1 Tuesday, 28 November 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- On resuming at 2.22 p.m.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, could you call

6 the case number, please.

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

8 IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Jadranko Prlic et al.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 I'd like to greet everyone in the courtroom, members of the

11 Prosecution, Defence counsel, and the accused.

12 The Chamber will now render two oral decisions. The first one

13 which I will read out slowly is as follows: The oral decision of the

14 Chamber concerning the Praljak motion for the admission into evidence of

15 documents relating to Mr. Josip Manolic. The accused Praljak filed a

16 motion on the 27th of November, 2006, in which four documents were

17 requested to be admitted into evidence, documents shown to the witness

18 Josip Manolic on the 5th of July, 2006. The numbers are 3D 00313,

19 3D 00314, 3D 00320, and 3D 00186.

20 The Chamber would first of all like to point out that, although

21 the witness Manolic appeared before the Chamber on the 3rd, 4th, 5th and

22 6th of July, 2006, it is necessary to implement the decision of the 13th

23 of July, 2006, that concerns the admission of documents into evidence.

24 With regard to 3D 00313, document 3D 00313, and 3D 00314, the

25 Chamber notes that the witness was not in a position to enlighten the

1 Chamber with regard to the authenticity and probative value or relevance

2 of this document.

3 With regard to 3D 00320, the Chamber notes that this document was

4 not shown to the witness Josip Manolic.

5 As far as document 3D 00186 is concerned, the Chamber first of all

6 notes that the witness Josip Manolic did not enlighten the Chamber with

7 regard to the authenticity, probative value or relevance of this document.

8 However, this same document was subsequently shown to the witness Peter

9 Galbraith, and the document was admitted into evidence on the 27th of

10 September, 2006.

11 And as a result, the Trial Chamber hereby decides not to admit

12 into evidence 3D 00313, 3D 00314. I'll repeat that. The Trial Chamber

13 hereby decides not to admit 3D 00313, 3D 00314, and 3D 00320. And the

14 Trial Chamber notes that it is not necessary for Praljak, the accused

15 Praljak, to demand the 3D 00186 be admitted into evidence since this

16 document has already been admitted into evidence.

17 And now for the second oral decision that concerns the admission

18 of documents into evidence that relate to Witness CA, who appeared on the

19 13th of November, 2006. The Trial Chamber will now decide on the

20 admission of documents into evidence, documents that relate to the witness

21 CA, who appeared on the 13th of November, 2006. The Chamber hereby

22 decides to admit the following documents into evidence. These documents

23 were presented by the Prosecution, and this decision is being rendered

24 since the documents have a certain probative value and a certain

25 relevance: P 02009, P 02191, P 02200.

1 In addition, the Trial Chamber has to decide on P 02063. The

2 Chamber has to decide on whether to admit this document into evidence.

3 The authenticity of this document has been contested by the Stojic

4 Defence. The Stojic Defence claimed that the signature on the contested

5 document wasn't the signature of Marko Rozic, who allegedly signed the

6 document. In support of its argument, the Stojic Defence, first of all,

7 presented a document for comparison, 3D 00563, signed by Marko Rozic. In

8 addition, Defence counsel claimed that this person could not have signed

9 the contested document since he was in -- in detention when the contested

10 document was drafted, which was on the 23rd of April, 1993.

11 To respond to this -- to respond to this objection, the

12 Prosecution filed, on the 21st of November, 2006, three documents from the

13 archives of the Republic of Croatia and from the government of Bosnia and

14 Herzegovina, the contents of which are identical to the contents of

15 document P 02063.

16 It is the Trial Chamber's opinion that the signature on document

17 P 02063 is the signature of the same individual as the signature on the

18 document used for comparison, document 3D 00563. In addition, the Trial

19 Chamber is of the opinion that the fact that Marko Rozic was in detention

20 for a few hours on the 23rd of April, 1993, does not exclude the

21 possibility of him signing this document later on that day. And finally,

22 the other indicia in support of the authenticity of the contested

23 document, other indicia such as the stamp and the number under which it

24 was recorded.

25 The Chamber hereby decides, therefore, to admit into evidence

1 P 02063 as it has a certain probative value and a certain relevance. The

2 Chamber would also like to point out that the Defence teams have not

3 requested that documents be admitted into evidence in relation to the

4 testimony of Witness CA.

5 We'll now move into private session.

6 [Private session]

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 10788-10791 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 [Open session]

7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, we are in open session.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now that we're in open session,

9 I will give the floor to the Prosecution so that they can make their

10 summary.

11 MS. EGELS: Thank you, Your Honour, and good afternoon to everyone

12 in the courtroom.

13 The brief summary of this witness goes as follows: This witness

14 was living with her family in the village of Bivolje Brdo, municipality of

15 Capljina, until July 1993. The witness's husband was a member of a Muslim

16 unit within the HVO. On the night of the 30th of June, 1st of July, 1993,

17 most of his unit was arrested by the HVO on the front line. The witness's

18 husband was not arrested because he was on leave.

19 On the 1st of July, a group of 30 HVO soldiers arrived in Bivolje

20 Brdo and searched the houses and mistreated the women to find out where

21 the men were hiding. The witness was threatened.

22 During the next few days, the soldiers kept coming to look for the

23 witness's husband and for any hidden weapons. On each occasion, they

24 ill-treated the witness and her neighbours.

25 In the evening of the 13th of July, 1993, the witness, together

1 with part of her family, fled her village as she was told the HVO were

2 shelling the area. They fled towards Lokva and were fired upon by HVO.

3 In the morning of 13th July, 1993, the witness was told that Lokva was in

4 flames. When the witness got to Lokva in the evening, the village was

5 empty. The witness spent the night in the woods with villagers from Lokva

6 who had fled in the morning. There were at least 500 villagers from

7 Bivolje Brdo.

8 On the 14th of July, the witness was arrested by HVO soldiers and

9 taken with other civilians to the Silos in Capljina. There was a check

10 point at the entry of the Silos where the belongings of the witness and

11 the other Muslim civilians were searched. They were crammed into a room

12 without a ceiling. There were at least 150. The witness had a baby with

13 her and could hardly move. They received nothing for food, had only a

14 bucket for a toilet.

15 Around the 15th of July, the witness and others were transferred

16 to Gradina in trucks, where she stayed for about eight days. Around the

17 23rd of July, she and others were transferred to Sovici, stayed in the

18 primary school for one night, and were then taken to Doljani by truck

19 where they were told to walk towards --

20 MR. STEWART: Your Honours, this summary is not accurate as far as

21 we can see. When -- we don't know where it comes from. It seems to

22 contain information which we've not seen before. We have commented

23 before. We did suggest that summaries might be supplied to us in advance

24 to avoid this sort of problem. It would be a good idea if we are now

25 going to discuss this, it would probably be better if the witness were not

1 here.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Madam Egels, normally the

3 summary should follow the 92 ter summary. Now, if there are any new

4 elements with respect to -- 65 ter, interpreter's correction. Then it is

5 your duty to inform the Defence thereof, of the new elements. Mr. Stewart

6 is telling us that there are new elements. Now, I myself don't know which

7 they are because I don't have the 65 ter summary to check that out. So is

8 Mr. Stewart wrong or right? You -- is it you who are in the right or

9 Mr. Stewart? Can you respond to Mr. Stewart's objection? He says that

10 there are new elements with respect to the 65 ter summary.

11 MS. EGELS: I was just going to ask my colleague which new

12 elements he was referring to, because, to my knowledge, this summary is a

13 summary of the statement.

14 MR. STEWART: I'm slightly reluctant to do that with the witness

15 here, Your Honour. This isn't a debate which should take place in the

16 witness's hearing. It's only fair to her, the witness, that it doesn't.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but, Mr. Stewart, the time

18 it takes to have the witness shown out of the courtroom and back in we're

19 going to lose precious time. So either what you say is well grounded

20 or --

21 MR. STEWART: [Previous translation continues] ... procedures we

22 had suggested for practical purposes. I really do not know why our

23 suggestion that the summary should be supplied in advance was not

24 adopted. As an obvious piece of common sense, I specifically suggested it

25 so that it would save this sort of waste of time. But, Your Honour, all

1 right. What happened on the way to Lokva, shooting and so on, we don't

2 see that anywhere.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, two points. Mr.

4 Stewart is quite right in the extent to which he says that it would be

5 advisable for the summary read out in the courtroom should be provided to

6 the Defence in advance. That is the least that the Prosecution can do.

7 Now, why wasn't that, in fact, done, Mr. Mundis?

8 MR. MUNDIS: Well, Mr. President, as we've indicated in the past,

9 the summaries are generally based upon the 65 ter summaries. I can't

10 answer the specific question concerning this witness. Let me consult with

11 my colleagues and perhaps the process that we'll adopt is simply to read

12 the 65 ter summary into the record to avoid this kind of problem.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. I think that would be the

14 best way to go about it. Please continue, Ms. Egels.

15 MS. EGELS: Just to answer the issue of the firing upon, it can be

16 found in paragraph one, two, three, four, five -- paragraph number 6 on

17 page 10 of the statement of this witness.

18 So just to finish on that summary. Around the 23rd of July, they

19 were transferred to Sovici, stayed in the primary school for one night,

20 and were then taken to Doljani by truck, where they were told to walk in

21 the direction indicated by the HVO soldiers in order to reach the Bosnian

22 front line from where they were taken to Jablanica.

23 Examination by Ms. Egels:

24 Q. Good afternoon, Witness CG. You provided a written statement to

25 investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY in February and

1 March of 2001; is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did you provide this statement freely?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. When you answered to the questions of the investigator, did you

6 answer truthfully?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. At the end of the interview, was your statement read back to you

9 in your own language?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you sign that statement in the French language? And maybe I

12 can ask the witness to look at Exhibit number 9770, which is in front of

13 her. At the bottom of this page, is this your signature?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Yesterday, when you met with me and an investigator, you were

16 given the opportunity to review your statement in your own language; is

17 that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Upon reviewing your statement in your own language, you had some

20 corrections to make; is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Is it correct that on page 3, paragraph 12 of the English version

23 of your statement, which is page 3, paragraph 7 of the French version,

24 when it says the Serbian house which had been abandoned, that that

25 sentence should be deleted and should be replaced by the sentence: "The

1 Serbian house first floor was used as a school and the upper floor as an

2 apartment by a Serbian family until it was shelled by the Serbs"? Is that

3 what you told us yesterday?

4 A. Yes, that's right.

5 Q. On page 9, paragraph 6 of the English version of your statement,

6 which is page 7, paragraph 4 of the French version of your statement, you

7 wanted to correct the sentence which said that: "They made me responsible

8 for going and finding out because there was an arms cache." And you

9 wanted to explain that you were the one who offered to go and check what

10 had happened to the village of Bucevici; is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And finally on page 10, paragraph 5 of the English version of your

13 staple, which is page 7, paragraph 11 of the French version, when it is

14 referred to a certain -- and maybe we can go into private session, Your

15 Honour, because I will have to name a person.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move into private session.

17 [Private session]

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 [Open session]

3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

5 MS. EGELS:

6 Q. Witness, should you be asked today to provide a full statement to

7 this Court, would the content of that testimony be the same as what is in

8 your written statement?

9 A. Yes, that's right.

10 Q. I would like to show you some documents now, Witness CG. Can I

11 ask you to go to Exhibit number 3035. This -- in your statement, you

12 mentioned the arrest of all the men in your husband's unit during the

13 night of 30 June to 1st of July, 1993. This document is an order by a

14 commander, Ivan Primorac, dated the 30th of June, 1993. I would like you

15 to take a look at items 6 and 9 of that order. And this is on page 2 of

16 the version in your language and on page 1 of the English version.

17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your permission,

18 before the witness answers that question, I should like us to clarify the

19 previous question, whether the 3rd Brigade of the HVO was active in the

20 area in which the witness lived and resided, or was it the 3rd Brigade of

21 the HVO, whose order this is, was in some other territory? Because if it

22 was active in some other territory, then there are no grounds for this

23 witness to comment on this particular order. Thank you.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Madam Egels.

25 MS. EGELS: Yes, this is not part of my question, Your Honour, so

1 would you like -- would you like me to ask that question, or do you think

2 this is a question for cross-examination?

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You just wish to establish

4 whether the contents of this document corresponds to the situation as she

5 knew it.

6 MS. EGELS: Yes.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's the object of the

8 exercise.

9 MS. EGELS: Of course. I didn't even ask a question yet.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ask your question, then, and

11 we'll see.

12 MS. EGELS:

13 Q. So my question is: Paragraph 6 and 9 that I was referring to, do

14 they correspond to what you experienced or perceived on the ground on that

15 date?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Can I now ask you to move to Exhibit number 3063, please. In your

18 statement you mention that between the 1st of July and the 13th of July,

19 1993, HVO soldiers came on various occasions to your village to find out

20 where the men were and if weapons were hidden. This document is an order

21 by --

22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'd just like to draw

23 your attention to the fact that this order is an order from another

24 brigade, the 1st Brigade of the HVO, Knez Domagoj Brigade. So we really

25 must ask the question of which of these brigades was active on the

1 territory that the witness was on. Thank you.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But the witness might not

3 know who was on the ground. Ms. Egels, could you ask the witness whether

4 she knew whether the 1st Brigade of the HVO was in the region.

5 But, Counsel Alaburic, we're wasting time here. It's a useless

6 exercise. But I don't want you to have the impression that we're not

7 listening to what you are saying, so we'll ask Ms. Egels to ask her

8 question.

9 Ms. Alaburic, when you have a witness, your witness, called by

10 you, who is faced with the same document and the Prosecution says but this

11 witness knows nothing about that, you're going to be in the same

12 situation. You're going to face exactly the same situation.

13 So, Ms. Egels, ask the witness whether she knows of the existence

14 of the 1st HVO Brigade in the area.

15 MS. EGELS:

16 Q. Witness CG, do you know whether the 1st HVO Brigade, Knez Domagoj,

17 was active in your area, in the area of Bivolje Brdo?

18 A. Well, I think that my husband was a member of the that brigade,

19 the Knez Domagoj Brigade. I don't know what company and battalion he was

20 in, but I think they held control of that territory and that they belonged

21 to that same battalion, unit.

22 Q. Thank you, Witness CG. So to go back to this order, this is an

23 order by commander Nedjelko Obradovic dated on the 1st of July, 1993, and

24 I would like you to take a look at the first item of the order which is on

25 page 1 of the version in your language and the English version. And I

1 would like to know what this paragraph states about the mopping up of

2 Bivolje Brdo. Does this correspond to what you experienced or perceived

3 on the ground during those days?

4 A. Yes, it does correspond to that.

5 Q. Witness, can I ask you now to go to document number 3668, 3668.

6 In your statement you mention that towards the end of July, 1993, you were

7 taken together with other civilians from Gradina to Capljina, then to

8 Risovac and then to the Sovici primary school in the middle of night where

9 you were counted to be about 420 people. The first question is: Do you

10 remember if on that journey you drove through the neighbourhood of

11 Posusje?

12 A. Yes, that's right.

13 Q. I would like you now to take a look at this document, number 3668,

14 which is a handwritten draft request from the president of the HVO in

15 Jablanica and an HVO commander, to amongst others, Valentin Coric and

16 Berislav Pusic. And I would like to ask you if what is described in this

17 text is conformed to what you experienced or is it not?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can I ask you now to go to Exhibit number 3652. Following up on

20 that journey which brought you to the Sovici primary school. In your

21 statement you say that you stayed a few hours after arriving in Sovici and

22 that then you were taken by truck to Doljani where you were made to walk

23 towards the ABiH line. I would like you to take a look at this document,

24 which is a telex from Berislav Pusic to Jablanica, and I would like you to

25 tell us if what is described in this text is conformed to what you

1 experienced.

2 A. Yes, it does.

3 MS. EGELS: Your Honours, if the Defence have no objection, I

4 would like to tender also the following document, number 3665, which is in

5 fact the implementation on the ground of the previous order, 3652.

6 Otherwise, I'll show it to the witness.

7 MR. KARNAVAS: No objections from this.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Continue.

9 MS. EGELS:

10 Q. Witness, can I ask you now --

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Counsel Tomasevic.

12 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] We do have an objection,

13 for the simple reason that this is an order pursuant to a order. We don't

14 have the previous order. We don't have the signature to this order. We

15 can't see who issued it or a stamp. All it says is what we see here. I

16 don't know what we can deduce and prove based on an order, based on a

17 previous order, which we haven't seen. So we object in principle. The

18 authenticity of the document. There's no signature, no stamp. We haven't

19 seen a single document like this. Documents are usually at least signed.

20 We can't see who issued this, pursuant to whose orders. The military

21 police department of a previous order of theirs, and I think we ought to

22 be shown the previous document so that we can assess this one.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to take note of your

24 objection. Continue.

25 MS. EGELS:

1 Q. So, Witness, Exhibit number 8858, please. And if I can ask you to

2 go to the last page of this document which is page number 12 in both your

3 language and the English version.

4 MS. EGELS: Your Honour, if we might go to private session because

5 I will have to name names.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

7 [Private session]

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 [Open session]

6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Egels, you have the floor.

8 MS. EGELS: Thank you.

9 Q. Witness, can I ask you to go now to Exhibit number 9086. Do you

10 recognise this place?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Can you tell the Court what this place is?

13 A. It's the Silo.

14 Q. Is this the place where you have been detained?

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Egels, there are a number of

17 photographs it seems. So are you going to ask the witness about all the

18 photographs? If you're going to ask about all the photographs, then you

19 have to give the numbers, 9943, 994, et cetera.

20 MS. EGELS: I was going to do that, Your Honour. I was just going

21 to ask her to turn to number --

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

23 MS. EGELS: [Previous translation continues] ... 9739.

24 Q. 9739, please.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Ms. Egels, in

1 the document 9086, there are a number of photographs: One, two, three,

2 four. There are four. And each have a number, 9943, 9944, 9945, and

3 9946. Now, if you want to admit and tender the four photographs, then the

4 witness will have to say, "I recognise 43. I recognise 44," et cetera.

5 MS. EGELS: Your Honour, you're completely right. I was jumping

6 already to the next one.

7 Q. Can I ask you to go back, please, to 9086, Exhibit 9086. And flip

8 through all the photographs under that number and tell us if you recognise

9 them. So the second -- the second photograph will be 0144-9944 at the

10 bottom. Do you recognise this place?

11 A. Yes. This is also the Silo.

12 Q. Can you be more --

13 A. We would go out to relieve ourselves there while we were in

14 detention and walk around a bit.

15 Q. And the next picture.

16 A. This is also the Silo.

17 Q. For the record, this is the picture with -- at the bottom

18 0144-9945.

19 The next one, please. And this is 0144-9946 at the bottom.

20 A. Yes. This is also the Silo.

21 Q. And the last picture of that exhibit number, which is 0144-9947 at

22 the bottom.

23 A. Also the Silo.

24 Q. Thank you, Witness CG. Can I ask you now to go to Exhibit number

25 9739. Do you recognise the place?

1 A. This is the Silo.

2 Q. And number 9740?

3 A. It's also the Silo.

4 Q. Can I ask you now to turn to number 9742.

5 A. This is Bivolje Brdo.

6 Q. Can your house be seen from here, from that picture?

7 A. No. No.

8 Q. Thank you. Number 9743, please.

9 A. This is the mine at Bivolje Brdo, and that's where the people

10 killed were exhumed.

11 Q. How do you know this place?

12 A. I lived there, and we have a field nearby, and we went to watch it

13 all when they were exhumed. And we went to the place afterwards as well,

14 to visit it.

15 Q. Finally, can I ask you to take a look at Exhibit number 9738. Do

16 you recognise this place?

17 A. Yes, I do. This is the place we were in Sovici. I think it's the

18 primary school in Sovici.

19 Q. Thank you, Witness CG.

20 MS. EGELS: Your Honour, I have no further exhibits to show to the

21 witness and no further questions.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Counsel Alaburic.

23 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,

24 before we start the cross-examination, I'd like to make two observations

25 which I would like to be recorded in the transcript. My colleague from

1 the Prosecution, when asking a question about Exhibit P 03668, and this

2 was recorded on page 18, probably presented by mistake the erroneous

3 assertion that the document was issued by the commander of the HVO of

4 Jablanica whereas it was the president of the HVO of Jablanica who issued

5 the document.

6 And the second remark, with respect to my objections to the

7 documents of the two different brigades, did not relate to the fact that I

8 would expect the witness to speak to the authenticity of the document, but

9 was along the lines that the witness can not tell us whether this was an

10 order pursuant to an order if the order did not come from the territory

11 and area she lived in. That was the gist of my objection.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Egels.

13 MS. EGELS: Thank you, Your Honour. Just to set the record

14 straight. On page -- let me check. Page 18, line 17 -- 16, 17, and 18, I

15 said it was a draft request from the HVO in Jablanica and an HVO

16 commander.

17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] That was what I was saying. It

18 wasn't a commander, it was the president of the HVO, and this is an

19 important difference. The president of the HVO represents civilian

20 authorities, and the HVO commander represents military authority. Thank

21 you very much.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Chamber will

23 rule on the objections raised with regard to the admissibility of this

24 document.

25 It's now quarter past 3.00. We have half an hour before the

1 break. The Defence has about an hour and a half in total. I don't know

2 what you have agreed on.

3 Mr. Karnavas, any questions?

4 MR. KARNAVAS: I have no questions, but my time has been donated

5 to the Praljak team.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica.

7 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry. I apologise to Ms. Nozica that I take

8 your time. I just want to come back to that exchange of views concerning

9 what Ms. Egels said. And I believe that she said in lines 17, 19, that I

10 said it and I now repeat and quote, "I said it was a draft request from

11 the HVO in Jablanica and an HVO commander." So I believe that, for the

12 record, it should be said that it was what she said and she didn't speak

13 about the president or -- president of HVO in Jablanica. Thank you.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas has given his 15

15 minutes to the Praljak Defence. An hour and a half. That's 45 minutes.

16 That means 15 minutes for each Defence team.

17 Ms. Nozica.

18 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Mr. Praljak

19 will start, and then I will follow on. Thank you.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Praljak, you

21 have 30 minutes; your 15 minutes plus the 15 minutes from the Prlic team.

22 You have 30 minutes. Please go ahead.

23 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 Cross-examination by the Accused Praljak:

25 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, madam. I can't use your name, so I'll

1 just call you madam.

2 A. Good day.

3 Q. I'll be dealing with 1992 and part of 1993. According to your

4 statement, is it correct to say that the Serbian forces, the JNA, arrived

5 in the area of Stolac, Mostar, the left bank, in the spring of 1992 and

6 even earlier, but for you it was in March, 1993?

7 A. 1993.

8 Q. 1992. I apologise.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Is it correct to say, according to your statement, that at one

11 point in time, we can't be precise, you and other people from your village

12 fled to the right bank and went to Capljina?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And before, you were sheltered in the basement of a Croat's house,

15 or all of you; is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Do you know that at the time, in the area of Sevas Njive, a group

18 of HVO soldiers transferred towards a hill, about 200 of them, and in

19 April 1992, there were fierce clashes and there were people who were

20 killed and wounded? Are you aware of that?

21 A. At the time, I was in the shelter with my children, so I can't

22 really say anything with certainty about that event.

23 Q. Thank you. After you had returned, there was the JNA. Things

24 were still functioning to a certain extent, but reserve forces from

25 Montenegro arrived at one point in time and the situation became extremely

1 difficult and once again you and other people crossed the Neretva to the

2 right bank; is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. On the third page of the B/C/S version of your statement, you said

5 that at the time they were trying to stop the JNA, trenches were dug in

6 the vicinity of a house.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And you said, "I think that these were HV soldiers." So soldiers

9 from the Croatian army. And then you say, "Because at that time the HVO

10 had not yet been established." Are you aware of the fact that at the time

11 the HVO, regardless of whether this was official or not, already had

12 units, people in Western Herzegovina had organised themselves, and is it

13 correct to say that you personally saw any HVO soldiers with HVO insignia?

14 A. I saw soldiers, but I didn't see any insignia, not exactly.

15 Q. Thank you very much. Here you say, "We then left the shelter and

16 went to a house behind a hill. This house belonged to Karlo Prce, a

17 Croat." Is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And then you go on to say that the intensive shelling continued.

20 Normal life had been disrupted. Panic spread and we all fled to Pocitelj.

21 Is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And can we therefore conclude that there was fighting and the

24 reserve forces from Serbia had attacked Capljina and they had taken the

25 entire left bank of the Neretva. Is that correct?

1 A. Well, I don't know exactly what they had taken, but I do know that

2 there was panic in our village. There was shelling and my child had a

3 wound in -- in her mouth, and I know it was like that in Bivolje Brdo. I

4 don't know what it was like in Mostar and Capljina.

5 Q. I'm talking about Bivolje Brdo, in that area, not about Mostar.

6 Thank you.

7 I'm interested in another sentence of yours. Here you say, "When

8 the Serbs started opening fire on the HV soldiers, soldiers who were

9 digging trenches, well, they fled and they looted houses."

10 A minute ago you said you didn't see these soldiers were Croatian

11 soldier. How did you see them looting houses? Had you left earlier on?

12 Were you in the basement? Or is this something you heard after the event?

13 A. I didn't hear about that. But when we were returning home, things

14 had been looted from our house.

15 Q. That's quite certain, but you go on to say, I'll find the passage.

16 You said that, after the event, the Serbs, when you first returned there,

17 you said your houses were looted. They had stolen your -- they had stolen

18 your television and other electrical appliances; is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. So we can conclude that you knew that the houses had been looted

21 and when you return the second time, you knew that the Serbs had done

22 that, but you didn't see the HVO and you don't know who exactly looted

23 those houses, at least in relation to the HVO. Can you claim for sure

24 that the HVO, at that time, looted your houses?

25 A. I can't claim that with certainty, but my husband's mother didn't

1 leave. She immediately returned home after the shelling and she was there

2 throughout that period of time.

3 Q. Thank you. You know that the HVO -- or do you know that in June

4 an HVO offensive in the direction of Stolac was started. Your husband

5 participated in it and an area was liberated?

6 A. Yes, I know that.

7 Q. You say that, in Pocitelj, a mass of people gathered and then you

8 crossed over to the other side in boat -- in a boat and there were lorries

9 waiting to take you away. Do you know that on that occasion 10.000 people

10 crossed the river over, some at a point near Pocitelj and others at Sevas

11 Polje?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Do you know that over 3.000 cars, used by the people to flee in,

14 were in the area of Sevas Polje and Pocitelj. They were by the road, on

15 the road, in the fields, et cetera?

16 A. Yes, I know that.

17 Q. Do you know that from the 13th, 14th, and 15th, 16th, and 17th of

18 April, 1992, cars and even lorries were taken from the left bank of the

19 Neretva to the right bank?

20 A. Yes, to large extent.

21 Q. To a large extent. Do you know that even later, after the 17th of

22 April and right up until the 20th, people came from Stolac, from Visoravan

23 and crossed the Neretva, went to the right bank and went to shelters. Do

24 you know about that?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Do you know that I was the commander at the time. I was the

2 commander down there and people were following my orders and my

3 instructions.

4 A. Yes, I think that's correct.

5 Q. Thank you very much. Let's show 3D 00595 to the witness, please.

6 This is a report dated October 1992 signed by --

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Usher, could you help the

8 witness.

9 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] 3D 00595.

10 Q. It's been signed by seven individuals. I'll read out the names.

11 Tell me whether you know any of them. Zulfo Sabanovic?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Mustafa Sabanovic?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Enver Bojcic?

16 A. Yes, I know Enver.

17 Q. Huseir Sabanovic?

18 A. Pardon.

19 Q. Huseir Sabanovic?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Hamic Sabanovic?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Dzafer Sabanovic?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Sulejman Sabanovic?

1 A. No.

2 Q. Thank you very much. This is a voluminous document. It relates

3 to that period of time. Let's have a look at page 7 in the B/C/S version.

4 Have a look at the second paragraph. On the 4th of April, 1992 -- it's on

5 page 7, paragraph two. Have you found that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. It says: "From the right bank to the left bank of the Neretva, a

8 unit with a hundred individuals crossed over with all their equipment."

9 And then it says: "These people were escorted another unit in boats, a

10 unit of about 60 people. And then on the third night, a group of about 50

11 individuals were taken across. They went to fight in Bivolje Brdo." And

12 on page 8, paragraph three says: "On the 10th of April, fierce fighting

13 broke out at the front in Bivolje Brdo. A tank unit set off from Pijesak

14 in the direction of Bivolje Brdo. Artillery fire was opened. It was hell

15 on Bivolje Brdo on that day. And also in Sevas Polje."

16 And then the third paragraph, on the bottom of the same page, it

17 says: "On this day in Bivolje Brdo, Beno Franjo died, Beno Martin as

18 well, Raguz Dragan. There were others who were wounded," et cetera. Can

19 you see that? Do you know anything about this, since that was near you?

20 A. I heard about this, but at the time, I don't think I was at home.

21 Q. Thank you. You've heard about that. Now have a look at page 9.

22 Towards the bottom of that page it says: "The entire column returned to

23 Pocitelj and Sevas Polje. Vehicles were left, abandoned, and they crossed

24 over the Neretva. The Crisis Staff assessed that at the time there were

25 about 10.000 individuals in Pocitelj and Sevas Polje. The boats kept

1 taking people across the Neretva," et cetera, et cetera.

2 And then on page 10 there's a list. Have a look at page 10,

3 please. It says, "On the 13th of April, the Chetniks attacked Capljina."

4 Are you aware of the fact that at the time Capljina was shelled on

5 a daily basis?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Do you know that they were doing this from the left bank of the

8 Neretva?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And do you know that on the right bank, behind Capljina, in the

11 village of Grabovina, that there was a barracks that belonged to the JNA.

12 And they also opened fire on Capljina from there. Capljina was fired on

13 from two directions?

14 A. I know that there was a barracks there because I was born in the

15 vicinity, but I don't know whether there was shooting from it because I

16 wasn't there.

17 Q. Very well. Thank you. Then paragraph 4, it says, "On the 17th of

18 April, all the refugees were taken across the Neretva River to Sevas

19 Polje. Many vehicles were abandoned. In our assessment, there were about

20 3.000 of them." You have testified about this and that's correct?

21 A. Yes it is.

22 Q. And then it goes on to say, and you've already testified about

23 this, it says, "that all those vehicles were taken across as well as a lot

24 of quite heavy lorries." Let's go on. Let's move on.

25 Do you know that all these people were put up in houses in

1 Medjugorje? They were put up in the complex that belonged to the Kompas

2 company. They were put up in student homes in Capljina, in Ljubuski, et

3 cetera?

4 A. Yes, I know that.

5 Q. So everybody was provided accommodation and was taken care of. Do

6 you know if anyone went hungry?

7 A. I don't think so.

8 Q. Thank you. And subsequently, as you yourself say, and that's what

9 it also says in this document, units were established in which there were

10 Muslims, and there was a company that was formed in Medjugorje as well as

11 in Ljubuski?

12 A. Yes. I know that. A husband -- my husband was in one of those

13 units.

14 Q. Did your husband ever say that he had met me?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Thank you. Do you know that these units were also trained?

17 A. Yes, I do.

18 Q. Thank you do you know that they were provided with weapons,

19 equipment?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And in your statement, you say, "My husband organised a massive

22 exodus of the people"?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. You say there were lorries waiting there, et cetera. I don't

25 doubt that. And here it says that many Muslims became involved and so on

1 and so forth. But can you assess how many lorries, buses, and petrol was

2 used, how many tyres were used to make a raft so that the lorries could be

3 transported across the river, 3.000 vehicles, 12.000 people? Can you

4 imagine the effort involvement.

5 A. Yes, an immense effort.

6 Q. Thank you very much. And you also know that there was fierce

7 fighting, Capljina was being shelled, it was burning around Mostar and so

8 on?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you very much. And then you go on to say that when you

11 first returned, a gentleman approached you, his name was Sulejman

12 Budakovic?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Do you know that this gentleman, shortly after that event, shortly

15 after that period, became the deputy commander of the ABiH 4th Corps in

16 Mostar? He didn't immediately become the commander of the 4th Corps

17 because there was no such unit but he became the commander of the

18 headquarters of the ABiH in Mostar.

19 A. I know that he had some sort of official position, but I don't

20 know of what kind.

21 Q. Madam, it's very simple. If you don't know, just say you don't

22 know. None of us know everything here. And what I'm interested in is

23 this, just a few more questions and then we'll be able to wind up. So the

24 companies were formed, and those Muslim refugees were put up in the area,

25 and afterwards, the following things happened: A large number of Muslims

1 joined up with the HVO and another portion joined the Bregava Brigade that

2 was established to the left of your village; is that correct?

3 A. What I know is that many Muslims joined the HVO. Perhaps I heard

4 about the rest of it, but I'm not quite sure, so I can't say.

5 Q. Tell me, please, did your husband receive a salary in the HVO just

6 like the others, if they received a salary?

7 A. Yes, he did.

8 Q. You say at one place that you were forced to take Croatian dinars.

9 Tell me, please, when you went shopping to the shops that were open, could

10 you pay with German marks, if you had German marks of course?

11 A. Yes, we could.

12 Q. Could you pay in dollars, for example, if you happened to have

13 dollars?

14 A. Yes, we could.

15 Q. Could you pay in French francs, if there were any around?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So apart from those currencies, was there any other currency,

18 except for the Croatian dinar, the currencies I've just mentioned?

19 A. I don't remember.

20 Q. You don't remember. Right. While your husband was in the HVO, up

21 until that June or the end of June, 1993, did he happen to tell you that

22 there was any -- ever any difference within the HVO in terms of weaponry,

23 food, salaries, between Muslims and Croats, any differentiation there?

24 A. No.

25 Q. So they received equal treatment with regard to their shifts,

1 going up to the front line and generally speaking?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. So you at the time as a civilian, you or your neighbours, could

4 you go to Croatia, to Ploce, Metkovici, Split, without any great problems?

5 A. I didn't go, but I think that was possible, yes.

6 Q. And was there medical care and attention available? Were doctors

7 working?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was it all free of charge or did you have to pay?

10 A. I don't think we had to pay.

11 Q. You didn't have to pay.

12 A. No.

13 Q. And now when people would go to Split for an examination of any

14 kind, did they have to pay the hospital fees there?

15 A. I really can't say. I don't know.

16 Q. Did you hear anybody complain when they went to Split that they

17 had to pay for their hospital fees?

18 A. No, I didn't hear of anything like that.

19 Q. I'd just like to show a map, map 29, to the witness before my time

20 is up.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, Mr. Praljak has just

22 asked you a series of questions and I have a question myself, a follow-up

23 question. In your written statement, you explain that -- how in your

24 village you could see Croatian television. Now, I'd like to know why you

25 weren't receiving Sarajevo television. Could you explain that? Why

1 couldn't you watch Sarajevo television?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because we didn't receive a signal,

3 any signal.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No signals. Right. So was that

5 due to the configuration of the terrain or was there no relay station, or

6 maybe the -- or you couldn't watch Sarajevo television even in previous

7 years?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We could watch Sarajevo television

9 before, but we couldn't at that time, and I don't know why. I don't know

10 the reason.

11 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] May I --

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you said that before you

13 received the signal and could watch Sarajevo television, afterwards you

14 couldn't because there was no signal; is that right.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. We received a signal

16 before but not at that time, and I don't know why.

17 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Madam, you know that there was a general relay station put up at

19 Velez for the region?

20 A. Yes. Yes. Everybody knows that.

21 Q. And you could see the relay station and you were able to see, I'm

22 sure, that in 1992, the Serbs destroyed it.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. So it was this relay station that catered to the entire area and

25 when that was destroyed, there was no further possibility of watching

1 Sarajevo television; is that right?

2 A. Yes that's right.

3 Q. Thank you. I'd now like to have a look at the following document

4 which is map 29, please, page 30 of the map. On e-court, it is P 09276.

5 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] May I have the usher's

6 assistance, please, and could she take the map to the witness?

7 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you have not received

8 a copy of this map, that folder, because it was a map and it exists on

9 e-court.

10 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Madam, I have drawn up a map where you can see the river Neretva

12 and Pocitelj, and could you just mark on that map where the crossings

13 were. Sevas Polje, crossing at Sevas Polje, and Pocitelj. Just put

14 crosses by those two places, please. Larger, so we can see them better.

15 A. [Marks]

16 Q. And put a 1. That's Sevas Polje. Put number 1. Oh, that's

17 Pocitelj. Right. So put number 1 by Pocitelj. At Sevas Polje, a little

18 further up, you can put a number 2 there.

19 A. [Marks]

20 Q. And put today's date there, too, and your signature, please. We

21 have to follow procedure.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And put a CG as well, the

23 initials CG.

24 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

25 Q. And the date, please.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, may we have an

2 IC number for that, please.

3 THE REGISTRAR: This will be IC number 118.

4 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I've almost finish.

5 Q. Can you just tell me one more thing? Throughout the spring of

6 1992 and the first half of 1993, despite the war that was being waged, the

7 life of civilians, both the displaced persons and everybody, was

8 relatively tolerable and that Croats and Muslims were -- not only were

9 they in the army together but the whole atmosphere was tolerant if we

10 don't count the exceptions to the -- this example. Would that be the

11 general rule?

12 A. Yes, that's right.

13 Q. You also say -- you said something that when we arrived at the

14 lines at Stolac facing the Serbs, because they were far mightier, there

15 was a lull there, and then you say, "According to an agreement with the

16 Croats." Do you think there was an agreement between the Croats and Serbs

17 to calm the situation down or was that the rumour going round?

18 A. That was the rumour going round, but since we experienced the

19 shelling by the Serbs, we realised that they were very strong and that it

20 was very difficult to budge them, to get them away from that territory.

21 Q. But we nonetheless held the line?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Now, for the -- do you know that for the Virgin Mary holiday, that

24 in Herzegovina and with the Catholics is very celebrated, based on the

25 15th of August and in 1992, there was a large-scale offensive with Serb

1 tanks against Stolac? Have you heard of that offensive of theirs? And we

2 barely survived. Just say yes or no.

3 A. I can't confirm this with any certainty.

4 Q. Well, thank you, Witness, for your answers.

5 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] That completes my

6 examination. Thank you, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. We're going to take

8 our break and we'll have one hour left afterwards for the remaining four

9 Defence teams. I'd like to give this document back to the registrar. It

10 is Mr. Praljak's document with an IC number. And we reconvene at 5

11 minutes past 4.00. Thank you.

12 --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.

13 --- On resuming at 4.06 p.m.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Is it Counsel Nozica

15 next?

16 Yes, Ms. Egels.

17 MS. EGELS: Sorry. Just for the record, Your Honour, I believe

18 there is a little mistake. During the examination, the cross-examination

19 by Mr. Praljak, on page 38, lines 7 and 8, he referred to a map, map

20 number 29, that he showed to the witness being P 9270. The map that was

21 shown to the witness is not map 29. It seems that it is an amalgamation

22 of two maps, map 28 and 29. So for the record, what has been marked and

23 now given the number IC 110 is not map 29. No, 118, sorry.

24 MR. STEWART: While we're correcting the record, I think I noticed

25 that when the witness dated the map put to her by Mr. Praljak, in fact,

1 she put yesterday's date. That probably just ought to be corrected.

2 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, yes, I agree. It is -- the maps Mr.

3 Praljak used are actually the copies of two pages from the Prosecutor's

4 evidence, and since the Prosecution was kind enough to prepare that

5 document, I think that having that document changed into the IC, I think

6 that there should not be any problem. But if needed, we can produce the

7 same maps which the Prosecution actually used for that chart from the book

8 where they took it as well. Yes. Exactly, Your Honour. Thank you for

9 showing me.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The important thing is to have 1

11 and 2 that was marked, the crossing points across the river. The rest is

12 less important.

13 Yes, Ms. Alaburic.

14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with the Court's

15 permission, I would like publicly to apologise to my learned friend of the

16 Prosecution. My remark that her question in relation to an exhibit --

17 well, what I said was unfounded because, yes, my colleague did indeed

18 mention civilian authorities.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Ms. Nozica, you have

20 15 minutes.

21 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. For the

22 record, I would like to inform the Trial Chamber, very precisely, that I

23 have my own 15 minutes, seven minutes from Mr. Coric's Defence and seven

24 minutes from Mr. Pusic's Defence, which makes 28 minutes in all for the

25 record. Thank you.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Our legal advisor will do

2 the calculations. It's getting a bit complicated now.

3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. It's no less

4 complicated for me, but I'll try and get through my questions before the

5 allotted time.

6 Cross-examination by Ms. Nozica:

7 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, madam.

8 A. Good afternoon.

9 Q. I have placed a pink folder next to you. You needn't look at it

10 now, but when I come to show you two documents, you will find those

11 documents in that binder. And we're going to start off with the

12 cross-examination.

13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] May we move into private session

14 because I want to ask the something that might disclose her identity.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session, please.

16 [Private session]

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 [Open session]

14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.

15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Madam, tell me, do you know that on the 30th of June, 1993, the BH

17 army, in cooperation with part of the HVO members who were Muslims, of

18 Muslim ethnicity, attacked and took control of the so-called North Camp in

19 Mostar and the Tihomir Misic barracks, and the entire territory of Bijelo

20 Polje north of Mostar when certain -- a certain number of HVO members were

21 killed and some civilians detained who happened to be in the area?

22 A. Well, I heard about most of it. Not about everything, but most of

23 it.

24 Q. So we can take it that you knew of these events, did you?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. You also go on to say in your statement, that after that day, that

2 is to say the 30th of June, 1993, your husband, together with the other

3 fugitives from Kapa's unit, as you say, and with a number of locals, took

4 to the forests and hid there; is that right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Would it be correct to conclude, in view of what you say on page 7

7 of your statement, it is page 7 of the B/C/S and paragraph 4 in the

8 English, that on that territory at that time, and we're talking about the

9 13th of July until the end of month, there were about 300 members of the

10 BH army or, rather, that that group contained about 300 men?

11 A. Yes. But it wasn't only at Bivolje Brdo. It was the entire area

12 of Dubravska Visoravan.

13 Q. I see, those 300 were all there. Now, how was that whole group

14 armed? Do you know anything about Kapa's unit, whether they had any

15 weapons or --

16 A. All I can tell you is whether my husband had any arms. I can't

17 tell you about the rest, whether they did or did not.

18 Q. I'm speaking slowly for the record, because everything you and I

19 say has to be recorded. Can we then say that it is true and correct that

20 your husband had an automatic rifle?

21 A. Yes, we can say that.

22 Q. In your statement, in several places, you say that the members of

23 the HVO came by to ask you where your husbands were and that they were

24 looking for weapons mostly; is that right? Hidden weapons in the houses.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. I'd like us to go back into private session, because I have to go

2 into some details now.

3 [Private session]

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 10829 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 [Open session]

8 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Do you know that -- may I?

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move into open session.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.

12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Madam, do you have any information about this group? Do you know

14 that this group, and your husband was in it, and you actively helped him,

15 and there are many details about that in your statement, do you know that

16 on the 13th of July, this group was involved in sabotage action against

17 the HVO? This group or some other group that was on the Dubrava plateau,

18 as you say. Are you aware of any sabotage committed against the HVO?

19 A. I heard about such sabotage action but I don't know who was

20 involved in the sabotage. I wasn't there. I didn't see it. But later,

21 when I spoke to my husband, I found out that, in fact, on the 14th, he was

22 already in Blagaj. But I have heard about that sabotage and about acts of

23 sabotage being committed.

24 Q. In your statement you described the Croatian soldiers who were

25 detained in a garage. There was Mujo Sose halfway between the hamlet of

1 Lokva and Vitina. At that point in time, I think it was on the 13th of

2 July, according to your statement -- well, at that time, was there any

3 fighting between the ABiH and the HVO? And what happened? Could that be

4 described as a sabotage action carried out by those in the area?

5 A. Well, let me tell you. We heard the sounds of -- the sound of

6 firing and explosions, but in the area that we were actually in, we didn't

7 see a single soldier at that time, at the time that I saw those prisoners.

8 I think they were prisoners because they were imprisoned. They were kept

9 behind locked doors. But at that time and in that area, there was no

10 fighting. You could only hear explosions in the distance.

11 Q. But you don't know the circumstances under which they were

12 imprisoned. You don't know whether a group of inhabitants from your

13 village, from the surrounding villages, or members of the ABiH had come

14 and imprisoned them?

15 A. No, I don't know.

16 Q. I'd like to remind you about part of your statement in which you

17 describe the event, an event that appears to be a sabotage action, in my

18 opinion. I'd like to refer you to page 8. And it's also page 8 in the

19 English version of your statement, the penultimate passage. And you

20 say, "I was surprised that HVO soldiers could have been taken prisoner

21 when they occupied the village, as if it was their place. I thought that

22 the men hiding in the woods had probably managed to take some prisoners.

23 I didn't see anyone else in the area who could have done that."

24 And just wait briefly before you answer. Is that what you said in

25 your statement?

1 A. Yes, I did.

2 Q. Very well.

3 A. Madam, from the 1st and up until the 13th, we saw only HVO members

4 with our own eyes. That's why I said that they had quite simply taken

5 over the village. But the men who had fled, well, they were in the

6 woods. But during that period, there were only HVO soldiers walking

7 around the village, and they would enter houses and maltreat people.

8 That's why I said that.

9 Q. Very well, madam. But there were Croatian soldiers who were

10 imprisoned there?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. By Muslims. They had been imprisoned by Muslims.

13 A. Well, I suppose they didn't imprison themselves.

14 Q. Very well. That's all I wanted to ask you about. Thank you.

15 You said that you had heard about sabotage actions. I'd like to

16 ask you whether you heard about anything else. Did you hear about the

17 killing of the ambulance driver and the wounding of a nurse on the 13th of

18 July? And you described quite a lot of events on that day. This took

19 place in Domanovici on the road to Capljina. It's fairly close to your

20 village. Isn't that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Let's have a look at something that might refresh your memory.

23 Let's have a look at document 2D 00276. It's the first document that you

24 have. While waiting for it to appear on the screen, and the Judges have

25 the document, too, I'll move on. It's dated the 14th of July, the health

1 sectors, Defence department, and it states the following: "Yesterday in

2 Domanovici, on the road to Capljina, while transporting wounded, there was

3 an ambush and a burst of fire was opened as a result of which Franjo

4 Boskovic, the ambulance driver, was killed. And as a result of that same

5 burst of fire, the nurse, Mijatovic Vesna, was seriously wounded."

6 I haven't got much time. I have another important document

7 under -- I'll read out the next page. "The late Franjo, up until

8 yesterday and from the beginning of the war, would save people in the

9 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina regardless of their ethnicity or

10 religion. He was killed by members of the MOS yesterday." Have you heard

11 anything about this?

12 A. No.

13 Q. And you never heard about this afterwards either?

14 A. May I? When we were taken to the Silos, well, the soldiers showed

15 us the road that had been damaged beneath the cemetery in Domanovici, and

16 they said, "You done even know who did this." And that's when we found

17 out about this act of sabotage in Domanovici, if that's where it was.

18 Otherwise, I know nothing about it.

19 Q. Very well. Let's have a look at the next document, P 08648. And

20 listen to my question while we're waiting for the document to come up on

21 the screen. Have you heard about someone being killed or, rather, 23 HVO

22 members being killed and about 10 being wounded in the Gubavica sector,

23 which isn't far from your house? Isn't that correct? In fact, it was on

24 the 15th of July, 1993, at the Dubrava plateau. On that day, on the 16th

25 of July, you were in Gradina, and you were in Becir Boskailo's house for

1 about eight days. So during that period, did you hear anything about this

2 act of sabotage?

3 A. I heard that soldiers had been killed, but I didn't see anything

4 and I wasn't there, but I heard about it.

5 Q. This event in which these soldiers were killed was quite

6 important. A lot of people suffered. It was the day of the dead in

7 Capljina on that day. Did you hear anything about that?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Since this document has to do with what you have said in your

10 statement, I'd like to have a look at it together with you. At the

11 beginning, on the first page -- well, the document is dated the 8th of

12 February, 1996, but it mentions the sabotage in the Gubavica sector, the

13 Dubrava plateau, and the result of the act of sabotage was that there were

14 23 dead and 10 wounded.

15 Then there was this event on the 15th of July, 1993, and as I have

16 said, there were 23 men killed and 10 wounded. This could have been

17 prevented if everyone had acted responsibly, if everybody had performed

18 their duties.

19 The intelligence service informed their superiors in written form

20 on two occasions and -- on the 3rd of July and just before the event

21 itself on the 11th of July, 1993.

22 I will just read out the next paragraph: "The intelligence

23 service with Bruno Krvavac, the chief at its at its head, carried out

24 operative work and reconnaissance and found out that the ABiH was planning

25 sabotage terrorist action in that area in cooperation with ABiH members

1 who had remained in the Dubrava area." Let's have a look at the next page

2 of the document. It's a Prosecution document.

3 First, we have an intelligence record. It was mentioned in the

4 previous document. It's dated the 11th of July. Have a look at the

5 original, although we have it on the screen now. Let's have a look at it

6 together.

7 Item 1 -- or, in fact it says: "Through analysis of intelligence

8 received from intelligence sources, we have obtained the following

9 information: Three groups of a total of 150 men have been spotted in the

10 forest above Satorova Gomila in the area towards Stanojevici. Most of

11 them are between 25 and 30 years of age. All members of this group have

12 automatic infantry weapons, and they also have a certain number of Zolja

13 hand-held rocket launchers and rocket-propelled grenades." You said your

14 husband had an automatic rifle. Isn't that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. In your statement, you also said that certain individuals, whose

17 names I won't mention since we are in open session, you also said that

18 some of his comrades had automatic rifles. Isn't that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Now let's have a look at item 7. Item 7: "The basic

21 communication between the groups on the run is through a courier, but

22 there's also a possibility that someone or more of them have wireless

23 equipment."

24 On page 7 -- on page 7, the last paragraph in the English version,

25 you said that you had provided batteries for radios to some of the -- to

1 one of the men who came, who was with your husband, because he had

2 problems communicating with Buna. I won't mention his name since we are

3 in open session. Isn't that correct though?

4 A. He wasn't with my husband. He came and we went to the shelter

5 which was far away from my house. He came from the other part of the

6 village. Mine husband was hiding in the vicinity of our house then.

7 Q. Could we agree that there were several groups, as it says here,

8 and they weren't all at the same location? He was at another location, as

9 you say. He wasn't at the same location as your husband.

10 A. He came from another direction. All I know is where my husband

11 was.

12 Q. Did he ask for a battery, because he said he had interference and

13 he wanted to be able to communicate with Buna?

14 A. Yes, he said something like that.

15 Q. Who was at Buna at the time?

16 A. I don't know.

17 Q. Very well. Let's have a look at item 9. "On the basis of what

18 has been said, there's the possibility of maintaining contact between the

19 members of the group and majority of the armija forces in Blagaj and

20 Mostar area, and there's also the possibility of organising and

21 synchronising the action of these individuals."

22 Item 10: "Certain group commanders insist on sabotage and

23 terrorist acts and activities."

24 This document is dated the 11th of July and it corresponds to what

25 you said you knew about. You heard about certain terrorists and sabotage

1 groups. Isn't that correct? Or, rather, you heard about such activities.

2 A. Well, I heard something about that but never from my husband. He

3 never gave me an answer to anything like that, either positive or

4 negative.

5 Q. Well, I can understand why he didn't do that, but you heard not

6 from your husband but, as you said, from others that this kind of thing

7 happened.

8 Now, let's take a look at the next document, the 3rd of July.

9 Once again, it is an intelligence report. So let's skip the first point

10 and focus on the second bullet point. It says: "There is realistic

11 possibility for group and individual sabotage and intelligence activities,

12 and we especially would like to focus on the individuals and groups aimed

13 at linking up, organising themselves with the ultimate intention of

14 breaking through in the direction of the BH army units in the area around

15 Blagaj."

16 Now, you say something about that in your own statement. Do you

17 know whether at that time you were aware of the fact that certain people

18 from the military circles of Mostar wanted to meet this group, and do you

19 know if there were any initiatives in that regard or whether this linking

20 up actually happened? Did they manage to link up with the Mostar people

21 with these small groups which together, as you say, made up the 300

22 resistance fighters?

23 A. I've already told you, I heard something about that but I didn't

24 get a definite answer from anybody as to whether that was true or not, so

25 I can't really answer your question.

1 Q. Well, I'll end there with my last question. On page 7 of your

2 statement you said, and I'll read it out to you. Take a look at page 7,

3 please. It says: "My husband" -- you say, "While I was going to take

4 some stores to my husband, I heard rumours that somebody would arrive from

5 Mostar to have a meeting with a group of people who were hiding in the

6 woods and help them to set up the defence lines towards Rude near the

7 bauxite mine."

8 Now, I'm interested in this next paragraph. It says: "My husband

9 never confirm the rumour to me, but I know that will he was involved with

10 the group in an operation coordinated with the villagers in the region.

11 In all, there were about 300 resistance fighters, but I can't tell you any

12 more than that."

13 Now, my question is this: What was your husband involved in

14 together with the other co-fighters? So this whole group, not only your

15 husband, but what did you have in mind when you say, "But I know that he

16 was involved in the operation"?

17 A. Well, I don't know what it was about and what was going on, but as

18 he was with them and talked to them and moved around in the forest with

19 them, naturally he was involved. That's how I concluded that he knew

20 about something. But otherwise, I didn't have any special indicators.

21 Since he was with them, he wasn't an exception. He must have been with

22 them in whatever they were about.

23 Q. Now, you took a fairly active role, and I'm not criticising you

24 for that, I'm just stating it as a fact, but what was your role in actual

25 fact? What did you think you were doing when you were taking weapons that

1 had been dug into the ground? You dug them up. You played a very active

2 role in bringing in information, news, resources, equipment. What was

3 that group preparing to do? Was it preparing to continue fighting the

4 Serbs, or was it preparing to fight the Croats? What would you say in

5 view of all of the things that you have said in your statement?

6 A. I don't exactly what they were getting ready for, but I thought

7 they were getting ready to break through to free territory and escape.

8 That's what I thought. I wasn't thinking of any sabotage, killing, or the

9 like. All I thought was, quite simply, that they wanted to gather

10 together and then break through together to go to Blagaj, Mostar, or

11 further on.

12 Q. But nevertheless, as we've seen from the documents that I showed

13 you, and on the basis of your own knowledge, throughout that time, some

14 sabotage activities were going on.

15 A. But I don't know about that.

16 Q. You confirmed a moment ago that you had heard about some of them.

17 A. Well, I heard about them later on, not at that actual point in

18 time.

19 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further

20 questions.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Next Defence counsel. Mr.

22 Stewart.

23 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Cross-examination by Mr. Stewart:

25 Q. Witness, when your husband was home on the night of the 30th of

1 June, 1993, you say that he was on leave. How long was he on leave for as

2 planned at that time?

3 A. I think he was supposed to go back in the morning.

4 Q. But the fact is -- consider this: Is it correct that he wasn't

5 actually on leave at all? He had already decided to leave the HVO, and he

6 was never going to go back. Is that correct?

7 A. No.

8 Q. And in fact, it was not the practice for men in his unit to be

9 given a single night's leave at that time, was it?

10 A. I don't know. All I know is -- may I be allowed to say something?

11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... of course.

12 A. All I know is that since our house was there, he went by car to

13 the front line, and he would often come home, and I would cook some -- or,

14 rather, prepare some food. He would take some food to them. So they

15 would let him go back home fairly often.

16 Q. There had been a major attack on an HVO barracks in Mostar on that

17 day, the 30th of June, hadn't there?

18 A. Well, I heard about that. Yes, I did hear about that.

19 Q. Your husband knew about that on that day, didn't he?

20 A. Well, I can't speak for him. I don't know if he knew or not. I

21 don't know myself.

22 MR. STEWART: Counsel apparently has an objection. I'd be

23 interested to hear what it will be.

24 MS. EGELS: I have an objection because this goes to speculation.

25 The witness answered whether her husband told her and why he came back.

1 Putting this question to the witness is asking for speculation, unless you

2 have proof that the husband said something else to her, to his wife.

3 MR. STEWART: That is so far short of speculation that we've seen

4 in this case, Your Honours, that I'm just going to proceed.

5 Q. So did you -- as far as you remember, there was no conversation

6 and no indication of any sort between you and your husband that evening or

7 that night about anything having happened by way of attack in Mostar. Is

8 that your evidence?

9 A. The only thing he mentioned was that I was to wake him up early in

10 the morning so that I -- and that I could get as much cheese and food as I

11 could muster, so that he could take it to his fellows up at the line.

12 Q. Did you have any knowledge of an armed -- any armed group of

13 Muslims, not part of the HVO, already being in the nearby woods at that

14 time?

15 A. You mean between the 30th and the 1st? Is that what you're asking

16 me about?

17 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... of June, that night. Did you

18 already have any knowledge --

19 A. I don't know.

20 Q. Did you have any knowledge yourself -- I'll rephrase that. Had

21 you heard anything about any collection, gathering or hiding of any arms

22 or ammunition by Muslims, ammunition obtained while they were members of

23 the HVO for future use by Muslims for their own purposes?

24 MS. EGELS: Your Honour, I would like to object. This is a very

25 wide question, unless my colleague can make a more specific question on

1 who he's talking about, where he's talking about, what he's talking about,

2 but any Muslims, any gathering of weapons. It's too wide.

3 MR. STEWART: No, it's not Your Honour. It's a very wide question

4 to which the -- it's giving the witness the opportunity to say, no, she

5 had heard nothing, in which case, her negative answer will be very wide,

6 or to give a positive answer, in which case we will then go, in the light

7 of that positive answer, to the narrower area. The objection is

8 completely misplaced, to use a word. But in the light of that

9 intervention, I will unfortunately use my time to repeat the question so

10 there is no misunderstanding.

11 Q. Had you heard anything about the gathering, collection, hiding of

12 weapons or ammunition by Muslims for their future use other than as

13 members of the HVO?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Did it come as a complete surprise to you when you learnt about

16 this arms cache that you went to dig up?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. How near -- you were in -- you were in Bivolje Brdo. When you

19 leave -- let's assume you leave by foot. If you leave Bivolje Brdo by

20 foot, how far is it, then, as you leave, until you come into Domanovici?

21 A. You mean from my house?

22 Q. Well, all right. Let's take it from your house then. That's the

23 easiest thing. From your house, if you walk to Domanovici, how far is it

24 until you come into the outskirts of Domanovici? It's about a kilometre

25 or not much different; right?

1 A. A bit more.

2 Q. A little bit more.

3 A. Yes, a little bit more. Up to one and a half kilometres.

4 Q. Right. We can leave that then. The -- may I show you, please --

5 I think the witness has, or can easily have a bundle of documents which

6 contains a number of exhibits I wish to show her or prospective exhibits

7 perhaps.

8 Witness, I think those -- the documents are marked. Is there one

9 which is marked and I'd like it to come up on the screen, please,

10 4D 00461. And if necessary, if there is any difficulty, perhaps the

11 witness could be helped by Madam Usher.

12 This is an order signed by Mr. Stojic, Mr. Bruno Stojic. I'm

13 reading from the English of course. It's dated the 3rd of July,

14 1993. "Custody and care regarding the arrested and isolated Muslims fit

15 for military service from the municipalities of Capljina and Stolac. I

16 hereby order, 1, HVO of Capljina and Stolac municipalities shall

17 immediately assume obligations of custody, accommodation, et cetera,

18 regarding the arrested members of the Muslim armed forces fit for military

19 service with parts of the police forces from Capljina and Stolac police

20 stations and home guard formations."

21 Did you on or shortly after the 3rd of July, did you notice any

22 assumption of those responsibilities, those tasks, the custody,

23 accommodation and so on for arrested members being taken by the HVO of

24 Capljina municipality?

25 A. Well, I don't know what happened with that. I know that all these

1 people were taken away, whether to Dretelj or wherever. Now, who replaced

2 them in their responsibilities and who did what, I really don't know.

3 Q. Did you know Pero Markovic or know who he was?

4 A. He was the president of the Capljina municipality.

5 Q. And from what you knew, was he effectively the man in charge in

6 Capljina?

7 A. Well, probably for certain areas, he was the man in charge and

8 responsible, but I don't know for how much. But, yes, he was responsible.

9 Q. All right. Let's look at the first document in this bundle. The

10 number is P 03439. Do you have that?

11 A. I do.

12 Q. Thank you. This is a signed report of an interrogation of

13 somebody called Asim Sustra. Did you know Asim Sustra or know who he was

14 in July 1993?

15 A. This is the first time that I hear that name, name and surname.

16 Q. All right. Further down the page, it's in the fourth paragraph,

17 there's a reference to his group being supposed to capture the check-point

18 on Masline on the morning of the 13th of July. How far from your house is

19 Masline?

20 A. About 15 kilometres. I don't know exactly. I would say that it

21 was about 15 kilometres.

22 Q. Do you know somebody called Ekrem Veledar?

23 A. Veledare.

24 Q. I'm sorry. Do you know him?

25 A. The name seems familiar, but I don't know him personally.

1 Q. All right. We'll move on then. Do you know somebody called Musar

2 Klaric?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Well, I can tell you he was a member of Kapa's unit in the HVO,

5 and you do have some knowledge and familiarity with that unit, don't you?

6 A. I do know because my husband was a member of that unit. But of

7 course, I can't know the entire unit.

8 Q. Can we clarify? Your statement says that your husband was

9 assigned to a unit led by Mirsad Zuhric and the other Muslim unit was led

10 by Kapa. Did your husband change units at some point?

11 A. I don't know. I'm not sure. Perhaps, maybe, but I'm not quite

12 sure, so I can't answer that question.

13 Q. Could you look at the Exhibit P 03469. Do you have that? Last

14 paragraph. This does relate to Mr. Klaric. This last paragraph: "In the

15 evening of the 12th of July, we," that's his unit, "headed in the

16 direction of Masline with the intention of capturing the check-point on

17 Masline and controlling the Stolac-Capljina road. Were you ever aware of

18 your husband being involved in any such activity in relation to Masline,

19 control of the Stolac-Capljina roads?

20 A. No.

21 Q. There's a reference there to Becir Suta.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart, you started at

23 16.41 minutes and 3 seconds plus 15 minutes. Your time's up. Have your

24 colleagues given you any time?

25 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, we have not been the

1 beneficiaries of any such time. Your Honour, may I -- may I ask this: I

2 really have only a very tiny number of questions to go through, a couple

3 more documents in the same way, just taking maybe no more than a minute or

4 so each. Your Honour, we will be extremely short with the next witness.

5 And unless something unexpected comes up, we almost certainly will have no

6 questions at all. I therefore wonder if Your Honours could just give me

7 the indulgence to finish off these two or three short items which really

8 won't take more than five minutes.

9 MR. KARNAVAS: And, Your Honour, I won't be having any questions

10 for the next witness either. So if that may be of assistance.

11 MR. STEWART: Do I detect a --

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, but complete just

13 those two documents.

14 MR. STEWART: When I say two or three, Your Honour, I don't want

15 to abuse Your Honour's indulgence. I'll crack on straight away.

16 Q. This particular document we were looking at, then -- perhaps I

17 won't -- can't count that Your Honour, since I was already on that, 3469.

18 The reference to Becir Suta and then says that "we were in the woods until

19 the soldiers found us." Does -- was your husband in any way, now that

20 this jogs your mind, was your husband in any way, that you're aware of,

21 linked in his activities with Mr. Suta or Mr. Klaric?

22 A. I don't know.

23 Q. All right. Could we look then at Exhibit P 03546. Do you have

24 that, Witness?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Thank you. It's a report, 18th of July. I want to go to its --

2 in English, it's the second page. It's the fifth paragraph, Witness. It

3 begins: "On 13th July, 1993 ..." Do you see that, a paragraph beginning

4 with that date? Should be about five paragraphs into the report. Do you

5 find that? Thank you.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. [Previous translation continues] "... 1993, there started an

8 attack at the HVO units in the whole of the 1st Brigade area of

9 responsibility." Now, your statement indicated that you did have

10 knowledge of responsibility of different units for different areas

11 earlier. Did you -- did you know what the area of responsibility was of

12 the 1st Brigade yourself at -- in July, 1993?

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment. Mr. Stewart, as

14 there are names there --

15 MR. STEWART: I don't wish to -- unless my client is going to

16 correct my question, I wonder if I might ask his indulgence to get the

17 answer to my question, unless I've got the question wrong. If I've got

18 the question wrong, then, of course, I'm ready to be put right.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Petkovic.

20 THE ACCUSED PETKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it says in the

21 transcript, the HVO started the attack and that it says an attack started

22 against the HVO units. The transcript says that the HVO started an attack

23 but the text says that someone else launched an attack on HVO units, so

24 the first sentence wasn't translated correctly. Thank you.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please move on.

1 MR. STEWART: [Previous translation continues] ... get these things

2 right. Yes. I see where the problem arose from the English. Thank you,

3 Mr. Petkovic. I see that.

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 A. Well, not that close.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.

11 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I've been reminded that we are in open

12 session.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. That's why in line -- in

14 one of the lines -- well, line 19, page 64, I said be careful when names

15 appear, and you said -- well, in fact, you didn't hear me.

16 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, my apologies. We are under that

17 permanent injunction. My apologies.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, could you prepare an

19 order so that we can redact this name. That means that we'll lose 10

20 minutes during the break. Please carry on.

21 MR. STEWART:

22 Q. So -- well, this man, relative of yours, how close a relative?

23 A. Not that close.

24 Q. All right. It goes on. "A smaller group was supposed to detonate

25 the Domanovici headquarters." Did you ever hear or find out anything

1 about that plan to detonate the Domanovici headquarters?

2 A. No. No.

3 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you for that

4 indulgence. I'm sorry to have lost the 10 minutes after you gave us the

5 extra time.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And now for the next Defence

7 team.

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

9 We have no questions for this witness.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ibrisimovic.

11 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Thank

12 you. We only have a few questions for the witness.

13 Cross-examination by Mr. Ibrisimovic:

14 Q. [Interpretation] The Prosecution provided you with some documents

15 and I'd like to have another look at some of them. Document P 3668 is the

16 one I'm interested in. P 003668. Have you found it?

17 As my colleague said, this is a draft document, a handwritten

18 document dated the 23rd of July, 1993, and you said that this reflects

19 what you in fact experienced at the time. Have a look at the upper

20 right-hand corner of the document. Apparently the document should have

21 been forwarded to the command of the operative zone of South-eastern

22 Herzegovina. Mr. Marinko Lasic. Do you see that?

23 A. I can see that.

24 Q. To the command of the military police and to Mr. Berislav Pusic.

25 Is that what it says here?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you. Have a look at the next document in the same binder,

3 P 03652. Have you found it? Have a look at the upper left-hand corner.

4 It says the "HVO, defence department, military police, Mostar, 23 July

5 1993." It's a fairly confusing document, in our opinion. There's a stamp

6 from the Main Staff at the bottom. In the upper left-hand corner there's

7 no protocol number for the document. Can you see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. There's just the date.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. I've asked about this because this document is one we object to

12 because it doesn't have a protocol number. It just has a date. And we

13 have a look at paragraph 13 of the indictment -- well, Mr. -- my client

14 was involved in different activities, not in the activities mentioned in

15 the document. He wasn't in the HVO police. We have no further questions.

16 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. No other questions

18 from the Prosecution, Ms. Egels? No?

19 MS. EGELS: No, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness CG, on behalf of the

21 Judges, I would like to thank you for having come to testify in The Hague.

22 I wish you a safe trip home, and I do hope that it will be possible for

23 your plane to land at the airport given the weather.

24 It's now 10 past 5.00. We will have a 30-minute break because of

25 the redaction that has to be made. We will resume after the break. The

1 Prosecution must proceed rapidly. They have 20 minutes, but you're used

2 to this now. The Defence will have to complete their cross-examination by

3 7.00 p.m., otherwise, we'll have the pleasure of seeing you again

4 tomorrow.

5 Mr. Mundis, you were rising. Did you want to say something?

6 MR. MUNDIS: I was just going to suggest that we take the break at

7 this point and deal with the witness in one go.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I was reading your

9 mind. That's why I said we would have a break. We will resume in half an

10 hour.

11 [The witness withdrew]

12 --- Recess taken at 5.08 p.m.

13 --- On resuming at 5.40 p.m.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Regarding the witness who is

15 about to appear, with respect to voice distortion, we have decided that

16 there will be no voice distortion for this witness, because we consider

17 that in view of what she said in her written statement, there's no need to

18 allow voice distortion. So the witness will not be having that measure

19 granted.

20 We can go into private session to have the witness brought in.

21 [Private session]

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 10852-10853 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 [Open session]

12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.

13 MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honours. Good afternoon to Your

14 Honours, to members of the Defence, and to everybody else in the

15 courtroom.

16 Examination by Mr. Flynn:

17 Q. Good afternoon, Witness.

18 I'll begin with the brief summary. Just for Your Honours'

19 information, the summary is based on the summary as contained in the 65

20 ter list with some very small variations.

21 To start, the witness lived in Prenj Stolac. Early on the 1st of

22 July, 1993, armed HVO soldiers surrounded the witness's home and took away

23 the witness's father and other villagers. Five or six days later, a Croat

24 neighbour warned the witness to leave. The next day, HVO soldiers came to

25 her house and took the witness, her mother, sister, and brother away on

1 trucks threatening to kill them if they refused.

2 At a place called Zujina, the HVO soldiers ordered the witness and

3 two others to get out and to run 15 metres ahead of soldiers. The HVO

4 made the witness search houses in Zujina and neighbouring Kamenica for

5 Bosnian men who were hiding. She also had to tell women and children in

6 Kamenica to gather together. Other women there were taken for use as

7 human shields, including pregnant women. There were around 300 HVO

8 soldiers in the woods searching for Muslim men. The witness was forced on

9 foot to a place called Bregava and had to search for the men.

10 Following this, the witness and other women had to walk further to

11 a place called Habatnice. HVO soldiers fired bullets at the witness's

12 legs to make them walk faster. The witness was part of a group overall of

13 15 women who were gathered there. They were told that they would be used

14 as human shields until all the men in hiding were found.

15 Over six days, the women were taken out as human shields in search

16 of the men. During this, an HVO soldier took the witness aside and

17 started to touch her and told the witness to take off her clothes and

18 touched her over her body. Eventually, the witness returned to the group.

19 The witness and others were put into two houses for six days. Each day

20 the witness and the five others were taken into the woods as human

21 shields.

22 One night when Bosnian men came for food, the HVO fired at them.

23 After six days, the witness and others were taken to the elementary school

24 in Aladinici. They were there about a thousand people including old men,

25 women and children, and they stayed there for 15 days. Women were

1 assaulted there.

2 Once the witness and a 60-year-old woman was forced to run around

3 a car chanting Croatian slogans. The HVO took jewellery and money from

4 detainees. Witness and others were taken to Buna on the 2nd of August,

5 1993. From there they had to walk to Blagaj. The witness says in her

6 statement that an old man died while getting off the bus.

7 And that would conclude the summary.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Would you like us to move into

9 private session to deal with certain documents or not?

10 MR. FLYNN: My first question will involve perhaps reference to

11 some names and perhaps we should move to private session.

12 [Private session]

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 10857-10867 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 [Open session]

13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in open session.

14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Witness, in your statement, you say that in the surrounding areas

16 of your village there were men who were hiding in the woods; is that

17 right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Tell us, please, were they men fit for military service?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Were they former members of the HVO?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Were these men armed?

24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the answer, please?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you repeat the question,

1 please?

2 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Why these men armed? Did they have weapons with them?

4 A. The members of the HVO you mean?

5 Q. Those hiding in the woods.

6 A. No.

7 Q. They didn't have any weapons then. Right. Tell us, please,

8 whether there was any danger that these men without weapons should shoot

9 at anyone? Was there the threat of that at all?

10 A. Well, anybody could have shot.

11 Q. But these men, since they didn't have any weapons, logically,

12 couldn't have shot, couldn't have done any shooting.

13 A. Well, some of them did have, others didn't. The ones that were

14 with us didn't any weapons when they came to us, when I was in the human

15 shield.

16 Q. So explain this to us. Some of the men hiding did, in fact, have

17 weapons, did they?

18 A. No, they didn't have any weapons.

19 Q. So the men who were in hiding didn't have any weapons. Is that

20 what you're saying?

21 A. Not in the hills.

22 Q. Right. Not in the hills. And when you tried to find them in the

23 hills, they were not able to shoot because they didn't have any weapons.

24 Isn't that right?

25 A. Yes, that's right.

1 Q. Tell me, what do you understand by the term "human shield"? What

2 does it mean to you?

3 A. I protected other people's lives.

4 Q. How did you protect or shield other people's lives when you search

5 the area looking for people who were not armed and could not shoot?

6 A. I was -- HVO members, they came in the morning, and they were

7 armed.

8 Q. Madam, I apologise, but I was just asking you about the human

9 shield. Explain to us what this is. A human shield is when you with your

10 own body protect or shield somebody else. And if somebody shoots at you

11 from the other side, you will be hit as part of the live shield and not

12 the person you're shielding behind you.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, my question is this: As you were looking for men in the

15 hills and woods who were not armed, who then could you have protected and

16 shielded with your body if there was no fear of shooting, no danger of

17 shooting?

18 A. Well, down there --

19 Q. Don't go down there. When you went looking for these men in the

20 woods who weren't armed, as you say, tell us about that. There was no

21 danger that the men you were looking for, since they weren't armed, could

22 shoot at you or anybody else. Isn't that right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. So tell me, when did you hear about the term and concept of human

25 shield and who explained to you the contents of that concept?

1 A. Nobody.

2 Q. Nobody told you what that meant?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Well, how do you come to know this term?

5 A. You mean human shield?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. Well, I assume -- I knew that it was a human shield, what it

8 meant.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, on the basis of what

10 you're saying, the HVO was searching for men hiding in the woods. Now,

11 specifically, did they say, "You women move forward and we're going to

12 advance behind you so that if anybody happens to be armed and shoots at us

13 it will be the women who are shot, who are the first victims because they

14 are up at the front line"? Is that how things happened? So when they

15 were searching the woods, they put you forward, put you in front, and the

16 HVO soldiers were behind you; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Are you sure that that's how things happened? And you didn't find

20 anybody in the woods when you were searching?

21 A. No.

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Madam -- sorry. Madam, you have answered the

23 question of whether the men in the woods were armed. You said no. How do

24 you know this?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some were, some weren't. I don't

1 know who was in the woods. Perhaps they did have weapons, but I don't

2 know.

3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: When you were sent towards the woods, did you

4 assume that you were approaching men who were armed, and others perhaps,

5 but also men who were armed?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Would you repeat that question,

7 please?

8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: When you were sent towards the woods, were you

9 afraid that some people in the woods might shoot at you?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Were you also sent into houses?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Were you afraid that someone might be in the

14 house with a weapon and shoot at you?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Madam Witness, in response to His Honour Judge Trechsel, you've

19 just given a different answer than you gave me. You said that some men in

20 the woods were, nonetheless, armed, and others weren't. Tell us now,

21 finally decide, were those men armed? Were they partially armed? Were

22 some of them armed, or were all of them armed?

23 A. Well, the HVO members were armed, but of our people, nobody was in

24 the woods then.

25 Q. When you say HVO members, do you mean the Muslims who used to be

1 HVO members and deserted and were hiding in the woods? Is that who you

2 mean, or are you referring to somebody else?

3 A. Could you repeat that question?

4 Q. You said that the HVO soldiers were armed. Now, I'm asking you

5 the following: Let's clear up which HVO soldiers. Are you thinking of

6 the Muslims who deserted from the HVO and who were hiding in the woods,

7 and that's why they were combing the woods searching for them, or are you

8 thinking of someone else?

9 A. The HVO, the soldiers.

10 Q. Yes, but who are those? Who were they? Were they the Muslims who

11 had deserted, left the HVO, or were they HVO soldiers who asked you or

12 demanded of you to search the hills?

13 A. They were HVO Croats.

14 Q. So it was the HVO soldiers who were armed, and they demanded that

15 you comb the area, the hills and slopes.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now, let's define these Muslims who were in the HVO and deserted

18 and were hiding in the woods, and that's why they were looking for them.

19 Did they have weapons or not?

20 A. They weren't there at all. There weren't any of those there.

21 Q. Ah, there weren't any of those there. So you were searching an

22 area looking for those deserters, whereas these deserters weren't there at

23 all.

24 A. That's right.

25 Q. So where would the danger have come from, then? Why the danger of

1 shooting, and who were you supposed to be shielding? What HVO soldiers

2 were you shielding as a human shield then?

3 A. There were nobody there, but in the canyons of Bregava, there were

4 Bosniaks there who were hiding, who were in hiding.

5 Q. Madam, let's just speak of the area you search. Let's leave the

6 other areas for the moment. So in the areas that you searched, in those

7 areas, were there any Muslims who had deserted from the HVO?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Now, these Muslims who had deserted from the HVO, and for that

10 reason were hiding in the woods, were they armed or not?

11 A. Yes. He had to have a rifle.

12 Q. Do you know for sure that they were armed or do you assume that

13 they were armed?

14 A. I assume that they were armed.

15 Q. Tell me, please, before you searched the area, those Muslims who

16 deserted from the HVO, had they been called to surrender through a

17 loudspeaker or however?

18 A. Well, we went. We went.

19 Q. So they were called to surrender; is that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did any incident take place there? Was there any shooting when

22 the areas were searched? What you know personally.

23 A. No.

24 Q. There were no incidents.

25 A. No.

1 Q. Were there any cases where -- where the Muslims who had deserted

2 from the HVO surrendered when the HVO called out to them to surrender?

3 Did they come out of the woods and surrender in groups? Did anything like

4 that happen?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Were you demanded to search the area because you knew the area

7 well?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did they ask you to do this because you could also know where some

10 people could be in hiding, because you knew the area better than anybody

11 else?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Did you know the area better than someone else?

14 A. No.

15 Q. When I asked you about whether you were asked to search the area

16 because you knew it, your answer was in the affirmative. You said you did

17 know. Now I'm asking you, did you know the area?

18 A. No.

19 Q. You didn't know the area at all, the area you were searching?

20 A. No. I was never there. I was never down there.

21 Q. Tell me, some of the other women who were with you, did they

22 happen to know the area or parts of the area?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Were you asked to call out to the men, the Muslim men, who had

25 deserted from the HVO? Did you call out to them when you were -- while

1 you were searching the area?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Can you tell us what you said? What was it you shouted out?

4 A. We said, if there is anybody in the woods that they should

5 surrender. That's what we called out to them.

6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

7 questions. I think that the role of the women in searching the terrain is

8 quite clear according to what the witness has just told us.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This forest, madam, can you tell

10 us how large it was, these woods or the forest, or can you not help us

11 there?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a small forest.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The surface area, how wide an

14 area? Could you give us an approximation perhaps?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't really know. It was a

16 small forest.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Were there a lot of trees? Was

18 it very dense or was it sparse?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sparse?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, dense.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Dense. Right.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Now for the next

25 Defence team.

1 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have no

2 questions.

3 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] No questions, Mr. President.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No further questions from the

6 Prosecution.

7 Madam, this completes your testimony. Thank you for coming -- for

8 having come from so far to contribute to understanding the events that

9 took place in your country. And on behalf of my colleagues, I wish you a

10 safe return to your country.

11 I will now ask the usher to lower the blinds before you leave.

12 As far as the document numbers are concerned, you will have a

13 chart prepared for the IC numbers, and then the Defence will raise

14 objections if they believe it's necessary. We have recorded the

15 objections for some documents.

16 [The witness withdrew]

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, can you inform us of

18 the situation tomorrow and on Thursday, given the information that you

19 must have been provided with in the course of the afternoon.

20 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. It's my turn to try to

21 read Your Honours' minds. I anticipated that question. I just received

22 an e-mail from my investigator who informs me that VWS has confirmed that

23 the two witnesses who are now scheduled to appear on Thursday in fact are

24 in the air at the moment having departed Zagreb. So we expect those two

25 witnesses here in The Hague sometime shortly after midnight this evening.

1 We will meet with them tomorrow afternoon and they will be available to

2 testify on Thursday afternoon.

3 I will give my assurance that we will endeavour to do everything

4 possible to reduce the amount of time that we spend with these two

5 witnesses so that they can both be completed on Thursday and be on their

6 way back to Bosnia as soon as possible.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for that information.

8 Mr. Mundis, as we still have a few minutes, I personally wanted to tell

9 you the following: As you are well aware, we rendered a decision on the

10 amount of time allocated to the Prosecution, and you are also aware of the

11 fact that you made a request for the certification of an appeal and the

12 Appeals Chamber will rule on the matter. But independently of the Appeals

13 Chamber decision, certain witnesses will be appearing. I don't know when

14 the Appeals Chamber will render its decision. We should hope that it will

15 it be rendered rapidly.

16 But in our decision, we drew the Prosecution's attention to a

17 procedure that had to be followed in relation to victims. We asked you to

18 call certain key witnesses, key victims, who could then be cross-examined

19 in detail, and we asked you to supplement these key witnesses with certain

20 92 ter witnesses and then complete the entire procedure by following

21 this -- the 92 bis Rule.

22 If we followed this procedure in relation to Gabela and Dretelj

23 and the Heliodrom, et cetera, for example, this would allow you to save a

24 lot of time. And the time that you saved in this way could be used for

25 other far more important witnesses that have a direct link to the charges

1 in the indictment. So that's what we suggested in our decision.

2 For the moment, I don't see that this suggestion has been taken

3 into consideration. Is the Prosecution thinking about this suggestion?

4 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to be

5 heard on this point.

6 Absolutely, the Prosecution -- it has always, in fact, been the

7 Prosecution's intention to rely upon viva voce testimony to be followed by

8 92 ter testimony and written 92 bis motions at the completion of each of

9 the various municipalities and crime bases, and we -- I assure you we are

10 endeavouring to do that.

11 Let me also take the opportunity to again point out that with

12 respect to the witnesses that have been scheduled through the December

13 break, that the plans for those witnesses were put into effect well before

14 the Trial Chamber's decision and were a bit like a speeding train, if you

15 will, that we certainly can't just stop at moment's notice and reconfigure

16 the entire court schedule, partially, because of course that might create

17 problems and dilemmas for the Defence. But also, again, given some of the

18 logistical and practical difficulties we encounter, both in terms of

19 ensuring that our victims and witnesses have passports, that they have

20 visas, that the travel arrangements are made, et cetera. So that I can

21 assure you that the plan that we're working on with respect to 92 bis

22 testimony is well under way, and is -- we should be making additional

23 written submissions concerning 92 bis witness testimony for municipality

24 packages that should be filed in the very near future.

25 I can also assure you that we are looking at the remaining

1 crime-base municipalities, in light of the Trial Chamber's decision, and

2 of course, we are doing everything possible to streamline the presentation

3 of the Prosecution case. But I do beg for the Trial Chamber's indulgence

4 in understanding that certain things that were put into effect as early as

5 mid-October, in terms of planning the trial schedule for the period

6 running through the middle of December, is not something that we can

7 simply stop and change, not withstanding the Trial Chamber's orders and

8 decisions and directives. But I can assure you that we are taking that on

9 board. It has always been our intention to combine viva voce, 92 ter, and

10 92 bis. We have done so and are in the process of doing so, and again we

11 are doing everything possible to streamline and to make the presentation

12 of our case as efficient and as expeditious as possible given our

13 obligations to represent the victims and witnesses and the international

14 community as a whole.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for that. Up until

16 court recess we have a few more weeks. When do you intend to inform us of

17 the schedule for January, February, and March? Have you already planned

18 to call certain witnesses? We have two hypotheses. Either the Appeals

19 Chamber will confirm our decision, or the Appeals Chamber will make it

20 possible for the Prosecution to have unlimited time. Are you taking into

21 consideration these two hypotheses, and when will you inform us of the

22 schedule for January, February, and March?

23 MR. MUNDIS: Again, thank you for the opportunity to put forward

24 our -- our plans. Clearly we are in the final stages of -- of arranging

25 for the witness schedule for January that goes into the month of February.

1 Mr. Scott and I will be having further meetings on this topic if not

2 tomorrow then certainly into Thursday morning. We are doing what we can

3 to finalise the schedule, particularly with respect to January, as quickly

4 as possible, so that we can get that into the hands of the Defence with

5 enough time for them to commence their preparations prior to the December

6 recess.

7 What we're working on, in effect, is some alternative plans and

8 approaches given the two scenarios that Your Honour has rightly

9 identified, being an Appeals Chamber decision affirming the Trial Chamber

10 or contrary, a decision reversing the Trial Chamber's decision with

11 respect to the amount of time available to us. What we will probably be

12 in a position to do, if not later this week, on Thursday, again, because

13 of perhaps some time constraints with trying to fit the two witnesses in,

14 I would expect that hopefully by Monday afternoon we might be in a better

15 position to at least outline where we believe we'll be going and perhaps

16 to put forward two alternative approaches based on what the Appeals

17 Chamber does. And of course we share the Trial Chamber's optimism, in the

18 sense, that hopefully the Appeals Chamber will be rendering a decision

19 relatively quickly, but nevertheless that remains to be seen. And of

20 course our planning must take both contingencies, both of those potential

21 options under consideration as we plan what our approach will be moving

22 into the spring of 2007.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well. Thank

24 you.

25 Are there any issues that the Defence would like to raise? Mr.

1 Murphy.

2 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, just one related matter. During our

3 argument on the 6th of November, we made one or two specific proposals to

4 the Trial Chamber with regard to the possible amendment of the decision on

5 evidence of the 13th of July, and I'd just like to remind the Trial

6 Chamber of that and inquire perhaps whether it is your intention to make

7 such amendment. It would help us to know whether that may be coming also.

8 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. Yesterday,

9 it was brought to my attention, as the witness was finishing up his

10 testimony, the last sentence or so was not quite caught by the translator,

11 but those who speak B/C/S were able to hear it and it was brought to my

12 attention, and obviously the -- what was uttered would appear to be rather

13 favourable to my client and to the other gentlemen sitting along with my

14 client. So I've taken the liberty of asking the Translation Unit to --

15 the folks that handle these things, to go back and listen to that. So I'm

16 just alerting the Trial Chamber of that.

17 One other matter -- and I will update you when I have the update.

18 One other matter. It was also brought to my attention that when

19 we had witness Stjepan Kljuic here, because he came and testified a second

20 time as you may recall, and initially, I had questioned him during his

21 first time here, there were several documents that we had introduced, that

22 we had shown the gentleman that we did not tender, and it was an

23 oversight. We should have tendered them after -- after he came the second

24 time.

25 I have the list here. I brought it to the Prosecution's

1 attention. I gave that list to the Prosecution. I'm not suggesting that

2 I tender the list now for the record. I want to give the Prosecution an

3 opportunity to look through those -- through that list, so they can raise

4 any objections, if any. I suspect none -- they will have none, but in the

5 event they have any, they can raise them. Perhaps we can deal with this

6 matter on Thursday, but I just wanted to alert the Trial Chamber of this

7 since we have a few moments. Thank you.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Mundis, Mr.

9 Karnavas says he has a list of documents, and he will be asking -- he will

10 be tendering them into evidence, and he would like the Prosecution, having

11 examined the document, to express its position. Yes, as far as that is

12 concerned.

13 MR. MUNDIS: Again, Mr. President, this was just provided to us

14 just a couple of hours ago. I would ask perhaps if we can respond either

15 on Thursday or perhaps in writing as per the Trial Chamber's recent

16 practice with respect to that. I believe at least one of the exhibits

17 listed has already been admitted, perhaps under another witness, but I

18 would prefer if we could deal with that later this week, perhaps even in

19 writing.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Praljak.

21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

22 I'm --

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll move into private session.

24 [Private session]

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 10884-10885 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 [Open session]

9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now that we're in open session,

11 we're dealing with the issue of the need to call a military expert. I was

12 saying that the Defence, when cross-examining various witnesses and

13 victims, sometimes deals with military problems or refers to orders,

14 stamps, signatures, the circulation of information, et cetera. If all

15 this had been dealt with by a witness and if such a witness had been

16 cross-examined by the Defence, it would have enabled us to save a lot of

17 time.

18 MR. MUNDIS: Again, Your Honour, I will take to heart what Your

19 Honour has just indicated. I will again inform the Chamber that the

20 expert that's on our witness list is a retired major general of the

21 British Army. His expertise may or may not include specific issues such

22 as stamps or issuing of military orders pursuant to the HVO. He's much

23 more of an overall command and control and theory of command and control

24 type of issues is what he was charged with examining.

25 To be quite frank, one of our concerns has been that if we were to

1 bring in a military expert and perhaps spend two or three or four hours in

2 direct examination, that we could then be in a situation where four or

3 five or six or eight days are then consumed in cross-examination. And to

4 be quite open with the Trial Chamber, that, in our opinion, is not

5 something which we wish to use the limited amount of time available to

6 present. And so we do have a very practical concern in light of the prior

7 testimony and cross-examination of the expert witnesses who have appeared

8 to date. Even if we were to spend one hour with -- with the expert, if it

9 were to be a situation where the Defence teams would insist upon having

10 many, many hours of cross-examination and a week or more than a week would

11 be consumed, that is something that the Prosecution has to take into

12 consideration and is something which, again to be quite open and

13 transparent, is not a situation that we would anticipate in a positive

14 light.

15 So that's certainly a factor; not the only factor, but a factor

16 that has gone into the Prosecution calculus in determining how to approach

17 this subject.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll conclude with

19 this matter.

20 Ideally, if the Chamber had designated an military expert, it

21 would have been good to have two generals, one general from the HVO and

22 one general who was part of the ABiH. And then these two generals would

23 have been asked to draft a common report on this problem, even if it meant

24 calling them here and cross-examining them. This is perhaps a very civil

25 law manner of proceeding, but believe me, it is extremely efficient.

1 And you've said you would be calling a British general. Fine.

2 He's certainly extremely competent, but if we had people from the area who

3 were familiar with the problems of the HVO and the ABiH, who had direct

4 knowledge of these problems, this would have certainly enabled us to

5 advance significantly. Perhaps when the Defence calls their expert

6 witnesses, they'll think about this.

7 MR. MUNDIS: Again, we will continue to take on board these

8 comments. If -- I can assure you, if I could have found an ABiH general

9 and an HVO general who could draft a common report, I would have done

10 that, but I'll just simply leave this point at that, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Yes, Mr. Praljak.

12 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Very briefly. Mr.

13 Prosecutor, isn't the most important thing to find out what could have

14 been done, what was possible, so that we don't base everything on what one

15 thinks is possible. There's something that is called the law of

16 gravitation. People aren't responsible for being subject to the law of

17 gravitation. If there is anything important in this trial, well, you

18 can't be held to be responsible for falling down because of the law of

19 gravity. If anything's important in this case, it's necessary to

20 establish what could have been done and perhaps was not done, and it's

21 very difficult to determine what this is if people are not called here who

22 can compare what an American, French, or English army should be and what

23 the HVO is or the ABiH, and then we can see how Petkovic, Praljak, or

24 anyone else within such a framework, within such a system, actually acted

25 on a daily basis, from day-to-day. Otherwise, we can just admit our guilt

1 and go to prison and spend 20 years there and that will be the end of it.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, we've listened to

3 what you have just said. Let the Prosecution give some thought to the

4 matter, and we will calmly wait for expert information on the matter. And

5 you and General Petkovic sometimes provide us with technical information,

6 information that's difficult for people who aren't experts to have access

7 to.

8 It's time to adjourn, and we will resume on Thursday at 2.15 p.m.

9 Thank you.

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.56 p.m.,

11 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 30th day

12 of November, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25