1 Thursday, 22 May 2008 2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours, good afternoon in
8 and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor
9 versus Prlic et al. Thank you, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Today is Thursday,
11 May 22nd, 2008
12 accused, everyone assisting us in and around the courtroom as well as the
13 Prosecutor. We will now proceed with the testimony and the
14 cross-examination of the witness.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot hear. I cannot hear the
17 WITNESS: ADALBERT REBIC [Resumed]
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's all right now.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine it's working now. The
21 Prosecutor has two hours and nine minutes left. Let me remind you that
22 today we'll finished at 25 past 6.00. If there aren't any administrative
23 matters to deal with, I'll give the floor to Mr. Scott immediately.
24 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. Your Honours, good
25 afternoon. Good afternoon, counsel, good afternoon everyone in and
1 around the courtroom.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Scott: [Continued]
3 Q. Sir, the next topic -- and good afternoon, I should say,
4 Dr. Rebic, excuse me.
5 A. Good afternoon to you too, Mr. Scott.
6 Q. I would like to turn from the topic of the law concerning
7 refugees which we ended the day with yesterday to the topic of Croatian
8 citizenship and I heard you testify on Monday that essentially anyone who
9 said "I am Croat," was given Croatian citizenship. I think that's the
10 way you put it; is that correct, sir?
11 A. What is correct is that anyone could obtain Croatian citizenship
12 who was able to show the institution granting citizenship, which was the
13 Ministry of the Interior, proof that - and I'm referring to persons from
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina - that they had declared themselves as Croats
15 before and they could prove that by showing a school certificate, for
16 example, because in the former Yugoslavia
17 school certificates, or they could use some other document to prove that
18 in which ethnicity was stated. This applied equally to citizens of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina who were Muslims.
20 Q. All right. Well I'm going to double-check the quotation, and
21 I'll come back to you with that in a moment. I think you were rather
22 direct what you said on Monday about that, but let's turn to Exhibit
23 1D 02918. Should the -- I believe it's in one of the Defence binders but
24 I may not -- it may be in both actually. It should be in the Prosecution
25 binder if that assists the usher, my apology. It may be in both.
1 Now, there is two aspects of the Statute that I would like to
2 discuss for a few minutes. This is the Law on Croatian Citizenship which
3 was I think first adopted around the -- or effective the 26th of June,
4 1991. There were amendments in 1992 and 1993 which I understand did not
5 impact or have an effect on the two portions that I am interested in at
6 the moment.
7 If I can ask you, please, to look to Article number 8, Article 8.
8 This appears to be a provision, sir, that would apply -- what I would
9 consider to anyone, anyone anywhere in the world who for whatever reason
10 wanted to obtain Croatian citizenship by a process of naturalization
11 would be able to follow these procedures, apply under this law, and
12 under -- if they satisfied the requirements of Article 8, they had the
13 possibility of obtaining Croatian citizenship; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, I would like to next ask you to look directly at Article 16.
16 If you look at this, there's a specific provision which provides that,
17 it's quite short so I'll just read it, "A member of the Croatian nation
18 who does not have domicile in the Republic of Croatia
19 citizenship if he or she meets the conditions from Article 8, paragraph
20 1, item 5 of this law and if he or she issues a written statement that he
21 or she considers himself or herself to be a Croatian citizen."
22 Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, there appear to be then two requirements. One is -- one
25 refers us back to Article 8 which we looked at a moment ago to section 5
1 or paragraph 5 of Article 8. That requirement says, provides, "That a
2 conclusion can be derived from his or her conduct that he or she respects
3 the legal system and the customs in the Republic of Croatia
4 or she accepts the Croatian culture."
5 Do you see that?
6 A. Yes. And speaks the Croatian language and the Latin script and
7 so on. There are several clauses.
8 Q. Not under section 5; correct? That's another section.
9 A. Yes, yes, you're right. Yes. So this is about respecting the
10 legal system and customs of the Republic of Croatia
11 Q. All right. Now, if we go back to Article 16, or stay on Article
12 16, it makes reference here and at least the way it's been translated
13 into English, it says, "A member of the Croatian nation." Now, can we
14 understand that to mean a member of the Croatian people? How would you
15 explain the term that's used there? What is a member of the Croatian
16 nation in that context as distinct from citizenship in the Republic of
18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] This is an insult.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, Mr. Praljak,
20 you've already taken the floor on umpteenth occasions about this. The
21 Prosecutor is free to say what he wants. You may not agree with him, but
22 on the day you testify, you will be able to develop your own position.
23 No need to start protesting that way. We are perfectly aware of your
24 position. You've already outlined it for us.
25 If the Prosecutor wants to make such a statement, he is perfectly
1 entitled to do so. During the presentation of your case when your
2 witnesses come to testify or when you come to testify, because you've
3 told us that you are going to testify, you will be able to deal with this
5 Please let the Prosecutor put his question and the witness will
6 answer and the answer of the witness may be amenable to you.
7 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please, this
8 is not a protest. I simply want to know what is on trial here. Is it
9 talking about the Croatian language? Are we going to deal with Hego
10 [phoen]? How far are we going to go? For ten years, in Switzerland
11 someone wants to get citizenship, they make sure that he washes the
12 dishes that he does the dishes after dinner and here, someone just has to
13 be a member of the Croatian people. This is an insult on every ground.
14 It's not a protest of mine. What are we talking about? What is this
15 trial about? Thank you.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, if I may, I do -- I believe the
17 objection is on relevance, and the witness has indicated that the
18 Ministry of the Interior was dealing with this issue. I don't believe
19 that there was testimony on direct examination that he -- that his
20 department was issuing Croatian citizenships to anyone. He hasn't been
21 qualified as an expert on the law. I fail to see now -- there will be, I
22 can assure the Trial Chamber, that there will be in the very, very near
23 future someone who has dealt with this particular law and these questions
24 should be addressed to that person, not -- so I do object on the ground
25 of relevance.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Coric.
2 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] May I please leave the
3 courtroom. I am not feeling as well and I need medical assistance.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No problem. Please call the
5 Tribunal's physician for Mr. -- and that Mr. Coric should be escorted out
6 of the courtroom immediately.
7 [The accused Coric leaves court]
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. Mr. Scott, please
9 proceed with your cross-examination.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, but I do have an objection
11 and I would like a ruling. If this is relevant, I would like to know how
12 is it relevant so I do need -- request a response.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In order to understand your
14 objection, we need to find out what the question is and what the answer
15 of the witness is. You are perfectly right, Mr. Karnavas, the witness is
16 not a lawyer, and he may not be familiar with the law on citizenship in
18 he may have some information about this matter. Let's wait and see what
19 he has to say. If what he has to say is of no relevance, then the
20 probative value will be nil. If it's not the case, then we'll receive.
21 Let's listen to the question and then to the answer of the witness.
22 Mr. Scott, please repeat your question because we've lost track
23 of it after all these exchanges. Please put your question again.
24 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. Before I do that, and partly
25 to respond to some of the comments that have been made, let me go back
1 and -- now I have found the exact passage from Monday's testimony which
2 indicates that indeed it was raised in direct examination, that this is a
3 witness who works directly in the area of the status of people, refugees,
4 and displaced persons. If he's not qualified to talk about these topics,
5 then it conflicts directly with the responsibilities he's held for some
6 five or six years, but this is what he said on Monday, in any event when
7 asked about, by the Defence:
8 "At that time," at page 28202, "At that time it was enough for a
9 Muslim from Bosnia-Herzegovina to show the department of the ministry of
10 interior any document, a driving licence, a school certificate, which
11 said that he had declared himself to be a Croat at some time ipso facto
12 he had the right to a Croatian certificate of citizenship and Croatian
14 That's what he said and that was not -- that was in response to
15 Defence questioning on direct examination.
16 Q. Sir, I'm now showing you a document which is itself a Defence
17 Exhibit 1D 02918. And there was nothing intended to be offensive about
18 my question to you. When we look at Article 16 the way it's been
19 translated to me is that it says, "A member of the Croatian nation."
20 Now, I've also seen another translation of the name provision
21 which says, "A member of the Croatian people." Now, all I'm saying here
22 is we're talking here about something that's different than Croatian
23 citizenship. Obviously if one had Croatian citizenship -- being a member
24 of the Croatian nation is having citizenship, there's no reason for the
25 Statute. If you had citizenship you wouldn't be applying for it. So it
1 says, "A member of the Croatian nation who does not have domicile in the
2 Republic of Croatia
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. Mr. Coric's
5 counsel wants to take the floor.
6 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may be
7 given a break of two or three minutes, the guards are calling me to come
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I was about to suggest
10 that you go see your client. Please do.
11 Please proceed, Mr. Scott.
12 MR. SCOTT:
13 Q. Picking up from what we've covered, sir. When I read those two
14 provisions in this context concerning a person who does not have a
15 domicile in the Republic of Croatia
16 you respect the legal system and customs in the Republic of Croatia
17 that you accept Croatian culture for someone who doesn't live there and
18 saying that you consider yourself to be Croatian is essentially one and
19 the same thing, isn't it?
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please.
21 Mr. Coric's counsel will give us some news about her client.
22 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may we move
23 into private session, please?
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, private session, please.
25 [Private session]
11 Page 28437 redacted. Private session.
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
22 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Dr. Rebic, a lot has happened in the last 45 minutes or so so let
24 me go back to -- if you still have Exhibit 1D 02918, The Law on Croatian
25 Citizenship in front of you, Article -- and again looking primarily at
1 Article 16. And I believe my pending question to you was something and
2 it's no longer of course on the screen at this point, but my question was
3 something to the following effect and that is: Since Article 16
4 specifically addresses the situation, we're talking about someone who
5 does not have a domicile, does not live in Croatia, but would apply,
6 obtain -- would like to obtain Croatian citizenship, how would such a
7 person demonstrate that he or she respects the legal system and customs
8 in the Republic of Croatia
9 culture other than a written statement, I suppose, certification to that
11 A. Mr. Scott, first of all, I'm quite taken aback to find myself in
12 a position to offer legal interpretation of Croatian legislation.
13 Secondly, the Office for Refugees and Displaced Persons held no
14 competencies in terms of giving or taking away the citizenship from
15 anyone, we simply did not deal with such matters. However, as a
16 layperson, I may still offer a clarification concerning a statement I
17 gave to the Defence. In order to understand that, one needs to know that
18 in the Croatian language, there are two expressions, one is drzavljnstvo,
19 citizenship, the other one is narodnost, ethnicity.
20 The Croatian citizenship be can be received by both members of
21 the Croatian people, the Serbian people, or any of the other minorities,
22 these being Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Hungarians, et cetera. As regards
23 the Muslims, one also needs to know that many Muslims in
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina declared themselves as Croats. It had been like that
25 for decades. That is why those Muslims who felt themselves to be members
1 of the Croatian people living outside the borders of the Republic of
3 the world, those people who felt themselves to be Croatian, not as of
4 yesterday or dating back to their father but generations back, those
5 people who declared themselves to be Croatian and believed to be part of
6 the Croatian culture, when such a person had to flee to Croatia, which by
7 that time had become an independent state, giving Croatian citizenship
8 although it had existed in some shape or form in the former Yugoslavia
9 that person was entitled to a Croatian citizenship by virtue of not only
10 an oral statement but also by a piece of paper, a document. That could
11 have been a certificate, a school certificate, a military booklet in
12 which I also stated I was Croatian alongside my colleague, Ibro
13 Ibrisimovic, who also declared himself to be Croatian. I am not speaking
14 as a lawyer, I am speaking as someone who is rather familiar with
15 history, with the situation in my homeland.
16 So I ask you, how do you deny that person the feelings they have
17 and something they've always stated all along.
18 Q. Let me be very clear about this, and there was no reason for
19 anyone to outburst or for anyone to take offence before. It was a
20 question which you've now attempted to answer and I have a couple
21 follow-up questions, but no one is intending to insult you or anyone's
22 Croatness so please, we should take that as a further starting point.
23 The point is, sir, how is someone -- no. Listen to my question.
24 A. Mr. Scott, Mr. Scott. No offence taken. No offence taken.
25 However, I wanted to add another thing. Being Croatian does not include
1 faith or religion. A Croatian could be Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim,
2 Protestant, et cetera. One should never think that there is a sign of
3 equation between Croatian and Catholic. It includes Croats, Muslims, and
4 other ethnicities.
5 Q. Let me go back to the question now that you've given us that
6 further explanation. Thank you.
7 Let me go back to my specific question. You have a person, and
8 I'll use your example, of a Muslim, who is in Bosnia-Herzegovina. He has
9 never lived in Croatia
10 demonstrate that he respects, he or she, would establish -- to meet the
11 requirement that he or she respects the legal system and customs in the
12 Republic of Croatia
13 You can't say, "I've lived in Croatia for 20 years. Of course
14 I've always obeyed the law, I've never even received a traffic ticket. I
15 belong to the Croatian culture club. I go to all the dinners." I'm not
16 being facetious, but if you lived in Croatia, what I'm giving you is a
17 scenario. Someone who lives in Bosnia
18 they've never lived in Croatia
19 themselves Croats. So how is that person going to establish that he or
20 she respects the legal system and customs in the Republic of Croatia
21 accepts Croatian culture?
22 A. It fell inside the remit of those people who lived in the
23 Ministry of Foreign Affairs its department in charge of issuing the
24 document, which is called domovnica, which is a certificate of
25 citizenship as well as to issue passports. Some people in
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina accepted Croatian -- the Croatian culture. Part of
2 the Croatian literature was created by Muslims. One needs to have some
3 historical knowledge to be able to address that.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Just a point of clarification for the record, on
5 page 13, line 16, the gentleman indicated "those who worked" as opposed
6 to "lived" in the ministry of foreign affairs. It's kind of difficult to
7 live in the ministry of foreign affairs, so it's those who worked.
8 MR. SCOTT: All right. Let's go forward. I think perhaps the
9 citizenship will come up, issues will come up in other context.
10 Q. Related to what we've been talking about in the last few minutes,
11 in fact, is the next question, that is, that there is evidence that
12 President Tudjman espoused the view that Bosnian Muslims were Croats of
13 Islamic faith and is that or has that ever been your view?
14 A. It is my view, based on my lifetime experience and my experience
15 from the youth and the army that there were Muslims of Croatian
16 nationality -- well, those who belonged to the Croatian people.
17 Q. Well, I'm not -- sir, my question is not whether there were
18 individual Muslims who considered themselves Croats but that the people,
19 to the extent there were people that considered themselves might
20 otherwise call themselves now Bosniaks or Bosnian Muslims, but President
21 Tudjman espoused the view that Muslims, these Bosnian Muslims were
22 Croats, they were Croats who had taken on the Islamic faith. Now, is
23 that your view or have you ever held that view?
24 A. One cannot opine on that. These are facts. One either accepts
25 them or denies them. However, you cannot have an opinion on facts. It
1 is a fact that at a certain point in history, a large part of the
2 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina was the territory of the Croatian state
3 until the Turks invaded parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 15th century.
4 Throughout the 16th, 17th and 18th century, the Turks imposed Islam upon
5 the Croatian people who lived in what is today Bosnia-Herzegovina. The
6 same way they imposed Islam on the Serb people, those who were of
7 orthodox faith. It is a fact and not a matter of my opinion, a part of
8 the Croatian people who lived in Bosnia-Herzegovina was forced to take on
9 Islam. It is a fact.
10 Q. Going back to the refugee situation in Croatia, is it correct
11 that the -- at some point, perhaps in 1992, 1993, perhaps you can tell us
12 if you know, that the Croatian government in terms of Muslims coming to
14 persons that were fleeing or moving out of Bosnia, that they were
15 primarily moved to four collective officers, that being Gasinci, Obonjan,
16 Varazdin and Samobor. In fact I believe that was during the late summer
17 and autumn of 1993; is that correct?
18 A. When you say predominantly in those centres, that is correct.
19 But however these were not the only centres. There were many more
20 refugee centres which accommodated refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina who
21 were of Muslim faith. In Zagreb
22 Q. Who made the decision, sir, to make those essentially the four
23 principal centres, was that your decision as head of ODPR or if it wasn't
24 your decision, whose decision was it?
25 A. It was nobody's decision. There were no main or principal
1 centres. There were around four -- 500 centres housing refugees and
2 displaced persons. There were no principal centres.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please -- there is
4 something that is very important for me, so I'm just coming back to what
5 you said earlier concerning the assessment of the issue raised in the
7 You said that the Turks had invaded Bosnia-Herzegovina in the
8 17th and 18th century and they forced Croatians to become Muslims and
9 these Croatians became Muslims at the time. That's what you said.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do have a correction
11 to make. The Turks began occupying Bosnia-Herzegovina as early as the
12 late 15th century and then throughout the 16th and 17th century.
13 Occasionally, they imposed Islam on the Catholics there, not upon the
14 Croats there, because they can be forced to take on Islam however they
15 remain Croats.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The 15th century there were
17 Croatians who with time ended up becoming Muslims. They became Muslims.
18 And in 1991, 1992, 1993, some, some of them -- or some people, sorry,
19 believed that Muslims in Bosnia
20 Croatian nation which may either be in Croatia, Australia, the United
21 States or anywhere in the world. Is that what you told us?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In principle, that is so.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which means that when Muslims
24 from Bosnia-Herzegovina -- let's take people for instance coming from
25 Mostar, when they come -- go to Croatia
1 Croatians and based on their identity papers or based on school
2 certificate or whatever paper, you could give them Croatian citizenship.
3 When I say "you" I mean Croatia
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, when there were
6 Muslims from Mostar arriving in the Republic of Croatia
7 largely without any papers and documents. Those of them who wanted to
8 receive the Croatian citizenship, that is those who felt to be Croatian,
9 how they went about that, I don't know. That depended upon them alone.
10 As for Mostar, I wanted to say that between the two world wars,
11 the Muslims in Mostar predominantly declared themselves to be Croats.
12 After World War II, the situation was quite different through the
13 pressure exercised by the Serbian politics which no longer allowed those
14 Muslims to declare themselves to be Croats. That is why a new term was
15 introduced, non-affiliated. Many Muslims accepted that, however my
16 friend whom I mentioned a few moments ago, Ibro Ibrisimovic did not
17 accept that and stated that he was Croat.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for this answer.
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would like to go one step further than this.
20 For, let's say, hundreds of years, the Turks were there, now did the
21 Turks in some way mix with the domestic population, were there
22 intermarriages and is there any record on whether those who live there
23 now descend entirely or partly from Turkish parents, I suppose mainly the
24 fathers. Can you tell us something about this?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you put a question to
1 me which would take a few hours for me to answer; however, since I need
2 to be brief I can tell you this: When the Croatian --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's Croatian.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- when the Turkish army arrived in
5 certain parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina since we were occupying
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina through decades part by part then of course there were
7 mixed marriages, that is to say that certain Turkish soldiers married
8 Christian women and they took Croatian children. Thousands upon
9 thousands of children were taken away by force from their parents and
10 taken back to Turkey
11 them, through individual contacts and throughout history, declared
12 themselves to be of Croatian descent. There is an anecdote Padre
13 Drkolica [phoen] who was a Franciscan monk in Jerusalem in the 16th
14 century received from the Jerusalem
15 basilica of Jesus Christ and to renew it thanks to his friendship with
16 the vizier. As history states, they drank coffee together and spoke
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
19 MR. SCOTT:
20 Q. Sir, if we can touch on some additional information about the
21 refugee situation in Croatia
22 can find 1D 02626. This is an ODPR report dated the 12th of June, 1998
23 And if I can direct your attention, please, to part 3, Roman numeral III
24 of the report which is entitled, "Refugees from BiH and Republic of
1 Then below that, there is a number one and in that first
2 paragraph, the last sentence says, "Until the end of 1992 in Croatia
3 large groups of refugees were arriving and it was impossible to give
4 refugee status to new comers and register them."
5 Now, this takes us back to the topic that we were discussing
6 yesterday in connection with the decision of 13th of July 1992, this
7 statement appears to indicate that -- through the balance of that year,
8 1992, people arriving in Croatia
9 refugee status; is that correct?
10 A. To my knowledge, that is incorrect. You said that the decision
11 was from July, I believe you said the 13th of July, 1992, however, I
12 believe it was on the 13th of July 1993 if I'm not mistaken.
13 Q. You are mistaken, sir. We covered this extensively yesterday and
14 I showed you documentation, July, 13th of July 1992, and this says that
15 until the end of 1992, and it was impossible to give refugee status to
16 new comers and register them. So after July, am I correct sir, taking
17 what we discussed yesterday, and taking this report, which is a report
18 from your agency, that people who arrived after the 13th of July, 1992
19 they may have arrived, they may have been assisted by someone but they
20 were not given legal refugee status; correct?
21 A. It is not.
22 Q. Then if we can go to 1D 02628, we'll come back to that document
23 momentarily if people want to keep their hand on it or close by. If we
24 can go momentarily to 1D 02628 in the Defence binders. Again this
25 document was shown to you during the Defence questioning and the same
1 page. If I can ask you to find again, and I'm using the page numbers if
2 you'll notice on the bottom right corner of the page, there is a 8 digit
3 number with a hyphen in between 1D 34-something if you will find the page
4 where that is 0596. 0596, that is the page I would like you to look at,
6 A. I have 0576 and you're asking for 0596. I found it.
7 Q. Sir, we looked at this briefly yesterday and it appears -- if we
8 look at the period from approximately March 1993 when -- I'm looking at
9 the refugee column, it says there were -- excuse me a moment -- excuse
10 me, April 1993 --
11 A. [In English] April, yes.
12 Q. In April, we have 269.000, do you see that?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And if you turn to the next page, July 1994, July 1994, we have
15 266.000, approximately.
16 A. [Interpretation] 1994, in April, there are 272.000. That is more
17 than in April the year before.
18 Q. Listen to my question. We seem to be having difficulty
19 communicating today, sir. If you would listen to my questions, please,
20 and answer my questions. I didn't ask you about April. I asked you
21 about July 1994, do you understand?
22 A. I do.
23 Q. Sir, Dr. Rebic. Do you understand July 1994?
24 A. Certainly I do.
25 Q. 266.056, do you see that?
1 A. [In English] Yes, I see. Correct.
2 Q. So it appears, sir, that from that -- during that -- 14, 15-month
3 period, there was actually quite a period of stability, the range in
4 there is I think something less than 10 per cent of a variation where
5 with a small peak in, I believe February of 1994, 284 -- approximately
6 284.000; is that correct?
7 A. [Interpretation] That is correct. The influx changed up and down
8 depending on the old ones leaving and new ones arriving. Some people
9 were returning to Bosnia-Herzegovina, some were departing for third
10 countries. That is why you see such slight differences which are quite
12 Q. Now, if we go back to the other document, 1D 02626, the one that
13 we were looking at before. If you're still on -- again in section number
14 III or part III -- perhaps the usher can assist me?
15 A. [In English] Excuse me, Mr. Scott. I don't find it.
16 Q. All right. We will assist you, sir.
17 A. [Interpretation] Excuse me, Mr. Scott. It wasn't in the binder.
18 It was on the desk next to the binder. I'm sorry.
19 Q. Not a problem. There is a lot of paper for everyone to look at.
20 If you can go back to part III, section numbered one that we were
21 looking at a moment ago and go to the next paragraph, it says, "In May
22 1993, after the re-registration of refugees, 271.096 refugees from BiH
23 got refugee status."
24 Do you see that?
25 A. Mr. Scott, yes, I do. That was in May 1993?
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. Yes, I see it.
3 Q. And if we go then down, then, if I can just -- in order to find
4 out how many of those approximately were Muslim, if you go to section
5 number 2, the numbered part 2 on the left side, also in reference to May
6 1993, in that sentence, it tells us that of that 271.000, approximately,
7 157.000 or almost -- approximately 58 per cent were Muslim. Do you see
9 A. [In English] I don't see but I remember that [Interpretation]
10 Yes, I remember that. This is correct, yes.
11 Q. And were these Muslims that had been given refugee status by the
12 state of Croatia
13 when had these Muslims been given refugee status?
14 A. Both before and after. As I said yesterday the ODPR, regardless
15 of the law, I won't say illegally, but regardless of the law granted
16 refugee status to many people because there was simply nothing else to be
18 Q. So what -- do I understand, then, that the decision, the
19 government decision of the 13th of July, 1992 remained in effect, that
20 additional new refugee status not be given but you're saying that your
21 agency went ahead and did it anyway?
22 A. There were instances where it did, but in any case, it took care
23 of refugees, even if they weren't formally granted refugee status. As we
24 saw yesterday from Mr. Mazowiecki's report, in Varazdin there were
25 refugees, Bosniak Muslims from Bosnia-Herzegovina who were not
1 registered, and I observed at the time that in spite of this, they had
2 been provided with accommodation, protection, and everything else in
3 spite of the fact that they had no document.
4 Q. And if we go to part number III, still in the same part number
5 III, again section number 2, the next paragraph starts off by saying, a
6 reference to a decrease. It says, "The most significant reason for
7 decreased number of refugees in Croatia
8 situation in 1992 was departure of a large number of refugees to third
9 countries." Is that correct?
10 A. There was certainly -- there was certainly many instances of
11 departure to third countries because in Croatia, the resources had been
12 exhausted and the UNHCR and some other countries offered to take in
13 refugees, or rather, the UNHCR offered to help and some countries
14 regardless of the UNHCR offer to take in refugees and this alleviated the
16 Q. And if I can ask you to look at footnote 3 in the document, if
17 you go down a page or two or wherever it might be in the Croatian
18 language document but if you can find footnote 3 and for the English it's
19 on the bottom of page 4.
20 A. Yes. I found it.
21 Q. It says, "The best example of the large number of transits
22 through Croatia
23 which more than 25.000 refugees, mostly Muslims, passed within four years
24 of its existing." Do you see that?
25 A. Yes, I do. That's correct.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: For the record, footnote 3 relates to as early as
2 mid-1995 so let's be fair to the witness. He's talking 1992, 1993. Now
3 this is in relation to 1995.
4 MR. SCOTT:
5 Q. And Gasinci was one of the four primary refugee collection
6 centres together with Obonjan, Samobor, and Varazdin?
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Again I object because the gentleman indicated
8 that it wasn't primary. He indicated that there were some 500 refugee
9 centres that had Muslims as well as Croats and that there was no such
10 thing as a primary centre. So I object to this nature of the question
11 because it's been asked, it's been answered, and the gentleman was
12 corrected and I think this is now being unfair to the witness.
13 MR. SCOTT: I think the word -- if we're going to --
14 MR. KARNAVAS: And it's argumentative.
15 MR. SCOTT: If we're going to parse words, Mr. Karnavas, that he
16 said that those were the four predominant centres, and the word is
17 "predominant," and that is in the transcript.
18 Q. Now, if we can look then next, sir, in the third or fourth
19 paragraph --
20 A. Excuse me. Excuse me. I didn't say they were predominant.
21 Q. We'll go back in the transcript, sir. Just a moment. If this is
22 what we're going to have to do then I guess it's what we'll have to do.
23 A. If I may be of assistance while you are looking, what I said was
24 that they were the largest centres.
25 Q. All right. Thank you, sir. They were the four largest centres?
1 A. [In English] Yes.
2 Q. Thank you very much.
3 A. [Interpretation] You're welcome.
4 Q. If I could direct your attention in the same section 2 of the
5 document, if we go down it's not entirely clear the way the breaks are
6 whether it's the third -- continuation of the third paragraph or the
7 fourth paragraph, but in reference again when it talks about the persons
8 going to third countries, there is a paragraph above that says, "42.076
9 refugees, mostly Muslims, left Croatia
10 European and trans oceanic, et cetera."
11 Section 2, it's the third paragraph under the section 2, it's
12 Article 3 -- whatever, it does become confusing, Article 3, Roman numeral
13 III, number 2 on the left side of the page, below that, approximately the
14 third paragraph is a paragraph that begins with the numbers 42.076; do
15 you see that, sir?
16 A. Yes, I do. Mostly Muslims. This means that there were Croats
17 among them too. Yes, I'm aware of that situation.
18 Q. Then in that same paragraph it goes on to say, "There were only
19 few Croats in that figure due to the criteria that were set within
20 relocation programme. Namely, BiH Croats had the right to dual
21 citizenship and among the recipient countries, there was a common
22 position that BiH Croats had the second home country that could take care
23 of them."
24 That is correct, is it not?
25 A. Yes, that's correct.
1 Q. So the persons, the refugees in Croatia that were primarily going
2 out to third countries were Muslims, according to this report. There
3 were only few Croats among them; correct?
4 A. Yes, precisely, because third countries did not wish to take in
5 persons who had Croatian citizenship, so persons with Croatian
6 citizenship remained in our refugee centres.
7 Q. And in fact, if we go to part number -- Roman numeral III, a
8 moment please, we'll still in Roman numeral III, my apology, and if you
9 go to section numbered 12, there's various -- the document goes on and if
10 you get on to the part, please, that is paragraph number 12. About
11 two-thirds of the way through that paragraph it says, "A larger -- a
12 large number of refugees who no longer have the status (due to their own
13 decision or revoked status) have stayed in Croatia on the basis of
14 Croatian citizenship, at least 140.000 of them." Is that correct?
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, this is -- excuse me, we can all
16 read this but this is 1998 that we're referring to. I fail to see the
17 relevancy of all of this because somebody who is enjoying quite a
18 comfortable living standard, who is getting an education there, might
19 decide to stay there but I don't see the relevancy to the indictment. I
20 really don't. Is the Croatian government on trial here? What is this
21 case about now?
22 MR. SCOTT: Well, Your Honour, it's --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, I find it difficult
24 to see what you're trying to establish. I may understand at the end, you
25 never know, but the Defence is telling us that you are referring to
1 something that happened in 1998. You should not mix apples and pears.
2 What's happened in 1998 is not relevant for 1990.
3 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, it's our position that this is
4 statistical information going back and covering a wide period of time
5 including back into 1993, 1992, and the point is, and that's the reason
6 for the questions about Croatian citizenship, that there was a
7 substantial difference in the treatment between persons who came from
9 our position and that's what the documents we submit show.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Again, but why is that relevant? But why is it
11 relevant to the indictment? Every country can make a decision as to who
12 they are going to invite and who are they going to extend citizenship to.
13 If you go to the United States, for instance, it's very difficult to get
14 citizenship. I don't see what the problem is in how it's connected to
15 the joint criminal enterprise. I'm not trying to disrupt the proceedings
16 but I don't -- I think we're far afield at this point.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, your objection
18 has been recorded on the transcript. Let's hear Mr. Scott.
19 Mr. Scott, please proceed.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I mediate here.
21 This really refers to 1995. It says compared to the situation in 1995.
22 In 1995, mass return did begin, return of Muslims to Bosnia-Herzegovina,
23 on a large scale because in the second half of 1995, after Operation
24 Storm and the liberation of parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina as well as
25 occupied parts of Croatia
1 dramatically and that's why a lot of Muslims decided to go back to
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina. This was in 1995.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed, Mr. Scott.
4 MR. SCOTT:
5 Q. If we go back to the third paragraph of part III, back on the
6 page we were looking at before, it tells us, sir, toward the end of that
7 paragraph, it's in 1990 --
8 A. Number three, sorry?
9 Q. Roman numeral III, the section paragraphed number 1, the third
10 paragraph in that section. Sorry that's the way the document has been
11 organised. In that paragraph it says, "Until the end of 1993," you'll
12 see around 20.000 -- it says, "around 20.000 refugees arrived in the
13 first inflow during the summer and autumn 1993, and additional 15.000 at
14 the end of 1993 and the beginning of 1994. At first they stayed in the
15 territory of BiH under the HVO control. A smaller number of refugees
16 from those territories stayed in Croatia in 1993." Now does that appear
17 to you to be consistent that --
18 A. 1992.
19 Q. Sir, this says -- I'm talking about -- if you go back up, "Around
20 20.000 refugees arrived in the first inflow during the summer and autumn
21 of 1993," do you see that?
22 A. Yes, I do. But we had already reached the end of the paragraph
23 where it says in 1992.
24 Q. Yes. And perhaps if you will listen to my questions, we can
25 proceed more efficiently.
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Scott, I'm sorry, this is not justified.
2 You said 1993 and on the paper, it says 1992 and the witness correctly
3 stated this and there's nothing that was -- you simply misspoke and
4 that's all.
5 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, the sentence says, "Around 20.000
6 refugees arrived in the first inflow during the summer and autumn 1993."
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And what's the last figure? Yes, you were going
8 down to the end of the paragraph and what's the last figure there?
9 MR. SCOTT: It was 1992, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: But you said 1993 there.
11 MR. SCOTT: If I misspoke, then.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yeah, yeah, that's okay. It's no crime.
13 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.
14 Q. Sir, does that appear to you to be the -- an accurate statement
15 as you recall it of the inflow of refugees to Croatia from
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina during that time period? The first inflow being about
17 20.000 in summer and autumn 1993 and an additional 15.000, that is a
18 total of 35.000, at the end of 1993?
19 A. Yes, I agree that that's how it was. Whether the numbers are
20 absolutely precise, I can't say, but in general, yes, I agree with them.
21 Q. All right.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, out of the 20.000
23 refugees who arrived in the summer and autumn 1993, and plus the
24 15.000 -- 15.000 that arrived at the end of 1993, a total of 35.000
25 refugees, were they mixed, both Croats and Muslim?
1 In the last paragraph, reference is made to the month of July,
2 22nd of July, 33.000 refugees returned from Bosnia who remained in
4 30.000 Croats and 3.000 Muslims. Do you agree with the figures we see
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see the figure of 33.000. Now,
7 after a lapse of 15 years, I can't tell you whether this is absolutely
8 precise. I would have to check all the documents in the binders in our
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but if we read this last
11 sentence, we get the impression that those who arrived after the 13th of
12 July -- after July 1994, there are only -- there are 33.000 in total,
13 30.000 Croats and 3.000 Muslims.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct because at that
15 time, there was a conflict between the Muslims and Croats in
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina and there were very many victims among the Croats
17 because Croats who were expelled from the enclaves that the Muslims took
18 over. The Muslims expelled those Croats and in the end, they ended up in
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In any case, what this document
21 seems to be telling us is that in 1993, there were 35.000 new refugees,
22 new refugees, but out of this total, we do not have a distribution for
23 1993 between Muslims and Croats. We have that distribution for 1994 but
24 not for 1993.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Scott.
1 MR. SCOTT:
2 Q. If we could go forward, please, sir to --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 MR. SCOTT:
5 Q. If we can go forward, sir, I understand that in May of 1993, you
6 had -- you went on a mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina I think with
7 Dr. Granic. This was something that was I think sometimes referred to as
8 the Turkish-Croatian good will mission; is that correct?
9 A. I wouldn't say Turkish-Croatian, I would simply call it a good
10 will mission. The members of that good will mission were representatives
11 of the Republic of Croatia
12 Republic of Turkey
13 Q. And you went with Dr. Granic as well; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Did you go into east Mostar on that occasion?
16 A. We did go to east Mostar.
17 Q. And what can you tell the Judges about the conditions that you
18 found there in the latter part of May 1993?
19 A. In the latter part of May 1993, there was still a conflict
20 between the two sides. When we crossed over from western to eastern
21 Mostar, we were under fire coming from the Muslim side. We were
22 receiving signals that it was very dangerous, that we should bend down
23 and so on. When we arrived in eastern Mostar, we were received by
24 General Pasalic.
25 Q. Perhaps you could answer my question in terms of what conditions
1 did you find in east Mostar?
2 A. All I can speak about is the impression I had because I didn't
3 spend a long time in eastern Mostar, only a few hours. My impression was
4 that it was chaos among the people, and I barely managed to save my own
6 Q. Was there -- had there been resistance on the part of the
7 delegation, on the Croatian members of the delegation to go into east
8 Mostar at all, that they would -- there was a desire not to go into east
9 Mostar but only to say on the western side?
10 A. No, Mr. Scott, on the contrary. All of us, those from Croatia
12 Moreover, we were supposed to go as far as Tuzla and we wanted to do
13 that, but we were not allowed to by General Pasalic. He wouldn't allow
15 Q. I understand from the information that we've been provided that
16 you did not meet -- we talked with Dr. Prlic yesterday and you did not
17 have any dealings or you did not meet Dr. Prlic during this trip to
18 Mostar; is that correct?
19 A. I don't remember having met Mr. Prlic on that occasion.
20 Q. Now, directing your attention further into 1993, and around the
21 middle of July 1993, did you become aware of discussions about opening --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please. Very brief
24 You went to Mostar with a delegation and you wanted to go to east
25 Mostar but General Pasalic did not agree. If I understand correctly,
1 there were Turks in the delegation. Didn't they protest because it was
2 quite natural for them to go and see the Muslims? What about the Turks
3 who were with you, didn't they say anything?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes, they did. They
5 did protest. They certainly wanted to go on together with us, the rest
6 of us, but General Pasalic, the leader of the Muslim part in eastern
7 Mostar did not allow it. He said to us, "From this point on, I will not
8 provide you with security escorts on the road." And what else could we
9 do without security escorts but go back?
10 I remember that at that meeting with General Pasalic, there was a
11 lively discussion and that he was very arrogant that he attacked the
12 Croats and wouldn't let them get a word in edgeways. To such an extent
13 that the lady minister from the Turkish delegation said to us, "I'm
14 surprised. We were received better by the Croats in west Mostar than by
15 the Muslims here."
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At the time the Spanish
17 battalion of UNPROFOR was there, couldn't you have asked them to take you
18 there in their armoured vehicles, to take you to Mostar east that way?
19 Didn't you have that idea?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To the best of my recollection,
21 UNPROFOR did assist us but very little and they, themselves, seemed to be
22 afraid. The Spanish battalion, which was supposed to come and collect us
23 after the meeting with General Pasalic, came to pick up our delegation in
24 haste and I was among the last to leave because I couldn't find my
25 driver, so I jumped on to an UNPROFOR vehicle, and that's how I managed
1 to get out alive and I left my coat behind. That's the story.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
3 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. Dr. Rebic, I think there's been a bit of confusion caused. My
5 understanding is, and correct me if I am wrong, I think the confusion is
6 on my part. You and your delegation did go into east Mostar and had a
7 tour there for, I think you earlier said, several hours, but you were not
8 able to go on to Tuzla
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. Now, going forward to July of 1993, and your position is as head
11 of the Croatian ODPR, did you become aware of any discussions to open
12 what was called a transit centre at the Ljubuski detention facility in
14 A. Mr. Scott, which centre do you have in mind exactly?
15 Q. There was a place in Ljubuski, a place called Ljubuski, I don't
16 know if you've ever been there or not, perhaps, where there was a place
17 where Muslim people were being held, detained?
18 A. I was in Ljubuski.
19 Q. Yes. Did it come to your attention around that time of a
20 proposal put forward by the HVO to operate a transit centre at the
21 Ljubuski detention camp?
22 A. Mr. Scott, I am not familiar with that. I know of something else
23 that you will probably get to later. As for Ljubuski, I don't know
24 anything, at least I can't remember.
25 Q. All right. Well, lest we be diverted by some sort of -- just
1 again, a confusion in language or translation, what is it -- tell me what
2 it is you're familiar with and perhaps we can see if we're talking about
3 the same thing or not.
4 A. I was wondering, Mr. Scott, whether we were on the same page.
5 May I be of assistance?
6 Q. Please.
7 A. Is it, perhaps, the town of Caplina
8 Q. No. That's not what we're talking about, I'm sorry. Thank you
9 sir for your trying to help. We'll --
10 A. You're welcome.
11 MR. SCOTT: If we could go, Your Honour, into private session, I
12 have a document -- exhibit to show to the witness that is under seal and
13 also not to be broadcast.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session.
15 [Private session]
11 Pages 28464-28465 redacted. Private session.
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
12 MR. SCOTT:
13 Q. Can I ask you, sir, to turn to Exhibit P 10412. P 10412 which
14 should be in one of the Prosecution binders. Sir, this appears to be a
15 Reuters news article dated the 22nd of July 1993, and in the first
16 paragraph, it says, "Croatia
17 from Bosnia
18 implicated in ethnic cleansing, a Croatian official said on Thursday.
20 previous accord with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees so
21 that it would not be interpreted in the west as ethnic cleansing,
22 Adalbert Rebic head of the government's office for refugees told a news
24 Is that an accurate report on what was said -- what you said on
25 the 22nd of July, 1993 as best you recall?
1 A. It can be true partially, although based on a news report, I
2 cannot prove or deny anything. The media frequently acted
3 unprofessionally, superficially and in a hostile way when it comes to
5 the reasons due to which we said that we would have to stop receiving
6 Bosnian-Herzegovinian refugees because there was an increase of
7 accusations in the media that we were helping the Serbs to ethnically
8 cleanse Bosnia-Herzegovina. Therefore, what else could we do but to say,
9 "Very well, then, we will no longer be taking in refugees," because our
10 receiving them and accommodating them was being misinterpreted by some
11 media as well as in certain diplomatic circles.
12 Q. The article says that -- toward the bottom, it says, "Until a few
13 weeks ago, the foreign press was accusing Croatia of closing its borders
14 for refugees, but as soon as we take them in they accuse us of ethnic
16 Now, sir, this is yet again, as we've been discussing since
17 yesterday, another reference to the fact that Croatia's borders up until
18 sometime previous to this article had been closed to refugees. So can
19 you tell us again if they had been closed, when -- is this the first
20 instance when they had been opened again in connection with sending these
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, this is an abuse of the process.
23 This question, the way it's phrased is improper. Look -- this is a
24 Reuters and of course we don't have a particular time, they're saying and
25 it's a quote, "Until a few weeks ago, the foreign press was accusing
2 finds itself in a bind. That's why if the gentleman was allowed to
3 finish his previous answer, which was, "This is why we want the United
4 Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to be involved so there would be
5 no accusations of ethnic cleansing on the part of Croatia for accepting
7 So we have to be fair to the gentleman. And if you look at the
8 quote, the quote speaks for itself. But to misuse the words of the
9 quote, to fit it into some kind of a nepherious and sinister manner, I
10 object to.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
12 MR. SCOTT:
13 Q. Sir, the quotation is attributed to you on the 22nd of July 1993,
14 "Until a few weeks ago," I take it that means until a few weeks prior to
15 22 July 1993
17 complaints or the accusations that around that time, until a few weeks
18 ago, Croatia
19 was the foreign press saying a few weeks before the 22nd of July 1993?
20 A. I'm reading the Croatian text. Well, the Serbian text, in this
21 case. "Until a week ago, the foreign press was accusing Croatia
22 closing down its border for refugees but now that we are receiving them,
23 we are being accused of ethnic cleansing." That is precisely so. We
24 were in dire straits at the time. If we tried going one way, we were
25 accused of this. If we tried the other way, we were accused of that.
1 Often, it was difficult for one to decide, except to follow one's
2 conscience. We decided that we would take in those who reached Croatia
3 and as far as I can remember, the border was never closed for refugees of
4 any ethnicity.
5 And to repeat, I don't trust Reuters.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you're an expert in
7 media because you have had a lot of interviews with the media and I'm not
8 going to enter into more details, but you know as well as I do that when
9 a journalist quotes with inverted come a statement made by a third party,
10 the quotation are almost 100 per cent reliable otherwise this would be a
11 very serious breech of the code of the ethics, and particularly as when
12 it comes to such a famous agency as Reuters it cannot allow itself to
13 quote -- to misquote people because this would go against the reputation
14 of its agencies. It would undermine the reputation of the agency.
15 You say that they made a mistake. Maybe, but some of your
16 statements have been quoted between inverted commas and normally when a
17 journalist gives quotations, normally these quotations are what he heard
18 from the people -- the person he was interviewing. That's a general rule
19 which applies to journalism.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, indeed I have a lot of
21 experience with the media. Until this day, in Croatia, and with foreign
22 media, my experience still is that they do not convey my statement
23 precisely or if they quote it precisely, they put it in the wrong
25 To go back to this text, what I said here is true. I am not
1 disputing these statements. Previously, I said that in principle, I do
2 not trust Reuters and that based on their reports, I wouldn't dare try
3 and prove anything since they had a certain position towards Croatia. It
4 stemmed out of a certain policy direction that was applied to Croatia
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. Fair enough.
6 Mr. Scott.
7 MR. SCOTT:
8 Q. If I could ask you to next go to --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 MR. SCOTT:
11 Q. If I could ask you next to go to a document which I believe we've
12 seen before, P 10048. It's in the Defence binders. Sir, we've looked
13 at -- I believe we've all looked at this document perhaps more than once
14 since you've been here. What -- it was specifically in connection with
15 moving prisoners or people from I think about a thousand Muslims from the
16 Mostar area to Gasinci, and do you recall that being the particular
17 circumstances in which you issued this document which on the subject line
18 says, "Approval for entry and temporary stay in Republic of Croatia
19 A. Mr. Scott, the document was not signed by me. What the document
20 is trying to say is something that becomes clearer if one goes to similar
21 documents which were issued by the ODPR upon request by the UNHCR
22 whenever there was a request to accept refugees from Bosnia and
24 Gasinci or at any other refugee centre. It mostly dealt with Gasinci
25 because the UNHCR had its office there.
1 In 1993, due to the impossibility of Croatia taking in any more
2 refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina, this came about as a consequence. The
3 UNHCR more frequently took part in the resolving of the problem of
4 refugees to the extent possible they took them to third countries, those
5 who could not be taken away stayed with us in the Republic of Croatia
6 Q. Did your agency, sir, play any role in the collection or
7 verification of what was called the letters of guarantee? That was
8 supposed to be part of the package, if you will, for these people to be
9 able to leave where they were in Bosnia
11 A. Mr. Scott, there were different and many cases. There were cases
12 in which the UNHCR would compile a list of those they want to send to
13 third countries who were supposed to transit through Croatia. They would
14 then ask for temporary accommodation. There were also instances in which
15 refugees arrived without a list. The regional centre or the social
16 welfare centre that was competent was supposed to register them. All
17 that documentation is kept in the archives of the ODPR until the present
19 The third set of circumstances involved --
20 Q. My question, sir, was if you could describe any role that your
21 agency played, if any, in the collection or verification of the document
22 which has called in this courtroom, "the letter of guarantee." Did your
23 agency, the ODPR of Croatia, have anything to do with the preparation of
24 those guarantees, obtaining the guarantees, verifying? What role, if
25 any, did your agency have in connection with those guarantees?
1 A. Mr. Scott, yes and no.
2 Q. Depending on what?
3 A. Depending on the situation.
4 Q. Do you recall what the situation was concerning the 500 people
5 coming in connection with your letter or your agency's letter of 16 July
6 1993? Do you know whether these people had letters of guarantee at all?
7 A. Mr. Scott, I cannot know that since I did not sign the document.
8 Probably that day, on that occasion, or that week, I was not in Zagreb
9 Actually, I remember, I was in Geneva
10 Q. Let me ask you to next go to, please, Exhibit P 03708. It's in
11 the Defence binder, my apology. Do you have it, sir?
12 A. [In English] Yes. This, I have.
13 Q. This appears to be a letter that you wrote or at least someone
14 wrote, perhaps you can tell us if that's your signature on the -- at the
15 end of the letter, is that your signature or did someone else sign it for
16 you or what can you tell us?
17 A. Mr. Scott, the signature is mine. It is authentic.
18 Q. You indicated at one point, and I think in the English
19 translation, at least it's at the bottom of the second page, and again
20 you make this point that was referenced in the news article that we
21 looked at earlier, at one point it says, "... we will receive Muslim
22 refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina only in agreement with UNHCR for the
23 purpose of bringing them together with their family members in third
25 Was that, in fact the -- is it your position that that was, in
1 fact, the position of your agency and that policy was implemented from
2 the middle of July 1993 onward? That your agency was not involved in
3 moving any transport, transit, what have you, the movement of any Muslims
4 out of Bosnia and Herzegovina that did not have UNHCR approval?
5 A. Those who did not have UNHCR approval, that is to say that the
6 UNHCR had promised to have them moved on to third countries, were
7 received by the Republic of Croatia
8 Q. And you're saying they then stayed in Croatia?
9 A. Of course. If we are referring to the same text on page 2, I'll
10 read it in English, if I may, [In English] "the current policy,"
11 [Interpretation] is that the text you're referring to? [In English] "In
12 accordance with the current policy."
13 Q. Yes, sir, I believe so. Yes. The statement goes on further on
14 that page?
15 A. [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. In accordance with the
16 policy so far, we have drawn no distinctions between Muslims and Croats
17 as you are doing. In hotels, we have both Muslims and Croats just as we
18 have Croats in refugee centres as well. Proof of this is Spansko
19 where -- there are both Muslims and Croats in Spansko; that is, and then
20 there is another one where there are Croats from Vukovar. You do have
21 the English translation.
22 Q. Yes, I referred it to you a few minutes ago. Thank you, sir.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: For the purpose of the context I would ask that
24 the entire paragraph, following paragraph, be taken into consideration
25 with Mr. Scott's previous question with reference to UNHCR because it's
1 quite clear why Dr. Rebic is making sure that UNHCR should be involved.
2 MR. SCOTT: My question was never about what the letter says but
3 whether, in fact, that was the policy of ODPR and whether that policy was
4 followed consistently after July -- middle of July 1993.
5 Q. So is it your position, Dr. Rebic, that this -- these Judges
6 should understand that any of these scenarios after July 1993 occurred
7 only with UNHCR approval? Is that what you're telling this Chamber?
8 A. Yes, Mr. Scott, but Mr. Karnavas is right. The passage which
9 follows is very important for an understanding of the situation. I will
10 read it out --
11 Q. Please, please, answer my question, sir. Dr. Rebic, listen to my
12 question. My question is not -- we have the document -- letter in front
13 of us we've all read it. Everyone in the courtroom has read it, do you
14 understand that?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. My question to you was: Was that, in fact, obeyed, the position
17 of -- there will be no more sending whatever word, I'm trying to think of
18 a neutral word so I don't get an objection, we will not transit any more
19 Muslims through Croatia
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina unless we have UNHCR approval. Was that your position
21 and was that, in fact, carried out from July 1993 forward?
22 A. Not in full.
23 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We need to take the
25 20-minute break. You will have 50 minutes left, Mr. Scott. I hope there
1 won't be too many objections.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: 50 or 15?
3 MR. SCOTT: Five zero.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Five zero. 50. Five zero.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: I don't think so. But okay.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to ask the registrar
7 to check again. He told me a few minutes ago that Mr. Scott has used --
8 had used three hours and 22 minutes. Mr. Scott had four hours and 15
9 minutes because you yourself used 15 additional minutes, so in other
10 words, Mr. Scott still has 15 minutes. We'll resume at 5.00 p.m. We'll
11 be sitting -- we'll have Mr. Scott for -- until quarter to 6.00 and then
12 we'll have some time left for re-examination, but I'll ask the registrar
13 to check again. 20-minute break.
14 --- Recess taken at 4.35 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 5.00 p.m.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, you have the floor.
17 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Your Honour, if we could go back into private session, please,
19 for a moment.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.
21 [Private session]
11 Page 28476 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
19 MR. SCOTT:
20 Q. I'm showing you P 10192 which appears to be a letter by your
21 agency on the 26th of August, 1993, subject "confirmation of consent for
22 transit through the Republic of Croatia
23 And giving these persons, these listed persons the right to
24 travel through the republic, looking at the first actual paragraph,
25 "... through the Republic of Croatia
1 shall last no longer than 48 hours." Apparently on their way to Germany
2 Is that a document issued by your agency and is it signed by you or
3 someone else?
4 A. Mr. Scott, the document was not signed by me. Perhaps you can
5 compare it with a document I signed, and you will see there is a
6 difference. On top of that, the document was not issued by the
7 governmental Office for Displaced Persons and Refugees. Judging by the
8 stamp, it was issued by an office in Makarska. There is one other thing
9 I can mention, if it is of any importance. In August 1993, I was on
10 vacation in France
12 Q. Thank you for that. Can you tell us, though, who would have
13 decided then in your absence, for example, in this letter, who decided
14 that 48 hours would be the appropriate time for transit?
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Again, Mr. President, I object. It assumes a fact
16 that's not in evidence. He's indicated that this was not issued by his
17 office, so how could he determine, you know, about the 48 hours?
18 MR. SCOTT: I didn't -- I don't think he said that. I think the
19 correct answer was he didn't sign it. It says, "Office for Expelled
20 Person, People and Refugees of the Government of the Republic of
23 MR. KARNAVAS: He pointed to the stamp.
24 MR. SCOTT: If it's necessary, Your Honour, I will waste more
25 time by going back through it again.
1 Q. Sir, I understand it's not your signature, but this is a letter
2 issued by the agency of which you were in charge; correct?
3 A. It is correct that this is not my signature. That is number one.
4 Number two, it is correct that it was issued by the regional office of
5 Makarska which was one of the 21 regional offices of the governmental
7 Q. As the head of this agency and perhaps you didn't sign this
8 particular document, but given your familiarity with the work of the
9 organisation that you were in charge of, who would decide, then, who in
10 the chain of command, so to speak, would decide that 48 hours was the
11 appropriate time?
12 A. Concerning the duration or transit through Croatia, the person
13 issuing such a document could decide on it pursuant to another document,
14 for example, a UNHCR document which guaranteed that the refugees from
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina would be moved on to third countries within a certain
16 period of time.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we're going do save
18 some time. 48 hours here is handwritten. The person who signed the
19 document wrote 48 hours. He could have written 72 hours or something
20 else. Mr. Scott wants to know who decides that it's going to be 48
21 hours. The answer itself is obvious, it's the person who signed and who
22 wrote 48 hours. Did he have the authority to write 48 hours, 72 hours,
23 one week? Did he have that power?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At this moment, I cannot know that.
25 I don't know what the legislation there was in place at the time. During
1 that month, I was abroad. In essence, the regional offices did not grant
2 refugee status, only the governmental office was able to do that.
3 Pursuant to the law, they were supposed to ask the central office to
4 grant that. Regional offices were not allowed to grant refugee status,
5 they could only grant displaced person status.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, please proceed.
7 MR. SCOTT:
8 Q. If we can look at the last page of the letter or the bottom of
9 the letter, in any event above the -- your name, I didn't say signature,
10 but above your name, it says, "The above-stated persons in transit cannot
11 request or be given refugee status in the Republic of Croatia
12 see that?
13 A. I do see it, Mr. Scott.
14 Q. Is that a standard language that was put on these documents
15 whenever a Muslim was coming from the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
16 A. In respect of whether that person was Muslim or Croatian, if he
17 or she was coming from the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and if they
18 only requested transit, they were supposed to be granted such status
19 without granting them refugee status. After having received a transit
20 permit, they could no longer ask for refugee status except in cases in
21 which third countries would not take them and returned them to Croatia
22 In that case, Croatia
24 Q. I'm going to ask you --
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, I have a question in regard to the
1 transcript, on line 18, the first words are "In respect of whether" and I
2 wonder whether the witness did not want to say irrespective of whether, I
3 suppose Mr. Karnavas had the same point, I'm sorry if I preempted it.
4 It's actually a question, witness. Did you say something like in respect
5 of or did you say irrespective of?
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Dr. Rebic.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As regards. Excuse me, what is it
8 all about?
9 MR. KARNAVAS: The transcript and it's moving up now, it's on
10 page 14, it's on page 51, line 14 -- line 18.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Now 18.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'd like to see the text. I said,
13 "Irrespective of whether a person was Muslim or Croat."
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I hope this will be
15 clarified once and for all. Yesterday, you've answered questions by the
16 Defence. I've asked questions of you too, and the Prosecutor is allowed
17 to put these questions again. I'm going to sum up again. Let's assume
18 we have someone who has a transit visa because he has a guarantee to go
19 to a third country. That person does not have a refugee status; is that
20 right? Fine. Now it's clear for me at least.
21 Mr. Scott.
22 We've spent hours on this.
23 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. By
24 your leave, I would like to note that the witness's response to your
25 question did not make it in the transcript.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Witness, can you please
2 repeat your answer to the question I asked you?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Your Honour, would you
4 mind repeating the question?
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. I said that we spent
6 hours trying to find out whether someone who was in transit, because he
7 or she had a letter of guarantee from a third country, that person would
8 not be granted refugee status by the government of Croatia because he
9 would receive that status, the status of a refugee, in the country where
10 he would be going to. Is that what you're telling us?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is my position
12 and that was my answer.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
14 MR. SCOTT:
15 Q. And sir, if I could ask you to look very briefly at the very next
16 document, please, which is 10193. Can you just simply confirm that that
17 is again a similar document in fact issued the same day, the 26th of
18 August, 1993, again giving a person 48 hours to transit through Croatia
19 stating that the person cannot request or receive refugee status in the
20 Republic of Croatia
21 A. Yes, Mr. Scott, I see the document. The document reflects the
22 same procedure. It is another document issued by the regional office in
23 Makarska. It was not signed by me. It was signed by the head of the
24 regional office.
25 Q. Can I go on, sir, to just your knowledge of what was happening in
1 connection with these various events when people would show up in Croatia
2 either at the Zagreb
3 yesterday I believe that what was happening in Herceg-Bosna really wasn't
4 your remit, and you've told us you were only there on approximately, I
5 don't know, maybe two or three occasions, I think you may have told us
6 now. Is it correct, sir, that in terms of what was happening on the
7 other end of these transactions, so to speak, what was happening at the
8 Ljubuski prison, what was happening at the Heliodrom, what was happening
9 at Dretelj, you had no personal knowledge of that; is that correct, sir?
10 A. That is correct, absolutely nothing until we discovered the
12 Q. Well, for example, when we talk about these letters of transit or
13 transit visas and letters of guarantee, did you have any knowledge at the
14 time that what was happening would be that people would tell the Muslim
15 prisoners in these camps that if they signed these papers, they could be
16 released from prison. They would have an hour to gather their families
17 and to sign over their property to the HVO and under those conditions
18 they would be able to leave Herceg-Bosna?
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection, Your Honour. It's argumentative and
20 assumes a lot of facts that are not necessarily established. So -- and
21 the question has been asked and answered and this is argumentative. He
22 can put that in his closing argument.
23 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I'm asking whether this witness
24 whether --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, your objection is
1 dismissed because the same question has been asked of other witnesses.
2 The Trial Chamber is perfectly aware of that possibility and I think it's
3 a good idea to check that with the witness, but I asked the same question
4 myself yesterday.
5 Mr. Scott.
6 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Sir, my question -- you don't know anything about the
8 circumstances which confronted the people who were being released in
10 finding themselves at the Zagreb
11 or some other place. You don't know what drove them to arrive at those
12 locations, do you?
13 A. It is correct that I had no knowledge, absolutely nothing which
14 can also be seen from my yesterday's answer concerning the mosque.
15 Q. I'd like you to next please go to Exhibit P 10408. Sir, in the
16 interest of time, I'm going to ask for your cooperation, please. This is
17 an article in the Christian Science Monitor dated the 24th of June 1993,
18 and the article indicates that as a result of the conflict between the
19 Croats and Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina that was occurring by the middle
20 of 1993, that in fact the conditions and the treatment that Muslims in
21 refugee centres and Muslims who found themselves in Croatia at the time,
22 the treatment and conditions they confronted were becoming worse.
23 Now, what can you tell us about that in your experience? What
24 complaints, what reports did you receive about the treatment that these
25 Muslims in Croatia
1 A. Mr. Scott, I wasn't receiving any such complaints stating that
2 such negative conduct occurred in the Republic of Croatia
3 is alleged here concerning the Muslims in Croatia. I know that in the
4 press there were many rumours and lots of libel, and I mentioned that in
5 my letter to Mrs. Turkovic.
6 Q. The short answer is you're telling the Chamber you didn't know
7 anything about any complaints such as these, information such as this?
8 A. No.
9 Q. I would like you, please, to go to Exhibit P 00757 in the
10 Prosecution binder. Sir, you told us, I believe, that in the last couple
11 of days that you knew Mr. Mazowiecki, excuse me, my apology, that you had
12 known him, you respected -- if I'm not mistaken, you said you respected
13 him, thought well of him. And this is one of his reports dated the 17th
14 of November, 1992 and if I can please direct your attention to paragraph
15 62. Fortunately, the paragraphs are numbered so in either translation
16 you should be able to find paragraph 62.
17 And in that paragraph, it says, "In particular, the special
18 rapporteur received information which reveals that ethnic minorities
19 living in the Republic of Croatia
20 violations. For example, a number of organisations representing the
21 Serbian minorities assert that the criteria prescribed for obtaining
22 Croatian citizenship discriminate against residents of non-Croatian
23 ethnic origin. The organisation charged that ethnic Croats automatically
24 obtain citizenship regardless of the place or duration of their past
25 residence while minorities living in the Republic of Croatia
1 often long-term residents commonly experience up to six month delays or
2 simply refused citizenship."
3 Now, did that situation come to your attention in 1992, 1993?
4 A. Mr. Scott, never was my attention directed at such cases, quite
5 to the contrary, I know that all ethnic minorities received Croatian
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, isn't the problem that
8 in this paragraph, in paragraph 62, we are talking about Serb minorities?
9 As a result, we could understand that Serbian minorities had to wait for
10 a very long time, but as for people coming from Bosnia and Herzegovina
11 because they were considered as Croats because of the Turks and the 16th
12 century or the 12th century, it could be assumed that they would have
13 less difficulties than the Serbs. Is that the case?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can't provide a
15 simple answer to a whole host of ambiguous issues here. As regards the
16 difficulties in granting citizenship, there were on the side of Croats as
17 well as on the side of the minorities, I mean Serbs, when I said that, if
18 the paperwork was not orderly. If all the documents requested needed to
19 receive a certificate of citizenship were in order, there were no
20 problems. As far as I understand, there were problems but Croats
21 encountered the same problems if they lacked the necessary documents to
22 be issued with such documents, to be issued with such a certificate.
23 When I referred to ambiguous issues, I had in mind the Muslims in
25 previously spoke about the Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina which declare
1 themselves to be Croatian, I had more recent times in mind, beginning
2 with the late 19th century until the present day.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a second, Witness. This
4 paragraph applies to minorities living, because in English they use the
5 term "living," people living in Croatia. These are not people who come
6 to Croatia
7 Special Rapporteur seems to be taking into account that the situation of
8 minorities living in Croatia
9 coming from outside Croatia
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My interpretation relates to
12 minorities in the Republic of Croatia
13 were experienced by Croats if there were not documents which were in good
14 order, then someone, regardless of whether he was a member of the
15 minority or the majority population had problems because they had to
16 gather all the documents, and this would take months. After all this
17 time today, in Croatia
18 minorities have their status of citizens of Croatia and it's in good
20 MR. SCOTT:
21 Q. If we could next please go to Exhibit P 01462 in the Prosecution
22 binder. This is a report, again, by Mr. Mazowiecki dated the 10th of
23 February, 1993. If I can direct your attention, please, to paragraph 118
24 in which the report expresses concern again, in particular, about the
25 discrimination against minorities who have been refused citizenship and
1 are subjected to verbal and physical abuse.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, at this point, I will be objecting.
3 I didn't object the first time because I thought maybe the Bench would
4 have objected. Now are we litigating the issues with the Serbs, the Serb
5 minority in Croatia
6 occupied --
7 MR. SCOTT: It says minorities. It says minorities.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, there's a big difference between a minority
9 in a constituent nation and I'm shocked that Mr. Scott doesn't realise
10 the difference and obviously had a problem earlier on, but now we're into
11 a different issue and I am objecting. How large is the scope of the
12 indictment because we haven't been noticed that now we're taking on the
13 Serb minority issue in Croatia
14 Trial Chamber to take control of the situation here.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is not something I had not
16 noticed. This is the reason why I asked the previous question
17 highlighting the fact that paragraph 62 applies to the Serbs living in
19 continues along this line, but if you want to waste your time this is
20 your problem.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Where is it in the indictment? Do I have to
22 defend against this? Because that's what I want to know. Am I going to
23 have to defend against this because then we need to call in other
24 witnesses. I'm progressing under the assumption that we have an
25 indictment and the indictment stands as it is and I'm defending against
1 this indictment. Now we're talking about Serbs and a Serb minority at
2 this period. So now we're expanding the indictment and I object on the
3 grounds of jurisdiction.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So we're going to solve the
5 problem. Mr. Scott, according to you, do you believe that the Serb
6 minorities are included in the indictment or do you ask this question
7 from a general point of view?
8 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, all the documents that I've shown to the
9 witness in the last few minutes talk about minorities, not just Serbs,
10 and I believe it was Dr. Rebic who told us yesterday that in the Republic
11 of Croatia
12 that sounds to me like a minority. Whether they come, whether they were
13 born in Croatia
14 limited to Serbs, I don't know who suggested it was just talking about
15 Serbs. The paragraphs that I've indicated mention Serbs but it mentions
16 minorities in general.
17 We've spent two days, three days talking about, you know, how all
18 these people were received from Croatia
19 well, et cetera so I'm entitled to respond to it, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, you're not answering
21 the legal problem Mr. Karnavas has raised. For the Prosecution, the Serb
22 minorities against which there was a discrimination, to get the status of
23 Croatians, are they included in the indictment or not? Yes or no? If
24 you say no, you will have -- you then explain that you take the example
25 of Serbian minorities just to show that there was a general
1 discrimination policy.
2 MR. SCOTT: What you just said, Your Honour. It's both general
3 and applies to minorities -- I've already answered the question. That
4 there was a general policies and behaviour toward non-Croats, toward
5 non-Croats including both Serbs and Muslims.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I mediate?
7 MR. SCOTT: We're not going to finish today, Your Honour, if we
8 do this.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a minute. I'm waiting for
10 the registrar to tell me first how much time Mr. Scott still has left,
11 then I secondly I would like to remind Mr. Karnavas that if he has
12 additional questions, we -- and wants some redirect, we said that the
13 redirect time would be included in the time allocated to the direct
14 examination of the witness. So theoretically, you have no time for
15 redirect because you've already used all the time you were allocated.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: [Previous translation continues] ... apply this
17 policy. This is the first I've heard. We went through 22 months and the
18 Prosecution never had that policy, now you're imposing a policy on me. I
19 object to that first of all.
20 Second of all, there have been a lot of time being wasted --
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is in the guidelines.
22 Guideline number 6, it is guideline number 6, read guideline number 6.
23 Mr. Scott, you've used three hours and 43 minutes. So you can
24 now proceed to finish.
25 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Sir, in Exhibit P 01462, if I can please ask you to turn to
2 paragraph 136. In the middle of that paragraph, it says, "The entry of
3 refugees into Croatia
4 holding a letter of a third country guaranteeing their settlement.
5 Croatian Red Cross records show 700.000 registered refugees and displaced
6 persons constituting 17 per cent of the Croatian population. 80 per cent
7 of them live with Croatian families. Most families receive material aid,
8 et cetera, the refugees estimated 540.000 are mostly Muslims from Bosnia
9 and Herzegovina
10 Excuse me. Well, I -- the question, sir, is did not the
11 situation, the discrimination as to the citizenship apply to the Muslims
12 coming from Bosnia-Herzegovina as we've seen and discussed in the
13 previous document and in this one? "The entry of refugees into Croatia
14 has been restricted by the government to those holding a letter from a
15 third country guaranteeing their settlement." And that's the only way,
16 sir, that people could come in to pass through Croatia at that time.
17 They would into the be given refugee status.
18 And, sir, that's the case I put to you and we've been talking
19 about now for the last two days if we can come right down to it. Sir,
20 from July 1992 forward, undoubtedly a number of Muslims passed through
22 state of Croatia
23 would be allowed, they would be given a transit visa, what was called a
24 transit visa, and allowed to pass through to some other country but not
25 to remain in Croatia
1 of you show could not apply for and would not receive refugee status.
2 Isn't that the case?
3 A. No, that is absolutely not the case. It's an erroneous
4 conclusion. One cannot draw general conclusions from individual
5 examples. It's true that there was some persons from Bosnia and
7 therefore, they did not have the right to seek refugee status. It's also
8 true that persons who entered the Republic of Croatia
9 asking for refugee status were granted refugee status. That's what is
10 true and correct.
11 Q. Could I ask you, please, to go to Exhibit P 06697. Sir, this is
12 a report from, again, from Mr. Mazowiecki. This one dated the 20th of
13 November, 1993. Directing your attention first of all to paragraph 136.
14 "Since the last report, the situation of the Muslim minority and refugees
15 in Croatia
16 43.469 persons or 0.9 per cent of the population of Croatia identified
17 themselves as Muslims." Now, I'll stop there.
18 I think it was yesterday, perhaps, at some point since you've
19 been testifying you indicated you thought the Muslim population of
21 would you agree that this is generally consistent with what you've said,
22 that there was something like 1 per cent or less of the Croatian
23 population was Muslim?
24 A. According to this report, yes, it's 0.9 per cent, so it
25 corresponds more or less to my report or my statement.
1 Q. Referring your attention to paragraph 137, do you recall that
2 there was increasing hostility expressed by the Croatian media against
3 the Muslim minority and refugees in Croatia in 1993?
4 A. Not to a significant extent. It's understandable that here and
5 there in the Republic of Croatia
6 never informed of any significant incidents.
7 Q. Can I direct can your attention, please, to paragraph 139.
8 "There have been reports with many Muslims in Croatia have been denied
9 citizenship although they were either born in Croatia or had lawful
10 residence in Croatia
11 Going on to say, "Almost 200 Muslims are said to have been denied
12 citizenship." Now I'm just citing that as one example.
13 Were you not aware of the continuing concern that the Muslims who
14 found themselves in Croatia
16 A. Mr. Scott, I'm not aware that someone who had reason to obtain
17 Croatian citizenship and the requisite documents was denied that
18 citizenship. I'm not aware of a single instance.
19 Q. In paragraph -- directing your attention to paragraph 143, did
20 you become aware of any situations where Muslims were expelled from
23 A. I'm not aware of that, no.
24 Q. Can I ask you next, please, to go to Exhibit P 07917. Directing
25 your attention, sir, and this is the Mazowiecki report dated the 21st of
1 February, 1994
2 attention to the second sentence in that paragraph, "Since the escalation
3 of hostilities between the Bosnian Croat and the government forces in
5 of local Muslims and Bosnian Muslim refugees by the authorities, the
6 police, and especially soldiers returning from the front. During his
7 visit to Split
8 illegal and forced evictions," et cetera.
9 Did that information come to your attention during this time?
10 A. Mr. Scott, I was not informed of these matters although there
11 were incidents, but I was not informed, nor was I aware of any
12 significant incidents.
13 Q. I direct your attention to paragraph 94. Did you ever become
14 aware of continuing concerns, this is the fourth, now, report that we've
15 looked at by Mr. Mazowiecki. In paragraph 94, the continuing concerns
16 with -- discriminatory treatment in connection with citizenship. "The
17 Special Rapporteur has received reports concerning discriminatory
18 treatment of Croatian citizens, in this case, whose place of birth is
19 Bosnia and Herzegovina. They are discriminated against in obtaining
20 employment, social benefits," and did you know that was going on as to
21 people coming from Bosnia-Herzegovina, in particular, during this time?
22 Or did none of this information -- you're saying none of these
23 complaints, none of this information was coming to your attention?
24 A. Mr. Scott, that's correct. In the ODPR, none of this was drawn
25 to my attention. What it says here about employment, I have to say that
1 in the Republic of Croatia
2 Republic of Croatia
3 no jobs.
4 Q. You've said in the course of your -- you've said in the course of
5 your testimony that people were not sent back, they were never sent back
6 to Bosnia-Herzegovina repatriated, returned, against their will. Is that
7 your position, sir?
8 A. Yes, that's correct. The ODPR of the Republic of Croatia
9 returned anyone by force.
10 Q. You also told us, sir, that indeed there came a time that a
11 policy was adopted when refugee status was revoked or would be revoked
12 when it was determined that according to someone, which is what I'm going
13 to ask you about, decided that it was safe for some people to return to
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina. Now, you did tell us that, didn't you?
15 A. That's correct, yes.
16 Q. And who made the decision as to what location, what locations in
17 Bosnia and Herzegovina were considered "safe" for people to return,
18 refugees to return to?
19 A. We received information when it came to Herzegovina from the
20 office of -- for displaced persons and other representatives of the local
21 authorities in the municipalities and municipal clubs which were familiar
22 with the local situation. They knew it well. Based on these reports, we
23 knew to which areas persons who had been expelled to go back and they did
24 go back.
25 We acted in the same way in the Republic of Croatia
1 areas were liberated, we learned from the local authorities in the
2 municipalities and then sent the displaced persons from those areas back.
3 Q. Tell me, give me an example, sir. When you say the authorities
4 in the municipalities or municipal club would make a determination that
5 an area was safe. Can you give us a concrete example of that?
6 A. There are specific examples in the documents. Let's say, for
7 instance, when we revoked refugee status from the area of western
9 were safe to which the displaced persons could go back. And we
10 constantly received requests from the Embassy of Bosnia-Herzegovina to
11 send refugees back to Bosnia-Herzegovina so that wherever the conditions
12 were in place, Bosnia-Herzegovina could be defended, built up, and so on.
13 Q. Sir, are you telling us that if some social club in Stolac said
14 it was safe for people to come back there, that was good enough for your
15 organisation to start sending people back to Stolac?
16 A. Not quite. There were certain conditions that the regional
17 offices and centres for social welfare from the central -- received from
18 the central office. The villages and towns were lists but there were
19 also conditions attached, persons whose houses had been destroyed should
20 not be sent back, persons who were ill, or parents who had children in
21 school, or persons who would not be safe in that place who would be
22 imperilled could not be sent back, and this referred to Muslims in the
23 Croatian areas and vice versa, Croats in the Muslim areas.
24 Q. Sir, would you agree with me that you could take a given area in
25 Bosnia and Herzegovina at that time and it might very well be -- might
1 be, might be considered safe for one ethnic group but not for another?
2 A. We did take that into account to avoid putting people in a
3 dangerous situation. That was a very important task of our office in
4 agreement with the UNHCR. When sending displaced persons and refugees
5 back, we took care never to put them in a position where their lives
6 would again be in danger.
7 Q. Did you, for example, at any time concerning the return of
8 refugees or repatriation of refugees to Herzegovina, did you ever exclude
9 or exempt Muslims from that policy on the theory that well, for most --
10 maybe it was safe for Croats to go back but not for Muslims. Can you
11 tell the Judges whether you ever made that determination?
12 A. Yes, the regional offices were informed of this. They were
13 informed that what the refugee said about his safety or lack of safety in
14 his place of residence should be taken into account.
15 Q. Sir, I'm not asking you on an individual case-by-case basis, but
16 can you tell the Judges, did your agency recognise that as to these
17 return policies, that they would apply, for example, as to Herzegovina
18 they would apply to Croats but not to Muslims?
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, one it has been asked and answered
20 and two, Herzegovina
21 asked and answered and on an individual basis, that's the whole point,
22 that you discriminate, you know, where somebody can go and where somebody
23 can't go. The question has been asked and answered.
24 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I don't know where Mr. Karnavas gets
25 this theory about asked and answered. I'm entitled to probe the witness.
1 I don't have to accept the first answer. He -- and he didn't answer my
2 question. He said on "an individual basis" which was not my question.
3 Q. So I came back with my original which was: "Was there a
4 determination made in the area of Herzegovina
5 areas where your agency decided that, well, look, for these areas, it's
6 safe for Croats to go back, and we're going to apply -- we're going to
7 revoke refugee status of Croats and send them back to Bosnia but for
8 Muslims, we're not because it's not safe for Muslims to go back there."
9 I'm not talking about on an individual case -- I'm talking as two groups
10 of people. That's my question?
11 A. My answer to you is that those areas were, in general, safe for
12 all persons and our office could not know whether all the refugees would
13 be safe on their way back. That is why statements made by individuals
14 were taken into account and respected. If a refugee complained to the
15 main office or the regional office that they personally did not feel safe
16 in the place where they were to return.
17 Q. Sir, do you recall in a time that -- concerning this issue,
18 excuse me, do you recall that it was only after repeated interventions by
19 either Ms. Turkovic or Mr. Krajisnik that you indicated to your office,
20 to your field offices, that in fact a previous policy that you had
21 directed that you had issued about sending people back, that after their
22 interventions, you changed the policy to make it clear that in
24 not remember that?
25 A. Mr. Scott, I remember a meeting with representatives of the
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina embassy. That meeting has already been mentioned by
2 me in this courtroom. It's correct that I received a letter where
3 difficulties were put forward both by Mrs. Bisera Turkovic and
4 Mr. Jadranko Prlic, and they said that this sort of general return to
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina was not yet possible.
6 We had a long discussion. We made a thorough analysis of the
7 whole issue and together with Bisera, Krijsek [as interpreted], Tadic and
8 Ragus, I immediately sent a clarification to all the regional offices
9 saying that they should adhere to the conditions which were already in
10 place although they had not been expressly listed but the offices should
11 have known about them, so I just reminded the offices that they should
12 send refugees back only in an organised way, gradually, and in agreement
13 with the authorities, the local authorities, in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
14 And in addition to this, I stated quite clearly and gave
15 instructions that persons whose homes were destroyed should not be sent
16 back. Persons who were ill and needed medical assistance in Croatia
17 should not be sent back. Persons whose children were in school. And
18 persons who felt threatened in their place of return. All of those were
19 not to be sent back. And that was respected and I had no further
20 complaints either from Mrs. Bisera Turkovic or from Mr. Jadranko Prlic.
21 We harmonised our standpoints in this process.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, can you please
23 tell me how much time is left?
24 Mr. Scott, you have ten minutes left.
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I would just like to say, just take
1 about 30 seconds on this. We are very concerned, we will let
2 Mr. Karnavas fight his own specific battles about the re-examination of
3 this witness of his, but we are very concerned, Your Honour, because in
4 our submission, Your Honours are misapplying and, with respect, to some
5 extent, misunderstanding your own guideline 6, paragraph 19, and at some
6 point, Your Honour, we would like the opportunity of addressing you on
7 that. We appreciate the time constraints today, but we certainly do not
8 wish any ruling to be made today which might be taken against us when we
9 put down that marker that we do say that what Your Honours have said
10 about the time for direct examination, the time for examination-in-chief
11 also including re-examination time, it is just wrong on your own
12 guidelines. So may we have that opportunity at a convenient point?
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
14 Mr. Scott, you have ten minutes.
15 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Sir, just a final point on this question and then I'll go on
17 because I thought you had given us a clear answer, but I'm not sure as
18 your answer continued it was. I put it to you, sir, that in October of
19 1993, after repeated interventions by Muslim authorities, that you
20 clarified very specifically that the direction to return to repatriate
21 refugees to Herzegovina
22 not to Muslims.
23 Now, do you remember that? Can you confirm that for us or not?
24 A. I don't recall that but I can confirm in principle, in general,
25 that in Herzegovina
1 refugees were able to return and no longer needed to enjoy refugee
2 status. As regards Muslims, since the Serbs in the former JNA had
3 occupied their areas and at that time, this amounted to about 70 per cent
4 of Bosnia
5 Q. All right, sir are, I'm going to -- we'll take it at that because
6 we have to finish up here in the next few minutes.
7 Let us go back to the situation regarding the Dretelj camp
8 because you went to that camp with Dr. Granic and Mr. Prlic and others in
9 late September 1993; is that correct?
10 A. It's correct that I was there but I visited only once. The way
11 it was interpreted to me, it could mean that I visited more than once but
12 it was actually only on one occasion.
13 Q. Around the 23rd or 24th of September 1993, sir, you went to visit
14 the Dretelj camp and then there was a press conference, I believe, later
15 at Medjurgorje. You recall that, don't you?
16 A. Yes, I do, that's correct.
17 Q. And when you went to the Dretelj camp and you visited that camp
18 at the time, can you recall to the Judges the condition of the prisoners,
19 the men who were being held in that camp, what was their condition as you
20 observed it?
21 A. As soon as the government of the Republic of Croatia
22 Q. Sir, when you were at the camp, what did you see, sir?
23 A. I'll answer. First I have to have a dependent clause and then I
24 will give you my independent clause. That's the rule of the Croatian
25 language, Croatian syntax. As soon as the Croatian government learned
1 what was happening, I went with Professor Granic, I was tasked by the
2 government to go there to see what the situation was and to resolve it on
3 the spot; that is, to take over the prisoners there and to give them
4 refugee status in the Republic of Croatia
5 Q. Sir, what was the condition of the men that you saw there when
6 you were there in September 1993? That's my question, sir. And you know
7 my time is limited.
8 A. It's very hard, after more than 15 years, to remember what these
9 people looked like. I did not have the impression that they looked the
10 way some media describe it, but to be a prisoner is certainly not
11 pleasant and cannot have good consequences for a person, but only bad
13 Q. Sir, on every account, I dare say, every account and the
14 witnesses that have come before this Chamber, some of whom were
15 prisoners, have made it very clear that the condition of these men was
16 absolutely horrendous, they were emaciated, they were sick. You're
17 saying you didn't see that or didn't seem to you a big deal or what are
18 you telling these Judges?
19 A. No, Mr. Scott, that's not what I said. I said I don't remember
20 precisely what they looked like, but they were certainly in a miserable
21 condition because every prisoner by virtue of being a prisoner is in a
22 miserable condition. I didn't have time to inspect individuals. Our
23 stay in Dretelj was very brief and my task was to get these people out as
24 soon as possible, as urgently as possible and accommodate them as
25 refugees in the Republic of Croatia
1 Q. The answer you gave a moment ago on page 72 line 23, 24 was: "I
2 did not have the impression they looked the way some media described
3 it ..." and frankly that came across as, they didn't look that bad to me.
4 Now, are you changing your answer? Did you see these men or not or maybe
5 you didn't even go there. Please tell the Judges.
6 A. I will say that some media stated that they were all like
7 skeletons. I didn't see any skeletons. That's what I meant to say. I
8 didn't mean to say that they were in good condition.
9 Q. May I ask you, please, to turn to Exhibit P 10423. P 10423. I
10 may need the usher's assistance if he doesn't find it right away because
11 of the time.
12 Sir, in the diary that you provided which was marked as an
13 exhibit on Monday, you -- for an entry in that document for the -- at
14 10.00 on the 26th of April, 1993, you made this entry: "Darinko Tadic,
15 head of office for refugees and displaced persons in Mostar. A
16 conversation about the problems that Mr. Darinko Tadic faces not to let
17 the BiH citizens to the HVO territory unless they were born there, all
18 others are to be sent to Tuzla
19 issuing customs permits for the aid that is destined also for
21 What can you tell us about that conversation, sir, with
22 Mr. Tadic?
23 A. The first part of this entry refers to Tadic's statement that the
24 Office for Displaced Persons and Refugees in Herceg-Bosna was not
25 allowing citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina who had not been born in
3 that they were only allowing those who were born in Herzegovina to go
5 He asked me in the case of persons going to Croatia to provide
6 assistance and also to ensure assistance with the customs, and they could
7 only do that through me to make sure that the customs assisted when aid
8 was coming from Croatia
9 Q. Well, wait a minute. What did you have to do with customs? You
10 were ODPR. What did you have to do with controlling customs and what
11 went in and out of Croatia
12 A. Mr. Scott, well that's what I said in my previous response. I
13 didn't have anything to do with customs. All I could do was mediate, ask
14 the customs authorities for assistance.
15 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Dr. Rebic. I want to thank you for coming
16 to The Hague
17 THE WITNESS: [In English] Thank you.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. As indicated by the
19 Trial Chamber, there will be no redirect for -- and there is no redirect
20 for the party calling the witness unless that time is taken from the
21 examination-in-chief and we believe that there should be no redirect by
22 the other Defence counsel either, but following Mr. Stewart's
23 intervention, we'll consider the matter.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: For the record, I do wish to state for the record
25 you are violating my client's rights, his human rights, you are
1 violating, we have time and I just want to make sure that we're
2 absolutely clear that this time it is not due to some exit strategy by
3 the UN but rather this is a calculated attempt by the Trial Chamber to
4 deny Dr. Prlic's human rights. I just want to make sure that the record
5 is very clear. You made your ruling, I respect your ruling. I made my
6 record for the appeal and for the public to see how we are being treated
7 in this courtroom. Thank you, Mr. President.
8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour --
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, let me answer.
10 Mr. Karnavas, we issued a ruling that was extremely clear. We
11 stated that time dedicated to re-examination should be deducted from the
12 time granted for examination in chief. In other words, if you request
13 four hours for a witness, you should use three and a half hours for the
14 examination in chief and half an hour for redirect. That's your problem
15 it's not the Chamber's problem. That's the meaning of guideline number
17 MR. KARNAVAS: I requested five hours. I requested five hours.
18 You said four. I got some additional time. That's number one.
19 Number two, there's time on the clock.
20 Number three, you gave me a certain amount of hours to put on my
21 case. I'd asked for 146 hours or 150, I got 90, 95, whatever. I'm
22 entitled to use that time how I see fit. As long as I'm doing my job.
23 As long as I can demonstrate that what I'm asking are relevant questions
24 and questions that are not repetitive, I should be entitled to put on
25 case. You've made your case, I understand it, I respect your decision,
1 I'm on the record. This is a violation of my client's human rights.
2 Very well. We can go now and dismiss for the rest of the week. Thank
3 you very much, Mr. President.
4 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Mr. Karnavas. I actually might have
5 something to say with Your Honour's permission. Your Honour said you
6 would consider it. I assume that I'm now able to make submissions on the
7 point which I raised a moment ago.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have five minutes.
9 MR. STEWART: That should be enough, Your Honour, thank you.
10 It's -- Your Honour just said a few moments ago that you've made
11 an extremely clear ruling or given an extremely clear guideline. Your
12 Honour, may we look at your guideline 6 paragraph 19 and see what it
13 actually says. It says that -- well, 18 is worth looking at, at that
14 point, when this order was made on the 24th of April, the Trial Chamber
15 said in paragraph 18 under guideline 6 that it would render a separate
16 decision regarding the time that the Defence teams would have for
17 presentation of their cases, which you did very shortly afterwards, you
18 gave certification in that decision and that is under appeal. So the
19 question of the overall time for the Defence cases is certainly very
20 contentious and is under appeal now.
21 Paragraph 19 of your guideline says that the time allocated to a
22 Defence team to present its case shall first include the time used for
23 the direct examination and re-examination of its Defence witnesses. Now,
24 Your Honour, we don't like that. I want to make it clear that the
25 Defence do not like that guideline, and we are appealing the whole matter
1 as I've indicated, but what it clearly means as it stands is that you add
2 together -- if we've got 55 hours for the Petkovic case, that you add
3 together time taken for examination-in-chief or direct examination with
4 time taken in re-examination, and all that time together is to be done
5 within the 55 hours. And going right back to the very beginning of these
6 time allocations, when you ordered 400 hours for the Prosecution case,
7 that was how it was done. It was to be the direct examination,
8 examination-in-chief, and re-examination were all to be done within that
9 400 hours. And we know the painful history of all the reductions and so
10 on but that was the basic position. That's quite different from what
11 Your Honours are now saying which is when a specific allocation is given
12 for a specific witness of time for direct examination, that if that's all
13 used up, then there is no time left for re-examination.
14 Mr. Karnavas is 100 per cent right. That is not the way the
15 matter was dealt with when the Prosecution examined its witnesses. If it
16 was given three hours for examination in chief, it had -- usually you
17 could say, use the three hours for examination in chief, there was never
18 any suggestion that they wouldn't also be able to re-examine that
19 witness; although, according to the Chamber's guidelines on the -- if you
20 like the bigger issue, the macro issue as opposed to the micro issue of
21 witnesses, that time was to be counted to the overall allocation.
22 Your Honour, I just add this, the incorrect, as we strongly
23 submit, the incorrect interpretation of Your Honour's own guideline is
24 completely unworkable. You're given 4 hours to examine in chief. You've
25 got a choice between not using the whole of that four hours in case, as a
1 result of the cross-examination, you might need time for re-examination.
2 You can't possibly know until you've heard the cross-examination. Well,
3 sorry, if there is a cross-examination as my learned friends remind me,
4 but you can't know until you've heard the cross-examination how much
5 you're going to need for re-examination. Nobody can say that.
6 So you either give up some of your time in case there is a
7 cross-examination in case you need to re-examine, or you end up with the
8 result that Your Honours' indication earlier on this evening would lead
9 to which we say, frankly, is a ridiculous result, we put it as strongly
10 as that, as you now say Mr. Karnavas has done, used up all his time and
11 doesn't get to re-examination when elementary justice requires that once
12 there's been a cross-examination, if there is a legitimate basis and if
13 there are legitimate questions to be asked in re-examination, it simply
14 cannot be right and it cannot be a fair trial to prevent a party from
15 doing it. Irrelevant questions, Your Honours can always stop those if
16 there isn't a genuine re-examination, but we do submit that what Your
17 Honour indicated about 10 or 15 minutes ago is completely wrong and
18 certainly it means, although there is not much time left today, it
19 certainly means, but he can fight his own battles as I've said, if
20 Mr. Karnavas genuinely needs to re-examine then the Petkovic Defence
21 position in support of him would be that and he should have it.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one word on this point
23 concerning the status of refugees. We have spent about almost two weeks
24 because we had two witnesses who discussed this issue. Okay. So we
25 could spend three weeks and months if you want, but I believe that I have
1 sufficient information about the issue. If I thought that we would have
2 needed additional questions, re-examinations in this field, I would have
3 allocated additional time.
4 On the other hand, I have asked a lot of questions on this issue.
5 Paragraph 19 of guideline number 6 is clear enough on this point. It
6 clearly indicates that the party examining must take into account the
7 fact that re-examinations are included in the time allocated and if you
8 all believe that this witness is important, nothing impedes you from
9 asking him to come back. This is what I wanted to say.
10 So witness, I would like to thank you for coming here and I would
11 like to wish you a nice trip back home.
12 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, again, I really do not wish to fight
13 Mr. Karnavas's battles but some of his battles are also our battles, and
14 if it's not using too Karnavasian language, Your Honour, the Petkovic
15 Defence will not accept a position where Your Honours take it upon
16 yourselves to decide for us whether we need to re-examine. Once we start
17 re-examining, if we go into completely irrelevant, completely useless
18 areas, then Your Honours of course have the overriding right to stop that
19 because that's abusive and it's unprofessional, but I'm quite confident
20 that Ms. Alaburic is not going to do that and I hope I don't do it
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart, redirects are
23 authorised based on the decision of the Trial Chamber. This is in the
24 rules and that you know as well as I do. It is mentioned in the rules,
25 re-examinations authorised about the Chamber.
1 MR. STEWART: With respect, may I ask a question it's not usual.
2 I don't understand which rule Your Honour is referring to?
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart, if you have any
4 problems, do it in writing and we will answer your questions. Say it in
5 writing and we will answer. That's what I want to say.
6 MR. STEWART: With respect, Your Honour, I'm not going to be so
7 insolent as to invite Your Honours to answer my question in writing, but
8 I do need an answer to the question because I simply do not understand
9 now what point Your Honour is making, what rule Your Honour is referring
10 to, and we cannot make sensible --
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart. First of all, the
12 additional time for the questions of the party examining is included in
13 the time decided -- allocated by the Chamber before the direct
14 examination and second point, there are no redirect for the other teams,
15 Defence teams.
16 Now, if you do not agree, you can appeal.
17 MR. STEWART: [Previous translation continues] ... re-examination
18 of Mr. Karnavas's witness. I'm putting down a marker for the Petkovic
19 team that when it comes to our witnesses, it is not for the Trial Chamber
20 to decide at the end of cross-examination that we have no re-examination.
21 It is for us in the first place to decide whether we need probably to
22 re-examine subject to the overriding ways of the Trial Chamber to rule it
23 out as irrelevant.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is the reason why I'm
25 telling you that you should state it in writing and we will answer. I
1 now would like to thank the witness and I would like to ask the usher to
2 take him out, to accompany him, and next week we will have another
3 witness, a witness of Mr. Prlic, he will be here for four days as
4 mentioned in the filings. That's all I meant to say.
5 Well, I wish you a nice trip back, Witness, because you told us
6 that this week you had to travel.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I thank you for your
8 good wishes and I wish you all success in your work.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. The
11 hearing is adjourned.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.24 p.m.
13 to be reconvened on Monday, the 26th day of May,
14 2008 at 2.15 p.m.