1 Thursday, 11 January 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, call the case,
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President. Case
8 IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. As we've had some
10 very bad weather this morning and we are short of time, I'd like to say
11 hello to everybody, and, Mr. Registrar, would you give me the IC numbers
12 that we need.
13 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
14 [In English] The parties have provided lists of documents to be
15 tendered through Witness CR. The list provided by the OTP will be given
16 Exhibit number IC 196. The list provided by 1D will be provided Exhibit
17 number IC 197. The list provided by 2D will be given Exhibit number IC
18 198. The list provided by 3D will be given Exhibit number IC 199. The
19 list provided by 4D will be given Exhibit number IC 200. And the list
20 provided by 5D will be given Exhibit number IC 201. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
22 Mr. Stewart.
23 MR. STEWART: Just a very quick point in relation to the sniper
24 expert. Your Honour made some comments on Tuesday this week - that's at
25 page 1183 of the transcript for the reference - and Mr. Scott was invited
1 to provide some further information. Your Honour, our understanding is
2 that we now have until this coming Monday to respond on the Defence side,
3 and our suggestion and request is that our response should follow after,
4 but very shortly after Mr. Scott has dealt with those queries. What would
5 be most helpful as a practical matter - we know that everybody has lots of
6 things to do - is if Mr. Scott were able to provide that information
7 preferably today but certainly before the week -- ah, they're here. It
8 looks as if they're on their way. Your Honour, that will solve the
9 problem then. We should then be able to discuss the matter with our
10 clients and deal with it on Monday, if that is the full answer to those
11 questions. So that's very happy news.
12 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning to everyone
13 in and around the courtroom. What I do have available today is a chart,
14 if you will, that can be helpful in explaining the expert report and the
15 annex to the indictment at page -- paragraph 114, and I'm prepared to pass
16 these out at this point in time and perhaps I can give a very brief
17 explanation as to what exactly happened I would -- if perhaps the -- or
18 the court usher could assist with that, that would be helpful. We can
19 deal with this issue very quickly right now.
20 Just to briefly explain what had happened in the initial
21 indictment there were 14, if you will, representative or sample sniping
22 incidents. The expert was provided with certain information to do his
23 report based upon those 14 scheduled incidents. The Prosecution in order
24 to preserve the privacy of the victims and witnesses gave information to
25 the expert with the use of pseudonyms that were assigned for that limited
1 purpose for the expert which is why the names don't appear in the expert
3 Following the production of that expert report and during the
4 process of amending the indictment, two of those representative sample
5 incidents of sniping were removed from the indictment based upon, in part,
6 the conclusions reached by the expert. As a result, the annex, the
7 confidential annex description of paragraph 114 lists 12 scheduled sniping
8 incidents. The expert report, however, continues to refer to all 14
9 because, as I said, that was done prior to the amended indictment and the
10 amended confidential annex thereto. The table that we have just produced
11 has the actual numbers in the left-hand column as referred to in the
12 expert report. You will note that there is no incident 5 and there is no
13 incident 12 because those are the two of the original 14 that the
14 Prosecution does not list in the paragraph 114 in the annex.
15 The far right-hand column are the names of the specific victims or
16 witnesses who will testify about each of those scheduled incidents, and I
17 believe if I recall correctly seven of them are the actual named victims
18 and five of them are witnesses, and I believe what we've done is we've put
19 this document in bold the name the victim and when they're the witness
20 similarly that name in the right-hand column appears in bold. If there's
21 a name that's not in bold then that is not the victim who will testify but
22 another witness. And again, due to the nature of this material on this
23 document, we have marked it confidential and we would ask that it be
24 treated as such by all the parties to whom it's been provided.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Mundis. So it is
1 thanks to this table and column that we have the relationship between the
2 incidents and the victims. There are 12 individuals, and you put the --
3 down the victims that can testify. That's one preoccupation settled.
4 Now, I have another concern and it is this: If among the victims
5 I'd like to know whether there were any local investigations, ballistic
6 expertise, medical expertise, things like that, because that could be
7 useful to us.
8 And the third element that is lacking here from my point of view,
9 and I think that my colleagues share my sentiments, is that with respect
10 to the sniping, these sniping incidents, what is important for the Judges
11 is to know the positions of the snipers, of course, and the area, the zone
12 from which the shooting came, to know under whose control that area was.
13 Now, in the expert report, as far as I was able to see looking
14 through it, there's nothing like that. So my concerns are that we're
15 going to spend a week and then be able to conclude that there was a
16 sniping from point A that hit victim X in -- who was in area B without
17 getting us any further than that. You see, Mr. Mundis, the problem I'm
18 having here?
19 MR. MUNDIS: Absolutely, and thank you, Mr. President, for again
20 allowing us to briefly respond.
21 With respect to the first query that you've just raised, to the
22 best of the Prosecution's knowledge no investigations were conducted by
23 the local authorities concerning these incidents. What we can say and
24 what we are prepared to produce in terms of the evidence when these
25 victims come are what we have used in prior sniping cases, and the best
1 example of course being the Galic case with respect to the siege of
2 Sarajevo. There are what we have produced and disclosed known as 360
3 degree photographic evidence that can be used with the victims and
4 witnesses to point out particularly where they were at the time they were
5 shot and where they believe or where they have reason to believe that the
6 sniper was located at that point in time. That information is also
7 reflected, as Your Honour has noted, in the expert report with respect to
8 suspected or known locations where snipers were active.
9 With respect to the second point, and we do believe that this 360
10 degree evidence is quite helpful to the Trial Chamber. As Your Honour may
11 or may not be aware, it was used extensively in the Galic case and was
12 some evidence that the Prosecution led with respect to sniping -- the
13 sniping campaign in the city of Sarajevo.
14 With respect particularly to the second issue, again based on the
15 practice that was used in the Galic case and which the Galic Trial Chamber
16 relied upon in its judgement as confirmed by the Appeals Chamber was
17 precisely the type of evidence that indicates that where a known sniper
18 location or where the evidence points to a sniper being on one side of the
19 confrontation line is certainly sufficient evidence to demonstrate that
20 that sniper was under in effect the control of the authorities or the
21 military units in that area, so what may or may not be possible to
22 establish is the actual identity of the actual perpetrator, the actual
23 sniper. It may or may not be possible in all instances to identify which
24 unit or units was at the location, but what we were able to do, and I can
25 speak from experience having had responsibility for the sniping campaign
1 for Sarajevo in the Galic case was that to show that the victim was on one
2 sign of the line and the shots came from the other side of the line was
3 about as far as we could take in the Galic case many of those sniping
4 incidents, and that was sufficient both for the Trial Chamber and the
5 Appeals Chamber in the Galic case.
6 So with those caveats, Your Honours, and combined with the other
7 evidence that is led as to where the confrontation lines were at the
8 relevant time periods, we believe we can establish the -- the side, in
9 effect, which was conducting the sniping with respect to these victims.
10 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, with distinct reservations on the
11 Defence side in relation to the submissions which are inherent in what's
12 been said this morning, we appreciate the clarity of the explanation of
13 the Prosecution's position. That is helpful. And it's also particularly
14 helpful not just as Your Honour had indicated to have the victims
15 identified but equally or in this case -- well, at least as important as
16 the identification of the prospective witnesses in relation to these
17 incidents where they're different people. Thank you for that.
18 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't want to prolong
19 this discussion unduly, but the question that you yourself raised is I
20 think a key question for the expertise, that is to say whether the expert
21 had medical material, autopsies in case of death or detailed descriptions
22 in case of being wounded. And of course witness statements and so on.
23 That is basic forensics. If we don't know the position at which the
24 victim was when they were killed, what position the entrance and exit
25 wound, then there is no possibility even theoretical for us to be able to
1 conclude anything about the sniping.
2 So if there are no medical documents, then it really will be a
3 waste of time, to my mind.
4 MR. MUNDIS: We would just in brief response to that, we would
5 anticipate that some of the witnesses who will be testifying either as
6 victims or witnesses will have medical reports with them and again the
7 witnesses will provide the information that my learned colleague,
8 Mr. Kovacic, is referring to.
9 The last point if I could just -- I neglected to do this earlier.
10 I would ask that the sheet that I just submitted be provided with an IC
11 number so that in the future if we need to refer to it everyone is
12 referring to the document by an IC number.
13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I really don't want to
14 prolong this. However, it is -- my basic concern, and that's why we're
15 having this discussion today, is whether the presentation of that evidence
16 is that we're going to waste one week in this courtroom without the Trial
17 Chamber receiving the relevant information and material, and that is why
18 spending time on that is valuable. But bearing in mind my learned
19 friend's answer, if it doesn't matter whether the -- it doesn't matter
20 whether the expert witness is going to bring in this material but whether
21 the expert had access to that, because he can determine on the basis of
22 the victim's position where the shot came from. Now, if he doesn't know
23 that, if he doesn't know what side the witness was turned on, what the
24 entrance and exit wound was or just entrance wound and the bullet lodged
25 in the body, we're speaking about basic forensic facts here.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, you -- the Defence has
2 until the 15th of January to file a written response, so please put it all
3 down in writing by that will deadline, by the 15th of January. We have
4 taken note of what you have said, and we shall be making a ruling very
6 May we have an IC number for this document under seal of course.
7 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number IC 202, Your Honours,
8 under seal. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation].
10 MR. STEWART: Could I just ask for confirmation, it is correct the
11 witness will be giving evidence in English. The report's in English.
12 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, he will.
13 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you for that confirmation.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Let's have the
15 witness shown in now, please.
16 I would like us to proceed as quickly as possible. Mr. Mundis
17 said he needs 10 to 15 minutes. We have another witness to get through
18 today after the cross-examination. So please bear that in mind.
19 Mr. Mundis, once the witness has come in, I would like to start
20 off by asking him a question, one that the Trial Chamber considers
21 necessary. So I'm going to ask him that question first which will give
22 us a general picture of the situation and complete that picture. So I
23 need to ask him that question, and then I'll give you the floor
25 I'd like to take advantage of this opportunity to say that the
1 witness for -- something about the witness for Monday. The Prosecution
2 will have three hours, and the Defence will have three hours. So the
3 witness will be here on Monday and probably Tuesday.
4 [The witness enters court]
5 WITNESS: WITNESS CS [Resumed]
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] After having said that I'd like
8 to say good morning to the witness. Good morning, sir. Put your headset
9 on, please.
10 Sir, the Chamber has a question to ask you which seems to us to be
11 important. What you have said so far needs to be explained.
12 When you were at Heliodrom, did you know during the several days
13 that you were there that your colleagues or people who were detained in
14 Heliodrom were taken to do any labour outside, forced labour perhaps?
15 Anyway, labour and work outside that could have exposed them to the front
16 line as a human shield. So did you have any knowledge or do you have any
17 knowledge about anything like that having taken place?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the rooms that I was incarcerated
19 in there was no official taking out of detainees to the front line as a
20 human shield or any other form of torture. I know about two or three
21 cases, however, from that particular room when people were - how shall I
22 put it? - they were too nervous to answer questions they were being asked,
23 and so they were taken out to interrogation, and they were beaten there.
24 And I saw with my very own eyes people in solitary confinement cells in
25 the cellar, at least two people, two cases of this, and one of them
1 survived, I believe. But of my neighbours, the people living on the floor
2 above, and we were friends with these neighbours of ours, I had a
3 statement from them about what happened to them on the way to Heliodrom,
4 and in my diary I have noted that down, noted that statement down where it
5 says that they were taken through Mostar to the front line as human
6 shields on the same day that I was already at Heliodrom.
7 Now, the following day they were taken to the lake at Rudnik.
8 It's an artificial lake at Rudnik. I don't know what they did there. I
9 can't remember. I'd have to take a look in my diary. But they were
10 threatened and told they would be killed. They weren't actually killed,
11 and then they were returned to Heliodrom.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Precisely. Do you have the
13 names of those people or the person who was taken to Rudnik?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move into private session,
16 and you can tell me their names in private session.
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 12076-12101 redacted. Private session
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session,
13 Mr. President.
14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I thank you. I have
15 not even noticed that we were in private session.
16 Q. Sir, would you please be able to agree were me if I say that the
17 SDS at that moment declared it very clearly that it was against the
18 secession of Bosnia and Herzegovina from Yugoslavia and that in case this
19 should happen, the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina would establish their own
20 territorial community?
21 A. Yes. One could hear that in public, in the statements issued by
22 the leaders of that party. And one could also hear that they were against
23 the referendum for Bosnia-Herzegovina.
24 Q. Would you then agree with me that the HDZ which represented the
25 Croatian community in Bosnia-Herzegovina clearly and unambiguously stated
1 that it is in favour of the secession of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
2 A. Together with the SDA they were in favour of the secession.
3 Q. So they were for the secession. Please tell me whether the SDA
4 from day one had a clearly defined position with regard to that issue or
5 did it take them some time to finally take a position on the possible
6 secession of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
7 A. This is a far too difficult question for me. I really didn't know
8 how the HDZ and the SDA communicated, so I can't give you a precise
9 answer. I only know that there was some sort of agreement between the two
10 of them that they would jointly defend Bosnia-Herzegovina and that
11 together they would insist on explaining to the voters why they should
12 vote for the independence in the referendum.
13 Q. Ante Markovic's parties did not take part in the multi-party
14 elections in Slovenia and Croatia because the foundation of that political
15 party started once those elections had already been over in those two
16 former republics of Yugoslavia.
17 A. I am not familiar with the time line, so I can't answer that
18 question, but it is easily possible that you are right.
19 Q. Yesterday, you mentioned that at other electoral rallies, the ones
20 you mentioned were the one in Mostar, in the vicinity of Mostar near
21 Planinica, people were told that should ethnically based parties win, it
22 would happen that in the town of Mostar on one hill there would be Ustasha
23 guns and on the other hill there would be Chetnik guns. Is that what you
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 Q. Your party equalised the SDS with the Chetniks and the HDZ was
2 equalised with Ustasha. Wasn't that true?
3 A. Yes. By and large that was the case. The parties were labelled
4 in that way.
5 Q. Your party, was it opposition to the coalition of the ruling
6 parties at the time?
7 A. Yes, it was opposition, and I was surprised to see that Alija
8 Izetbegovic, for example, who acted at the moment when his party was being
9 established as if he was really in favour of democracy, he would not enter
10 a coalition in any non-ethnically based parties. If they had done that,
11 they would have had a majority in the parliament and nobody could later on
12 say that the war was an ethnically based war. This was my opinion at the
14 Q. Would you then be able to agree with me that Mr. Alija Izetbegovic
15 wanted to enter into a coalition with other ethnically based parties
16 because he wanted to reorganise Bosnia-Herzegovina according to the
17 criteria of ethnic affiliation?
18 A. There are a lot of statements to that effect, but I can't be his
19 spokesperson. I can't tell you what he wanted. I am inclined to believe
20 that was the case and that is exactly what he wanted, but I cannot testify
21 to that.
22 Q. I'm sure you followed the media. In your view, did the political
23 analysts conclude that Alija Izetbegovic had wanted to enter coalition
24 with ethnically based parts in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
25 A. Even in my view he wanted to do that, otherwise the coalition
1 would never have been made.
2 Q. And that he wanted to do so because he wanted Bosnia to be
3 organised based on the ethnic criteria.
4 A. That may be the case but not necessarily. There could have been
5 equal ethnic rights across the board. I really don't know what the
6 intention was.
7 Q. Sir, let's remind ourselves of the positions of the SDS, SDA, the
8 HDZ about the future of Bosnia-Herzegovina with regard to Yugoslavia, and
9 let's go one step further. Could you then agree with me that among these
10 three political parties there was a difference with regard to the issue of
11 the internal organisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
12 A. I believe that you're trying to drag me into things that are
13 disputable and that require longer explanations. I can only speculate,
14 but I do not have a firm position with this regard and especially not at
15 this moment.
16 Q. I'm just asking you whether among them there was a difference with
17 regard to the internal organisation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. We don't have
18 to go into any detail?
19 A. If he beginning it was quite obvious that the SDS wanted to
20 separate the part of the territory that they believed was theirs and merge
21 it with Serbia, and the same case was with the HDZ and Croat.
22 Q. The SDS stated this after it was decided that there would be a
23 referendum which would decide on the secession of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
24 Isn't that the case?
25 A. I'm sorry -- I didn't understand your question.
1 Q. The SDS declared its wish to establish a sovereign territory
2 within Bosnia-Herzegovina, with the possibility of secession under certain
3 conditions in case Bosnia and Herzegovina seceded from Yugoslavia. Is
4 that the case?
5 A. Yes I could hear it on TV from their leaders.
6 Q. The Croatian people and the HDZ were they in favour of the
7 survival of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an independent
8 state? As an independent state and its secession from Yugoslavia? Is
9 that why the Croats took part in the referendum on the independence of
10 Bosnia and Herzegovina?
11 A. If you ask me about referendum, there is a lot to say about this
13 Q. In your view, can we repeat the -- the answer, because the
14 interpretation of your answer has been wrongly recorded. My question to
15 you was this: The Croats, when they participated in the referendum, did
16 they allow Bosnia and Herzegovina to become an independent state?
17 A. Yes. That is correct.
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. However, your new question was worded differently and I can
20 clearly say yes.
21 Q. Yes. In essence, the question was the same.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to break for 20
23 minutes and we're going to resume at 10 to 11.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to the
2 Defence, two small points. We have been asked to authorise the number of
3 pages for the response concern -- response concerning the witness
4 according to Article 92 bis, and it is dealing with Gornji Vakuf, and the
5 request has been accepted by the Trial Chamber.
6 And another thing is we are going to finish with this witness in
7 an hour and a half. After that, we're going to have a break, and we want
8 to call the next witness after that. Therefore, I'm asking the Defence to
9 speed up.
10 Ms. Alaburic, you have the floor.
11 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation].
12 Q. Witness, we would like to -- I would like to discuss the part of
13 your testimony that deals with the statements on leaving the apartment on
14 your will, and since there is a danger that this part of the questioning
15 might identify you, I would kindly ask the Chamber to move into private
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are moving into private
19 [Private session]
11 Pages 12108-12110 redacted. Private session
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session, Mr.
19 Cross-examination by Ms. Tomanovic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, sir. My name is Suzana Tomanovic
21 an attorney from Bosnia-Herzegovina and the co-counsel for Jadranko Prlic.
22 I'm glad to meet you.
23 I'd like to show you a few documents, the first three documents in
24 your set, and I'll start off with that. You told us yesterday that when
25 the HVO took over control in Mostar that it took over control of state
1 enterprises as well?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You also told us that the Muslims' access was limited or
4 prohibited. Would you take a look at the first document. 1D 00447 is the
5 number. And we have here a decision on the appointment of a provisional
6 manager for the DP Enstalater company of Mostar, and the man's name is
7 Hasan Huskovic, the person being appointed.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And he's a Muslim, isn't he?
10 A. A Bosniak, quite certainly. Whether he's a Muslim or not I can't
11 say. Possibly.
12 Q. All right. Now, Mr. Jadranko Topic signed this, the president of
13 the HVO municipality of Mostar. Now look at the next document, 1D 00458.
14 And that is another decision on the appointment of a provisional director
15 for the DP Montproject Mostar company.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I'm just waiting for the interpretation to finish. Now, the
18 person appointed is Miralem Hadziomerovic?
19 A. Yes, I can see that.
20 Q. He's also a Bosniak, a Muslim; is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And once again this is signed by the president of the HVO for
23 Mostar municipality, Mr. Jadran Topic. And now the third document,
24 please, and the number is 1D 00467. Once again a decision on the
25 appointment after provisional director for the DP Stanogradnja company of
2 A. I can see that, yes.
3 Q. The person appointed is Hakija Ljubovic?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. He's also a Bosniak and a Muslim, is he not?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, I've just shown you three documents, three decisions which
8 the Prlic Defence team has out of a total of 11, according to which
9 Bosniak Muslims were appointed directors of companies after May 1992. Did
10 you know about this?
11 A. Well, I've never seen these documents before, but in the first
12 government that was constituted as an HVO government there were Bosniak
13 Muslims among the members. So that confirms it.
14 Q. Very well. Thank you. And I'd like to show you another document,
15 and for that one perhaps out of an abundance of caution we can move into
16 private session.
17 A. But may I be allowed to finish giving my comment?
18 Q. Well, you'll be able to give your comments when the Bench asks you
19 a question or the Prosecution. For me your answer sufficed.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session, please.
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 12114-12116 redacted. Private session
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in public session,
10 Mr. President.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Sir, I know that you have a lot of information, but let's focus on
13 what I'm asking you. A moment ago you mentioned, as you said, ingots.
14 You mentioned the ingots which are the raw materials used by the aluminium
15 combine; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you said that for a time that was under the control of the
18 Serbs or it was on Serb-controlled territory, the aluminium factory. And
19 then after that you said when the Serbs left who was in control? In whose
20 hands was it?
21 A. Under HVO control.
22 Q. Can you and I agree that out of these economic organisations,
23 these companies that were the most important ones in Mostar before the
24 war, it was the aluminium factory and the tobacco factory in Mostar, Soko.
25 I'm not asking you about Soko. That's quite true.
1 A. Soko was a large combine, then there was Djuro Salaj.
2 Q. But what about the two that I mentioned, that they were two the
3 most prominent companies, the tobacco factory and the aluminium factory?
4 Now, let's be very specific and clear. In answer to Mr. Praljak's
5 question you said that nonetheless many of these companies -- yes, I can
6 see that you said that these are two of the most important companies.
7 Your answer was "yes," and it hasn't been recorded in the transcript. So
8 you agree there, your answer is yes, that the tobacco and aluminium
9 factory were two of the largest companies.
10 A. The tobacco factory wasn't the most important. It was the
11 agrokombinat was very important. The factory farm.
12 Q. I didn't say it was the most important. I said that it was a
13 significant factory.
14 Now, a tobacco factory in peacetime doesn't have the same
15 importance that it has in wartime. I'm just asking you quite simply: Are
16 they two of the -- one of the most prominent or two of the most prominent
18 A. Well, I want to distinguish between this. The tobacco factory, if
19 I can rank them, in Mostar, it was somewhere in the middle. It wasn't one
20 of the most prominent ones.
21 Q. All right. So you've put that right, and I agree.
22 A. I'm not sure that I put that right.
23 Q. What about the aluminium factory?
24 A. Yes, the aluminium factory was among the first three, the top
25 three factories.
1 Q. Right. Now we can go back to where we left off.
2 Some of those economic resources, or most of them, were in Serb
3 hands at the beginning; is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And that is what you said in answer to Mr. Praljak's question,
6 that probably they appropriated some of those resources?
7 A. I know that they took them away to the cotton industry of Djuro
8 Salaj, the equipment from the Transmisija factory, but I know that from
9 the thermal equipment factory that a lot was taken to Split. Who got that
10 equipment, I don't know.
11 Q. Let's look at the third side, the BH army that we haven't
12 mentioned yet. Can we take a look at document 2D 00305.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel kindly be asked to slow down and
14 make pauses. Thank you.
15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
16 Q. It is the first document in your binder. Yes, I'll do my best to
17 slow down. Thank you.
18 It's the first document and Their Honours have it. Do we see here
19 it is a document of the army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina of the
20 4th Corps in actual fact?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I'd just like to have this document placed on the ELMO. I don't
23 know why we're not getting it on e-court, but here's a hard copy. Two
24 documents. And let's move on.
25 And it says here -- the subject is "Request for the sale of
1 aluminum." 2D 00305. You can look at the document in B/C/S. And it
2 says: "In the brigade warehouse," so that is not challenged, that on the
3 21st of December, 1992, in the brigade depot or warehouse there were 160
4 pieces of ingot, of aluminium ingots, with a purity of 99 per cent and
5 total of 116.000 kilogrammes. And small ingots, there were 16.200
6 kilogrammes of the small ingots; is that right?
7 A. That's what it says here.
8 Q. So this is a request or demand from Mr. Hujdur asking permission
9 for the sale of these goods because they are goods that are highly sought
10 after on the market and specific goods.
11 So from this, sir, does it emerge that this aluminium factory was
12 in the hands of the BH army?
13 A. From the document that's what it would appear.
14 Q. And the date?
15 A. The date is December 1992. I'll repeat what I said. It would
16 appear to be the case on the basis of that letter.
17 Q. And this is a product of the aluminium factory; is that right?
18 A. Yes. Otherwise, they couldn't be there, quoted there.
19 Q. Could the witness now place on the ELMO the following document, 2D
20 00306. I think that will speed matters up. And you can see that the date
21 is the 17th of April, 1993, an order from Mr. Arif Pasalic issuing an
22 order, and it says in the preamble "In order to protect the production
23 capacities and ensure enough cigarettes for the fighters."
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis.
25 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you just a point of clarification before it
1 leaves the screen on line 21, page 54. In comparison to what the document
2 says it's a bit -- I'm a bit -- perhaps it's just me, I'm a bit confused,
3 perhaps, but there's reference to it 116.000 kilogrammes and I'm not sure
4 that meshes with what's contained in the document and there's a further
5 reference to weight on line 21, 22 of page 54.
6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Could we please have the previous
7 document back on the ELMO. I would kindly ask the usher to return the
8 original of that document.
9 Q. Now we can it can we look at it we can see 116.000 kilogrammes.
10 Is that correct, sir?
11 A. That is what I can see in the document.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the B/C/S version there is
13 actually 116.000 kilogrammes, whereas in the English translation there is
14 116, the comma, and then 000, hence the difference. If the comma was
15 interpreted in the English way, then the weight would be different. It
16 seems that that weight is 116.000 kilogrammes.
17 Mr. Murphy, maybe you know more about the aluminium?
18 MR. MURPHY: Not about the aluminium, Your Honour, but that --
19 just simply about the different ways of writing numbers which I found my
20 cost since coming to live in the Netherlands. There is a difference in
21 practice in England and the United States. Generally when representing
22 116.000, one would use a comma between the 116 and the three 0's, whereas
23 in the continental practice it's usual to use a period. So in fact the
24 two numbers would be the same allowing for that difference in linguistic
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, it seems that in the
2 States the comma equals a point.
3 MR. MUNDIS: I completely agree, and I understand exactly what
4 Mr. Murphy is saying. My only point was there seemed to be a discrepancy
5 between the B/C/S document, the English translation, and perhaps if that
6 could have been clarified. I don't want to spend any more time on it. I
7 think it's pretty clear at this point. I just wanted to call out that the
8 translation doesn't necessarily match the document, and we needed to get
9 that clarified.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Proceed please.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]. If Mr. Mundis agrees that in the
12 original version it says without any doubt that the weight in question is
13 116.000 kilogrammes, then the difference in translation should be in
14 favour of the original document. Would you agree with that?
15 MR. MUNDIS: Absolutely.
16 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Then we can proceed. Would can
17 proceed. We have the next document that I asked for which is 2D 00306.
18 This is an order bearing the date 17 April 1993 issued by Mr. Arif
20 Q. He puts under the controlled production and distribution of the
21 factory of tobacco in Sarajevo. I apologise; Mostar. So a commander --
22 the commander of the 4th Corps puts the production of a civilian product
23 under his control and distribution. But let's move on a bit further. He
24 says out of existing work-force to conduct a selection of most essential
25 workers who are needed for uninterrupted production. And he goes on to
1 say production and distribution to be organised under the authority of the
2 41st Motorised Brigade which will execute a nomination of management and
3 other workers and regularly conduct a controlled -- control business
5 Were you aware of the fact that the 4th Corps placed under its
6 control the distribution and sales of the products manufactured by the
7 tobacco factory, i.e., the cigarettes at the time?
8 A. Am I entitled to a remark with regards a previous document either
9 now or later.
10 Q. No, neither now nor later. We don't have the time.
11 A. There is technical mistake in that document.
12 Q. Very well, but I would like an answer to my question.
13 A. The tobacco factory is in the eastern part of Mostar which was
14 under the control of the BiH army from the very beginning to the end, more
15 or less, and it is easy to manage that this document refers to the
16 military control of the civilian production. Have I been clear?
17 Q. Yes. Then you will agree with me that the military control of the
18 civilian production was exercised by the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina
19 like you said that some workers on the right banks were controlled by the
20 HVO and that Muslims could not even enter in those companies?
21 A. I'm not saying --
22 Q. The witness says -- I apologise. I apologise.
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I am now being confused.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak is not in agreement
25 with Mrs. Nozica. What seems to be the matter?
1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I would like to hear the comment by
2 Mr. Praljak.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak.
4 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there's too
5 little time, to put it simply. Aluminium is such a complicated
6 manufacture that the -- this production was discontinued with help of
7 French experts who had installed the -- the -- the facilities, and if this
8 had been done with the help of the experts, this would have been a
9 problem. Miro Brajkovic engaged French experts to extinguish the
10 production and it could no longer produce until the end of the war. It
11 just stood idle.
12 My next question: While the Serbs were there did -- and after
13 they left, did he inspect the number of ingots that remained in the
14 factory after they left. If you're not familiar with that information
15 then we cannot speak about the quantities that could have been sold by the
16 HVO after that.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have now heard a technical
18 explanation. The factory of aluminium, the production there was
19 extinguished and it did not function, and the ingots that should have
20 been produced before existed at the time. What do you think about that?
21 What is your view of that, of that explanation provided by
22 General Praljak?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The factory did not manufacture and
24 the problem of its closing down did exist and was handled in the way
25 described by Mr. Praljak. The ingots were not taken away and the document
1 says that they were not taken away. At least not all of them. Maybe some
2 of them were taken away to a certain extent, that could be transported at
3 the time. However, as far as the quantity is concerned, if the 116 pieces
4 are divided by 116.000 kilogrammes it arises that one ingot weighed a
5 tonne, which could not have been the case. 1 tonne could be the weight of
6 the entire pallet that contain the ingot. So either one figure or the
7 other is correct it is 116 piece or 116.000 kilogrammes.
8 As far as the figures are concerned I cannot account for the fact
9 that under the control of the BiH army in their depots there were ingots
10 of aluminium. I really don't know how that happened, how they could come
11 by them because they controlled the eastern side and the western part was
12 only controlled in the central part.
13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
14 Q. The intervention by Mr. Praljak was about the document that we
15 already spoke about. The document issued by the tobacco factory of
16 Mostar. However, since you have returned to that document, the mistake
17 that was made either in the number of pieces or the number of the weight
18 was made by the person who drafted the document and how they ended up with
19 the 4th Corps. We don't know, but the fact is that they were stored in
20 the depots of the 4th Corps.
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Let's now move to another brief question. You've been shown
23 document number P 00255, and that is the overview of the number of
24 inhabitants in the local commune around the 25th of May, 1992. When you
25 did that, will you allow for the possibility that by the end of October
1 that number was increased and was about 25.000?
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down and allow for
3 the interpreters to finish the interpretation.
4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Could you please answer. Will you allow for the possibility that
6 by October that number increased to 17.000?
7 A. In the document that was issued by the civilian protection it says
8 that around 30.000 people were present.
9 Q. Sir, I am trying to reduce my questions although I would like to
10 go into detail but I don't have the time.
11 You made an overview on the 25th of May, 1992; is that correct?
12 Let's take things one at a time. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In that overview does it say that the number of refugees and
15 displaced persons at the time in Mostar was about 9.000? Is that
17 A. Yes. We can even say that their number was 10.000.
18 Q. But to be more precise, your figure was 8.950. My question to you
19 is this: Is it possible the Prosecution is pointing to the fact that we
20 should go into private session but none of my questions is going to reveal
21 the identity of the witness. So I don't think that is necessary.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Out of an abundance of caution
23 we're going to go into private session. Mr. Registrar.
24 [Private session]
11 Pages 12127-12143 redacted. Private session
11 [Open session]
12 [The witness enters court]
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please move into
14 private session.
15 [Private session]
11 Page 12145 redacted. Private session
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: [No interpretation]
19 Examination by Mr. Bos:
20 MR. BOS:
21 Q. Witness, before I will put questions to you, I'm going to read out
22 a summary of your statement. The witness was a resident of West Mostar.
23 In February/March 1993, the witness experienced discrimination in
24 receiving humanitarian aid. Her two children were also discriminated
25 against at school. On 9 May, 1993, HVO soldiers came to the witness's
1 apartment and --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down when reading the summary.
3 Thank you.
4 MR. BOS: She was beaten by an HVO soldier. Her husband was
5 arrested and the witness and her children were expelled from their
6 apartment. The witness and her children were taken by bus to Heliodrom.
7 HVO soldiers were guarding the bus which was filled with other women and
8 children. The witness describes the condition of detention in Heliodrom.
9 The witness and her children were released on 16 May, 1993, after signing
10 a document stating that they had been detained at Heliodrom for their own
12 That night, HVO soldiers came to their apartment and expelled them
13 again. They moved into a neighbour's house. Her husband was released
14 from Heliodrom on 26 May 1993. A relative from Croatia came and took her
15 children to Croatia and the witness and her husband went back to their
16 apartment, which had been partially burnt and looted.
17 On 29 May 1993 the witness and her husband fled to East Mostar.
18 Q. Witness, this was a summary of your statement and I'm now going to
19 ask you a few questions about the statement that you had given to the
20 Prosecutor. You provided a written statement to the investigators of the
21 Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY on the 8th of October, 1998. Is that
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And at that time you provided this written statement, did you
25 answer the questions to the investigator truthfully?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And did you answer the questions freely, that is without any
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. At the conclusion of that interview, was your statement read back
6 to you in the Bosnian language?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And did you then sign that statement in the English language?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Witness, I now would like you to have a look at the English
11 version of your ICTY statement, and there's a bundle in front of you, and
12 I've marked the page that I would like you to look at with a yellow -- a
13 yellow piece of paper. You see that yellow piece of paper in the bundle?
14 If you --
15 Maybe the usher can assist the witness.
16 Witness, I've guided you to the last page of the English version
17 of your ICTY statement, and I'm asking you is this -- the signature on the
18 bottom of that page, is that your signature?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Yesterday, you met with an investigator and myself, and you were
21 given an opportunity to review your statement in the Bosnian language and
22 to make any corrections, if necessary; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, Witness, upon -- Witness, upon reviewing your statement in
25 the Bosnian language, is it correct that you made a correction to a name
1 mentioned in the sixth paragraph on page 9 of the English translation and
2 that this correction concerned the name Marko Vlaho and that you corrected
3 that name to Dragan Vlaho?
4 A. Yes, because I learnt later on that his real name is Drago.
5 Q. Thank you. Should you have to provide a full testimony to this
6 Court today, would its content be the same as the content of the written
7 statement except for the correction that you made regarding Mr. Vlaho?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Witness, I'm now going to show you a couple of exhibits, and I
10 would ask you to comment on these exhibits, and I would like to start with
11 a map.
12 And for that I would like to go into private session, Your Honour,
13 if that's possible.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.
15 [Private session]
11 Pages 12150-12172 redacted. Private session
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session,
19 Mr. President.
20 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Your statement you also mention -- in the initial part of your
22 statement you say that you could foresee all that based on some signals,
23 and you also say the Croatian language was imposed. This is on page 1 in
24 both B/C/S and Croatian versions. Let me ask you this: The official
25 language in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia up to the
1 break-up of Yugoslavia, up to late 1990 when the break-up started, could
2 you tell the Trial Chamber what was the name of that language?
3 A. It was Serbo-Croatian.
4 Q. Was there any other variant of that language?
5 A. There was also a Croato-Serbian.
6 Q. So there were two variations that were either Croato-Serbian or
7 Serbo-Croatian. In Bosnia-Herzegovina what language was the official
8 language of Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time it?
9 A. It was Serbo-Croatian.
10 Q. In schools?
11 A. The same.
12 Q. At work?
13 A. The same. It was either Serbian or Croatian or Serbo-Croatian.
14 Q. So both variants were equally used?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And what script was used?
17 A. The Latinic script.
18 Q. In both cases?
19 A. Well, it depended on the region in Yugoslavia. Some it was the
20 Cyrillic script that predominated and other places that Latinic script.
21 Q. I'm asking you about Bosnia-Herzegovina?
22 A. It was the Latinic script.
23 Q. And in 1991, 1992, there -- the aggression by the JNA started
24 under the control of the Serbian politics and so on and so forth. Did
25 we -- do you think that we had to continue using Serbo-Croatian and use
1 the name of the language that corresponded with the name of the entity
2 that shelled us?
3 A. It depends.
4 Q. You personally, did you believe that Serbo-Croatian is your
5 language when the aggression started?
6 A. I continued speaking the language that I spoke since the day I was
7 born in. That's the language that I am still using today.
8 Q. So you took the liberty to speak the language that you spoke that
9 you know how to speak, irrespective of its name?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Would you then agree that people started speaking whatever they
12 thought was right for them to speak?
13 A. That was their right, but they did not have the right to force my
14 child to use that language.
15 Q. In other words, this is the problem that only applied to schools
16 in your view?
17 A. No. It applied everywhere. When I see some of my acquaintances
18 now, I know how they spoke previously. Now they use terms and words they
19 had never used before. So I find it surprising that they easily forgot
20 what they knew when -- from the day they were born.
21 Q. At this moment the Trial Chamber is not interested in any other
22 time but 1992 and 1993. What the situation today is they are -- don't
23 care but let's go back to schools. Do you know whether during the school
24 year 1992, 1993 the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e., the
25 authorised ministry, were they able to provide for the school curriculum
1 and syllabuses?
2 A. No they weren't in a position to do that.
3 Q. What about books?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Could school books be obtained from Croatia? Do you know that?
6 A. No, I don't.
7 Q. Do you know where the school books eventually came from?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. Your children went to school?
10 A. Yes, they did but they didn't have school books. They didn't have
11 pens or pencils or notebooks or anything.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic -- Ms. Alaburic, do
13 you have any questions for this witness? Maybe we should leave the next
14 five minutes to Ms. Alaburic.
15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I just wanted to check my notes and
16 I have to say that I do have a few more questions for this witness but
17 since my colleague only has five minutes this is where I'm going to
18 interrupt my cross-examination. Thank you.
19 Your Honour, just for the record, please, maybe, I challenge most
20 of the witness's statements in the part of the statement before she was
21 taken to Heliodrom. I challenge that part of the statement.
22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
23 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Witness good afternoon I only have four minutes
25 to start with could you explain to us your brief statement when you said
1 that you can't say anything about what happened in 1992 in Mostar because
2 at the time you were in Split; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Split is in Croatia isn't it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. How come you resided in Croatia at the time?
7 A. I had friends there and I went there with my children I went to
9 Q. Did you go for a holiday or did you go for some other reason?
10 A. I went because I could not stay in Mostar with my children as a
11 result of shelling. We did not have any food. There was nothing to eat
13 Q. And how long did you stay in Split?
14 A. I came back from Split at the beginning of 1993.
15 Q. Madam, at one point you've told us that Mr. Mladen Misic was the
16 be-all and end-all in the territory of Mostar; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Could you -- could we please look at the document number P 02685.
19 That's a document that was shown to you by the Prosecutor. This is a
20 request or a demand by Miljenko Lasic for the appointment of certain
21 people in certain positions but also for Mr. Mladen Misic to be resolved
22 of his duties. You identified this person Misic for us based on this
23 document, and you've told us that this is the same Mr. Misic who was
24 be-all and end-all in Mostar; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Do you have any knowledge as to what the reasons for his relief
2 would be?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Do you know anything about Mladen Misic having been discharged
5 from his position?
6 A. No, I didn't know anything about that before I saw this
8 Q. Thank you very much.
9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I don't have any more questions for
10 this witness. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have a question, the Bench.
12 Questioned by the Court:
13 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] In your statement, Witness CT, you
14 said that there were people with all sorts of weapons amongst the HVO.
15 Now, my question is: This shooting, was it within a military operation
16 which took place on the 9th of May, 1993, or were these shots deliberately
17 targeting people, people in your home, et cetera?
18 A. On the 9th of May to expel the Bosniaks from their homes, that was
19 the intention. And our house was particularly targeted because they
20 shouted out the name of my husband and said, "Catch him." They used
21 Zolja-type weapons, pistols, rifles, I don't know what else. But the
22 Zoljas, the hand-held rocket launcher, hit somebody although not the
23 children, luckily, because they'd already gone down to the cellar.
24 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Two brief questions. In your
1 statement you said you were given dog food in Heliodrom. How did you
2 know? Did you see packages with the label?
3 A. My husband brought those cans from Heliodrom and believe me this
4 was dog food. I've had dogs for years and I know the smell and even my
5 dogs would not eat from those cans. I know what dog food smells like.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. And just one more question: You
7 say -- or you've said that the Red Cross had been refused access. They
8 wanted to visit you and were refused. How do you know this?
9 A. I know because UNPROFOR soldiers came. They entered the room
10 where we were, and it looked like a proper prison, and we had two children
11 with us. Their mother was an English teacher, and the children could
12 speak English really well. And in a conversation with these soldiers they
13 learned that they were not allowed to enter. The Red Cross was not
14 allowed to enter to register us women and children.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, very quickly,
18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Madam, on the can was there
19 a sign of a dog or a cat?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, there was.
21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] The entire food came from
22 the humanitarian aid. It was not produced anywhere in our midst. I'm
23 just checking whether there was a sign on the can.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I saw a dog's head, and I'd
25 know what -- I did it -- I ate -- or, rather, I didn't eat at the
1 Heliodrom. I know very well.
2 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If the Prosecution don't have
4 any additional questions.
5 Madam, we would like to thank you on behalf of the Judges for
6 having come to The Hague in order to testify and for having provided
7 your statement in writing. I have to call this session to an end because
8 there is another session that follows in a short time. I would like to
9 thank you once again and express my best wishes for your return to your
11 I believe that Mr. Mundis is on his feet to tell us something
12 about Monday.
13 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, we're all set pursuant to the court calendar
14 that's been distributed. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I invite all of you to come back
16 on Monday at quarter past 2.00 thank you.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Monday, the 15th day
19 of January, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.