1 Monday, 27 August 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The accused Coric not present]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, kindly call the case,

7 please.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good day, Your Honours. This is case number

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

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, registrar.

11 Today we are Monday, the 27th of August, 2007. I would like to

12 greet the representatives from the Prosecution, the Defence counsel, the

13 accused. I believe Mr. Coric is not in the courtroom today, and I hope he

14 gets better very soon.

15 We should resume our hearing by hearing a witness and his

16 testimony. Prior to that I need to hand down a decision, and I shall give

17 the floor to the registrar who has an IC number to give us, I believe.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. Several parties have

19 submitted lists of documents to be tendered through Larry Forbes. The

20 list submitted by 2D shall be given Exhibit number IC 642; the list

21 submitted by 4D shall be given Exhibit number IC 643; and the list

22 submitted by 2D shall be given Exhibit number 644 with respect to Witness

23 Antoon van der Grinten.

24 Thank you very much.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, registrar.

1 This is the oral decision I shall read out slowly so there are no

2 mistakes in the translation. This decision was handed down after

3 Mr. Karnavas took the floor last week following statements made by an

4 accused during a Status Conference.

5 This Trial Chamber was not made aware of what Mr. Seselj might

6 have said. Therefore, this Trial Chamber has no reason whatsoever to

7 question the integrity of Mr. Karnavas and reckons that he is entirely

8 capable of fulfilling his duties as Defence counsel to Mr. Prlic.

9 Last Thursday in the transcript, line 23 of page 22145 [as

10 interpreted], Mr. Karnavas spoke in very abusive language about

11 Mr. Seselj. This Trial Chamber cannot accept this type of language, and

12 according to Rule 45 of our Rules of Procedure and Evidence warns him not

13 to use such language again. The Trial Chamber orders that the particular

14 passage in the transcript be redacted from the transcript according to

15 Rules 54 and 81(C) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

16 As this Trial Chamber, the Prlic Chamber has no authority over

17 Seselj leaves the matter with the Seselj Trial Chamber who is fully

18 competent in the matter and that Chamber can then take the necessary

19 measures, the measures it will deem fit.

20 So much for the tenor of this decision, which reminds all and

21 everyone that the Trial Chamber does not question Mr. Karnavas's

22 integrity.

23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Just a small correction I would

24 like to make. It's page 21455, and not 2145.

25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I -- I believe it's Rule 46 and not

1 Rule 45.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: And let me just state for the record when

3 Mr. Seselj attacks lawyers, when he attacks Prosecutors, when he attacks

4 members of the registry, it seems that the Trial Chamber or the Presiding

5 Judges do nothing. They don't reprimand him. They don't cut his mic off.

6 They don't do anything. So we're sitting here defenseless, and I

7 understand that the two Judges or three Judges on the panel were not

8 there, were not privy to the remarks that Mr. Seselj makes. However, you

9 were the Presiding Judge in that hearing. You're also the Presiding Judge

10 here. Ultimately, you have a vote to cast in this case. So if the

11 Trial Chamber feels that I used language which I feel was quite

12 appropriate in my description of Mr. Seselj because he is what exactly I

13 claimed he is to be, then I suggest that the Trial Chamber in the future

14 exercise its discretion which it has under the Rules to reprimand

15 Mr. Seselj and cut him off whenever he is being abusive towards the rest

16 of us.

17 As I've noted, we, the Defence lawyers as everybody else, are not

18 his punching bags and I know that Russia is behind him and therefore he

19 feels entitled to say whatever he wishes, and this Trial Chamber or some

20 other Trial Chamber may think that it's okay to let him go as he wishes,

21 but I dare say all we're doing is aiding and abetting Mr. Seselj in his

22 little game which he stated quite clearly on the record, and that is his

23 intent to destroy the integrity of this Tribunal, this institution, and I

24 don't think it's appropriate.

25 However, I do take the Court's remarks seriously, and in the

1 future I will restrain from using the language that I did use. However, I

2 am unapologetic in my description of Mr. Seselj.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. A small mistake on

4 line 24. I believe it's -- it's 21455. To respond to what Mr. Karnavas

5 has just said, the Trial Chamber in charge of the Seselj case will take

6 the appropriate decision.

7 This Trial Chamber wish to specify that as far as the upcoming

8 witness is concerned, we have planned to hear him for two and a half

9 hours. The Prosecution will have two and a half hours, and the Defence

10 teams will have the same time. If, of course, the Prosecution oversteps

11 that time, the Defence team will have extra time. As we have two days in

12 which to hear this witness, we have some time ahead of us to discuss the

13 issue of this witness.

14 I would like to move into private session for a few minutes. I

15 would like to have both parties' opinion on protective measures to be

16 applied to a particular witness. Registrar, please.

17 [Private session]

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 21563-21567 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 Honours, we're now in open session.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

9 [The witness entered court]

10 WITNESS: MARITA VIHERVUORI

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. If you can hear

12 me, could you please give me your first name, last name, and date of

13 birth, please.

14 THE WITNESS: Marita Vihervuori, born 6th of January, 1943.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do you have a job at the moment?

16 THE WITNESS: Yes.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which -- what job do you have?

18 THE WITNESS: I am -- I am a journalist. I'm writing for Finnish

19 newspapers and also for Austrian press agency.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Witness, have you

21 already testified before an international court on the events which

22 unfolded in the former Yugoslavia or is it the first time you come to

23 testify?

24 THE WITNESS: This is the first time.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would like you to take the

1 oath and read what is on the piece of paper which the usher is showing

2 you.

3 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

4 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may sit down.

6 Just some information about the way in which this hearing will

7 unfold over the next two days. We will be hearing your testimony today

8 and tomorrow. You will first be asked to answer questions which will be

9 put to you by the representative of the Prosecution, whom I'm sure you met

10 today or yesterday, and after the first part of this proceeding -- of

11 these proceedings the Defence counsel on the left-hand side, each

12 representing one of the accused, there are six in all, will put questions

13 to you. Sometimes the accused might put questions to you also.

14 In addition, the four Judges before you can at any moment ask you

15 questions, but we would rather put the questions to you right at the end

16 or only during the examination-in-chief or the cross-examination of one of

17 the parties if it is a burning issue. Then we feel that it is better to

18 put the question straight away rather than waiting for the end of the

19 examination-in-chief or cross-examination.

20 If at any point in time you don't feel well, please don't hesitate

21 to let us know so we can stop the hearing.

22 We have a break every hour and a half so that you can have some

23 rest but also to change over the audiotapes, because as you know, or maybe

24 you don't know, this trial is being recorded and broadcast to the outside

25 world. That is why there are six cameras in this courtroom.

1 If at any point in time you would like to put a question to the

2 Bench, please don't hesitate to do so.

3 In very general terms this is how your testimony will unfold.

4 I shall now give the floor to the Prosecutor, whom I would like to

5 greet again, and I shall give him the floor right now.

6 MR. KRUGER: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours,

7 everybody else in and around the courtroom.

8 Examination by Mr. Kruger:

9 Q. Good afternoon, Witness. Madam, I would like to start with a few

10 biographical details. Could you tell the Court what your academic

11 background is?

12 A. Well, I have degree in history and politics from University of

13 Helsinki. In American terms, it would be Master of Arts. I don't know

14 what is in European terms, but as it called Magister.

15 And then I have studied after that in University of Munich, and

16 also later half a year in University of Vienna.

17 Q. Could you tell the Court from what time or from when have you been

18 working as a journalist?

19 A. Well, I have been working as a journalist actually all my life.

20 Already in student time I was a redactor [phoen] -- it was student

21 magazine which was the history students for all Finnish universities, but

22 -- and then afterwards for day -- for several magazines, but I started to

23 work for dailies - it means in news business - '87.

24 Q. Now, from 1987, for which dailies have -- did you start working in

25 1987?

1 A. I started first for Aamulehti. It is the second biggest daily in

2 Finland and is in Tampere, and then couple of months later in summer

3 Turun Sanomat. Turun Sanomat is the third biggest newspaper in Finland,

4 and printed in Turku. I also write now and then for Helsingin Sanomat,

5 which is the biggest one in all Scandinavia.

6 Q. Now, madam, during the period before you started working for

7 newspapers as a journalist, did you have occasion to travel within the

8 Balkans or through the Balkans?

9 A. Oh, yes. I was first time in Yugoslavia personally '64, but my

10 Yugoslavian friend was already before in Finland. Then after '64 I was

11 still '73 every year in Yugoslavia and '73 I was even living there more

12 than three months, but then afterwards between -- I started in daily

13 and '73 Yugoslavia was me more a transit land and I was visiting of course

14 my old friends but I was not any more studying it systematically like

15 before.

16 Q. After 1987 when, if at all, did you start travelling to the

17 Balkans again and for what purpose?

18 A. Well, then I was working for daily news, and from beginning of '88

19 till 2001, former Yugoslavia was my most important place to work because

20 there was something happening all the time, and so I could say that there

21 was some years when I was more in former Yugoslavia than Vienna. Only

22 long break was in the time of Gulf War from middle of January till middle

23 of April, I was in Amman, and in Damascus.

24 Q. And in which year was that, 1990 --

25 A. 1.

1 Q. 1991. Now, madam, did you ever write or publish any books as a

2 result of your association with the former Yugoslavia or the territories

3 of the former Yugoslavia?

4 A. Yes. I have published about Yugoslavia you could say three books,

5 or two and a half, how you will. I made a book in English translation.

6 It is -- would be "Welcome to Hell," and it's really a thick book. It's

7 big and more than 800 [indiscernible] pages, and it's telling the story

8 what happened in Yugoslavia and why it happened.

9 Then I wrote later, and it is even in -- published in German, the

10 "Memoirs of My Dog". It's also political book and is also partly in

11 Yugoslavia and telling this story from a little bit ironical point of

12 view.

13 And then third one what it could be told only half a book. I was

14 taking part writing all the capitals of former Yugoslavian states for

15 geographical book which is long series from -- I think it's originally

16 French book, The Big LaRousse or something like that round the world and

17 because there were -- because there was the whole Yugoslavia in that book,

18 they ordered me to make these follower states and it was published in

19 three languages; Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish.

20 Q. Now, madam, during the period that we are going to focus on mainly

21 during the course of your testimony it, that period is 1992 to -- through

22 1993. Could you give the Court an idea of the extent of your grasp of the

23 political affairs and the political personalities involved within the

24 former Yugoslavia or the territories comprising the former Yugoslavia?

25 A. Well, I didn't know all the personalities personally, but because

1 I was following all the elections, all the so-called free elections, I had

2 met many of these personalities. From the higher personalities I have

3 been interviewing Milan Kucan, Franjo Tudjman twice, Ibrahim Rugova

4 several times and been in press conferences with Izetbegovic, Karadzic,

5 and so on, and but it's later only the Serbian politician I knew better

6 was Djindjic.

7 Q. Madam, just before proceeding, during this period I see in some of

8 the documentation that we will be looking at that it seems that two

9 people -- or that you had two colleagues with whom you travelled a lot

10 during this period and the names are here. Marja --

11 A. Mirja.

12 Q. -- and Erich. Can you tell the Court who these people are.

13 A. Mirja Kesavaara is a good friend of mine and she is photographing

14 for me and she is also assisting me in many things because very often in

15 news when there's something very hot news as in former Yugoslavia where I

16 cannot divide my personality, so I could cover two things when I send her

17 somewhere. And Erich Rathfelder is a German journalist who was writing --

18 he was redactor from Tageszeitung in Berlin first, but then later a free

19 journalist who was writing of course to Tageszeitung, but several other

20 German newspapers and also the Tagesanzeiger in Zurich.

21 Q. Thank you. Just for the interest, is it correct that your dog

22 Musti also travelled with you throughout this period?

23 A. Not throughout this period because I'm not that crazy. But let's

24 say that it happens now and then, a pet things that were not calculating.

25 She was in Slovenian war because we were thinking it was an independence

1 fire, and she was there in April 1990 -- April 1993, because we were

2 actually originally bringing some aid to send to our Bosnia and we're

3 already out of Bosnia when something happened and we had to go back.

4 Q. Okay. Now, madam, if we could turn back to June 1992, is it

5 correct that you travelled to Mostar towards the end of June 1992?

6 A. Yes, it is correct. I know that Bosnian war was already older,

7 but it was not possible to go to Bosnia because there was this occupied

8 Serb territory surrounding it. So the first spot where -- where I could

9 get was Mostar. It was also not very easy because Magistrale was broken

10 you have to go over island of Pag and so. But I had gotten a message

11 from -- that Mostar should be free from siege, and it was through and they

12 told me that I was the first foreign journalist in Mostar after breaking

13 out.

14 Q. Now, I see in the record that the transcript hasn't exactly

15 captured what you said. If you say Mostar should be freed from who?

16 A. It was surrounded from Serbs. It was a siege. It was the system

17 in that war that towns were surrounded like Sarajevo or Vukovar.

18 Q. So when you arrived in Mostar, had it already been freed or

19 liberated?

20 A. Yes. It was liberated.

21 Q. And what was the atmosphere that you encountered there?

22 A. Well, the atmosphere was very many ruins, but everybody was

23 friendly, released. There was nothing to eat, nothing to drink, but --

24 but what I noticed, for instance, I was in the Old Bridge and everywhere,

25 and the Croats and the Bosniaks they were fighting with each other. They

1 was in the centre even a graveyard where they were buried together. It

2 was a very good atmosphere, a very released atmosphere. Of course, it was

3 also sad because churches and mosques were not totally destroyed but full

4 of holes.

5 Q. Madam, if I could just clarify. You say the Croats and the

6 Bosniaks they were fighting with each other.

7 A. Not against.

8 Q. With each other against --

9 A. Against Serbs.

10 Q. Thank you, madam. Could you gauge the level of cooperation of

11 the -- the relations between the Bosniaks and the Croats at that stage?

12 A. It was good, and it was also in this some soldiers which I met.

13 Anyway, one of them told that he was actually from Croatia, not a Bosnian

14 Croat. It means that they all were fighting against Serbs, because at

15 that time Serbs were the aggressor.

16 Q. Now, I'm not going to ask you in detail, but during the fall of

17 1992 or autumn, November, did you travel to Prozor and Gornji Vakuf?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Could you perhaps briefly tell the Court about this?

20 A. Well, we wanted to get to central Bosnia, and we went to -- and

21 somebody told us that we should go through Mostar. We were in Posusje.

22 There was one Croat who told me that we were making a suicide and told us

23 we should go to Tomislavgrad. In Tomislavgrad -- near Tomislavgrad, we

24 found a new road. Later, I heard from Mr. Prlic that Croat had been

25 building it through the forest. It may be very true, but at that time

1 UNPROFOR troops had been in Bosnia maybe one month and they were preparing

2 that road because this road was later the main road with which the aid,

3 humanitarian aid, was brought to Central Bosnia. Of course it was not --

4 not a motor road. It was a sand road, it was a narrow sand road through

5 forest. But it was extremely important, and so we more than accident --

6 accidentally learned to know this connection.

7 Q. Now, you mentioned that "I heard from Mr. Prlic that Croat had

8 been building it through the forest." When did you hear this from

9 Mr. Prlic?

10 A. April '93.

11 Q. And on what occasion was that?

12 A. While I was making an interview and we were talking about the

13 road.

14 Q. Okay. We'll get back to that.

15 Now, madam, Gornji Vakuf, did you also visit Gornji Vakuf during

16 this period?

17 A. Yes. And we get back from -- from Central Bosnia on the road to

18 Central Bosnia, Gornji Vakuf had nothing special, but when we got back

19 there was cattle market, and so the British Warrior tanks couldn't move

20 because of cows and because of market life. It means that it was actually

21 very normal in Gornji Vakuf at that time.

22 Q. This visit to Gornji Vakuf and to Prozor, this was prior to the

23 announcement of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan; is that correct?

24 A. It was all prior. It was all before. It was all before.

25 Q. Okay. Now, your personal experience from what you observed during

1 that period, what was your personal experience of the relations between

2 the Bosnian Croats and the Bosniaks at that stage?

3 A. They were very good. And it was a very important time. When we

4 were in Split before we started, there was in the newspaper, I think it

5 was Nedeljna Dalmacija, the title, "Turbe shall fall before the first snow

6 is going -- going on the ground". And the first snow came when we were

7 still in Posusje, it was a cold day. But we went there. And Turbe was

8 very important place, because if Turbe had fallen, then Travnik, Vitez,

9 and the road to Sarajevo would have been free for Serbs. So the Croats

10 and the Muslims together -- or Bosniaks together, we were defending Turbe

11 and they succeeded. They got so-called defence victory. Turbe didn't

12 fall.

13 We were living in Hotel Vitez, which was headquarters of HVO

14 forces. We were visiting Turbe. There it was Bosniak who was leading us

15 through the city, but a Croat drove us to Travnik. It means that there

16 were -- it was very good cooperation.

17 Q. Now, this cooperation that you had observed which was good at that

18 period, did you at any stage come to the conclusion or make an assessment

19 that this cooperation was deteriorating?

20 A. What's deteriorating?

21 Q. Getting worse.

22 A. No. No, not at that moment. Of course I knew there were radicals

23 on both sides and somebody was making a Greater Serbia and somebody was

24 dreaming of a Greater Croatia. And of course I knew in that time when I

25 was actually in Syria and Jordan and Iraq, Tudjman and Milosevic had met

1 in Karadjordjevo, it was '91, but this highest level was not to feel in

2 the lower level where the people were defending their homes.

3 Q. Do you know when the Vance-Owen Peace Plan was announced?

4 A. I suppose 2nd of January, 1993.

5 Q. Did this have any impact as far as you could see on the relations

6 between Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks?

7 A. Oh, yes. Oh, yes.

8 Q. Could you tell the Court about this?

9 A. Well, it was to see even if later the Bosnian Vice-Prime Minister

10 Zlatko Lagumdzija that it was not meant ethnical but it was interpreted

11 ethnical. When I saw the plan I knew at once that it shall be interpreted

12 ethnically, and I think as far as I know from his story that it was based

13 very much on that so-called Sporazum from Croatia which was made 1938,

14 which never was get in power because the war and Hitler little bit mixed

15 the cards, but anyway it based -- it was not based on census '91, and so

16 it was very, well, positive paper for Croats, and it was not very good for

17 Muslims. And Serbs, well, they had very much anyway under their control

18 than Vance-Owen was promising them, so it was somehow in that paper

19 already included that there shall come some quarrel.

20 Q. Now, if I could refer you to Exhibit P 08 -- 8575. P 08575. And

21 in the binder that's being given to you it's the second last document.

22 Now, madam, if you could first turn to beyond the English

23 translation the fifth page. That's the original version which appears to

24 be in German.

25 A. Mm-hmm.

1 Q. Do you have that before you?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Do you recognise this document?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Now, is this the article that you wrote, "The Croats are sitting

6 on three chairs"?

7 A. Yes it is, and I suppose I was writing it about sometimes in May

8 1993. This 5 is --

9 Q. So we see a date in the top right-hand corner saying 27/5/95?

10 A. But it cannot true. I have -- well, it -- it must be May '93.

11 Q. Okay. Can --

12 A. Because if you read it, it's also told the Geneva negotiations

13 they were beginning, 093.

14 Q. Thank you, madam. At the top, handwritten, it seems that this is

15 for Frau Mag Schreiberhuber?

16 A. Mm-hmm.

17 Q. Who is this?

18 A. Hermine Schreiberhuber is the vice -- how you tell leader of

19 foreign policy in Austria press agency.

20 Q. Why did you direct this to her? Was this just the practice at

21 that stage?

22 A. Well, no. I directed it to her so that it is not landing to

23 rubbish basket.

24 Q. Now, madam, I'd like to refer you to -- well, first if we can look

25 on the first page of the English version in the first three paragraphs

1 there is each time reference to an Ivan Drnis.

2 A. Yes, I know. I never in my life have met Ivan Drnis. I was in --

3 several time in Tomislavgrad asking permission for that and that, and

4 always I got it from office from Ivan Drnis with his signature. So I was

5 thinking that the person who was giving it to me was Ivan Drnis, but he

6 was not. He was the press officer of HVO in Tomislavgrad. He has also

7 the name but I have forgotten it. And this fact was made clear first in

8 one press conference in June 1995.

9 Q. Now, madam, if we can look at the third paragraph on page 1 of the

10 English version. Well, third paragraph in the German version as well, and

11 in this paragraph it says: "Already in January when the fighting flared

12 up," and this is from that second line, "Drnis justified the Vance-Owen

13 Plan. The world has given us these areas and so we will control them."

14 Can you comment on this, perhaps?

15 A. Yes. It means that we were trying to get in Central Bosnia and we

16 were telling after these experiences in November we were telling

17 Mr. Drnis, "What are you doing now?" Because there was some fights

18 between Croats and Muslims in Gornji Vakuf and some other areas already, I

19 think in Busovaca and some other areas and we knew about them. We were

20 not yet in Central Bosnia, where we were first under our way to Central

21 Bosnia. That, "What are you doing? That -- your good brothers are

22 fighting with each other." And answer was this: "The world gave these

23 areas to us and we're going to control them."

24 Q. If we look at the second paragraph, the paragraph just above the

25 one we've looked at now, in here it's reported that Ivan Drnis listed

1 areas the HVO wants to bring under its control, and then a little further

2 down: "We have to think of the future, he answered when, we asked him if

3 the power tags was the reason for the fighting in Jablanica. Jablanica

4 provides Herzegovina as well as big parts of Dalmatia with electricity."

5 Could you perhaps comment on this?

6 A. Well, in modern world, energy is one of the most important things

7 for fighting, and in Jablanica there was artificial sea and power plant.

8 It means that they wanted to control energy. And then because of certain

9 nature of Bosnia, which is in different valleys, who is controlling the

10 roads controls also Bosnia, and this only road which was at that time

11 available it was in Croatian, in HVO hands. Of course, the Bosniak had

12 also very many other roads but they were all in Serbian hands. So Bosnia

13 was cut. And I think that this press officer which was not Drnis just

14 told that they want to control the energy. They want to secure the energy

15 because Jablanica was very important actually for Croatia. And of course

16 this road which started in Tomislavgrad.

17 Q. And the reference to Dalmatia or big parts of Dalmatia which also

18 received electricity from this, Dalmatia, in what country does that lie?

19 A. That's Croatia. It's Croatia. It's not Bosnian part but it's

20 real Croatia.

21 Q. Did you read any significance into the statement that, "We have to

22 think of our future," and then it being coupled with power being supplied

23 to Croatia?

24 A. Well, when I went in January to Croatia, I noticed --

25 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, Your Honour. If I may interrupt. I

1 think I'm going to object to the form of the question. If you look at

2 paragraph number two, the Prosecutor correctly indicated that there was a

3 quote, "We have to think of our future." Then if you read on, it appears

4 that the journalist who also is testifying now as a historian and also as

5 a military expert as well as an expert on energy, then seems to be

6 injecting her own comments, her own interpretation and then later on, at

7 the last sentence of that paragraph, says, "Herzegovina has to remain

8 Croatia in any case." Nothing about what this gentleman said. It's pure,

9 pure speculation on her part as to what the gentleman meant whoever he was

10 that she attributed to be Drnis, "We have to think of our future."

11 So I think the way the question was phrased is improper. It

12 assumes facts not in evidence. I suggest that we take it one step at a

13 time, we do it very carefully so we know what is this madam's

14 interpretation of historical facts or military necessities versus what

15 actually took place, keeping in mind we do not have -- we do not have as

16 in the other interview, the tape or some kind of a transcription.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you heard what Defence

18 counsel just said. When the person with whom you were speaking tells you,

19 "We must think of our future," what you're telling us afterwards is

20 basically just you speaking, or is it something that he actually told you?

21 Is it you speaking? Are you adding something to what he told you?

22 THE WITNESS: Well, if -- if you look in this article under the

23 top, it's told analyse. It means that it's no interview. It's just a

24 longer-term analyse what I made and I was quoting some -- some persons

25 which were telling -- had told me some things, and this you can see with

1 this points with the direct quotations, but it is an analyse of mine and I

2 have never said that it's something else. It even says here in the paper

3 that it is how I saw the things were.

4 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, based on that, again, I would draw the

5 Trial Chamber's attention to paragraph two. Based on that, I don't mean

6 to be disputatious, you know, though I have been in the past, but if you

7 look at it, and the journalist is perfectly entitled to analyse, but I

8 think the way the question is phrased, and now the way some of the answers

9 are coming, no fault of the witness, it would appear that it is this

10 gentleman that she attributes to Drnis that is actually talking about the

11 power plant, which then allows the Prosecution to later on draw the

12 attention or draw the conclusion which he wishes for the Court that she is

13 saying that during the interview Drnis is actually admitting that they're

14 attacking these areas or the conflict regarding Prozor, Gornji Vakuf,

15 Vitez, Travnik, Busovaca, and so on and so forth are because of the

16 energy.

17 It seems that this journalist, who happens to have other knowledge

18 of which she has not been qualified to testify about yet, but now we know

19 that's her analysis, it's her spin, because obviously from this, the

20 gentleman never answers her question and we don't have a tape so we don't

21 know question, answer, question, answer.

22 So I would appreciate, Your Honour, that if the Prosecutor is

23 going to go down this line he do so in a very classical form. What was

24 told to her so we know facts. Then if she wants to give an

25 interpretation, that's -- that's a different -- and of course, I'll be

1 objecting to that, but because the Trial Chamber can interpret. We want

2 fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. That's what journalism is all about, madam.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. Mr. Kruger, you

4 heard Mr. Karnavas and the answer of the journalist. Now, what's

5 important to find the truth with a capital "T" is not so much her analysis

6 of what the person said, it's what the person actually said.

7 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour. And, Your Honour, I won't

8 belabour this point because I think it is of less importance in the bigger

9 scheme of things.

10 Q. I'll step off this document, Madam, but we will be getting back to

11 it at later stage to just touch on perhaps one or two further aspects.

12 Now, after the entry into force of -- sorry. After the

13 introduction or announcement of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, did you again

14 visit Central Bosnia?

15 A. Yes. I started actually this time my trip from Banja Luka and

16 Krajina, and then I had to go back to Croatia, and then I visited second

17 time Central Bosnia, and it was not that easy any more than before,

18 because even they told that hostilities were not any more there. There

19 was some -- not only some, very much shooting in Gornji Vakuf, and we have

20 to drive through Gornji Vakuf. We have to wait on the edge and then we

21 were -- and then the British Warriors were securing the road and then we

22 have to drive so fast as we only do in these streets full of grenade

23 holes.

24 Q. And while in Central Bosnia at this time did you try to interview

25 or did you interview any of the leadership figures?

1 A. Yes. Yes, I did. And this time the most important persons I was

2 first interviewing -- well, February. I don't know. I think in

3 February -- yeah, January, I didn't meet -- not very important. I think

4 the most important person was the commandant in Mostar. I think his name

5 was Kulenovic. Kulenovic.

6 Q. In Central Bosnia did you try to interview Tihomir Blaskic?

7 A. Yes, I tried, but I didn't get him. Oh, yes. The important

8 person at the -- you mean, I suppose is Dario Kordic, but I couldn't take

9 him so seriously.

10 Q. Okay. Dario Kordic, when you interviewed him, madam, how did he

11 introduce himself?

12 A. Well, he was introduced to us as vice-president of Herceg-Bosna

13 and as a colonel, but as far as I knew, he was student of politics in

14 University of Sarajevo.

15 Q. Madam, from your interview with him were you able to gain any

16 picture of his relationship to the leadership of the HVO in Mostar?

17 A. Well, I, of course, don't have any DNA, but anyway it was told

18 that he should be the son of the sister of Mate Boban. It means from the

19 president of Herceg-Bosna.

20 Q. And other that that do you know if he had any links not of a

21 familial but more in his work procedure or --

22 A. Well, he must have mentioned Mr. Prlic, because in my story --

23 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection, Your Honour. Now she's speculating. "He

24 must have mentioned." Either he did or he did not. Now, if she wishes to

25 consult her notes - I assume you have notes from those days - I have no

1 objection to her consulting those notes which of course I'll be

2 requesting, but otherwise I would appreciate if she does not speculate as

3 to what somebody might or might not have. That's not proper journalism.

4 You know, I know it and the Trial Chamber knows it. Thank you.

5 MR. KRUGER:

6 Q. Madam, you've heard the objection, but from --

7 A. Because in my article is that he is near Prlic. So he has

8 mentioned this name because it was to me not familiar, not at that time.

9 Q. Thank you. At this stage you -- can you remember any further

10 details round what you have just said or is this basically --

11 A. Well, what was for me important in that interview was that he was

12 threatening to cut the road to Tuzla. It had already been cut and they

13 were quite desperate in Tuzla because we visited that only -- that also.

14 But it was just the normal talk of securing -- securing this and that.

15 Q. Now, madam, let's step on to a different topic. Are you aware of

16 talk of an ultimatum that was issued by the HVO early in April 1993?

17 A. It should have been 3rd of April, and about it there was several

18 press reports in Austrian press, and I suppose also in English press,

19 Reuters and so on. It means that it was -- it was not my thing. I was

20 reading it like any consumant [sic].

21 Q. Now, if I may refer you to Exhibit P 01804. And this is the very

22 first exhibit in the bundle you have. It's the very first document in

23 your bundle.

24 A. Mm-hmm.

25 Q. Yes. I think -- I think, madam, you still have the --

1 A. That's Borba. The first one.

2 Q. Can you just --

3 A. Oh, still one. Okay. Yes, yes, yes. Okay.

4 Q. Yes. Madam, this is titled with the headline "Bosnian Croats

5 demand Muslim troop pullouts," dated April 4, 1993. And just above that

6 it's copyright 1993, Reuters Limited, the Reuter Library Report.

7 As a journalist, are you able to tell us what the Reuter Library

8 Report was or what this kind of document represents?

9 A. Well, somebody from Reuters has had knowledge about this -- this

10 fact.

11 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour. Excuse me. Your Honour, at this

12 point I would object to the witness testifying about this particular

13 document unless there's a foundation laid. Obviously she did not pen this

14 particular article, and unless it can be demonstrated that somehow she had

15 access to this, read it at the time, I would object to any question --

16 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, if I --

17 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, let me make my record and you can go

18 ahead.

19 MR. KRUGER: I can help you.

20 MR. KARNAVAS: Let me just make my record. So unless, unless she

21 was aware of this article at the time, I would object.

22 Now, the question came prior to this with respect to an ultimatum.

23 He can ask about that particular issue. But to try to get the witness

24 to authenticate what somebody else wrote about something else is improper

25 unless some sort of a foundation is laid.

1 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, I'm sure you have a

3 reason.

4 MR. KRUGER: Yes, Your Honour. Yes, there is a reason, and my

5 next question will show that the objection was an utter waste of time of

6 this Court, and if I'm just given the time to clarify this.

7 Q. Madam, if we look at this document, I'm going to just point out

8 one or two aspects of it and then I'm going to ask you --

9 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I object. I object unless the

10 foundation is laid. Was the witness aware of this article? If not,

11 there's no need to look at this article because we're going to have this

12 witness commenting about what another journalist wrote. That was the

13 purpose of my objection which was not a waste of time. Perhaps the

14 gentleman could kindly laid lay a foundation, if he's capable of doing

15 that, and I dare say he's not, because the witness has not seen this

16 document before, at least not during that period of time. And if she has,

17 I'm sure she would have volunteered it.

18 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, the witness has testified that she saw

19 reports of this nature in the Austrian press and I would just wish to ask

20 her whether what is in this press report corresponds in basis to what she

21 saw in the Austrian press. Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Q. Madam, this article, if we look at the body, the very first

23 paragraph says:

24 "Bosnian Croats on Sunday demanded the withdrawal of Muslim troops

25 from provinces designated for Croat self-rule under a UN peace plan,

1 reviving tensions between nominal civil war allies who battled early this

2 year."

3 And if we go further down, one, two, three, four -- about the

4 fourth paragraph down below that: "The HVO set an April 15 deadline for

5 Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic to sign a joint communique ..." Do you

6 see that?

7 A. Mm-hmm.

8 Q. And if we go two paragraphs down from that "If Izetbegovic fails

9 to sign this agreement by April 15, the HVO will unilaterally enforce its

10 jurisdiction in cantons three, eight, and 10. The statement from HVO

11 headquarters in south-west Croat stronghold in Mostar warned."

12 Now, madam, you had mentioned that you saw reports of an ultimatum

13 in the Austrian press.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. How does that accord to what we've just seen here?

16 A. Well, it's about the same, because the system is working like

17 that. Every newspaper and, for instance, Austrian press agency, they have

18 Reuters. They are just translating it, and if they choose something it

19 goes to whole Austrian press, but I don't have access to Reuters. I have

20 access to Austrian press agency and I buy every day several Austrian

21 newspapers but they were all writing about the same -- this can be the

22 original -- original one. I don't know, because Austrian press notes not

23 "Reuters," they make a note "agencies".

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, following the objection

25 of Defence Counsel Karnavas, when you saw the Austrian press I would like

1 you to tell us whether upon reading these articles in the Austrian press

2 you formed an opinion that was close to what you can see here in the text

3 of the Reuters agency. Did it say the same thing?

4 THE WITNESS: Yes, it said the same thing, but -- well, if you are

5 following some country, if you are covering some country, you just read

6 everything what is -- what is written about it, and of course when I went

7 shortly after that to Bosnia I was asking about this ultimatum, is it true

8 or is it not true, but the knowledge originally I got only through the

9 press.

10 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Q. Madam, if we could look at the next document in the bundle, which

12 is P 01808. And if we can actually look at the original, a photocopy of

13 something coming from Borba. My first question to you is: Do you know or

14 had you heard of Borba or what it was?

15 A. I believe that it was a Serbian newspaper from Belgrade.

16 Q. Now, madam, on this page next to the picture of a man with his

17 hand held on his head, there's a short article and that's the one that has

18 been translated. In the English it stands, "HVO ultimatum demands

19 pull-out of Muslim troops from three provinces." And the agency that is

20 listed is Reuters.

21 My question to you is you have seen this article yesterday, and it

22 appears as if this would -- or may I ask you, from your experience with

23 the Austrian press agency, if the Austrian press agency puts out a report,

24 how is that report used by other publications?

25 A. They have cooperation with other news agencies. I don't know

1 how -- I think -- well, there are -- I think almost all small agencies

2 belong to it. How much they use the material or each other, I don't know,

3 but very many of my articles which I wrote to Austrian press agency were

4 also in the Swiss one, and now and then even in DPA. It means that the

5 news agencies, especially the small ones, they are cooperating.

6 Q. And if they use something coming from the Austrian press agency,

7 would that be indicated in the article in another newspaper?

8 A. In Austrian newspapers, yes, and if it's coming from the Swiss

9 STA, they put their own sign there and it's used from Swiss newspapers,

10 because my articles have been in Swiss newspapers.

11 Q. And just a final question on this. If another publication or

12 newspaper uses something attributable to the Austrian press association,

13 may they abbreviate an article and use only parts, a portion of the

14 report?

15 A. Yes. Oh, yes. That's the problem with the news agencies; it's

16 only material. They can change it, and they are very often making it so

17 they have the same thing from different agencies. It means made, of

18 course, from different persons and they put them together and take this

19 view from there and that from there.

20 Q. Now, madam, I'm asking you as a journalist this article in Borba,

21 which is attributable to Reuters, it appears as if it uses --

22 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection. Non-leading question, please.

23 Non-leading question.

24 MR. KRUGER:

25 Q. Madam, could you comment on the similarity between this article

1 from Borba and the previous article we saw from Reuters.

2 A. Well, they are very similar, but it don't mean that they are the

3 same article. If it has been, for instance, some press conference it

4 could be that hundred people are writing the same thing.

5 Q. Okay. Thank you, madam. Let's step off from this topic.

6 Now, in April 1993 --

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One minute, please, before we

8 move on to another subject.

9 Witness, the Prosecution is asking you questions about a document

10 which was published on April 5th in Borba, but the Prosecution did not ask

11 you to look closely at that document. Now, if you would please do so as I

12 do.

13 I am noticing that the Reuters paper actually refers to two

14 sources of its own. There is the HVO press release from Mostar, but also

15 the Croatian radio station. So Reuters adds two elements to the document

16 that we saw dated April 4th. There are two new sources. One HVO press

17 release from Mostar and something that was said on the Croatian radio.

18 Did you see that, Witness?

19 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continues] ... Yes.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. Now, when there are

21 different sources, you as a journalist, would you say that these different

22 sources -- the fact that there are several sources, does that confirm an

23 information or does that make it less reliable?

24 THE WITNESS: Well, honest answer is very difficult. It's

25 depending. Let's say when we have, for instance, a press conference which

1 is pure propaganda, so it's all the same if there are hundred journalists

2 which are writing the same propaganda. But there are two sources. It's a

3 Croatian radio, and it is in that case actually good source, and there is

4 the HVO General Staff.

5 Because these sources are both Croatian ones, it makes it, in my

6 opinion, reliable because if it would be a Muslim source then I wouldn't

7 trust that much, but now I'm thinking future, because in the future then

8 Croats, they were saying it never was an ultimatum but here is a document

9 which are based on Croat sources.

10 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Q. Madam, did you know another journalist by the name of Ed Vulliamy?

12 A. I didn't know him very well, but we all knew each other which were

13 going and coming in Bosnia. Yes, I knew him.

14 Q. Did you meet him in April 1993?

15 A. Yes, I met him.

16 Q. Where?

17 A. I met him in press office in Split and he was sending his

18 articles. He was just came from Bosnia.

19 Q. And did you talk to him?

20 A. Yes, we talked shortly. He only knows that in Bosnia has happened

21 awful things and he also know that in Mostar there had been fighting in

22 former day.

23 Q. What did you do, if anything, as a result of your conversation

24 with Ed Vulliamy?

25 A. Well, because we had already met a Bosnian journalist who was also

1 telling that there has been happening awful things in Central Bosnia, we

2 decided to go to Bosnia.

3 Q. Apart from what Ed Vulliamy had told you, that awful things are

4 happening, did you have any other details of what this might be?

5 A. No.

6 Q. All right. Now, where did you specifically want to go? If you

7 say, We wanted to go to Central Bosnia.

8 A. Well, first we got, of course, to Posusje and then it was

9 always -- it had to be to get some permissions. And then to Mostar,

10 because it was not necessary to go to Mostar if you want to go to

11 Central Bosnia, because the road went from Tomislavgrad, but because

12 Vulliamy mentioned that in Mostar had been fighting, we wanted to go to

13 Mostar to see what was happening there because it was the next point to

14 us.

15 Q. And where did you go to in Mostar?

16 A. Well, first we were driving around a little bit and we noticed

17 that it was pretty normal. Coffee houses were open, but on the river it

18 was dangerous and the most dangerous place was the Old Bridge. So it was

19 actually on a little bit behind. It was normal and then we went to the

20 headquarters of HVO.

21 Q. Now, just before we proceed, if you say, "We went to the

22 headquarters," who is "we" at this stage?

23 A. We are the three persons which I already mentioned,

24 Mirja Kesavaara as my photographer, and Erich Rathfelder as my colleague.

25 Q. Do you remember where the headquarters of the HVO was?

1 A. No.

2 Q. What --

3 A. But anyway, in Western Mostar, of course, somewhere central.

4 Q. What did you find when you were at the headquarters? Did you

5 speaker to anybody?

6 A. Oh, yes. I suppose that we went -- I don't have to suppose. As a

7 journalist you go as -- first to the press officer, and press officer led

8 us to the -- promised to organise us -- us an interview from higher level

9 and brought us to the canteen.

10 Q. Mm-hmm.

11 A. Where they were eating.

12 Q. And then?

13 A. We were a while in canteen and we were looking. We were very

14 astonished because there were soldiers in black uniforms and we were

15 asking what are these and they told only that they are special troops but

16 they didn't tell us what was their speciality. Later I heard from other

17 journalists that their speciality was to -- to cleanse Muslims from the

18 rows of HVO and put them to prison camps, because before, before in 1992

19 and a little bit later it was so that in HVO were fighting very many

20 Bosniaks also, because it was the time when they were best friends.

21 Q. If we can just backtrack one moment. When in April was this? Can

22 you remember the date?

23 A. Well, I'm not quite sure from the date. It -- I know that -- that

24 in the papers there are told 22nd, but it can be as well 24th. And why?

25 Because I can tell you something. It was the day in which the United

1 Nations Security Council visited Ahmici. It was the same day. So it's

2 very easy to check if it was 22nd or 24th.

3 Why I'm telling 24th is while I was writing my articles, 25th, and

4 they were all published 26th.

5 Q. Now, I don't want to go into this in detail, but you mentioned at

6 line 10 of page 37: "Later I heard from other journalists..." and then

7 you described certain things. Which other journalists are you referring

8 to? Can you remember?

9 A. Where?

10 Q. No, sorry that's in the transcript.

11 A. Mm-hmm.

12 Q. You said you had learned something from other journalists.

13 A. Well, I can't mention the names because there were always pretty

14 many of them, and you were talking. But there was at that time plenty of

15 British journalists, so I would say from British journalists.

16 Q. Did you try to confirm or check the information that this

17 journalist had given you regarding the soldiers in black uniforms?

18 A. No. At that moment I didn't have any possibility or, let's say, I

19 didn't have time to check it and I was at that time not so interested in

20 this black -- black uniforms, but it was later when it was told, and if

21 it's true or not I cannot tell, but I can tell that -- that Muslims

22 disappeared from HVO and there were afterwards prison camps.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, I have one question to ask perhaps

25 before the break, or if you -- thank you.

1 Q. Madam, just going back very briefly to something that you had

2 mentioned earlier. You mentioned at some stage Sporazum in 1939.

3 A. '38.

4 Q. '38, sorry, 1938. Can you perhaps give the Court some more detail

5 on this?

6 A. Well --

7 Q. If it's going to take too long, perhaps --

8 A. No, it won't take too long. Let's say so that Yugoslavia, the

9 first Yugoslavia, there was a certain quarrel between Serbs and Croats

10 because it was a unitarian state without any -- it was no federal state,

11 and there was a quarrel. There was a murder. The Croatian

12 parliamentarians was murdered, '27, and Yugoslavian king was murdered from

13 Croats, '34, and so on and so on and so sometimes they decided that let's

14 make an agreement and give -- so that it shall be peace in this country,

15 and it happened, '38. Croat got better position at that time.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Are you sure, madam, are

17 you sure it wasn't the Sporazum of 26 August 1939? That is the date I

18 have --

19 THE WITNESS: Well, if you have so exact date then it is, because

20 even I'm an historian I don't remember everything by heart, but I have

21 always believed that it was already '38. But anyway, it was this Sporazum

22 where the quarrel between Serbs and Croats was finished. And there was a

23 certain area given to the Croats where they have a kind of -- should have

24 a kind of autonomy but it was never in power because a certain Hitler

25 attacked Yugoslavia and it was involved in krieg -- in war.

1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

2 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour. If we can break, perhaps.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. A 20-minute break.

4 See you here again at 16.05.

5 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 4.07 p.m.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger.

8 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Q. Now, Ms. Vihervuori, just before the break -- shortly before the

10 break you mentioned that in the HVO headquarters in Mostar you were taken

11 to a canteen by the press officer and you were asked to wait. Had you

12 asked at that stage to -- for an interview with any specific person?

13 A. No.

14 Q. What happened when you were then in the -- in the canteen?

15 A. We were sitting there and waiting, and as usual Erich was trying

16 to make conversation with everybody. I'm not that communicative. And

17 then somebody came and told that we get an interview and led us to a

18 villa.

19 Q. This person who told you about the interview, was this the press

20 officer you had spoken to previously?

21 A. Yes, I suppose so.

22 Q. Did he say with whom this interview was going to be?

23 A. Yes. He told that it would be with Jadranko Prlic.

24 Q. Did you know who Jadranko Prlic was at that stage?

25 A. No. But he gave -- but it was told me who he is, and he gave also

1 his card, so I knew -- I knew. I just -- what I didn't know was that what

2 is behind this card, because I was always thinking that HVO, that it would

3 be on the top actually only a general, and -- and the name of the general,

4 how -- it was something else.

5 Q. Mm-hmm.

6 A. I don't remember that now at that stage, but I know who is the

7 commandant, the military commandant.

8 Q. Now, when you find out who Jadranko Prlic was, before you arrived

9 at this villa or at the villa?

10 A. In the villa. Or in the garden of the villa.

11 Q. This villa, do you know where it was?

12 A. No, I wouldn't find it, but it was in Western Mostar.

13 Q. Was it a residence or an office?

14 A. I would say both. Anyway, the room we were it was an office, but

15 it was such a beautiful old villa. Surely somebody has been living there.

16 Q. Now, you say that Jadranko Prlic gave you his card. I'd like you

17 to look at the very last exhibit in your bundle, which is Exhibit 9063.

18 P 09063. And if you look at the second page of that, that's a photocopy.

19 Do you recognise this photocopy or what it is?

20 A. It is the copy of that card.

21 Q. Do you know where the original of this card is?

22 A. Yes, in my pocket.

23 Q. Here in court. You still have it?

24 A. I suppose so.

25 Q. Okay. That's fine. But -- so the point that I wish to ask you is

1 on giving you this card did Mr. Prlic tell you what his function was or

2 what position he occupied?

3 A. No. It was already told. I mean, it's also in the card.

4 President of Croatian Defence Council. So it means that it is a kind of

5 political leader from Croatian armed forces.

6 Q. Now, Ms. Vihervuori --

7 A. Or maybe -- maybe you could also tell defence minister. I don't

8 know how the titles were in Herceg-Bosna.

9 Q. Okay. Now, the interview with Mr. Prlic, how long did that last?

10 A. It last 40 minutes.

11 Q. And who were present during this interview?

12 A. He and Mirja Kesavaara and Erich Rathfelder.

13 Q. And yourself?

14 A. And I.

15 Q. In what language was this interview conducted?

16 A. Directly in English.

17 Q. And how was this -- the contents of the interview recorded?

18 A. Well, I was making notes. I have my own system to make notes. In

19 my green years I was making tapes, but I noticed that it's very slowly

20 way. If you're in news business, it's better to make notes. Of course

21 Erich was taking a tape. Of course if I would have known that I am some

22 day going to sit here I would have taken my tape recorder, but I was never

23 dreaming of that, so I was just making a normal interview for newspapers

24 with notes with some sentences which are direct quotations which I need

25 and then some indicates about other things.

1 Q. Okay. Before coming to the substance of the interview itself, did

2 you write any newspaper reports or articles subsequent to this interview

3 based on your notes?

4 A. Yes. And also based on these notes was this investigation which

5 the two investigators from here in October 2001 were discussing in Vienna.

6 I had these notes in my hand. Also, this investigation was based on

7 these notes.

8 Q. And subsequently what has happened to these notes?

9 A. I don't know. They are somewhere, but I have hundreds of logs

10 from every interview, so -- because I was investigated 2001, and I didn't

11 think I'm very important, so I didn't give very much attention to it any

12 more because I thought that I won't come here.

13 Q. And prior to coming here to testify, did you look to see if you

14 could find these notes?

15 A. Yes, but unfortunately I was cleaning last year my old three

16 writing tables. I didn't clean them to waste basket, but to archive, and

17 archive is also a very bad place.

18 Q. Now, madam, yesterday --

19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Kruger, may I ask a little question on the

20 notes.

21 In which language did you take the notes?

22 THE WITNESS: In Finnish language. That's why I didn't give very

23 much attention to them, because in my handwriting and in Finnish language,

24 you need an Egyptologue.

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

1 MR. KRUGER:

2 Q. Thank you, madam. Now, in the statement you gave to the

3 investigators, you mentioned that the tape, and I take it that this refers

4 to the tape made by Erich Rathfelder, had gone missing.

5 A. I didn't -- well, maybe I said something like that. I was telling

6 that Erich was recording this, but I suppose that it's lost because he had

7 in his working room hundreds of tapes. It was to me a very big surprise

8 that you found it.

9 Q. Okay. Now, madam, you said -- we found it yesterday. I played it

10 tape to you, and did you recognise it when this tape was played to you?

11 First of all, did I play the whole tape?

12 A. No, you didn't play the whole tape, but you bring that much that I

13 could recognise my voice and Erich's voice and a third voice which has to

14 be Mr. Prlic. It's 14 years ago, so I don't remember his voice by heart.

15 Q. If we can turn to Exhibit 2046. Exhibit 2046. And we see here

16 that this says "Interview made by Erich Rathfelder and Marita Vihervuori

17 with Jadranko Prlic in April 1993."

18 Madam, have you had the opportunity of reading this document?

19 A. Yes, I have read it.

20 Q. And based on your knowledge what is this document?

21 A. It is not the interview. It is not all it have because there are

22 always these points, and then as always it's nothing exceptional. After

23 somebody -- after the tape recorder is closed there shall be a little bit

24 discussion still, and so the end of the interview or the last sentences

25 they are not there.

1 Q. Thank you. Now, before proceeding, Your Honour, if I may mention

2 at this stage for the benefit of the Court and for the benefit of the

3 Defence, the actual tape is available electronically if anybody wants any

4 portion played in court. It is also fully synchronised with both the

5 B/C/S as well as with the English transcripts, but unless the Court

6 determines otherwise, I do not propose to play it, but we'll just work on

7 the basis of the transcript for my further questions regarding this.

8 Now, madam, in the course of the interview -- or perhaps if -- if

9 I can refer you to the first page of the transcript, and just above the

10 middle where there's "MV ..." Just above that, that paragraph, in the

11 middle of that paragraph, and this appears to be JP, which I take is

12 stands for Jadranko Prlic, he states: "... I think that, and it is my

13 opinion, official opinion, that this fighting is -- cause of this fighting

14 is attack of Muslim troops to HVO troops at Croat people in middle

15 Bosnia."

16 Could you comment on this and what you discussed regarding the

17 cause of the conflict in Central Bosnia?

18 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, before we have any commenting or

19 analysis from our good journalist, perhaps a foundation can be laid. We

20 have the tape. We were provided with the tape. We couldn't hear

21 anything, so we assume that over the years something had happened to it,

22 but that's another story. But be that as it may, we have a transcript.

23 The Judges can read the transcript.

24 Now, if we're going to be asking for the witness to give a spin to

25 the transcript, I think a foundation needs to be laid first before any

1 such questions, otherwise I would suggest that the transcript itself and

2 the tape itself are the best evidence, and as such it is the transcript

3 and the tape itself or the tape actually is the best evidence, that is

4 controlling as opposed to what the witness wishes to spin on.

5 Now, again if she wants to give an analysis she has to -- we need

6 to have a foundation laid by the gentleman, which at this point in time no

7 foundation has been laid as a predicate for the question which he just

8 asked.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger.

10 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Q. Madam, at the time when this interview took place, how familiar

12 were you with the situation in Herzegovina and in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

13 A. Well, not -- I was not aware of the acute situation. I was in

14 Bosnia-Herzegovina some days before. It was in the beginning of April we

15 were there, and I was discussing with various leaders, for instance with--

16 with commandant of 3rd Army Corps of Bosnian army, Hadzihasanovic, which

17 later he was chief of the staff. And I was also discussing with

18 Ejup Dautovic, which was the imam of Zenica, but it was about raped women.

19 It has nothing to do with it.

20 I know that there was a big tension because we had again

21 difficulties to get through Gornji Vakuf, but what had happened after that

22 when I got to Croatia from Central Bosnia I didn't know. I knew only what

23 the Bosnian journalists and Ed Vulliamy had told me, that something awful

24 has happened, and then I could think what this awful was because of what I

25 had seen in January, February, and what I have seen in the beginning of

1 April.

2 Q. And regarding the things that Jadranko Prlic told you during the

3 course of this interview, were you in a position to be able to comprehend

4 what he was saying?

5 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, may we know what "things" mean?

6 "Things" are a lot of things. Anything from what he ate to what his

7 function was to what was happening on the ground. So what are we talking

8 about "things"? If we could have a precise question. The question is

9 broad.

10 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, the question is broad because it's very

11 clear what the transcript is about. The purpose is, first of all, to just

12 assess generally what the -- what the witness's level of -- or competence

13 was to understand and interpret what Mr. Prlic was saying at that stage,

14 whether she was able to independently assess whether this was indeed

15 correct or not from her own experience.

16 MR. KARNAVAS: In that event, Your Honour, he can simply go about

17 it by asking who, what, where, why, how, explain it, describe. For

18 instance, what exactly did you know about what events were happening in

19 and about Central Bosnia. Then she can give her narration. That's how to

20 do it as opposed to either leading or ask an over-broad question, because

21 then a statement -- an article is written thereafter where in the article

22 the journalist, as most journalists do, also put a spin to it trying to

23 interpret whether the narrator was actually true, accurate, correct or

24 what have you, in this case he was sticky sweet or however you want to

25 describe him. I think we can go step-by-step. And if Mr. Kruger needs

1 some help, I'll be more than happy to conduct his direct for him.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To avoid wasting any time,

3 Mr. Kruger, if you would like to address the issue of Mr. Prlic's

4 questions, you need to ask the witness how she prepared herself for the

5 interview. Did she walk into it and, in other words, what is the

6 situation as things stand, and the journalist then asks, And in Konjic,

7 and you could have asked her why she put the question about Konjic and

8 then continue with your series of questions. Because there are some

9 questions which she puts which we don't figure in the document because

10 they are small dots and Mr. Prlic's answers and we don't have the

11 question. And so if you wish to highlight a number of important points of

12 the interview, then put the question to her and say you put such-and-such

13 a question and what was your reason for asking the question. Otherwise

14 Mr. Karnavas will object and waste the court's time and everyone has

15 understood what the Chamber is interested in, namely Mr. Prlic's answers.

16 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Q. Madam, if we can actually turn to something which we have dealt

18 with previously in the course of -- of this afternoon. If we can go, and

19 this is again on the first page, and right at the bottom you ask -- or

20 there is a discussion about an ultimatum. Now, can you tell the Court why

21 this came up and why there was a discussion about this ultimatum?

22 A. Well, it's very clear. Firstly, I had, as I already told, read

23 about this ultimatum. Secondly, I was asking Hadzihasanovic what the

24 Muslims are going to do, and I suppose I was interviewing Hadzihasanovic

25 on 13th of April because my interview was published on 14th. And

1 Hadzihasanovic told that they are -- that they don't believe that

2 something happens. They didn't take it seriously.

3 Then I was by Prlic, and I had the knowledge from -- from my

4 colleagues that something very bad had happened, and so I was just

5 counting one plus one.

6 Q. Now, we see in this interview that -- and this is the last

7 paragraph on the first page, that Mr. Prlic says: "There are only one

8 proposal." And if we go further down, the third last line on that page:

9 "Mr. Boban sent proposal about it. It was on the 3rd of April. There

10 are no any terms in it proposal."

11 How did you understand this in -- in light of your knowledge of

12 the ultimatum of the 3rd of April?

13 A. Well, I was thinking, but I don't know if my thoughts are

14 important, that he's lying. That -- because there was a knowledge about

15 this ultimatum. I had it from the press. I had it from Bosnia. And

16 there was this line everywhere told, and he tells, "I don't know anything

17 about it." So I must tell that Croatian leader was very badly informed.

18 Q. Now, the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, did you discuss this during the

19 course of this interview?

20 A. No, we were not actually discussing it, but -- but it was many

21 times mentioned that there was mentioned about these -- these sections

22 which should be Croat, and there was -- there was discussing about that,

23 that -- well, no problems with -- with multi-ethnical provinces and so on.

24 It was -- it was all the time there, but Vance-Owen Plan as such was not

25 under discuss. I mean, it was in discussing in that these regions were

1 mentioned, and Mr. Prlic was of the opinion that it is a good basement

2 for Bosnian peace and so on, but we were not arguing about that document,

3 if it's good or bad or something like that.

4 Q. Now, madam, if we look at page 3 of this transcript, and it is

5 the -- you can say the third paragraph --

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you told us that when

7 you met Mr. Prlic you'd had an interview prior to that with

8 Hadzihasanovic. At the end of those questions you put to Mr. Prlic, did

9 you put them to him after those questions you had put to Hadzihasanovic?

10 Was it in the light of those questions you'd first put that you put these

11 questions to Mr. Prlic?

12 THE WITNESS: Well, I was interviewing Hadzihasanovic about 13th

13 of April, and Mr. Prlic about 10 days later. And I knew that between had

14 had happened something, so -- so I was somehow -- I was not thinking

15 Hadzihasanovic at that moment.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And did you tell Mr. Prlic that

17 you had met Mr. Hadzihasanovic before that?

18 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't tell him.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Prlic at some point, on page

20 2, says that you had information from one side only, and more specifically

21 when you talk about Gornji Vakuf, you mentioned that the artillery at

22 Gornji Vakuf had been displaced. So you are putting a question to

23 Mr. Prlic on military matters, and he tells you -- in other words, he

24 contradicts what you are saying. Why didn't you tell him at that point

25 that you had information on the 3rd Corps?

1 THE WITNESS: Well, because I didn't have this information from

2 3rd Corps. I had this information from -- from near the Gornji Vakuf and

3 also from BritBat.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which means that when you put

5 questions to Mr. Prlic, you are not going into the interview blindly. You

6 already had information at your disposal.

7 THE WITNESS: Yes, I had some informations, but I didn't have

8 informations from the acute situation. When I was discussing with

9 Hadzihasanovic, the topic was mostly the common leadership of Croatian and

10 Bosnian -- I mean, Croatian, Bosnian, and Muslim Croatian army and how the

11 difference is going, how the cooperation is going because of these

12 incidents which happened in the beginning of the year, and Hadzihasanovic

13 was very, very positive.

14 It means that when I was ask -- interviewing with Prlic,

15 Hadzihasanovic was to me an optimist who has totally miscalculated the

16 situation.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sorry, Mr. Kruger. Please

18 proceed.

19 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. Madam, just to -- for the clarity of the record, this interview --

21 you've actually already mentioned it, but was it a planned interview or a

22 spur of the moment kind of thing?

23 A. With whom?

24 Q. With Mr. Prlic.

25 A. It was -- well, we wanted to talk somebody in -- in Mostar because

1 we knew -- because we knew that there had happened something and we were

2 going round, but I didn't ask a certain person. I was very astonished

3 that we got so easily to so high level.

4 Q. Now, madam, the -- or the original audio version of the tape is

5 quite bad, and that is why there are lots of dots or spaces in the

6 transcript.

7 If we turn to page 3 of the transcript, the second place from the

8 top where you ask a question and where there are only dots, just below

9 that Jadranko Prlic starts answering: "Mr. Bartolomio visited Mostar

10 before two weeks." Do you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And this discussion is still about the Vance-Owen Peace Plan.

13 About three lines down, Mr. Prlic says: "We want to stop the war and the

14 Vance-Owen Plan is probably the only solution of existing of Bosnia and

15 Herzegovina. Without Vance-Owen, there are no Bosnia and Herzegovina."

16 Do you recall perhaps your question or what triggered this

17 discussion or response?

18 A. No. No. And what is, if I may so, funny in this paper is that I

19 have been so much speaking and Erich so little. I don't remember that he

20 had problem throat at that day. Normally it was so that Erich was talking

21 mostly. So I think that quality of record is that bad that even Erich's

22 questions are made in my mouth.

23 But I know this. We were discussing about -- about existing of

24 Bosnia and that kind of things. But what I should have been asking, after

25 14 years I don't know.

1 Q. Okay. Madam, if we can turn to page 5. And if we can look at the

2 very last paragraph. Now, once again the question is not clear, but the

3 question triggers the response from Mr. Prlic that: "Our aim is not to go

4 with Croatia." And then it follows on: "... We want to have whole Bosnia

5 and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina is our state."

6 Could you explain to the Court what this means?

7 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I'm going to object. Why would the

8 witness -- she can explain what she thought Mr. Prlic meant and gives --

9 but I don't understand the basis for the question. It is what it is. I

10 mean, Mr. Prlic made that statement. Now, what she interpreted that to

11 be, because maybe she has, you know, some suspicion which would then

12 trigger some sort of follow-up question, that's fine, but -- and again, I

13 want to point to the Court's attention the following: She's going to be

14 writing an interview or writing an article based on this interview. She

15 is not some official -- or there in some sort of an official capacity such

16 as some international, for instance, where thereafter she's going to react

17 in accordance with answers that she's going to be getting from this

18 particular individual because of his position, but I believe the way the

19 question is being asked is totally improper.

20 Now, if he wishes to rephrase it as to what she thought he meant,

21 which then would cause a reaction from me as to speculation, because now

22 she's going to be speculating as to what exactly Mr. Prlic meant at that

23 time since she didn't have access to his brain. So I don't see the

24 purpose of the question, but I'll wait for clarification, but at this

25 point I'm going to be objecting.

1 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, if I may just briefly respond. The -- I

2 will rephrase that question, but the witness is a professional journalist

3 who was in the area, and as a professional journalist certainly she did

4 have the competence to at least assess what was being told to her at

5 various stages and then to also find or point out or comment on certain

6 inconsistencies within what was being told to her, and this is the --

7 where I'm aiming at with the following questions, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you, Mr. Kruger.

9 Witness, so that the Bench is able to understand everything about

10 this interview, you said you didn't know who Mr. Prlic was, and you

11 discover who this person was at the last minute because you hasn't

12 prepared your interview with him in mind. Also, there's something

13 ambiguous about this interview. You said so yourself. On the other hand

14 there are you and your colleague. You are asking the questions. And in

15 English the -- the name of your colleague is not mentioned. The initials

16 MV are in the document, but you said that your colleague did ask

17 questions. So we don't know whether Mr. Prlic's answers are answers to

18 the questions you put or to the questions your colleague put to him.

19 Was this a red thread in your interview? Usually a journalist has

20 something of a -- did you have something of a common thread, something

21 which you were preparing beforehand? Because usually when one interviews

22 an important person you know what kind of questions you are going to be

23 putting beforehand. Did you know in which direction your interview was

24 going to go or was it just open questions you were putting to him based on

25 information provided to you by BritBat or other -- from other sources

1 which you were basing your interview on?

2 THE WITNESS: Well, yes. There are different kinds of interviews.

3 One is a very good prepared with ready questions, and the other one is a

4 discussion, and this was more a discussion. And many, many times when we

5 were making common interviews, Erich and I, we made already before clear

6 that you ask that, I ask that, and so on. It was -- it is all the same

7 who was making the questions, because it was -- anyway, we worked very

8 goodly together.

9 And to this last capital, in that state I can even recall my

10 question which is not there, because Mr. Prlic is in the previous -- he

11 was, and that I remember because they are the important thing, telling

12 that he's Croat, not Bosnian Croat, that he's -- that Yugoslavia was

13 better than Bosnia-Herzegovina and so on. So my question was: "Are you

14 going to join Croatia?" And the answer is: "No, that's not our

15 proposal."

16 MR. KRUGER:

17 Q. Now, what you are referring to is on page 5, the second-last

18 paragraph just above MV; is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Now, something which I want to ask you how you understood this at

21 the time as a journalist when it was told to you is in that same

22 paragraph, the third line from the bottom -- well, before that, from the

23 second line: "You know, I want to say something. For Croats in Bosnia

24 and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia is better than a unitary Bosnia and

25 Herzegovina. Why? Because Croatia was in that Yugoslavia. Now there is

1 border to Croatia. You know, Yugoslavia was a complex country and now BiH

2 is not a complex country. It would be a unitary country."

3 Now, during the interview what was your reaction to that?

4 A. There was some -- a certain contradiction. On the other hand,

5 Mr. Prlic was speaking about no problems with the multi-ethnical state,

6 and on the other hand he was telling that it's not a good state for

7 Croats. Yugoslavia was better.

8 What can I think in that moment? I was thinking of Serbs and

9 Milosevic. And I was thinking, of course, this Karadjordjevo and these

10 plans of dividing Yugoslavia, which were mostly Milosevic initiatives.

11 Q. Now, madam, on the next page, at the top, just beneath "Side two,"

12 in the light of what you've just said, Jadranko Prlic says:

13 "You know, Croatian nation and Serbian nation is homogen nations.

14 There are no big differences between Serb in BiH and Serbs in Serbia.

15 There are no big difference between Croat in Croatia and Croats in

16 Herzegovina. We think that real Croatia is Western Herzegovina, for

17 instance."

18 Now, at the time when this was said in this interview, how did you

19 view this in -- in terms of what had been said previously?

20 MR. KARNAVAS: Again, Mr. President, if he could just read the

21 entire question or the entire answer and then ask her, because you have to

22 put it in context. And keep in mind they're both speaking a second

23 language of their own, but at least let's have the whole thing and then I

24 don't object to that question. She can have whatever impression she

25 wishes. But the whole answer because it puts it into context, because I

1 think it's the very last sentence that drives the point home.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the context.

3 MR. KRUGER:

4 Q. Madam, if we read the whole thing, then, it goes further: "I

5 think that in a global sense one possibility to solve the situation is

6 negotiations between Croats and Serbs. But I know that ... to agree on

7 any agreement about the situation in BiH which not included all three

8 nations in BiH."

9 It seems that there may then be something missing from the

10 transcript.

11 Which then prompted a question which ends with: "You and Serbian

12 side want to destroy Muslim nation."

13 Can you recall what your -- what your understanding of this

14 statement was at that stage?

15 A. Well, it was the discussion about -- the old discussion about

16 dividing Bosnia, and the problem was that Serbs had Serbia and Croats had

17 also Croatia, but Muslims, they didn't have anything. They had only

18 Bosnia. And everybody was thinking that they are weak. So it's very

19 easy. Just divide Bosnia and to kick Muslims out. Because I think it was

20 about that.

21 It was exactly same mistake what Serbs made in -- in Croatia.

22 They were thinking that Croatia should be very soon crushed, but the

23 Croats were fighting with bare hands to defend their homes. And couple of

24 years later, after Dayton treaties, Mr. Prlic told Erich and that's

25 secondhand, but anyway, I trust Erich, but they were thinking --

1 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, madam. I will object at this point

2 because now we're talking about beyond Dayton and Erich isn't here so this

3 is beyond the scope of the indictment period.

4 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, hearsay is admissible and this is --

5 MR. KARNAVAS: I never said that it wasn't. I understand hearsay,

6 even hearsay on hearsay is relevant, provided it can be backed up by

7 independent indicia. That's not the point. I well familiar with the

8 rules of evidence. What the point is, is now we're talking about what she

9 heard or somebody heard after the Dayton Accords. It has nothing to do

10 with this particular interview. We're talking about 1997, Dayton being in

11 1995.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Kruger, this is an

13 interview that is before the Dayton agreements, so there's no point in

14 bringing up Dayton. What interests the Bench is the questions placed by

15 madam and her colleague and the answers given by Prlic at that time, that

16 is April of 1993.

17 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Q. Madam, what -- I'll just come back to what you were saying.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, on the question that

20 Mr. Kruger just brought up, at some time you or your colleague asked

21 Mr. Prlic the following question: "You and the Serbs are trying to

22 destroy the Muslim nation." And Mr. Prlic answers you: "Why?" At that

23 time we don't know exactly what you're saying, and Mr. Prlic is giving an

24 explanation. He's saying that during the six months when the UNPROFOR was

25 there, there were, et cetera, et cetera, but what -- what this means is

1 Mr. Prlic's answer does not fit in with the feelings that you or your

2 colleague were voicing about the destruction of the Muslim nation.

3 Do you remember that particular time in the interview, Witness?

4 THE WITNESS: Well, that is two levels. The one level is

5 political level, and the other level is -- is that humanitarian level.

6 And so when I'm asking political questions about possible dividing from

7 Bosnia or something like that, he is answering how much Croats had been

8 helping Muslims before UNPROFOR came, because UNPROFOR came first in

9 October '92. And all these refugees were brought to Croatia before it.

10 And that's all true. But it has nothing to do with these questions I

11 make.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So what you're saying is that

13 his answer was just an attempt to steer the conversation away from the

14 question that you posed.

15 THE WITNESS: Yes.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, how can it be then that

17 you did not choose to steer him back towards that subject afterwards?

18 THE WITNESS: I think that our time was closing, because it's in

19 the very end of -- of an interview.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right.

21 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Q. Now, madam, if we can turn to page 4 in the transcript. And if we

23 look at the third paragraph where Jadranko Prlic gives a response, that's

24 the one starting with: "I think that it depend on which you speak -- on

25 which who you speak, you conversate." That paragraph. We'll look in a

1 moment at the contents, but at this stage had you any idea of the ethnic

2 composition or the statistics regarding ethnic composition within Bosnia

3 and Herceg -- Herzegovina at that stage?

4 A. Well, every journalist had the map of the census of

5 Yugoslavia '91. Everybody knew. That was an official paper. You could

6 get it everywhere. So you could -- and there was told exactly how many

7 from which nation in which town were living. But at that stage you could

8 only know that in the Serbian-occupated area -- but not occupated but the

9 area which was under Serbian control there were very many Muslims and

10 Croats expelled and where they were it was not know. Partly they were in

11 Central Bosnia, and partly they were outside Bosnia and partly even

12 outside Yugoslavia. It means that in the situation from ethnical

13 cleansing which had been the fact already since -- since the war begin --

14 begun in April 1992, in the beginning especially in Serbian-hold areas.

15 Nobody could exactly told how many refugees are sitting in which town, but

16 I'm not counting the refugees population because it was also possible that

17 they went go further or they can go back. But the ethnical composition

18 from every town was known.

19 Q. Now, if we look in that paragraph, the fourth line, it says, "...

20 Croats make ethnic cleansing of Croats." From there downwards, Mr. Prlic

21 says, "The number of Croats will decrease in all of this period and in the

22 future also. We had only 17.5 per cent of Croats before the war in BiH.

23 Today, not more than 12 per cent ... In this situation we will be national

24 minority in BiH."

25 Now, this statement of the Croats becoming less and who will

1 eventually become a minority, was this something that you had heard before

2 or heard subsequent to this?

3 A. Well, yes, but in other context. I heard dozens of times in -- in

4 Kosovo, when the Kosovo Serbian leaders were singing how the number of

5 Serbs are -- are getting less and less and they are only 7 per cent,

6 Momo Trajkovic, and that's why they have to kick some Albanians out and so

7 on and -- and I was thinking in Kosovo at that moment it means that for me

8 it was a kind of excuse of a nationalistic fears. We are getting less.

9 We have to defend our positions.

10 If the Croats really get less in Bosnia-Herzegovina, I can say

11 yes, in numbers, but if they got less in -- in comparison, I don't know

12 because refugees were still more than Muslim nation. I think that the

13 number of refugees was very high at that moment.

14 Q. If we look at page 2 of this transcript, the last paragraph on

15 page 2. And if we look at the fifth line of that paragraph: "There are

16 less number of Croats in Bosnian provinces than before the war. There are

17 more Muslims in Croat provinces than before the war."

18 Were you in a position at that stage to -- to understand whether

19 that was accurate or not?

20 A. It was true. It was true in that meaning, that so many Muslims

21 were ethnically cleansed. There were enormous refugee camps, for instance

22 in Posusje, at that moment. Well, I think he was thinking about that.

23 Q. Was this a sort of concern to the people you spoke to within HVO

24 circles?

25 A. No, because it was maybe excuse for something, but nobody was

1 concerned about refugee camps because they cannot stay forever. They were

2 very, very bad camps. They were cold, there was nothing to eat, and the

3 situation was bad. It doesn't mean that if you have refugees that it

4 should be a lasting thing or lasting situation.

5 Q. Madam, if we can turn to page 5 of this transcript and the

6 paragraph about in the middle of the page where Jadranko Prlic

7 starts: "Logic is not always." Do you have that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. In that paragraph the discussion turns to -- to the HVO army, and

10 Mr. Prlic, in the middle says: First point that was the Muslim army and

11 the Croat army don't have a good relationship. The second point: "We

12 have a huge army. It is greater than Croat army in Croatia." And then he

13 refers to: "At the same time we don't have more than 20 previous

14 officers, not more than 20."

15 Did you understand what he was referring to about 20 previous

16 officers?

17 A. Yes. He was meaning in HVO were only 20 officers which were

18 serving in JNA, in former Yugoslavian army, and telling that in Bosnian

19 army were several former officers from former Yugoslavian army. If it's

20 true or not, I cannot tell it, but I know that many commanders in all

21 armies had been before serving in JNA because it was -- they wouldn't have

22 had any other military education.

23 Q. Now, madam, Mr. Prlic, when he spoke to you about the HVO, the

24 military, and then in the rest of this transcript where he speaks about

25 the implementation or not of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, et cetera, did

1 you -- did you form an impression at that moment as to whether this was a

2 person who was speaking from a basis of authority?

3 A. Oh, yes.

4 Q. From what did you gain that impression?

5 A. He was one of the highest leaders in -- in -- in the Bosnian Croat

6 or in Herceg-Bosna, which was already at that time founded, and it

7 correspond -- corresponded. I don't know, and nobody knows how near the

8 contacts were to Zagreb. That I don't know. And how much authority, for

9 instance, Mr. Tudjman had to these things, because we cannot call Tudjman

10 here. He's dead.

11 Q. Now, madam, you say that after the tape was switched off there was

12 still another part to the interview, and you referred to a meeting between

13 Mr. Boban and Radovan Karadzic. Did you tell what that discussion was

14 about?

15 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, before we have an answer to that

16 question, it's indicated, at least today we learn for the first time,

17 sometime late in the morning, that the witness has indicated that

18 something was said to her after the tape recorder was turned off. It

19 wasn't mentioned when she was interviewed. It wasn't mentioned in her

20 statement. It wasn't -- there's a reference to this point in what she

21 wrote, but she makes some sort of a notion that this was from her

22 shorthand notes. We've heard today that those notes are unavailable.

23 They may be in her archive, albeit it's probably not terribly well

24 organised from what I understand, but if there are going to be any answers

25 to this part, I'm entitled to have all of that, because if she's relying

1 on those particular notes which only she has had access to, then I would

2 move to disallow any questions concerning what she may or may not remember

3 at this point in time because we don't have access to that information.

4 We have access to a tape, one that was provided to us that we

5 could not hear anything, which of course we'll be moving to get a cleaner

6 copy. We have the transcript from the tape, but we do not have her notes,

7 and I am at a distinct disadvantage at this point because I have to take

8 the witness at her word and I choose not to.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, I have been listening to

10 Mr. Karnavas with some attention. Now, you told us that you were taking

11 notes - that's the way you worked - in Finnish. So I presume you asked a

12 question. You asked Mr. Prlic a question, he gives you an answer, and on

13 your piece of paper you note Mr. Prlic's answer.

14 Now, the tape is off. The tape player is turned off. Now, it

15 seems that the conversation was going on after that. Now, when the

16 conversation was still carrying on with Mr. Prlic, did you, on your

17 notebook at the time, note the questions that you carried on asking, and

18 did you also note the answers that you were getting from Mr. Prlic on

19 subjects that do not appear on the piece of paper that we already have.

20 THE WITNESS: Well, I note the answer. I didn't note my question.

21 And I have many pieces of paper where this answer is. It is in my book.

22 It is in the press articles which I was writing on base of my notes at

23 that time. At that time it means one day after this interview. So if you

24 want, I can bring you my book and my press articles which are based

25 directly on these notes. They are not in that meaning disappeared because

1 they were used.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. So everything you are --

3 that you mentioned to Mr. Kruger, these elements that do not appear on the

4 tape or on the transcript of the tape, everything is based on notes that

5 were in fact used for the books that you published and for the articles

6 that you wrote.

7 THE WITNESS: Yes.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's what you're saying.

9 THE WITNESS: Yes. And actually it wasn't very much. The only

10 important thing was that he admitted that Boban had been visiting Pale to

11 get trust -- because it was necessary to get just trust solution in

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. So you are telling us

14 that Mr. Prlic told you that Mr. Boban had had gone to Pale.

15 THE WITNESS: Yes.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. And this,

17 Mr. Kruger, is what you would like to use as evidence?

18 MR. KRUGER: Yes, Your Honour. And if -- if I can immediately

19 request the witness to turn to Exhibit 2094. Exhibit 2094.

20 Q. And if you can turn to the German version, the original. And this

21 is a document titled "Genozid in Mittel Bosnia," and at the top

22 Mag Schreiberhuber. Do you recognise this?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. What is this document?

25 A. That is my original article, and if you look in the very end of it

1 you see that -- that I have been writing it on 25th -- 25th of April.

2 That is the last sentence.

3 Q. In the English version that is on page 6 of the translation.

4 Now, madam, can you tell us, this article written on the 25th, I

5 see it's titled, "The interview with the HVO president in Mostar." Which

6 interview are you referring to?

7 A. This interview. What we are discussing all the time. The

8 interview with Mr. Prlic.

9 Q. Thank you. And for the record, the contents of and the factual

10 contents of this article, where did you obtain the material for the

11 factual content?

12 A. Well, it -- it was my notes from the interview.

13 Q. If we can turn to the second page of the English translation, the

14 English version. And if we look at the very second paragraph. It says:

15 "Prlic does not deny that Boban would have met secretly with

16 Radovan Karadzic." And: "According to his statement, it is necessary to

17 talk with the Serbs ..." And it goes on.

18 At what stage did Mr. Prlic say this?

19 A. It was in the very end. I think we were already standing and

20 shaking hands. It was in the very end.

21 Q. And the tape recorder?

22 A. Well, it was maybe already in Erich's bag or pocket.

23 Q. Can you recall the context in which this final part of this

24 discussion took place, or what generated this information from Mr. Prlic?

25 A. It was the discussion about the future of -- of

1 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and to find a solution, because nobody wants a war.

2 And -- and -- well, of course it is said very beautifully here in the

3 interview, but in the fact it was to me actually dividing up Bosnia,

4 because, funnily, Serbs were not very active at that time when Croat and

5 Muslims were fighting, because Croats were doing their job.

6 Q. Let's turn to the first page of the English transcript, or it's

7 the very first paragraph of the original version if you wanted to look at

8 that. And it says -- it starts off the article: "The president of the

9 HVO, Jadranko Prlic, is as sweet as sugar. He denies any violation of

10 human rights by Croats against Muslims in Central Bosnia and repeats the

11 official propaganda according to which the Croats are victims."

12 Now, this appears to be your own assessment of the -- of the

13 interview with Mr. Prlic. What made you come to this conclusion and made

14 you write this?

15 A. Well, when I was writing this it was next day from the interview,

16 and my information states what's totally different as by the interview. I

17 had between visited with the UN Security Council representatives, for

18 instance, Ahmici. I had saw the burnt villages. I had been discussing

19 with many officers of BritBat. So I was at that time when I was making

20 this article, I was very well-informed, informed of the situation. The

21 previous day was so full of programme that I never came to write. I made

22 all what I had seen and heard in the next day, first in the next day in

23 shelling as is told in the end.

24 Q. Now, in what manner did the fact that you visited Ahmici and that

25 there was a United Nations Security Council delegation also visiting

1 Ahmici? How did that change your information basis?

2 A. Well, I saw what happened. For that I have only second-hand, and

3 that's for historian. It's not very good evidence, second-hand

4 information. But then I had first-hand knowledge. I had my own eyes.

5 Q. The -- Ahmici, did that at all come -- or the events that occur at

6 Ahmici on 16 April 1993, had that all come up during the course of the

7 interview with Mr. Prlic?

8 A. By the course of interview with Mr. Prlic I had never heard the

9 name Ahmici. I was asking from the British major, information major

10 with -- who was coming to my car, I was driving him there, and

11 asked, "What is the name of this village? Can you spell it to me?"

12 Q. The fact that a United Nations Security Council delegation was

13 visiting Ahmici, did that all come up in the course of the interview with

14 Mr. Prlic?

15 A. No. I didn't even know it. I -- I was told when we got to

16 Central Bosnia -- we were told, "Sit here." We were sitting in the car

17 and waiting for something. We didn't know what we were waiting. Then

18 suddenly they told us, "Now let's go." And we were joined to a long

19 convoy. I was thinking what is this crusade now, where we are going. And

20 suddenly we went the one destroyed village, and for us was the commandant

21 Bob Stewart of the BritBat, Colonel Bob Stewart, and four representatives

22 of the United Nations Security Council. We learned that first in Ahmici

23 that that -- that something like that was happening.

24 Q. Now, madam, when you came across this delegation from the

25 United Nations Security Council, first of all, did you know who was

1 leading this delegation?

2 A. Yes. It was -- I don't remember his name, but it was the guy from

3 Venezuela.

4 Q. And my second question on this: Were you able to ascertain

5 whether the HVO authorities were in any way involved in setting up or

6 arranging or allowing this visit by this delegation?

7 A. I don't believe so. I think that it was organised from BritBat

8 because there was no representative of HVO. I think that they didn't

9 especially like that UN Security Council came to see what had happened.

10 Q. Now, madam, if we can change to page 2 again of the article, and

11 this is the second section which talks about the street blockade of

12 Tomislavgrad. Do you have that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now the very first paragraph and this refers to -- is in relation

15 to Tomislavgrad and it says that, "At the street blockade, stood a line of

16 UNHCR lorries of several kilometres. Our press passes were also not

17 accepted. The name Prlic was not considered authoritative."

18 Can you comment on this? What does this mean?

19 A. We were told there was free access of goods and persons, but in

20 Tomislavgrad nothing was going on, just nothing, but what was very odd was

21 that we were sent three times to get some paper to -- because there is

22 some kilometres between this road blockade and Tomislavgrad. Maybe 25, I

23 don't know exactly. We had to drive three times to Tomislavgrad. Nobody

24 took the responsibility of letting us through, and nobody took the

25 responsibility of preventing us. But anyway, this -- that everything was

1 so free and wonderful as we were told was not true. It was to see there.

2 Q. Just the next paragraph. You -- along the same line it seems,

3 "'He is their president,' said a high British officer for him. This was

4 another proof that local Croat units were not under control." Can you

5 comment on this, what you meant when you wrote this?

6 A. Well I'm quoting an angry British major. They were -- they were

7 very angry because in negotiation level it was guaranteed that they can

8 get through, but in the reality they were -- they were not let through and

9 the humanitarian help was also standing -- standing there. And because it

10 was systematical preventing and closing Bosnia, it was actually using

11 blockade as a weapon. But, of course, nobody is admitting such things.

12 Q. Okay. Madam, if we can turn to page 5 of the English version.

13 And if we can look at the second-last paragraph on that page. It's the

14 one that starts with "Ahmici is also ethnically cleansed." You have that?

15 A. Mm-hmm.

16 Q. Madam, what's interesting in this is from the second line:

17 "For Croatia's reputation, the occurrences in Central Bosnia mean

18 a tremendous loss. Herzegovina Croats started with a genocide at exactly

19 the same time as the Croat President Franjo Tudjman was visiting the USA

20 to commemorate another genocide. The behaviour of the Herzegovina Croats

21 is a burden for Croatia."

22 Can you recall on what basis you wrote this, what caused you to

23 write this?

24 A. Well, firstly I was thinking on the visit of UN Security Council,

25 and in that context Bob Stewart, the British colonel, was telling that it

1 was a systematical genocide. It started everywhere at the same point. It

2 was -- his words was: "It was not an obeyance from lower level. It was

3 from high leaded." And on the other hand I was thinking because shortly

4 before Tudjman had been in America, I suppose in New York, and remembering

5 the genocide on Jews, because there was also some concentration camps

6 in -- in Croatia in the time of the war, and Croatia had, because of

7 Ante Pavelic, a little bit fascistic reputation. And so Tudjman was

8 trying to repair that reputation and at the same time happens this kind of

9 genocide in Central Bosnia. It all didn't come together.

10 Q. Madam, just the next paragraph. We've touched upon this

11 previously, but this is basically an assessment of the Vance-Owen Peace

12 Plan. "The Serbs have not subscribed to the Vance-Owen Plan because they

13 have already conquered far more than the plan awards them." And

14 then, "The Croats couldn't wait to sign as the plan awarded them more than

15 they had dreamed of." Is this your own assessment or was this generally

16 spoken about --

17 A. That was generally spoken. The Serbs had 65 per cent of Bosnia

18 under their control, and -- and for Croats this paper gave very much.

19 They were happy with it.

20 Q. Now, the very last sentence of that paragraph: "They tried to

21 push through -- this refers to the Croats, "They tried to push through

22 their interpretation of the Vance-Owen Plan with force." Was this your

23 assessment or was this generally spoken about at that stage?

24 A. It was generally spoken.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, "generally spoken". What does that

1 mean? Who are these generally spoken -- who are these people so we can

2 cross-examine? We have this particular witness, it is her assessment. Is

3 it her assessment? And based on what? That's the issue over here. And

4 that's not -- hearsay can come in but who are these hearsayers? I think

5 it's improper and I think it's unprofessional to ask questions in this

6 fashion, and I would think Mr. Kruger would know better than that.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, when you say that that

8 was generally spoken, we are reading your article so that you are

9 speaking. You don't say in the article some people say or it is generally

10 said that. You are making your own conclusion.

11 THE WITNESS: Of course, I'm making my conclusions, but I'm also

12 discussing with my colleagues. Well, let's say "generally spoken" maybe

13 in that so-called journalist [indiscernible]. I didn't have very much

14 other contacts in Central Bosnia than the victims and the journalists.

15 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 Q. Madam, if we can jump to another topic.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One minute. If we're going to

18 move to another subject with Mr. Kruger and now that I have the paper in

19 front of me, I do have two very brief questions for you.

20 Your article was published in German under the general

21 title, "Genocide in Central Bosnia." Now, that is a very attractive

22 title. It's going to draw lots of attention.

23 Now, looking at the text more closely, I note on page 4 in the

24 English version that a Russian member of the Security Council told you, on

25 the subject of Ahmici, that this was not genocide. Wouldn't you say that

1 there is a contradiction between your title and what is actually inside

2 the article? There is a paragraph in which you are discussing, apparently

3 with a member of the Security Council, of the delegation that was present

4 there, and they obviously didn't actually say that it was a genocide. And

5 in fact you are quoting Vitez, where 200 more people apparently had been

6 killed. Why then did you choose to call that article genocide if only to

7 quote an interview of the HVO president in Mostar where, as we saw earlier

8 in the interview, there's not much about genocide in the content of that

9 interview? Could you perhaps say a few words to explain that?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes. Firstly, this article was never published in

11 this form. This is the original material which I was giving for Austria

12 Press Agency. It was there little bit more beautifully written, without

13 grammatical mistakes and so on. But I was thinking this what I have

14 myself have written is authentic. But I don't think that it is with this

15 title anyway. My title in Finland was "A Death of a Village" in my

16 Finnish article. That I know. That is first thing.

17 Secondly, the Venezuelan guy told quite publicly that this is

18 genocide and this must be published -- punished. And also in Austria,

19 this is all the material what I was giving them on that day. There were

20 four different or maybe five different messages, UN agency messages. An

21 agency message never looks like that. That is the material what I gave

22 Austria press agency that they can make it in that form what they want,

23 and the press agency is always very serious media. They don't have titles

24 like yellow press.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for these

1 clarifications. It makes it easier to understand. The title of the

2 article was not then yours. You actually called it "Death of a village."

3 THE WITNESS: No. In Finnish article, I called it, "Death of a

4 Village". What I made in Austrian, well, it was all the same because I

5 knew that they anyway make their own.

6 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. Now, Ms. Vihervuori, jumping to another topic. Did you know a

8 person by the name of Veso Vegar?

9 A. Well, I met him.

10 Q. Mm-hmm. And who was he?

11 A. He was the pressman of HVO in Mostar.

12 Q. When did you meet this person?

13 A. Autumn 1993. I -- I don't know. October or November. I was

14 pretty long time at that time in -- around there.

15 Q. And how did this discussion come about? Under what circumstances

16 did it take place?

17 A. In press office.

18 Q. Do you recall who was present?

19 A. Yes, the same. The same as before. I, Erich Rathfelder, and

20 Mirja Kesavaara.

21 Q. And what was the main topic of discussion with Mr. Vegar?

22 A. The situation in Mostar.

23 Q. Did you talk about -- at all about detention centres or prisons?

24 A. Yes. We were talking very much about prisons, because it was a

25 topic which Erich Rathfelder always wanted to talk, and Mr. Vegar was

1 telling us that they are going in the next future, in few days, close the

2 prison camp of Gabela.

3 Q. Had you heard of Gabela at that stage or did you know about

4 Gabela?

5 A. I knew that there are some prison camps. I knew from name Gabela

6 and Dretelj.

7 Q. Okay. Now, before continuing with Mr. Vegar's discussion, did

8 you, subsequent to the discussion with Mr. Vegar, talk to anybody else

9 about Gabela shortly after this meeting?

10 A. What Mr. Vegar was talking, I don't know.

11 Q. No. But did you talk to anybody else about Gabela?

12 A. Well, I was not talking -- talking anybody else, but I went from

13 Mostar to Medjugorje. I was normally living in Medjugorje because Mostar

14 was divided town with shootings and so on. And in Medjugorje I met two

15 mercenaries -- or three mercenaries, or let's say they were not quite real

16 ones because they didn't like the war. They learnt it very soon that it's

17 better to not. And one of these mercenaries had had a long beard, and so

18 Croats were thinking that he's a Chetnik and arrested him and sent them to

19 Gabela. That's why when we met he had quite white face because he had

20 shaved himself for security. And he told something about Gabela.

21 Q. When was this? Can you recall?

22 A. I suppose it was on the same day as Mr. Vegar or in the next one,

23 but they were very close to each other. And that's why I was asking him

24 that -- that Vegar told that it shall be closed, and he don't know because

25 they just brought new weapons there.

1 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, I have one further question on exactly

2 this topic, but I see it's 25 to.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Oh, just one more question. I

4 think you may.

5 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Q. Madam, this mercenary, did he say anything about what he had

7 encountered in Gabela?

8 A. He told that the people were starving, that the food was not to be

9 eaten. He told that he didn't see any bodies, but he see -- but he saw --

10 saw coffins, and these coffins were loaded to -- to a truck, brought back,

11 and then again brought away and then again back. So he made the

12 conclusion that the bodies were -- that they were full of bodies and they

13 were taken to some mass grave and the coffins were used several times.

14 And then he telled -- and it was very funny when I was asking how much

15 people there are, he said 1.500 plus 25 plus 1. These 25 were persons

16 which were taken, according to him, from fields directly to Gabela and one

17 of them was very old and in very bad shape and he was thinking that he

18 won't survive and he told that they had been mishandled.

19 Q. And who was the one?

20 A. It was he.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 A. Because he didn't count himself because he was only three days.

23 So he was plus one.

24 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. We will now take a

1 20-minute break.

2 --- Recess taken at 5.36 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 5.56 p.m.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger.

5 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, upon

6 commencement if I may just for the record state that with regard to

7 Exhibit 02046, that is the audio recording of the interview with

8 Mr. Prlic, during the break the Prosecution has made available to all

9 Defence counsel and to Registry then also with additional copy for the

10 Bench. We have made available the cleaned-up version, hopefully which is

11 a little bit better quality of the audio recording of the interview, and

12 we hope that's consistent with everyone. The audio recording and the

13 transcript, I have checked that they do accord to each other. Thank you,

14 Your Honour.

15 Q. Witness, before the break you were referring to your conversation

16 with a mercenary who had been in Gabela. Can you recall the name of the

17 mercenary?

18 A. No. And the mercenaries very seldom told their names. There are

19 some I know the name, but because he was so exact and because of his

20 dialect and his way of acting he was in my eyes like a former officer,

21 officer from DDR, Stasi. So he's in my notes just with the name Stasi.

22 Q. Thank you. If we can return to your conversation with Mr. Veso

23 Vegar. Now, you mentioned that the main topic of the discussion was

24 Mostar when you spoke to Mr. Vegar.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. What about Mostar were you talking if you can recall?

2 A. Well, in Mostar, the situation was in Mostar at that time very

3 bad. We were actually hanging in Medjugorje to get in Eastern Mostar

4 which was totally seized. It was a pocket. And Mr. Vegar told that

5 "Anyway, they," it means Herceg-Bosna, "has to get Mostar for their

6 capital," and he was telling why. "Because it's the only town we have."

7 Maybe he meant bigger town. The others were so small.

8 Q. If he says, "the only town we have," what do you understand him to

9 mean by "we"?

10 A. Herceg-Bosna HVO. Bosnian Croats -- I mean Herzegovina Croats.

11 Q. Did he take you through Mostar?

12 A. Not he personally, but we made a very funny walking. Somebody was

13 sending us always to places but not coming himself. "Go there. Go

14 there." And then -- but there was nothing to see. But then Erich noticed

15 that we are always on the plain place where we could see from

16 Eastern Mostar, and well, maybe they wanted that Bosniaks shoot us when we

17 were walking there, but they didn't.

18 Q. Madam, now you were in Mostar at various stages during 1992, 1993,

19 and 1994. You mentioned that you were in Mostar in July 1992 just after

20 it had been liberated from the Serbs, and then you were there, as you

21 stated now, towards the end of 1993. Can you perhaps give the Court just

22 an idea of the levels of destruction in the city as you observed it from

23 July 1992 and then in -- towards the end of 1993?

24 A. The difference was not very big, and I cannot compare it, because

25 1992, after liberation, I was on the bridge. I was on the bazaar area.

1 It means I was in the old centre, which is mainly inhabited from Bosniaks

2 or it was a bazaar. But that time when it was divided we didn't get in

3 Eastern Mostar. The Spanish UNPROFOR promised it several times but it

4 never came true. So I didn't have any possibility to see what was the

5 situation in Eastern Mostar. Western Mostar was not very destroyed.

6 I saw the situation in Eastern Mostar first when Croats and

7 Muslims made their federal state, and then it was pretty destroyed, but it

8 was, I think, first in the beginning of 1994.

9 Q. When you went there.

10 A. In the eastern part.

11 Q. Okay. Did you, during 1993 and 1994, ever go to Pocitelj?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And when did you go there?

14 A. It was one of my trips to Mostar. It was after the federation was

15 made. It is 1994 or 1995. I suppose 1994. But anyway, it was at that

16 stage when there were no hostilities between Croats and Bosniaks, more

17 they had their common state. Herceg-Bosna was not officially -- was still

18 officially in -- live but there was already this peace between these two

19 nations.

20 Q. Under whose control was Pocitelj when you were there?

21 A. It was HVO.

22 Q. Had you been in Pocitelj before that time?

23 A. Yes, because it was a kind of museum village. It was a very

24 beautiful museum, actually.

25 Q. A museum in what sense?

1 A. Well, I think that it was old Bosnian, I mean Muslim, culture.

2 Q. The -- what did you find when you were there in 1994?

3 A. Well, it was a little bit destructed, and we wanted to take

4 photos, and we stopped and there was one man, armed man sitting in a

5 coffee house and stand up and talk that if we are taking one photo, he'll

6 shoot us. Well, we didn't take the photo. We disappeared.

7 Q. This armed man do you know from what military organisation he was?

8 A. I'm not sure but there are only two possibilities, HVO or some

9 paramilitarian, but in that place HVO is more likely.

10 Q. You say the village "was a little built destructed." What do you

11 mean by that?

12 A. Well, it was not totally in ruins but the mosques were and how you

13 call them Koran schools and what all kind of things in the Muslim culture

14 they are. They were hit. They were not totally abolished. It was not

15 that kind of destruction what the Serbs were making when they were making

16 asphalt and parking place instead of old mosque. They were just ruins.

17 Q. Did you around this time also visit Gradsko?

18 A. Yes. Only -- only once, and it was twice, actually, but it was

19 very unhealthy visit. They didn't like that we take photos from mosques,

20 but what we were doing, we were trying to find the people of this village.

21 Q. Before going on, if I may interrupt you, where was this village?

22 A. It was near Medjugorje. If you come to Medjugorje from coast so

23 it's on the left side, little bit before when you turn right to

24 Medjugorje.

25 Q. Now, madam, you say once again "we" tried to find the people.

1 "We", who --

2 A. It was the same, let's say, group.

3 Q. And you said "they" didn't like that we take photos. Who is

4 "they"?

5 A. They were HVO. It was also very unhealthy, but I think we got a

6 couple of photos.

7 Q. Did you find out what had happened to the people who had lived

8 there?

9 A. Actually, not very surely. We were looking them from Red Cross.

10 Red Cross didn't know. We were looking them from UNHCR. No, they didn't

11 know. Somebody wrote that maybe they are in some Croatian refugee camp,

12 but we didn't find them there. And then later, much later, it was already

13 the war was over and there was WEU police, and I suddenly met a Finnish

14 policeman there, and I asked him, Can you find me these people of this

15 village, and some months later he called me and told that -- that his

16 contact persons have told him that they were -- they were killed and that

17 they are in some kind of mass grave in -- in a forest, but he told me that

18 don't go to look after it because they are full of mines. But if it's

19 true or not, but I must tell that the person who was looking for me,

20 this -- this refugees is a policeman, and nowadays he's the one who is

21 studying the place where crime has happened.

22 Q. You mentioned that you wanted to take a picture of the mosque. In

23 what condition was the mosque in this village?

24 A. It was exploded. It means that -- and it was very funnily

25 exploded. Funny is a wrong word. It was exploded so that there has been

1 a kind of bomb inside, so that the walls were like, in German, swollen.

2 Q. Swollen.

3 A. Swollen. And some rips, long holes.

4 Q. Tears.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Thank you. Now, just a few final things. Madam, during 1992

7 and -- to 1994, were you able or in a position to follow what was being

8 reported in the Croatian media, either newspapers or television?

9 A. Yes, when I was on Croatian side I was always listening the news,

10 and I was trying to read the newspapers. I could understand some

11 Croatian. Now I haven't been there many, many years now it's very rusted,

12 but I could understand the main things. And I could understand the line

13 in which they were going. Not every detail.

14 Q. Were you in a position to assess the -- the position that was

15 being given or given through the media regarding the conflict between the

16 Muslims and the Bosnian Croats during that period?

17 A. Well --

18 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, ma'am. Excuse me.

19 Objection, Your Honour. Who is "they"? Through which media?

20 Okay. She's talking about being able to figure out what's happening in

21 the media, but who is "they". Are we saying now there is -- are these the

22 official media or are these interviews? If we can have more precision

23 perhaps I may not be objecting.

24 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, if I may respond. I thought it was

25 pretty clear that we were referring to the Croatian media, both written

1 media as well as the television media at this stage, and we were referring

2 specifically to the period 1992 to 1994.

3 MR. KARNAVAS: But, Your Honour, the media -- the media is

4 independent. They may be giving their spin to it or their analysis.

5 That's one thing. Now, is it -- is she reading what the media is saying

6 that officials are saying? Is it an official media source? What is it?

7 It's as if I'm reading what The New York Times is saying and attributing

8 that to the Bush administration, which nothing could be further from the

9 truth.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Witness, when you talk

11 about the Croatian media, I cannot establish a distinction between the

12 media in Zagreb, in Croatian media they were operating out of Mostar.

13 There is some degree of ambiguity here. In addition, your international

14 correspondents, who were they, the ones you met in Mostar? "The media" is

15 a very broad term. Can you perhaps give us details about the people you

16 met and about your colleagues?

17 THE WITNESS: I don't know the names of all the colleagues and --

18 but -- well, I was meeting pretty much of them, and what the media comes

19 of course you are listening the news and looking TV if you are in a place

20 where you can do it, but let's say I'm pretty many -- British journalists

21 because the Brits were very active. And then when I was talking very

22 often was a Spanish one with a German name. I have forgotten his name,

23 but he was writing for biggest newspaper in Spain and got even some kind

24 of journalistic prize. He was also making books. He was a very aware --

25 aware of the things. And I met several German ones. Not only Erich.

1 Austrian ones from Austrian TV and from the newspaper Die Presse. And

2 also from Kurier, but he was an idiot so I don't refer to him. And many

3 others. But I have somewhere cards of the most of them, but after so many

4 years journalists you have met sometimes -- they are very deep in my

5 memory and I cannot pick them so quickly out.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Croatian media you

7 mentioned, in Mostar did you meet journalists or journalists coming from

8 Zagreb, people who were actually doing their job, or were you just

9 listening to television?

10 THE WITNESS: I met some Croat journalists. They were quite

11 active also, in Mostar especially, and I met also some Slovenian

12 journalists sometime, one of my good -- which I was meeting often was got

13 killed in Sarajevo. And then one I was talking with was a Slovenia. His

14 name was Ervin. And so, yes, there was Croatian journalists, but I was

15 also when I was in Croatian side, listening to radio news, or looking TV

16 news, and reading some newspaper like Nedeljna Dalmacija which was not

17 following government. Nedeljna Dalmacija was the freest newspaper in

18 Croatia, and then Vjesnik which was more near government.

19 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. If I may follow up on that. The television that you were

21 watching, Croatian or in the context of Croatian media, which television

22 stations were you following?

23 A. The official ones. They were clearly in government hands.

24 Q. Now, madam, returning to the original question then, from these

25 media could you gauge the line of reporting being followed with regard to

1 the conflict between the Bosnian Croats or Herzegovinian Croats and the

2 Muslims?

3 A. Well, of course you could see it, because -- because media had --

4 has in a -- in a state which is not -- well, let's say in a state-owned or

5 state near -- government near media always has a certain role, and so you

6 could see from this media very well.

7 For instance, in the beginning of war, already before, the media

8 was very Muslim friendly, and Croatia was very Muslim friendly. It is

9 true that they took hundred thousands of Muslim refugees. Also Croat

10 refugees, but Muslim refugees. It's true. But then you could see that

11 the policy is turning. Up after January '93, after Vance-Owen Plan, it

12 was suddenly talking about fundamentalists and about a danger of Islamic

13 republic, about Islamic Republic of Bosnia. So it was suddenly leading

14 the opinion towards -- against Muslims. And then in the end of '93,

15 beginning of '94 when they again started to do their common state,

16 suddenly it was again friendly to Muslims.

17 It means that you could -- it was like a wave. You could -- the

18 Croatian attitude was corresponding what was happening in -- in this

19 Croat-Muslim relation in Central Bosnia and Herzegovina. But of course

20 it's clear that -- that Croatian feelings were on Croatian side, but on

21 the other side it was systematically leading our opinion.

22 Q. Now, in your context during the same period that we've been

23 referring to your analysis of the Croatian press and television that

24 you've given, were you -- could you comment or are you in a position to

25 comment regarding your contacts with HVO officials and people you

1 interviewed? How does -- how did that correspond to the views being

2 presented on through the press and through the television?

3 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, Your Honour. Where is the nexus between

4 the previous question and the answer - and of course journalists are free

5 to comment however they wish - and this particular question the way it

6 assumes facts that are certainly not in evidence? If he could lay a

7 foundation, because now the assumption is, the assumption built into this

8 question is that HVO or officials from Herceg-Bosna somehow influencing

9 the -- the media in Croatia, which is why the Croatian media is reporting

10 the way it does. One has nothing to do with the other. And I don't see,

11 first of all, what the Croatian media has anything to do with -- with a

12 particular indictment. Now, if that could be explained to me I would

13 welcome, you know, perhaps more questions, but until we have some sort of

14 a nexus and where we're going, it might be interesting, it might be

15 prejudicial, but it's certainly not relevant.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, now to understand the

17 question, you were a witness because you were present in the area and in

18 Western Mostar. So you met a number of people. You witness a number of

19 facts, and you were in contact with a number of people. The question

20 which has been put to you now by the Prosecution and which has been

21 challenged by Defence counsel is this: How did you see things? You wrote

22 articles. You had interviews. Now your own view of the situation based

23 on what you saw and based on what you heard in the Croatian media, did you

24 share that same opinion or was it a different view you had, and if your

25 view was different in what way was it different?

1 THE WITNESS: Well, firstly, I would like to -- Mr. Defender, that

2 I don't think that anybody is thinking that Herceg-Bosna is leading

3 Croatian media. I think that -- that Croatia was very well aware what was

4 happening in Herceg-Bosna, and the question to me was always how much is

5 Croatian government involved in the happenings in Herceg-Bosna? Is the

6 Herceg-Bosna leadership the highest, or is there still a higher level

7 sitting in Zagreb? But it's not relevant at the moment, because this

8 higher level is already in -- in graveyard.

9 But anyway -- and in this meaning, this media was very interesting

10 because it was exactly corresponding what was happening in Herceg-Bosna on

11 the view of Croats and on behalf of Croats and repeating the propaganda of

12 Islamic state and Muslim danger and telling from Middle Ages how the

13 Croatia was always the bulwark against Muslims and fighting for

14 Christianity, and these articles really were appearing at that time.

15 MR. KRUGER:

16 Q. Madam, if we can turn -- return, finally, to a document which we

17 have looked at previously, and this is Exhibit 8575. Exhibit 8575. And

18 this is the analysis that you made entitled "The Croats are sitting on

19 three chairs." Do you have it before you?

20 A. Mm-hmm.

21 Q. Now, if we look at the first page of the English version, right at

22 the bottom it says, and this returns to the old question of the ultimatum,

23 it says: "In April, the president of the self-proclaimed Republic of

24 Herceg-Bosna, Mate Boban imposed an ultimatum on the predominantly Muslim

25 Bosnian army."

1 Can you very briefly just comment on what basis you said

2 Mate Boban imposed this ultimatum?

3 A. Well -- well, I have to look at the German version to see what is

4 about. Anyway, it was the 3rd of -- 3rd of April when according to all

5 these previous press reports Boban made this ultimatum, and it was written

6 to name of Boban.

7 Q. Now, if we can turn to the second page of this English version,

8 and the second paragraph. It says: "The highest command of Herceg-Bosna,

9 Mate Boban -- President Mate Boban and HVO President Jadranko Prlic ..."

10 On what basis did you refer to them as the highest command of

11 Herceg-Bosna?

12 A. Well, Mate Boban was the leader of Herceg-Bosna. He was the

13 president. And Mr. Prlic was the leader of armed forces, and so in the

14 wartime I think that the leader of armed forces is a very, very high

15 leader.

16 Q. And about Mr. Prlic?

17 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, Your Honour.

18 MR. KRUGER: Sorry, I withdraw that question.

19 Q. If we just go on in that sentence, it says that: Mr. Boban and

20 Mr. Prlic are being more prudent in its statements, or the highest command

21 is being most prudent. "Both of them are saying beautiful words about all

22 groups of people living together and try to put the blame on the Muslims

23 ..."

24 Now, with regard to Mr. Prlic, on what basis did you write this?

25 A. On the basis of an interview where he was talking about, We don't

1 have any problems living together with Muslims and so on. It means

2 that -- that this higher level was talking more beautiful but in the

3 middle -- middle level like it was more brutal. They were talking more

4 direct. Let's say that they were not as good politicians.

5 Q. Can you recall on what basis you said the same of Mr. Boban?

6 A. Well, I never interviewed Mr. Boban, but I was reading several

7 interviews which other people had made. I was sometimes behind his door

8 in Grude, but it never opened.

9 Q. Can you recall whose interviews with Mr. Boban you read, perhaps?

10 A. Anyway, Erich Rathfelder.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak.

12 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] In order to be able to

13 prepare for the defence, I'd like them to define the names, the middle

14 levels with the names and surnames.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, can you answer that

16 question just put to you by Mr. Praljak?

17 THE WITNESS: I mean middle level -- middle level. The press

18 officer, for instance, in Tomislavgrad Veso Vegar, and these persons with

19 the -- and also I would count Dario Kordic to this middle level.

20 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Q. Now, madam, at the end of that paragraph there's a sentence: "In

22 reality these gentlemen are the architects of ethnic cleansing." On what

23 basis did you say this?

24 A. I say that on that basis, that they were trying to tell that it

25 was some local commandants which were not obeying the orders from the

1 centres and they were making a kind of solo dancing. But it is a very

2 funny thing that it occurred everywhere in Central Bosnia at the same

3 time, about 5.00 in the morning, 16th of April, but how they get so this

4 obeyed in the same moment. There must be a higher order. And this

5 opinion was publicly told also from Colonel Bob Stewart who was present

6 when that all happened. Even they were a little bit sleeping, but anyway.

7 Q. Now, just related to which we touched upon earlier, in the next

8 paragraph, second line, it says: "There have been rumours for a long time

9 already about the secret trips to Pale from Boban to Karadzic.

10 Jadranko Prlic did not deny these secret contacts."

11 Just for the record then, on what did you -- on what did you base

12 that entry?

13 A. Well, I had some information that it was not the only trip through

14 Pale what Mr. Prlic was -- was telling, but -- but anyway, one of the

15 basement was also this that he told, that Boban had been in Pale, but

16 there were also others who told that it has happened several times.

17 Q. Now, madam, if we can turn to page 3 of the English version, and

18 the second paragraph from the bottom which starts with "The core of the

19 problem is that ... " Do you have that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Okay. Now, madam, this paragraph states that "The core of the

22 problem is that the Croatian leadership cannot decide what kind of Croatia

23 to strive for," and then three options or three -- let's call them options

24 are given. "Officially, the aim is an independent Croatia with the

25 current borders which is called Little Croatia," and then you refer, "In

1 practice however Western Herzegovina is already annexed to Croatia.

2 Especially the supporters of Mate Boban strive for this

3 ethnically-cleansed Smaller Croatia. And then, however, there is a still

4 a third version, Great Croatia up to the Drina."

5 Is this your own categorisation or on what basis did you write

6 this?

7 A. It is, of course, my own -- my categorisation, but I think that

8 I'm not alone -- alone in this -- this thing. It is -- it was one option.

9 It means that -- that Croatia as an independent state. It was -- anyway

10 it was -- it was the aim and at that moment when I was writing that

11 Croatia was not Croatia, because about one-third were under Serbian

12 control. But then the other option was, of course, joining Herceg-Bosna

13 to Croatia. It means that they make an ethnically pure bigger Croatia.

14 And there were some indications which were talking to this direction, and

15 I'm not now going to so far as Ante Pavelic, which was also from

16 Herzegovina, but let's say that in Croatian government were very many

17 Herzegovinians, and -- and then it came even so far later that

18 Herzegovina -- Herzegovina Croats could vote for -- in Croatian

19 parliamentary election and for them were reserved even a certain amount of

20 places. It means that there was not only rumours of -- of my analysis

21 from smaller or Greater Croatia. It was -- it was worked in direction of

22 it or how you can -- I have never before heard that in parliament are

23 representatives from neighbouring country, for instance. That was not at

24 that moment realised, but it tells that it's not -- it's not taken from

25 the air this analysis.

1 And in the third one, the Great Croatia, the Drina. This is the

2 historical. This is the historical. There are some other persons as

3 Paraga were wanting. It means some kind of federation with -- with

4 Muslims, and of course, Serbs. They wanted to cleanse over the Drina

5 River. And this is based on history. It means in the Austro-Hungarian

6 time, but it's very interesting to notice that the very moderate Muslim

7 leader Lagumdzija told me, I think in February 1993, that they are ready.

8 They could make a federal state with Croatia. So it was -- it would have

9 been possible, but Serbs had -- would have never said yes to that kind of

10 option, but these options, they were there.

11 Q. Could I just make certain or check what you had said. Did I

12 understand correctly that what you had said that Herzegovinian Croats had

13 representation in the parliament of the republic of Croatia?

14 A. Yeah, they had, but I don't remember now when they got it, but

15 they had, and it was of course -- it was very funny. It was also still

16 after the war. I think that this constitution is now changed, but it

17 was -- it was. So it means that there was some kind of attempts to

18 unificate Herceg-Bosna with Croatia. And you have to remember if you take

19 the ethnical map, Herceg-Bosna is the most Croatian area in the whole

20 Croatian-inhabited areas. There's -- in Grude there is, I think, 98 per

21 cent or how much it was Croats. The only area in Croatia which was that

22 Croat was Varazdin. All other places they had some kind of minority. So

23 it was -- and I think that that was also was what Mr. Prlic meant when he

24 told that Herzegovina is the heart of Croatia or more Croat as Croatia. It

25 is really the purest Croatian populated area in former Yugoslavia.

1 Q. Madam, if we can just turn the page to page 4 of this English

2 transcript. And if we look at the second last paragraph. It says: "The

3 splitting up of Bosnia is no new idea. Franjo Tudjman and

4 Slobodan Milosevic have already negotiated about that before the war."

5 What are you referring to here?

6 A. That's the meeting in Karadjordjevo. But I would say to that that

7 knowing Milosevic a little bit he was a very clever guy. I don't think

8 that -- that he was honest. I think that --

9 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, I don't know how much of this

10 speculation the Trial Chamber is going to put up with. We've now -- it's

11 been going on for some time. I've tried to be patient. If this witness

12 is being asked to be an expert in certain areas, then she should be

13 disclosed under Rule 94 bis. It's not right for her to be expressing

14 these opinions without any notice to the Defence. This goes way beyond

15 her statement and it's completely -- it's completely unacceptable.

16 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, I won't pursue that line of questioning.

17 Q. Now, I have only one --

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, a follow-up question.

19 This famous document which Mr. Kruger is examining with you, on page 3 you

20 talk about Mr. Paraga, and you expand on this and come up with a theory

21 whereby the person in question was in favour of a confederation of Bosnia

22 and Herzegovina, that he was against the HVO, and you mentioned that he

23 had been killed in November, that he had a private army. What do you base

24 this on when you are writing about it?

25 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't think that Paraga was killed. It was

1 the Herzegovinian leadership of HOS. But he had the private army, HOS,

2 and it was, of course, a kind of concurrence to HVO and it had a totally

3 different ideology.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And in what way was that

5 ideology totally different?

6 THE WITNESS: He wanted Great -- Great Croatia together with

7 Muslims. He wanted to annex Bosnia to Croatia. And that was never the

8 aim of HVO.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So in your opinion Mr. Paraga

10 wanted Bosnia to be annexed to Croatia --

11 THE WITNESS: Yes.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- which would have created a

13 Greater Croatia. And you say that that was not what the HVO wanted.

14 THE WITNESS: No. Because HVO didn't want the Muslims in the same

15 state. They were talking about fundamentalistic danger and that kind of

16 things. Even in this Prlic interview is -- is the word towards me, "Do

17 you want an Islamic state?" And that was the difference. But in this

18 Paraga ideology, which I know very well, there was a one thing. The Serbs

19 would have been then kicked out because Serbs he didn't want to have in

20 that Bosnia. He wanted to very Great Bosnia with Muslims but without

21 Serbs. And HVO was cooperating very well with Serbs, but they were -- had

22 this fundamentalistic card at present.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right.

24 MR. KRUGER: Sorry, Your Honour. I'm just checking something.

25 Q. May we just for clarity, if I may ask you to just ask exactly what

1 was the difference between the -- what you referred to as the Paraga

2 ideology and then the HVO view?

3 A. Paraga ideology was not that ethnical. It was not that ethnical

4 pure. It was not that Croatian. For him were also -- he was also

5 thinking Muslims. He was -- his thinking -- way of thinking were more

6 historical, because if you go to the time before and let's say to --

7 before 1918, Bosnia and Croatia, they were both actually belonging to

8 Hungary, and -- and they -- and he was thinking on this historical terms,

9 but HVO were more thinking joining all the Croats in the same state.

10 Exactly what the Serbs were -- the idea of Greater Serbia was to join all

11 Serbs to the same state. It was everywhere published. And the HV

12 ideology was about the same but on Croatian side.

13 Q. Madam, I just want to ask you one last aspect. Earlier there had

14 been reference to what Mr. Erich Rathfelder told you Mr. Prlic had told

15 him after the Dayton Accords.

16 A. After the -- is sorry. After the grounding of federation between

17 Croats and Muslims, after that peace.

18 Q. Now --

19 A. First peace before Dayton.

20 Q. Okay. Now, what Mr. Prlic told Mr. Rathfelder, to what period did

21 that relate?

22 A. It relates on this -- this April 1993.

23 Q. And what did he tell Mr. Rathfelder --

24 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, Mr. President. There was an objection,

25 and it's common courtesy and rather professional to first ask for

1 permission from the Court. Now that the question is phrased differently

2 or laid a foundation, if he may go to -- revisit that area, but there was

3 an objection. The objection was sustained. The gentleman moved on. Now

4 he wants to go -- he does not need to go through the back door if he can

5 come through the front door, but I'm here -- but I dare say that there was

6 an objection. And I don't see him asking for leave to re-ask the same

7 question to which there was an objection to.

8 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, if I may respond.

9 The objection was within the context of a specific document.

10 We've moved off that document and therefore the objection as it pertained

11 to that specific document does not apply, with respect.

12 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, it goes to -- my objection was to the

13 period of time. Supposedly there is this conversation. This gentleman

14 isn't here. I understand hearsay can come in. But we're talking about a

15 period that's after the indictment took place.

16 Now, if you may recall, Your Honour, the Prosecution has tried on

17 many occasions to try to get this so-called map napkin that supposedly was

18 drawn by the late President Tudjman in 1995 when he was in London. There

19 was a clear indication from the Trial Chamber that that was outside the

20 period and therefore Mr. Ashdown could not come in and neither could this

21 so-called napkin which he took part in drawing.

22 So based on your rulings already, if we use the exact logic and

23 the exact basis for which you overruled -- or you sustained the Defence's

24 objection to the Prosecution's motion with respect to Mr. Ashdown, I again

25 urge the Trial Chamber to use the same approach and to uphold the

1 objection that it had sustained earlier today.

2 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry, Mr. Kruger, for interrupting you. As

3 a matter of fact, I would only like to make one comment with reference to

4 the statement made by our witness a few minutes ago. She mentioned when

5 she spoke about Paraga, I believe, that Paraga believed in a Croatian

6 Bosnian state, and he was thinking this, as the witness put it, if you go

7 back through to time and to history before 1918, both Croatia and Bosnia

8 belonged to Hungary.

9 Now, as a Hungarian, I would like to say that it is not a very

10 exact rendering of the historical situation and the history. It is true

11 that the -- that the Hungarian kings used to be in a personal union at the

12 same time Croatian kings from the -- from the 13th century, but on the

13 other hand, of course, it was not a unitary state, I mean Hungary and

14 Croatia, but the Croatians have preserved their independence now, not

15 speaking about the Turkish occupation, of course. That is the first

16 thing.

17 And the you could one that Bosnia-Herzegovina belonged not to

18 Hungary but after the 1878 occupation and later on in 1908 annexation, it

19 belonged to the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and not to Hungary as such. I

20 would just like to say for the record, and thank you very much.

21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: On the objection of Mr. Karnavas. On page 95,

22 line 11, I see it relates to this -- on this April 1993. I don't know why

23 you say this is outside the period of the indictment.

24 MR. KARNAVAS: What I'm -- well, again, if I may refresh your

25 recollection a little bit with your decision on Paddy Ashdown.

1 Paddy Ashdown has supposedly a conversation with President Tudjman in 1995

2 and one could say that the conversation dealt with Bosnia and Herzegovina.

3 The question actually was what would Bosnia and Herzegovina look 10 years

4 from now. That was napkin drawn supposedly, and wine was flowing

5 copiously as Mr. Ashdown has indicated.

6 In any event, based on that the Prosecution was trying to conclude

7 that therefore Tudjman had some sort of designs on Bosnia-Herzegovina in

8 1991, 1992, 1993.

9 So what I'm saying here is in 1994 sometime, supposedly there is

10 this supposed conversation with somebody who is not here, he's not on the

11 list, I don't get to cross-examine, has a conversation with this

12 particular journalist about some event, about what was going to happen in

13 1993. And that's the whole basis. And you sustained the objection once

14 and I'm asking that it be sustained it again. If you don't wish to

15 sustain it, then go ahead.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

17 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

19 MR. SCOTT: I apologise to Mr. Kruger for intervening but on the

20 Ashdown matter, this is something I think I'm a bit closer to than

21 Mr. Kruger, and to follow up and Judge Trechsel's point. I think it's

22 completely false logic to say that someone can't make a statement in 2001

23 about something that happened in 1993. If that was the logic then all

24 these -- every statement taken by the Office of the Prosecutor in terms of

25 what someone said in 2001, 2005, about what happened in 1993, by that

1 logic those would all be irrelevant. It's what the witness is talking

2 about, not when the statement was taken, number one.

3 Number two, in terms of Ashdown, with all due respect I think -- I

4 think the Chamber's ruling on that point was wrong exactly for this

5 reason, because it was tendered exactly for the purpose of what Tudjman's

6 views were toward Bosnia and Herzegovina and his objectives, and it was

7 admitted in Blaskic case it was admitted in Kordic case, it was admitted

8 in Tuta Stela, and I believe it was also admitted in the Milosevic case

9 where Paddy Ashdown came and gave viva voce testimony. And it was all to

10 the effect, what was Tudjman's views towards Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now as

11 we just said, he may have expressed those views in 1995, 1997. He may

12 have even expressed those views, the day before he died in 2000 or 1999.

13 But if they reflect his views, that he continually held through that time

14 period, they are just as relevant no matter when he made those

15 statements. And to bring it back home again, it doesn't really matter

16 when this interview occurred. He's talking about what was relevant at the

17 time.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. Mr. Kruger, we have

19 10 minutes left. I'll have to ask you to try on the one hand to resolve

20 Mr. Karnavas's objection, because it appears that there is a confusion.

21 You were asking the witness questions about a text which as far as I can

22 see was drafted on May 27, 1995, but now it sounds like you're proceeding

23 on -- on 1995. But now you're saying no, this is a different subject.

24 Maybe that's the source of our confusion concerning 1995.

25 Now, would you please be specific and tell us the new -- the other

1 subject that you wanted to deal with.

2 MR. KRUGER: Certainly, Your Honour. Your Honour, I've stepped

3 off the documents. My understanding was that the previous ruling with

4 regard to the objection was that we were indeed dealing with a document

5 from 1993 and which was the analysis of the witness or her report, then,

6 on her interview with Mr. Prlic, and in the context of that document,

7 anything, as I understood the ruling, which took place at a much later

8 stage was not relevant to the discussion of the document on that stage.

9 And that is why stepping off the documents and now being freed of the

10 documents, I thought with -- it could be done, but, Your Honour, in the

11 interests of time I would request then permission to then raise this or

12 ask this question.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please go ahead. Put the

14 question. We'll see.

15 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 Q. Madam, you have said that Erich Rathfelder told you something that

17 Mr. Prlic had told him pertaining to April 1993. What did Mr. Rathfelder

18 convey to you?

19 A. He told only that Mr. Prlic admitted that they had been

20 miscalculating the strength of Muslim army. They were thinking that it's

21 a matter of two weeks but in reality it was a long war. And in reality --

22 but that -- that's only a resolution to the war. In reality, the Croats

23 from Central Bosnia lost their homes and were refugees. But that

24 Mr. Prlic didn't say. He only said they were miscalculating. They were

25 thinking that Muslims are lasting couple of weeks.

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, there's only one final aspect that I

3 wish to return to, and it is in the transcript on page 96, if I recall.

4 Page 94 of the transcript and line 9.

5 Q. Witness, you referred to and this is in the context of the Paraga

6 ideology. You said, "He wanted a very Great Bosnia with Muslims but

7 without the Serbs." I would just like to clarify when you refer to a very

8 Great Bosnia what you --

9 A. I mean very Great Croatia with Bosniaks. I was, well, getting

10 tired, and I must give the right to Mr. Judge. Bosnia was not under

11 Hungary, and not even Dalmatian coast. It was only the Pannonian Croatia.

12 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Witness.

13 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, I have no further questions.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The examination-in-chief is

15 over. Witness, I'll have to ask you to be here tomorrow for a hearing

16 which starts at 9.00 in the morning. Between now and then I want you to

17 speak to nobody, and tomorrow you will be cross-examined by the Defence

18 counsel.

19 We will have a hearing lasting until 1.45.

20 Mr. Karnavas, you wanted to speak? You were raising your hand.

21 MR. KARNAVAS: I just need -- I think the Defence needs some sort

22 of a clarification again with respect to Ahmici. On paragraph 33 of the

23 indictment, Ahmici is mentioned. That part is part of the statement of

24 the facts, and the Defence is entitled to know whether we need to defend

25 against Ahmici. As I understand the testimony today what the Prosecution

1 is arguing is that because of the so-called ultimatum on the -- after the

2 15th collapses you have the incident in Ahmici and therefore that's as a

3 result of any inaction on the part of the Muslims vis-a-vis the so-called

4 ultimatum.

5 Now, I need to know, at least in representing Dr. Prlic, and I

6 would suspect that my colleagues would also want the same thing because

7 we've asked this question at one of the Status Conferences or 65 ter

8 Conferences before the commencement of the trial, before we had the other

9 Judges with us, whether Ahmici is part of the indictment that needs to be

10 defended. We need a clear-cut answer from the Prosecution. That's all

11 I'm asking.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Scott, Ahmici is an

13 event that everybody is familiar with. Mr. Karnavas would like to know

14 whether Ahmici is something that is part of the indictment or not. It

15 is -- is it mentioned in the indictment as an accusation or as an event?

16 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, the Prosecution's answer today is the

17 same answer that we've given whenever it's been raised and that it is,

18 indeed, part of the indictment. It's specifically mentioned in paragraph

19 33. All this comes from the same HVO policy -- this is the Prosecution's

20 theory of the case -- it all comes from the same top-down Mostar HVO

21 leadership. What happened in Herzegovina and what happened in

22 Central Bosnia was all of one piece. So it's absolutely in the

23 indictment.

24 Now, having said that the structure of the indictment is very

25 clear that when you get to the subsequent pages of the indictment - I'm

1 just turning - page 56, you have the section on Ljubuski, page 58, you

2 have the section on Stolac - excuse me - page 61, you have the section on

3 Capljina. Ahmici is not included in that crime base that was charged in

4 that -- those specific parts of the indictment. But is it relevant to the

5 indictment? Is it part of the indictment? Absolutely, it is. And it

6 also goes to knowledge of the accused.

7 If -- if these -- if these accused that are ultimately part of the

8 Prosecution case have every reason to know, it was widely reported, what

9 happened in Ahmici. It goes to the conduct and policy and practices of

10 the HVO and the same things happened in Mostar, the same things happened

11 in Stolac, the same thing happened in Capljina, so, yes, it is absolutely

12 relevant to the conduct in this case.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Legally speaking, Mr. Scott, is

14 it your position, your position, the Judges will consult on that question,

15 the issue has already come up but it will come up again and it stays with

16 us, would you say that on the legal plan, on 7(3), for example, could we

17 hold it against the accused that they did not take reasonable measures to

18 prevent those crimes which occurred in Ahmici, and if they were aware of

19 that, could it be held against them? Could they be considered guilty for

20 not having punished? This is the problem.

21 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, if I can hedge my bets by saying I want

22 to talk to Mr. Stringer and some of the other colleagues on that -- excuse

23 me, Counsel, I'm answering the Court's question.

24 MR. KARNAVAS: I haven't said anything.

25 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, please. I believe the answer is no and

1 that's the distinction I made just a moment ago, and that is why I believe

2 it's entirely relevant. I think it goes to state of mind. I think it

3 goes to common knowledge and practice. It is not, as I just said, it is

4 not charged in the indictment the same way that Gornji Vakuf and Jablanica

5 and Mostar and other things are. But I think it's absolutely relevant,

6 and absolutely is part of the indictment in terms of the overall story of

7 what happened. What happened in Central Bosnia was part of the same

8 policy and the same practice as what happened in Herzegovina and

9 Herceg-Bosna - excuse me, apologise for my voice, I have something in my

10 throat - but when we talk about Central Bosnia let's also not forget

11 Vares, and Vares is specifically charged in the indictment in every

12 aspect.

13 MR. KARNAVAS: That's the problem, Mr. President. That's why we

14 asked prior to the commencement of the trial. This is perhaps, perhaps,

15 the clearest answer we've received thus far but when he's asked again then

16 he hedges his bets. It either is or it isn't. Now you asked the question

17 with respect to 7(3). What about 7(1)? I think the Defence is entitled

18 to know clearly what it is that they need to defend. So, you know, I

19 would like to know concretely, exactly, what the Prosecution's position

20 is. I think many of the accused, if not all of them, would want to know

21 this answer. And we don't have to do it this second. He can talk to, you

22 know, he can run it up the ladder. He can talk to Madam Del Ponte if he

23 wants to.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] However all this may be, it is

25 not an urgent question to solve in the minutes or hours to come. The

1 Prosecution will discuss this matter and so will the Bench. We will

2 discuss it again.

3 Witness, we will see you here again tomorrow at 9.00. Thank you.

4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.,

5 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 28th day

6 of August, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25