradox, that the general of one country can be the

10 military advisor of the president of another country. That can be a

11 paradox, but it might also be an attempt to do something jointly, pooling

12 efforts.

13 Q. Now would you take a look at the next page, please where the --

14 where President Tudjman is speaking and he is says the following: "Alija,

15 I want to tell you something now. I agreed that General Praljak should go

16 to Herceg-Bosna or Bosnia-Herzegovina after I had statements from him that

17 he thinks that nonetheless our Croats over there are perhaps doing

18 something wrong vis-a-vis the Muslims, that their conduct towards them is

19 wrong perhaps."

20 And then the president goes on to say: "So understand me, when

21 somebody like that says things like that, you know that that is so. And

22 because of that I'm in favour of you giving a joint statement down there

23 for the benefit of both sides."

24 Mr. Idrizovic, can we conclude from this that General Praljak in

25 the area of Bosnia-Herzegovina was there with the aim of calming the

1 situation down over there and to try and ease tensions?

2 MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I think that's just going too

3 far.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone please for the Prosecutor.

5 MR. SCOTT: To ask this witness to voice that kind of a broad

6 opinion on the role of Mr. Praljak on several years of armed conflict I

7 just think that's too broad to ask this witness to give an opinion like

8 that.

9 I -- if she wants to ask questions about this particular document

10 and what was said, of course. But this opinion is too broad.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, very well. But the

12 question could perhaps be summarised and have the same goal this way:

13 Witness, you have heard the Defence and they're talking about a meeting

14 between Mr. Izetbegovic and other individuals, and what was the result of

15 that meeting on the basis of what we have here is that General Praljak is

16 going to go in situ because there is some behaviour on the part of the

17 Croats which isn't perhaps the right one.

18 Now, the -- the -- under these conditions it seems that General

19 Praljak will go in the field. You were there yourself. You saw General

20 Praljak. Now, did you have the feeling that when General Praljak arrived

21 it was to try and deal with the problems that were occurring there

22 concerning the conduct of Croats and their behaviour toward Muslims? Was

23 that your impression? Do you agree with the text here or not? What can

24 you tell us about that?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in principle I can say that

1 every meeting, every time people met to discuss something was in order to

2 reach an agreement of some kind, and Mr. Praljak and everybody else, when

3 they came, always had meetings in order to calm the situation down. That

4 was the declarative part, the declarations that were made, if I can put it

5 that way. However, in practice you couldn't feel that a lot was done to

6 change the situation. And I said previously that when orders were

7 received about joint check-points and joint patrols, for example, that

8 would last a very short period of time or not at all or a longer period of

9 time, but there was no continuity in this process. There was not much

10 progress. You would take one step forward after agreements like that and

11 then two steps back, and that was the problem.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So your answer is and you've

13 already given us the answer the previous day. That's your answer.

14 Now, what we as Judges are interested in is this: Why, for what

15 reason was this difference between the orders and declarations made,

16 declarations of intention and principle, and how they were executed and

17 implemented on the ground. Why was there no agreement between and

18 conformity between what was decided and what was done. So if it was

19 decided that General Praljak was to be sent there to try and calm the

20 situation down, why didn't relations in fact calm down between the two

21 communities? Have you got an explanation to give us? Why wasn't it

22 followed through?

23 So that's a very precise question. This is an example of how to

24 ask a very precise question, and this is food for thought for the Defence

25 to follow suit.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to answer? Can I

2 answer now? Do you want me to answer?

3 Yes. Well, there are two things involved here. First of all, the

4 lower-down commanders perhaps did not -- were not efficient in carrying

5 out the orders from their superiors or that the agreements reached were

6 not really sincere, that the participants were not sincere in reaching

7 agreements and that they were trying to trick each other. There's no

8 third explanation.

9 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation].

10 Q. Now, to continue on from that answer of yours, I'd like us to see

11 the next document, and it is P 02059, and at the same time P 02 --

12 P 02078. It is a joint declaration which my colleague Ms. Alaburic used

13 with the following number: P 02088. So I'm going to use the number used

14 by Ms. Alaburic, but I gave you the two numbers that are in my file.

15 Mr. Idrizovic, as you can see, this is a joint declaration, and

16 yesterday with Ms. Alaburic you discussed it. You spoke about this joint

17 statement between Alija Izetbegovic and Mate Boban which was given on the

18 24th of April, 1993. And with respect to the agreement reached on the

19 3rd of March, 1993, in New York. Do you have the document in front of

20 you?

21 A. Do you mean 59?

22 Q. P 02078. It is a joint statement by Alija Izetbegovic and Mate

23 Boban.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You've found it?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, with -- you discussed this with Ms. Alaburic. It is

3 agreement reached on the 3rd of March, 1993, almost a month and a half

4 before the joint statement came. And would you pay attention to page 2.4,

5 because in .4 it says what the points of the agreement were on the 3rd of

6 March, 1993, between Alija Izetbegovic and Mate Boban in New York. They

7 agreed and decided that the conflicts between the HVO and the BH army were

8 contrary to the policy waged by the representatives of those two ethnic

9 groups and that any further continuation of the conflict would seriously

10 endanger the realisation of their political goals, that is to say,

11 independence, autonomy and territorial integrity for the Republic of

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina within the frameworks of the Vance-Owen Plan, which the

13 signatories accepted and signed, as well as the success in the struggle

14 against the aggressor who wanted to break up the state.

15 Now, this agreement signed on the 3rd of March, 1993, the public

16 was informed about this only on the 24th of April, 1993. Do you agree

17 with that?

18 A. Yes. But I didn't know about this.

19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, I have a problem with the date,

20 because in my document the date at the end is April 25. On the last page

21 of the English version. Right under the signatures.

22 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour. However, in

23 the preamble, in the preamble of this joint statement Mr. Alija

24 Izetbegovic and Mr. Mate Boban it says at a meeting which they -- which

25 was convened in Zagreb on the 24th of April, 1993. The presiding people

1 were the representatives of the international conference of Yugoslavia and

2 ended in 00 -- at 0045 hours. That is why the date is the 25th of April,

3 because 45 minutes after midnight was when the statement was actually

4 signed, but the event took place on the 24th of April in actual fact.

5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And refers back to the 3rd of March --

6 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Yes. In point 1 it refers back to

7 the 3rd of March when the agreement was reached. The witness has just

8 told us that he didn't know about this. You're welcome.

9 Q. You didn't know, Witness, that the agreement was reached on the

10 3rd of March?

11 A. In all contacts during this period - that is to say, right before

12 the conflict erupted - the Croatian side always said, always spoke about

13 this agreement, that it had been signed. We were a little taken aback

14 because nobody provided us with any explanation.

15 Now, don't hold me to the dates, but a little after this, and I

16 have the exact date in some of my papers, we did ask Mr. Izetbegovic when

17 we did have occasion to meet him, and he said that he had not signed the

18 Vance-Owen Plan, and -- and it was about the cantonisation of

19 Bosnia-Herzegovina, of course, that that plan was never signed, was not

20 signed. So, yes, it was discussed; but, no, it was not signed, which

21 means that it did not have the force of law.

22 Q. That's how Mr. Izetbegovic explained it to you, is it?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. But now you can see the signature is there?

25 A. Yes, but I'm telling you what he told me.

1 Q. May we now have the next document shown to the witness and it is

2 3D 00547.

3 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] And before that I'd like to ask how

4 much more time I have because I have to leave some time for General

5 Praljak's questions.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, would you do the

7 calculations, please.

8 Yes, Mr. Scott.

9 MR. SCOTT: While that's being done, Your Honour, just to correct

10 the record, I don't think there's any evidence that this document

11 indicates a signature or a signing by Izetbegovic of the Vance-Owen Plan.

12 These are preliminary documents apparently about some documents signed on

13 the 3rd of March. I'm not quite sure, but I think it's a

14 mischaracterisation to use this document to say that Izetbegovic had

15 signed the Vance-Owen Plan.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have four more minutes.

17 You've used up 16 minutes, so that leaves four. And we'll -- we'll -- if

18 Mr. Praljak wishes to use 10 minutes, he can do so and we'll listen to him

19 with great interest. So four minutes.

20 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Just deduct Mr. Scott's intervention

21 from those four minutes, please, because this is a specific concrete

22 document and his arguments should be raised in some other -- on some other

23 occasion.

24 But that is why I would like to refer to another document,

25 P 02059, because it is the minutes from the presidential offices from

1 which we can see in detail everything that went on, how it happened and

2 what the result of the joint statement was. That is given at the end.

3 That is why those two documents go together and I'd like to look at them

4 together. They are in fact one document. This statement is the result of

5 the negotiations and talks held on the 24th of March -- April, I am sorry,

6 April.

7 Now, I'd like to present and tender one more document and then

8 I'll hand the floor over to General Praljak for his questions. The

9 document is 3D 00547. And it is while we're waiting for the document on

10 e-court, Sefer Halilovic issuing an order on the 29th of January, 1993.

11 Perhaps we can provide the witness with a hard copy not to waste time.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have it.

13 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Are you familiar with this document? Have you ever seen it

15 before?

16 A. I said yesterday or the day before, when we were discussing the

17 arrival of Mr. Cibo down there, that we had some documents -- or, rather,

18 that we came into possession of this document only after the war. We

19 didn't know why Mr. Cibo was coming. At least where we were in Jablanica

20 there was no reason for anybody to come down there, because the

21 authorities were functioning. Actually, there were two authorities

22 functioning at that time. There were no conflicts, and then somebody came

23 to stir the murky water.

24 Now, my team and I, working on the chronology that I mentioned at

25 the beginning when I talked to the Prosecutor, I think, I said that part

1 of the documents which -- that we came into possession of them only after

2 the war. So this was probably found in the 4th Corps when it was

3 captured. We did not have this document. It was correspondence between

4 the Supreme Command Staff and the corps command staff. Of course we

5 didn't have this kind of document but they sort of --

6 Q. You were in a quandary about them. Would you agree with me that

7 as far as Jablanica is concerned and the relationship between the HVO and

8 BH army that the situation would not have developed in the way it did had

9 this not happened, had not the presidents in the Konjic municipality being

10 replaced and that Cibo arrived. He was supposed -- who stirred up the

11 relations there.

12 A. You're asking me to speculate. What would it have been had it

13 been.

14 Q. [No interpretation].

15 A. Yes, I've already answered that. I answered that before.

16 Q. The witness said that he had already answered that and it's my

17 fault for not letting you finish.

18 Would you repeat your answer? My question was: The

19 radicalisation of relations and -- ensued after the arrival of Dr. Cibo

20 between the HVO and BH army.

21 A. Not only that. The overall situation in the field took a negative

22 turn. I'm not only thinking of the Jablanica municipality here, but

23 generally speaking the situation deteriorated around Konjic and in Konjic

24 especially. The situation around Mostar too. We had already been cut off

25 from Mostar, and we had nothing to do with Mostar, nothing at all, no

1 physical links, no technical links, and the situation was very difficult

2 for us in the military sense. I'm not speaking about the political sense.

3 I'm speaking militarily. The situation was very difficult.

4 Q. The agreement was signed on the 3rd of March, 1993, was it not,

5 and you knew nothing about that. Had you known about that, perhaps the

6 situation would have been different.

7 A. If the agreement had been signed and if it came into force, I must

8 have -- I would have had to know about it.

9 Q. Well, you can see it from this document. But that completes my

10 questions?

11 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] I'll give the floor to Mr. Praljak

12 now.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, you have 10

14 minutes. I know that you're not going to speed up, I hope.

15 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] If I could be given a little

16 more time for this witness and not -- and I won't ask the following

17 witness anything.

18 Cross-examination by the Accused Praljak:

19 Q. Now, the witness is saying, and I'll repeat his words, that Safet

20 Cibo arrived because we had good cooperation with the HVO. That's what he

21 said. That's what the witness said, and that's what it says in the

22 transcript.

23 Isn't that right, Mr. Idrizovic?

24 A. I didn't put it quite that way.

25 Q. We'll read through the transcript.

1 A. I don't know what the transcript says, but I know what I said.

2 Q. Let's go back to the beginning after the conflict in Prozor I had

3 three meetings in Jablanica at various periods of time. That was

4 immediately after the conflict. I had one meeting; there were about a

5 hundred, 120 people there, and you were there too. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. The situation wasn't easy?

8 A. No.

9 Q. We managed to discuss things in a normal human way, political way;

10 is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And because of that conflict I was insulted in various ways with

13 justification and without justification; is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Is it correct to say as some witnesses have said that after that

16 conflict we won't go into the reasons for the conflict but after that

17 conflict by the end of the year, well, the situation was relatively calm

18 throughout the entire area, from Travnik, Jablanica, Konjic, and Mostar.

19 For about two months was there relative calm in that area?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So it was calm. After the conflict in Gornji Vakuf was the

22 situation relatively calm in Konjic, Jablanica, Mostar? Did people work

23 together and so on?

24 A. Yes, that's correct too. But the relationship developed in a

25 certain way.

1 Q. I understand you, Mr. Idrizovic, because that's correct. The

2 situation became calm. There was no political solution. As a man, you

3 felt increasingly helpless; is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You felt that people were becoming more and more radical; is that

6 correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. You felt that your influence was diminishing; is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. You -- that made you increasingly unhappy; is that correct?

11 A. Naturally. You probably felt like that too.

12 Q. That's what we're speaking about. Judge Antonetti put a

13 fundamental question to you. How is it that given all the efforts made at

14 various levels each following period meant that the situation had

15 deteriorated and had become even more unstable and minor problems would

16 provoke serious consequences; is that correct?

17 A. Yes. But you had a higher level of responsibility than I did, and

18 you had a better overview of the situation. You had better communication

19 with everyone else. I can only speak in local terms.

20 Q. I have very little time. You also said that the war had had

21 elements of aggression within it.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Would you agree that the -- the JNA and the Serbian units launched

24 the aggression?

25 A. Initially, yes.

1 Q. And then it turned into a civil war. There were elements of a

2 civil war. We know what that means. People who were not under control,

3 the political scene became more and more radical; is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And then there were elements of a religious war, especially when

6 the Mujahedin arrived, et cetera?

7 A. Well, not only that. But we can talk about the Mujahedin, if you

8 like. When I mentioned a religious war, I said that in a negative

9 context. All three confessions in Bosnia-Herzegovina were in a negative

10 context. I think they contributed to the war to a large extent, and no

11 one here will discuss that matter.

12 Q. I'd like to discuss that matter because you're a political

13 scientist too. But let me tell you the following -- or ask you the

14 following: Was there a muderis brigade in Jablanica?

15 A. No, that was in Konjic.

16 Q. Very well, in Konjic. But muderis also had a line-up in Jablanica

17 on one occasion in 1994?

18 A. Yes, that was called the 4th Muslim Brigade.

19 Q. Yes, that's correct. Is muderis an official from the Islamic

20 community?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. So that's some sort of an official?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Was the thought of that brigade as follows, was the ideology of

25 the brigade as follows: I've shown this to the Judges during my opening

1 speech: Did they cry out, Who are we fighting for? And did they say for

2 Allah?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And who were they fighting against?

5 MR. SCOTT: We're, once again, back into talking about Mujahedin

6 and everything else on the other side and tu quoque, and we always get

7 into this with Mr. Praljak. It's not relevant to this case.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak is talking about a

9 4th Muslim Brigade. I've just found out about that. And apparently

10 elements of this 4th Brigade were also present in Jablanica. Mr. Praljak

11 seems to be saying, and you can deny this if you like. You never saw

12 them?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did see them, but they didn't stay

14 in Jablanica. Perhaps they came on one occasion to the stadium or to the

15 area near the museum. I don't know where exactly. And there was a review

16 perhaps, but this was more for propaganda purposes. I think that was at

17 that time and normal people didn't like that either. When they were

18 crying out wasn't normal.

19 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation].

20 Q. But they would say who are we fighting for, for Allah. Against

21 whom? The Wallachs. The Wallachs are the Christians; is that correct?

22 A. Yes, yes. But you must admit that they had about 500 units and

23 the 4th Corps had far more, about 20.000. So this didn't represent much

24 of a force.

25 Q. So I'm talking about elements, not about anything else.

1 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] And as far as what Mr. Scott

2 said, your analysis that you're trying to carry out here by separating

3 what the witness has said, when he talked about the elements of civil law

4 and the way everything was linked up, when you say that all this is tu

5 quoque, well, this is not a possible position. We're dealing with a --

6 the people, with the control, with Praljak, Petkovic, and Prlic could have

7 had. That's the substance of this indictment, and you can't separate

8 certain matters from each other. This is no justification. But I'm

9 following the same logic that you're following.

10 According to that logic, according to your logic, 500 American

11 officers in Iraq would have to go to prison immediately because they can't

12 control everything, and I totally reject this point of view. I'm not

13 justifying any crimes. I want to determine what my role is here when it

14 comes to preventing such crimes or provoking such crimes.

15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I will tell you what your role is. It is to ask

16 questions and not start arguing with the Prosecution. You are using your

17 time for a wrong purpose.

18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I know, Your Honour. I

19 apologise, but we can't engage in the dissection this way. We're not

20 rats. We can't separate the brain from the heart and produce

21 Frankensteins here.

22 Q. I have just a few more questions for you.

23 A. Go ahead.

24 Q. Is it correct to say the JNA took away the arms of the Territorial

25 Defence after the parliamentary elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And can we draw the conclusion that Mr. Izetbegovic and other

3 members of the Presidency were not able to prevent these weapons being

4 taken away from the Territorial Defence?

5 A. I think that's correct.

6 Q. Do you know that the Croats participated in the referendum

7 massively?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Do you know that on the second day they supported the independence

10 of Bosnia and Herzegovina because Franjo Tudjman had appealed to them and

11 said, Participate in the elections and confirm the independence of

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

13 A. I wasn't aware of that at the time, but there was only the

14 cardinal or Tudjman who could have taken action at the time.

15 Q. Thank you. Can we see 321 on the screen.

16 And while waiting for it you said that after the meeting in

17 Jablanica no one returned to Prozor. Other witnesses deny this to a

18 certain extent. 321, P 00321.

19 While waiting for it to appear, let me ask you the following: Do

20 you know that Daidza was born in 1929. In 1945 he was 16. Towards the

21 end of the 1950s he emigrated to the USA.

22 A. Yes, I expressed myself erroneously. In Yugoslavia, we refer to

23 these political emigrants in a certain way.

24 Q. You identified them with communists. The Americans thought he was

25 a political emigrant, but the former communist authorities see them in a

1 different way. He returned as an American citizen.

2 3D 00560. 3D 00560.

3 You'll see a letter from Mr. Alija Izetbegovic to Daidza Zejnil.

4 It says response to the telefax dated the 9th of June, 1992. You should

5 go there together. Zejnil will remain the commander of his unit, or while

6 this -- or, rather, while this operation is ongoing, he must obey Daidza's

7 orders. Daidza shall lead the action and we will deal with everything

8 else when we see each other in Sarajevo.

9 Then it says the 10th June, 1992, is that correct, signed

10 Mr. Izetbegovic?

11 A. Yes, that probably is correct.

12 Q. Let's see 3D 00450. 3D 00450. This is a decision we've already

13 seen. Please turn it around. Signed by --

14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, this little letter by -- signed Alija,

15 to what operation does it -- does it refer?

16 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] The operation being prepared

17 for liberating Sarajevo and Igman.

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

19 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Please have a look at the first page. What you have just seen was

21 written down on a piece of paper. Let's have a look at item 1. The

22 following Territorial Defences will be established. The

23 Bosnian-Herzegovinian brigade, Kralj Tomislav. King Tomislav was a

24 Croatian King. As brigade commander, we hereby appoint General Mate

25 Sarlija; that's Daidza. Isn't that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you. We don't need the document anymore. This is like

3 playing a game of chess, a rapid game of chess.

4 Ismet Hadziosmanovic, do you know that name?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Recently he wrote a book, and on page 67, I can't tender this.

7 I'll just read out three lines and we'll deal with the book in greater

8 detail later on. He says the following: "Most of the weapons," and this

9 is page 67 of the book, "Most of the weapons came from the Croatian army,

10 and Mate Sarlija, Daidza, personally distributed them, and the Crisis

11 Staff of Croatia for assisting Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina."

12 And then one paragraph further on it says: "As authorised by

13 Gojko Susak, Daidza spoke to Mustafa Hadziosmanovic so that he would be a

14 guarantee that weapons distributed to the Muslims were distributed

15 correctly."

16 And then one line later: "The arms, the weapons, were continually

17 delivered in minor quantities. Daidza delivered a total of 4.500 rifles

18 and a significant amount of ammunition."

19 Are you familiar with anything of this?

20 A. Well, yes. That gentleman was regarded as a traitor in Muslim

21 circles. He handed over the authority in Mostar to the HVO.

22 Q. I'm not talking about that, Witness. I won't take much of your

23 time.

24 A. All people in Mostar write books. I don't know whether you've

25 noticed this. They all speak against everyone else. Everyone is lying.

1 That's how things work.

2 Q. I think that the Judges and Mr. Scott is listening to this too.

3 Everyone lies.

4 A. I was talking about the Muslims in Mostar. They write books of

5 1.500 pages. They all attack everyone. They all attack each other. I'm

6 not referring to Croats. It's terrible.

7 Q. That's terrible. That's terrible and everyone lies.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. On page 68, the following page, we have a document which we'll

10 show the Judges later. It says -- Daidza wrote to Alija

11 Izetbegovic: "There are 3.000 barrels that I stole from my state, the

12 Republic of Croatia. Let it be a halal for you. It will be forgiven."

13 I have another two questions. Are you familiar with the name Edo

14 Omeragic, a Muslim from Mostar? The second man in your power stations.

15 An electrical engineer from Mostar.

16 A. Well, perhaps he had that position, but he wasn't at that level.

17 I know what the hierarchy was -- was like. When Jurkovic appointed

18 officials, well, they were at the top level. That was the case before the

19 war and after the war.

20 Q. Edo Omeragic was the second in line.

21 A. No, he wasn't.

22 Q. We'll prove that. Do you know that this man cooperated with the

23 electrical industry in Croatia and managed to maintain the electrical

24 system in Herceg-Bosna and Bosnia-Herzegovina, because without the

25 Elektrodalmacija network it would have been impossible for that network to

1 function?

2 A. That's probably correct in technical terms. It couldn't have

3 functioned because the network had been disrupted in Bosnia and

4 Herzegovina.

5 Q. Do you know that there were discussions between the states about

6 this matter and discussions about the prices?

7 A. I'm not familiar with that.

8 Q. I can't go back to the power station in Jablanica. It failed to

9 include 150 megawatts in the electrical system and to enable the Cvitovic

10 station to function. Is that correct?

11 A. Well, Jablanica had two systems towards Mostar that had been

12 interrupted. They had three systems to Sarajevo. They had also been

13 disrupted. And there was one line to Konjic. So there were these six

14 lines from the power station.

15 Q. Do you know how much money, time, and effort is necessary to make

16 these power lines function and do you know that we managed to do that?

17 A. Yes. It's a difficult task.

18 Q. One private question. Your father was ill in 1992. He was in

19 Split?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And he recovered?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Did you pay for his treatment in the hospital?

24 A. No, I didn't.

25 Q. Thank you very much.

1 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] And I thank Your Honours for

2 granting me extra time.

3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I put just one

4 question to this witness we weren't able to prepare because it wasn't

5 contained in earlier statements. Just one question.

6 Cross-examination by Mr. Kovacic:

7 Q. [Interpretation] Hello, sir. I just have one question on behalf

8 of Mr. Praljak. A minute ago you mentioned that all the writers from

9 Mostar "lied."

10 A. I was referring to the Muslims, not to the Croats.

11 Q. Thank you. Have you perhaps seen a book written by Suad Cupina?

12 A. Yes. When I read that book, I was completely disappointed. The

13 book only consists of lies. It's a total lie.

14 Q. Yes, a total lie?

15 MR. KOVACEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, do you have any

17 re-examination perhaps? I'm saying perhaps.

18 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour, and I'd like to do it after the

19 break, please. Thank you.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

21 In that case we'll have our 20-minute break, and if the

22 Prosecution could move on rapidly since we have another witness and we

23 have to finish with that witness today. Please be expeditious.

24 It's 20 to 11.00. We'll resume at 11.00.

25 --- Recess taken at 10.42 a.m.

1 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have the floor, Mr. Scott.

3 Re-examination by Mr. Scott:

4 Q. Mr. Idrizovic, good morning.

5 A. Good morning.

6 Q. An awful lot of material has been thrown at you, but I only have

7 time to ask you very few questions in follow-up.

8 Could I please ask you to turn again to Exhibit P 00624, either in

9 hard copy or on the screen, whichever is easier. And if I could direct

10 your attention, sir -- if you could find as we discussed earlier and on

11 the cross-examination point 2, agenda item number 2, and then specifically

12 in both the B/C/S and the English version the fifth paragraph. Well,

13 including the one headed "Agenda item 2." It's the fifth paragraph, the

14 paragraph that then begins: "If we wish to create a better environment

15 for more successful defence ..."

16 Do you see that? It's on the bottom of page 6 of the English

17 version, and it's on the fifth numbered page of the B/C/S version. The

18 paragraph starts with the words, sir: "If we wish to create a better

19 environment ..."

20 I may have misspoke. It may have been the fourth paragraph,

21 including the agenda item 2. Do you have that?

22 A. On page 5, yes.

23 Q. "If we wish" -- I have just some language and I have a couple of

24 questions for you. "If we wish to create a better environment for a more

25 successful defence of the municipality, more contacts and cooperation

1 between the OS and the HVO are needed."

2 Now, first of all, in the way that the -- I don't know how it's

3 been interpreted -- I don't know what the B/C/S version is, the Bosnian

4 version is, but "OS," are those the defence forces of Bosnia and

5 Herzegovina?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. All right. And then continuing over, or continuing in the same

8 paragraph, skipping a few words, and then it says: "It should be openly

9 said that the Muslim people will not accept three ethnic entities which

10 are currently being imposed."

11 Do you see that language, sir?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Is it correct, sir, that at that time the three entities were,

14 one, the Republika Srpska of the RS; secondly, the Croatian Community of

15 Herceg-Bosna; and the third entity being the existing legal state of

16 Bosnia and Herzegovina?

17 A. Yes.

18 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission I

19 can consider that to treat Bosnia-Herzegovina as an ethnic whole is quite

20 wrong, or a national entity, and this is what this sentence says in the

21 minutes of the Municipal Assembly Jablanica. There is no dilemma that the

22 two ethnic entities are territorial entities in which three constituent

23 peoples would represent the majority people.

24 I think it is completely unfounded to look at territory outside

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Republika Srpska as an ethnic whole, an ethnic

1 entity. Thank you.

2 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I'm not going to -- I think the document

3 and -- the witness has spoken and the document speaks for itself. We can

4 argue about it -- we can argue about it later.

5 Q. Sir, does that document and including the first part that I read

6 to you, is that consistent with what you've told us about the last three

7 days about your -- reflecting in your personal efforts to maintain

8 continuing cooperation between the HVO and the ABiH as long as you

9 possibly could?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. I would like to ask you now about -- you were asked a tremendous

12 number of questions about Konjic and the imbalance of military forces

13 between the Muslim side and the Croat side, at least in terms of soldiers

14 on the ground; that is, infantry. Can you tell the Judges -- in

15 connection with the imbalance of forces, sir, can you tell the Judges from

16 your military assessment, did you consider that the threat to Jablanica

17 came from the direction of Konjic, that the principal threat came from the

18 direction of Konjic?

19 A. No, no. I never said that, nor is that possible. Our threat

20 could only have come from -- a threat to us could only have come from the

21 west, which is where it come from.

22 Q. And in fact you said that among others, you said that the HVO

23 units that attacked the area of Jablanica, including Sovici, Doljani on

24 the 16th and 17th of April, that included HVO units from Siroki Brijeg?

25 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I object to the

1 question. The Defence in the cross-examination never broached the subject

2 of units from Siroki Brijeg. It's a question that the Prosecutor ought to

3 have asked during examination-in-chief. It is not redirect.

4 MR. SCOTT: That's not correct, Your Honour. I'm directly

5 responding to a huge amount of time and material that was spent talking

6 about what was happening in Konjic, and the witness himself tried to give

7 answers about the fact that that was not in fact where the threat came

8 from. And this is legitimate redirect to clarify that issue.

9 Q. Sir, apart from the HVO units that came from Siroki Brijeg, do you

10 know where any of the other HVO units came for outside -- that came from

11 that were outside the area -- from outside the area of Jablanica?

12 A. From the many documents that you all have here, we can see which

13 units they were, and from the documents that the Croatian side provided to

14 the Prosecution I have a list of persons who were killed on the territory

15 of our municipality, Croatian -- and they are HVO documents, SIS

16 documents, or whoever. But the source is Croatian at any rate. If you

17 want me to read out how many soldiers from what municipalities in Western

18 Herzegovina were killed in Jablanica, I can do that.

19 Q. Well, we don't have time to do that at the moment, but can you

20 remember the names of any of the other HVO units or the municipalities

21 from which they came outside of Jablanica?

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Counsel.

23 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would just like to

24 remind you that the witness told us that he did not leave Jablanica

25 municipality and that he was not present in Sovici and Doljani and that

1 precisely for that reason we were not granted the right to ask the witness

2 questions about that because there are no sources of information about

3 Sovici and Doljani. So I would like to ask the Prosecution to request

4 those -- to respect those restrictions, because several Defence counsel

5 got up and said that the witness could testify about Sovici and Doljani,

6 but we moved on.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, as far as Sovici and

8 Doljani are concerned, there will be other witnesses available, so there's

9 no point in wasting time with this witness; whereas other people will be

10 able to talk about that, address the matter. So move on, please.

11 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. I won't belabour it then.

12 Q. Sir, there was also -- it came up in direct examination -- excuse

13 me, in cross-examination that on the morning of approximately the 15th of

14 April when the HVO shelling of Jablanica started that approximately a

15 hundred HVO soldiers that remained -- still remained in Jablanica town

16 were disarmed. Do you recall that?

17 A. Yes. But that figure of 100 was not one I mentioned. I think the

18 figure was 40-odd. You have information in the MUP. It was -- the number

19 was not as high as 100.

20 Q. Can you tell us, though, and please assist the Judges as far as

21 you can, when -- is it that these -- I'll use your term -- your number,

22 these 40-odd HVO members, were they disarmed and left at that, or were

23 they arrested and imprisoned?

24 A. After the attack, I think that the MUP carried out a search of the

25 apartments and houses of military recruits, members of the HVO who

1 remained in Jablanica. Now, what they did with them after that I really

2 can't say. I don't know whether they arrested them or what. I really

3 don't know what happened to them next.

4 Q. Well, it was suggested, I think, I don't have the transcript words

5 in front of me at the moment, that these hundred, the number that the

6 Defence uses is approximately a hundred, HVO members were taken into

7 custody, if you were, on that date, on the 15th of April. Is that true?

8 A. It is possible. Possibly, but I said I didn't know for sure.

9 Q. Very well. Can I ask you please to look at Exhibit P 00776, which

10 is both in the Prosecution bundle, and I would ask the usher to assist

11 with making it available in e-court, please.

12 Sir, just one or two questions about that. If you can just

13 quickly look at that document long enough to see essentially what it is.

14 And for the record, it's an ABiH order dated the 10th of November, 1992.

15 In the first paragraph it refers to the order that I believe that was

16 referred to during the Praljak cross-examination, making reference to an

17 order signed -- "signed by General Praljak."

18 Do you see that?

19 A. I've been provided with an order here from Jovan Divjak.

20 Q. Yes, correct. And in that first paragraph of that order do you

21 see that it refers to an order by General Praljak?

22 A. Pursuant to an agreement, based on an agreement from a meeting of

23 representatives from the BH army and HVO on the 31st of October. So this

24 is after the fall of Prozor when attempts were being made to influence the

25 situation and to place the territory under control, some kind of control,

1 because the situation was very difficult.

2 Q. Yes, Mr. Idrizovic. And does this document in fact reflect that

3 the ABiH command issued an order to engage for there to be mixed military

4 check-points and patrols? That is, it was not only Mr. Praljak but the

5 ABiH side issued a similar order; is that correct?

6 A. Yes, yes. Well, I said that they did this on the basis of a joint

7 agreement, and then both sides issued orders.

8 Q. I would like you to -- just one or two more questions or two

9 topics. If I could ask you to look quickly at -- I think it was Defence

10 Exhibit -- well, in this case it was marked as Defence Exhibit 3D 00561.

11 It's a presidential transcript from the 27th of March, 1993. And if I

12 could direct, please, for the English readers it will be on page -- if you

13 look at the L numbers, I'm referring to page -- well, let's start with the

14 same -- from one of the earlier reference by counsel, L0068585.

15 In the B/C/S version, sir, I think it will be approximately --

16 well, I've changed my own reference. I apologise, sir. I've changed my

17 own reference.

18 But for the sake of speed, Your Honours, let me go straight to the

19 English reference on page L0068588.

20 And, Mr. Idrizovic, in the Bosnian version page -- the ERN page

21 01322423.

22 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, Usher, I think he may need some assistance on

23 this. It was a Praljak exhibit, 3D 00561. And for the witness

24 specifically, B/C/S ERN page 01322423.

25 Q. Sir, about the middle of that page -- well, let me double-check

1 the B/C/S version again. You'll see on that page there's a statement --

2 there's a statement attributed to the president which we can see from the

3 transcript is President Tudjman. Does -- do you see the words where it

4 says -- Tudjman says: "The reasons lie in the fact that the HVO is

5 forcibly establishing parallel authorities."

6 Do you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And, sir, is that in fact consistent with what you saw happening

9 on the ground during 1992 and 1993?

10 A. Yes.

11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think the document

12 speaks for itself, and if you extract the sentence it and quote it alone,

13 then you have extracted it from its context, because one must have a look

14 at what came before and what came afterwards.

15 But my objection is that the document speaks for itself, and

16 there's absolutely no need for the witness to expound on it.

17 MR. SCOTT: Well, Your Honour, exactly --

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judges will consider the

19 matter. Ask the question directly.

20 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. My only comment very

21 briefly in response to Mr. Kovacic is that is exactly my reason for

22 raising it, is to show that in the same passage of the transcript raised

23 by Defence counsel there's this other statement by President Tudjman which

24 certainly should be considered indeed in context.

25 Q. Finally, sir, if I can show you in connection with the museum in

1 Jablanica, which was again the subject of extensive questioning --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Counsel.

3 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour,

4 but the text read out I can see on the screen. So if Mr. Scott takes a

5 look at that, it is a quotation from the statement of another individual,

6 and if you look at what the president says two paragraphs above, you'll

7 see that he's referring to what Ambassador Ilic said and not what

8 President Tudjman said. I can see it on my screen in the B/C/S version.

9 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I'm not going to argue about it now. If

10 you look -- I think everyone -- English readers on page L0068588. I'll

11 let the document indeed speak for itself and what President Tudjman says.

12 Q. Sir, in connection with the museum in Jablanica which you were

13 extensively questioned about, let me ask you, please, to be shown

14 Exhibit --

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Prlic.

16 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Just one technical

17 intervention.

18 In the transcript the words refer to a document which was

19 introduced by Mr. Praljak with the signatures of seven individuals from

20 Konjic, and the person who is saying this, Izetbegovic, says it's this

21 document. So that's the document he's referring to. And later on they go

22 on to quote words from the document.

23 So this is a technical intervention and comment, to say that you

24 cannot analyse a document of this kind in that way.

25 Thank you.

1 MR. SCOTT:

2 Q. If I can ask you, Mr. Idrizovic, to please look at Exhibit

3 P 06528.

4 And this is not in a bundle because it's only arisen during the

5 course of the cross -- or -- yes, the cross-examination. So if I could

6 please have the assistance of the usher in e-court. Exhibit P 06528.

7 If you can have that and if we can -- turning your attention, sir

8 if you can find this is an ECMM report dated the 8th of November, 1993,

9 and if I can ask you to look at number -- item number 5, page 2 of both

10 the B/C/S and the English version in e-court. Item 5. "M1 visited the

11 refugee and POW camp in the Jablanica museum where conditions were

12 described as appalling. Over 600 refugees (Muslim and Croat) are

13 accommodated in the building in addition to 41 Croat prisoners in five

14 cells. There is urgent need for supplies, in particular clothing."

15 Now, sir, is that consistent with what you've told the Chamber as

16 observed by international representatives, that both Croats and Muslims

17 were housed at the museum in unfortunately difficult conditions?

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Counsel.

19 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise,

20 but I think that during the cross-examination the witness said that he

21 might have visited the museum once after the period that those prisoners

22 of war were there. So we should establish whether that was on the 8th of

23 November, 1993, or before -- several months before that.

24 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] There's another thing, Your Honour.

25 When the witness spoke about the museum, unless I am very much mistaken,

1 he referred to a later period, I think he mentioned March 1993, whereas

2 this is November 1992 -- 1993. So obviously it is not the same period of

3 time and the situation certainly changed in the meantime.

4 MR. SCOTT: Yes, there were questions throughout 1993 --

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, this document refers

6 to November and apparently there were refugees in November with several

7 detainees in their cells. Yesterday the witness was asked about March, so

8 bear that in mind when you ask him the questions.

9 MR. SCOTT: I will, Your Honour. I think -- I appreciate that.

10 But just today there were questions about what happened later in the fall

11 of 1993 in the museum. And counsel repeatedly -- repeated Defence teams

12 spent extensive time talking about the museum and either saying directly

13 or implying criticism and -- of this particular witness, and I think it's

14 appropriate redirect to give him the chance to clarify it. And in

15 response to the reports that are available.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica.

17 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the only question after

18 the event in Sovici and Doljani which relates to the later period was

19 whether the museum, possibly in September, was planned to become an

20 Islamic centre. Mr. Scott refers to my questions, but they had nothing to

21 do with whether at that point in time there were detainees or refugees

22 there.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, ask your question to

24 clarify this matter.

25 MR. SCOTT: Simply, Your Honour, if I can -- it's obvious the

1 Defence does not want me to conduct this redirect, but if I can have --

2 if I can ask two additional questions, I'll be finished.

3 Q. Sir, if you can please look at P 06448.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're not going to ask any more

5 questions about the museum?

6 MR. SCOTT: Yes, I am, Your Honour, but I'm referring now to an

7 exhibit, the next exhibit, which is P 06448.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment. I'm going ask

9 the witness a question.

10 In the document we have on our screens, it seems that there were

11 600 refugees in November who were put up in the museum. Do you remember

12 that? Can you confirm that, the observation made by somebody else who was

13 an international observer? Can you confirm that yourself?

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone for the witness,

15 please.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that in a previous statement

17 of mine I said that the situation generally speaking and especially in the

18 museum was very difficult. Ten thousand refugees in November were

19 there -- were -- came in. Now, the refugees who were put up in the museum

20 were the last refugees to arrive in Jablanica. This is not a nice thing

21 to say, but all the refugees were given better accommodation, if I can put

22 it that way, than the last ones coming in, both Croats and Muslims.

23 Now, the reports are correct, and I had --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This document shows that there

25 were 600 refugees, and in brackets it says "Muslims and Croats."

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

3 Proceed, Mr. Scott.

4 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.

5 The next document I've been informed is under seal, so if we could

6 not be broadcast for the moment. There is nothing about it that will be

7 identified but just that it not be broadcast outside the courtroom, the

8 document itself.

9 Q. But if I could refer you to Exhibit, sir, P 06448, and again in

10 e-court, please. If I can ask you to look at again item number 5,

11 humanitarian. And while we're doing this, this is again an ECMM report

12 dated the 5th of November, 1993. And when you see, sir, the language

13 again at page 2 of both the English and the B/C/S version, it says, among

14 other things: "But all have free access to the town."

15 Now, you've said a couple of times and during both direct and

16 cross-examination, I think, and I want to ask you again to clarify:

17 Throughout this time period, as far as you know, were both the Muslims and

18 the Croat refugees housed at the museum given, quote, as in this document,

19 "free access to the town"?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And finally, sir, if I can refer you to the next document which

22 is - and that's my last question, Your Honour - Exhibit P 05422. P 05422

23 in e-court, please.

24 You have that, sir. The numbering starts -- the lettering starts

25 again, but if you go to approximately the second page in both the English

1 and the Bosnian version and the second heading A. There's an earlier A

2 and then there's a second series of numbers starting with A, paragraphs

3 starting with A. Referring to a meeting with Kresimir Zubak from the

4 HV -- the vice-president of the HVO. Do you see this language, sir: "A,

5 he said he would be very pleased to see an ECMM team up in Jablanica.

6 There were 640 Croats in Jablanica which included 200 from Doljani who

7 were living in the museum in the town."

8 In B/C/S I'm told it's on page 3.

9 "They were not being treated badly by the Muslims but conditions

10 were very bad in the museum."

11 Again, sir, is that consistent with the facts and information as

12 you saw or were aware of at that time?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Mr. Idrizovic, once again I thank you for your testimony.

15 MR. SCOTT: And that's all my questions, Your Honour. Thank you.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the Chamber would also like

17 to thank you for having come in to testify. You have spent almost a week

18 here in court, so we'd like to express our gratitude to you for that and

19 wish you bon voyage back home. I'm going to ask Madam Usher to escort you

20 out of the courtroom now, and also ask the registrar to lower the blinds

21 so that we can have the next witness shown in.

22 [The witness withdrew]

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're now going to have

24 witnesses who are going to testify about Sovici and Doljani, and I'd like

25 to remind everyone that the Chamber has made a ruling on adjudicated facts

1 with Naletilic and judicial notice. We have had judicial notice of this,

2 and they should be considered as being true.

3 Now, if the Defence would like to challenge that, they can do so

4 on the basis of irrefutable documents. Otherwise, those facts, as far as

5 the Chamber is concerned, are presumed to be true.

6 By way of an example for everybody to be able to understand what

7 I'm saying, fact 54, and I'd like to quote from the Judgement, and it

8 refers to the mid -- that there was an open conflict between the BiH and

9 HVO. As far as we're concerned, that has already been established unless

10 you are able to show otherwise.

11 26 -- paragraph 26, attacks on villages with an HVO offensive

12 destined to gain control of Jablanica. So another Trial Chamber said that

13 the HVO was engaged in an offensive. If you wish to prove the contrary,

14 you must show it based on valid documents.

15 I'm telling you this in order to gain time.

16 We're now going to have the witness shown in. There are

17 protective measures put in place.

18 Mr. Scott, would you like to explain why.

19 MR. SCOTT: Previously. Mr. Poryvaev will actually be taking the

20 witness, but I did want to address the procedural matters first.

21 First of all, Your Honour, for the record and in light of what the

22 President just said, the Prosecution has indeed limited the evidence that

23 it will present in court based upon the existence of the adjudicated

24 facts. In our view, and the Chamber may ultimately agree or disagree with

25 us, of course, but I do want to say for the record in our view we are

1 calling a very -- a very limited amount of courtroom evidence concerning

2 Sovici and Doljani. It will be only probably about a week of witnesses

3 because we assumed the Court would want to have some viva voce evidence,

4 and that the -- and that the Defence likewise would want to have some

5 opportunity to cross-examine. But indeed in reliance on the fact that

6 there are the adjudicated facts the Prosecution is only presenting a very

7 limited case.

8 As to the witness, Your Honour --

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll move into private session.

10 [Private session]

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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 9915-9919 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 [Open session]

16 MR. PORYVAEV: Your Honour --

17 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,

18 Mr. President.

19 MR. PORYVAEV: Your Honour, the counsel is right. The witness

20 statement, record, was redacted because it was part of supporting

21 material, and it was disclosed to the Defence at that particular period of

22 time, which was justified by the conditions of providing the Defence with

23 the supporting material. But nothing special had been redacted which

24 would be prejudicial to the Defence, just some whereabouts information and

25 whereabouts. That's all.

1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I really don't want to

2 waste any time. I agree with what my colleague has said. Yes, according

3 to the practice of this Court, when the supporting material is provided,

4 some of the material was redacted. We didn't object. That's how it was.

5 But when this witness was announced, it was necessary to provide us with a

6 full statement. Not for the traditional reasons, but also because this

7 statement is now being tendered into evidence.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, you have the

9 redacted version. Could you give me the version so that I can compare it

10 to the full version.

11 I see that the three redacted paragraphs and these paragraphs in

12 fact enable us to identify the witness. So there is nothing that would be

13 prejudicial to the Defence. Here you are. I'll give you the document

14 back.

15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, but I hope that the

16 statement that will be tendered into evidence will at least be the

17 complete version of the document, that it will be a statement that hasn't

18 been redacted.

19 MR. PORYVAEV: Yes, Your Honour, of course. We have prepared

20 unredacted version of the statement, and we intend to tender it into

21 evidence in due course.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but this version will be

23 under seal since there will be paragraphs that enable one to identify the

24 witness. Very well. Please continue.

25 Examination by Mr. Poryvaev:

1 Q. Good morning, Witness BZ. I've got some questions to you relevant

2 to your witness statement given at some time to the investigators of the

3 International Tribunal. Did you in fact give any statement to any

4 investigator of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia?

5 A. I did.

6 Q. That statement was given on the 3rd of May, 1997; correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. At the time when you were giving your witness statement, did you

9 answer the questions of the investigator truthfully?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you answer the questions freely, that is, without any

12 coercion?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And at the end of the interview, were you given an opportunity of

15 reading your statement in your native language through an interpreter?

16 A. Yes.

17 MR. PORYVAEV: I would like the witness to be provided with his

18 witness statements both in English and in B/C/S version. I don't think

19 that they should be placed on the ELMO, because he attached his signature

20 in such a way that his identity will be easily revealed if it's seen in

21 public.

22 Q. Witness, I would like you to take a look at both versions of this

23 statement now, in English and B/C/S version. Could you tell us what

24 version was signed by you, English or B/C/S version?

25 A. English version.

1 Q. When you came to The Hague some days ago, you were given an

2 opportunity of re-reading your statements both in English and B/C/S

3 version, right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. When you were reviewing your witness statement in B/C/S version,

6 did you notice anything that should be changed, deleted, or amended now?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Do you confirm your witness statement given on the 5th of May,

9 1997?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Witness, if it were your testimony today, if you were asked by

12 myself the whole range of questions touched upon in your witness

13 statement, would it be your testimony now?

14 A. Yes. Perhaps I'd provide you with a broader version.

15 Q. Why do you think so? Do you recall any facts you --

16 A. Well, perhaps I'd go into greater detail, provide you with more

17 explanations in relation to certain things.

18 Q. With the Trial Chamber's leave, maybe I'll ask you some questions

19 just to clarify some allegations in your witness statement.

20 MR. PORYVAEV: Your Honour, I would like to tender the witness

21 statement given by this witness.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Poryvaev.

23 MR. PORYVAEV: Yes, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Poryvaev, we've issued very

25 specific instructions. The Prosecution should provide a very brief

1 summary of the contents of his statement.

2 MR. PORYVAEV: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.

3 The witness was living in Sovici, and at some point, he was

4 involved in the defence of Sovici area when the HVO launched the attack on

5 Sovici on the 17th of April, 1993. Among other group of villagers, he had

6 to surrender himself to HVO authorities and was taken to -- to the

7 Ljubuski prison where he spent for some -- for some period of time and

8 then transferred to Heliodrom where he was involved in forced labour and

9 on the 10th of August was wounded. The witness was released from

10 Heliodrom in March 1994.

11 So, Your Honour, I would like to tender --

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue, yes.

13 MR. PORYVAEV: -- this statement as our Exhibit number 9727 under

14 seal.

15 With your leave, Your Honour, I would like to clarify some

16 allegations and the witness statement record which in my point of view

17 needs some clarification.

18 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours. Your Honours, on a

19 number of occasions we already discussed how this new rule should be

20 applied, and I believe we've already decided that we can't have it both

21 ways.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

23 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. The only clarifications

25 that are allowed consist in showing the witness documents that relate to

1 the relevant paragraphs. Otherwise, this procedure is completely useless.

2 MR. PORYVAEV: That's what I intend to do, Your Honour. Perhaps

3 my learned colleague misunderstood me.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Then go ahead with

5 the documents.

6 MR. PORYVAEV: Anyway, all my questions will be related to the

7 documents I intend to tender.

8 Q. So, Witness, you arrived in Ljubuski on the 19th of April, 1993;

9 is it correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And according to your statement on page 4, you stayed there for

12 about two months or a month and a half, and then you were transferred to

13 Heliodrom; correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. On when you came to Heliodrom, you saw some people from Jablanica

16 who had been transferred to Heliodrom before; correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't see how this question

19 relates to the documents that we have. We have three photographs here,

20 and we have one document from the 4th Battalion in Posusje. Please do

21 respect the rules.

22 MR. PORYVAEV: I do respect the rules, my learned colleague, and

23 my questions are related to Exhibit 2535, which I would like to be shown

24 to the witness.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. That's how one

1 should have proceeded. You should have said you stayed in Ljubuski for

2 two months. I will now show you document 2535. Have a look at the

3 document. Can you see your name on it, and he'd say yes and then we'd

4 move on.

5 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] We haven't received that document

6 for this witness. I don't think any of the Defence teams has this

7 document.

8 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] This document isn't even

9 in our chart.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you provide the Defence with

11 this document?

12 MR. PORYVAEV: Yes, all the documents were provided to the

13 Defence, and they were in our chart.

14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps it would be

15 best if I gave you my bundle of documents, which is in good order, and

16 you'll see that we don't have that document. We have three documents or,

17 rather, four mentioned by my colleague. And as my colleagues say, this

18 document isn't included in either of the two charts.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I've got the

20 document with -- I've got the bundle with 2535, and I see that in the list

21 of exhibits this document is included. It should be included in the -- in

22 the 95 ter list. I assume that's the case.

23 Yes, Mr. Ibrisimovic.

24 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

25 This document that we can see on the screen was intended for

1 another witness, as far as I know, not for this witness.

2 MR. PORYVAEV: Your Honour, it's wrong. We provided the Trial

3 Chamber, the Defence team with the chart of all our statements, all our

4 documents that stand for Jablanica witnesses, including this one. So we

5 were not supposed to make any special binder for this witness. Once he's

6 included in the list of witnesses, he is not a new witness.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe I understand the

8 problem. As a rule, the instructions should have been clear. If a

9 witness appears, 92 ter witness or viva voce witness, the Prosecution has

10 to provide the Defence with a list of exhibits. That's what you do. And

11 I believe that in fact you only provided the Defence with four documents,

12 and now at the very last minute the Defence notices that there are more

13 than four documents. We have a mystery. Why did you only refer to four

14 documents originally, whereas there are about 10 of them?

15 Yes, Mr. Scott.

16 MR. SCOTT: My apology to my colleague for intervening, but I

17 think there is a misunderstanding, Your Honour. In the set of materials

18 that were sent out to the Defence on the 20th of October, all the charts

19 were attached I think as one document, but there are headings that break

20 down per witness. I'm looking at it on our screen right now in terms of

21 the Prosecution record, and the document I'm looking at in fact lists the

22 four exhibits, the exact exhibits that Mr. Poryvaev has mentioned. So I

23 think it's simply a question -- I think there's been some confusion. The

24 list was indeed sent out to the Defence and it's included in what was sent

25 on the 20th of October is what our information shows.

1 Now, if for some reason there was some sort of mistake, then

2 obviously it needs to be corrected.

3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave. There

4 obviously has been a mistake, and I don't want to add anything else to my

5 what my colleagues have already said. It's quite obvious that we received

6 a chart for this witness and with the help of the usher I can show it to

7 you, and the chart only refers to four documents. If the Prosecution

8 believes that all the exhibits that concern one part of the indictment are

9 exhibits that we should always have on us for each and every witness, in

10 that case it's necessary to inform us in advance. We have prepared our

11 cross-examination on the basis of the documents referred to in this chart.

12 Thank you.

13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, on the 20th of

15 October was there 9726, 2131, 2535, and 9070? Were all these exhibits

16 included on the 20th of October? If that's the case, show me the

17 documents so I can check this.

18 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I --

19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Scott.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The legal officer has told me

21 certainly, but not in connection with the right witness. On the 20th of

22 October, you must have provided an entire list of exhibits without

23 specifically referring to this witness and that's how the mistake was

24 made.

25 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour I think is correct. In talking with

1 Mr. Poryvaev and the case manager, what appears to have happened is and I

2 would be -- we confess to an error, apparent error that was made. When

3 the original list was sent, it did in fact only include the -- on the 16th

4 of -- excuse me, on the 20th of October, it did include as to this witness

5 only four, but all the total exhibits that would be used in connection

6 with Sovici and Doljani were all part of a master list, if you will. But

7 it appears that --

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. We've understood the

9 position.

10 MR. SCOTT: It appears now that in fairness to Mr. Poryvaev in

11 preparing for the witness that other documents that are on the master list

12 but were not included in that subset have been added, and counsel -- with

13 that clarification, I accept that counsel are correct on that.

14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I should nonetheless

15 like to highlight a detail that is being forgotten here. Of course

16 mistakes can always happen. That's no problem. I accept what my learned

17 colleague has just said. The documents were mixed up. It is evident that

18 we were warned which documents would be used along with this witness, and

19 we were given that caution in two ways. Our attention was drawn to that

20 on the basis of the review of documents that we received together with

21 other documents for other witnesses, and then there was a large document

22 specifying each individual witness. So we're speaking about one witness

23 here, who has a name, and the documents that the Prosecution plans to

24 tender and present through him.

25 Bearing in mind that it is 95 ter procedure, we have to prepare

1 for it. We go to our own database on the basis of the information

2 provided us from the Prosecution, which was in this case four documents.

3 Now, our own preparation, within our own preparation we have to

4 take a look at another chart or, rather, two charts, and they are the ones

5 from the 4th of September this year when a final ruling was received from

6 the Court of the 30th of November last year, because that chart, according

7 to the definition given not in the Trial Chamber's ruling is of tantamount

8 importance, and I think that that particular chart, or master chart,

9 controls the situation.

10 I don't want to repeat the purpose for which you rendered your

11 ruling to have these charts compiled, and I'd like to say that for this

12 particular witness there were only two documents that were envisaged.

13 Just two documents with this witness.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to end the

15 discussion. We accept that the documents which are in this file be

16 presented to the witness, but in future pay greater attention to those

17 matters, Mr. Scott.

18 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, it was our error and

19 we accept that. Thank you.

20 MR. PORYVAEV: So I would like witness to be shown Exhibit 2535.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to move into private

22 session because if there are any names that appear, that would be prudent.

23 [Private session]

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 9931-9971 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 [Open session]

22 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,

23 Mr. President.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As a witness will be appearing

25 on Monday, according to plan, and this witness shouldn't take up the

1 entire day, we could then deal with the comments that the parties would

2 like to make with regard to protective measures.

3 We are adjourning a few minutes late, but I invite you all to turn

4 for the hearing at 2.15 on Monday. Thank you.

5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,

6 to be reconvened on Monday, the 13th day of

7 November, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25