Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 30415

 1                            Wednesday, 9 July 2008

 2                            [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

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

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Mr. Registrar, please call the

 7     case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

 9     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-04-74-T,

10     the Prosecutor versus Jadranko Prlic et al.

11             Thank you, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Thank you.

13             Today is Wednesday, July 9th, 2008.  Good morning to the accused,

14     to the Defence counsel, to the witness.  I hope you had a pleasant

15     evening.  And good morning as well to the OTP and to everyone assisting

16     us in this case.

17             Before I give the floor to Mr. Karnavas, the Trial Chamber will

18     read out a brief oral ruling.  This is a decision for clarification by

19     the Chamber with respect to timekeeping at the hearing.

20             The Trial Chamber noted at the hearings of the 7th and 8th of

21     July, 2008, that the Prlic Defence repeatedly stated that its questions

22     were follow-up questions to those of the Judges.  In order to avoid any

23     misunderstanding as regards timekeeping at the hearing, the Trial Chamber

24     wishes to stress the following:

25             When a Defence team adopts a question asked by a Judge and asks,

Page 30416

 1     as they are called by the Prlic Defence, asks follow-up questions, time

 2     used to ask these questions will obviously be deducted from the time

 3     granted to the Defence team in question.  In other words, when a Judge

 4     puts a question, the time used will be deducted from the Judges' time, of

 5     course, and not from the Defence time; but then if the Defence takes up

 6     that question again, that time will be deducted from the Defence time.

 7             I believe that this clarification was necessary.

 8             Mr. Karnavas, you have the floor.

 9             MR. STRINGER:  If I could just raise one preliminary thing before

10     Mr. Karnavas begins, and that's to introduce the Trial Chamber and the

11     other counsel to a couple of new faces that are here in the courtroom

12     this morning.  Anthony Hucklesby on my immediate right is an legal intern

13     with the office of the Prosecutor; and on my far right is Ronnie Ervin,

14     and he's working with us as in intern with our trial support unit.  And

15     these gentlemen have been assisting me in preparing the

16     cross-examination.

17             Thank you.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Fine.  Thank you for

19     introducing these two new members of your team, and welcome to them in

20     this courtroom.

21             Mr. Karnavas, you have the floor.

22             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you.  Before I begin, I do wish to note my

23     objection to the Court's ruling.  I don't think that it is in keeping

24     with prior proceedings for the following reason:  When, for instance, a

25     Judge asks a question in my direct, it takes me in a different direction

Page 30417

 1     and I have to go back.  It takes some time.  And, so, while at the same

 2     time the Judges do have all the right to ask questions, if a Judge asks a

 3     question which puts the witness in a different direction and I have to

 4     get them back, now I'm being asked to use additional time, time that I

 5     had not planned, in keeping with formulating my direct examination.

 6             That being said, I understand your ruling.  I've continuously

 7     said in the past, Your Honours, that none of us would want to be tried

 8     this way.  None of you would want to be tried this way, but that's

 9     neither here nor there.

10             Having said that, originally we had planned eight hours for this

11     gentleman.  It is obvious to us that we cannot complete our task in six

12     hours.  You gave us a certain amount of hours.  We did not challenge that

13     decision, recognising that it is a discretionary matter on your part to

14     decide how many hours the Defence would put on.  And barring, you know,

15     something extraordinary, we recognise that the President of the Tribunal

16     is not going to overturn a discretionary issue such as time allotment, in

17     keeping with his obligations to the United Nations and the Security

18     Council as a result of the completion strategy.

19             Having said that, at this point in time, I wish to ask that we be

20     granted an additional hour for this particular direct examination.

21     Obviously, we're not asking an additional hour to the hours that have

22     been allocated to us.  It would be within the hours that you gave us.

23     And to compensate for that, we do anticipate dropping one or two

24     witnesses or proposing that they come in as 92 bis.

25             So we believe we will be able to complete our task.  We also have

Page 30418

 1     in mind of reserving several hours for just in case what other witnesses

 2     are being brought for other teams, in order to elicit positive

 3     information versus, you know, confronting them.  So, at this point, we

 4     wish to ask for an additional hour, again to be taken from our overall

 5     hours which were granted to us.  We believe that these are our hours, and

 6     it's up to us to determine how to utilise them, recognising that at the

 7     end, we have to live with the consequences of the decisions that we are

 8     making right now.

 9             And, again, I didn't mean to be disrespectful by saying that, you

10     know, there are times when you take the witness in a different direction,

11     but that's my opinion.  And, in any event, I was told that on follow-up

12     questions, time was not being taken out.  That was what my original

13     understanding was.

14             Anyway, that's my request, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Fine.

16             With respect to the additional hour, of course, it will be

17     granted to you because that's part of the overall time that was granted

18     to you by the Trial Chamber; and you know that the Appeals Chamber

19     confirmed the decisions taken by the Trial Chamber in that respect.  So

20     you're perfectly entitled to use an additional hour; but, of course, we

21     are in charge of keeping time in this case, and this time will be

22     deducted from the time you would have had for other witnesses.  It's your

23     choice.  If you need an additional hour, you will be granted that

24     additional hour.  We have nothing to say about the matter.

25             Fine.

Page 30419

 1             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you.

 2                           WITNESS:  ZORAN BUNTIC [Resumed]

 3                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 4                           Examination by Mr. Karnavas:  [Continued]

 5        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Buntic.

 6        A.   Good morning.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  Perhaps I failed to say good morning to everyone

 8     in and around the courtroom, so good morning to everyone.

 9        Q.   As you heard, we are under certain time restraints, so I will beg

10     you, beg you, to at times give me shorter answers; and when necessary, I

11     will ask you for complete answers.

12             If we could continue, I believe we were on the topic of the

13     judiciary.

14             MR. KARNAVAS:  Very briefly, if you go to 1D 0201, 1D 0201 [sic].

15        Q.   We see that this is a decree on the application of the law on

16     regular courts.  It's dated 23 December 1992?

17             And, again, this would be consistent with what you told us

18     previously yesterday; that is, for all intents and purposes, there were

19     no substantive changes.  Correct?

20             MR. STRINGER:  Excuse me.  Was that 1D 0201 or 1D 02001 or --

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  There were two 00s, sorry.  1D 00201.  My

22     apologies.

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Karnavas, is it the Law on Regular Courts?

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  Yes.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I have that under 2001 in the first binder.

Page 30420

 1             MR. KARNAVAS:  Yes, it is.  But if you look at the top of the

 2     page --

 3             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  2001, I have a decision to appoint the Croatian

 4     Defence Council-- oh, no.  That's 2061.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  And it may be that there may is a mistake on

 6     the -- there may be a mistake in the label, but it's 1D 00201.

 7             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Yes, that's good.

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:

 9        Q.   So, sir, could you, very briefly?

10        A.   Correct.  In this specific case, this is a decree on the

11     application of the Law on Regular Courts.  It has to be emphasised that

12     the HDZ-HB did not abolish any regular court, nor did he establish any

13     new regular courts.  This decree served to take over the organisation of

14     regular courts that was prescribed by the Laws of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the

15     only exception being the Department of the Supreme Court.

16        Q.   Right.  And if we look at Article 10, it shows that the operation

17     of the court is being financed out of the budget of the Croatian

18     Community of Herceg-Bosna; correct?

19        A.   Correct, because there was no other possibility of financing in

20     the territory of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 02132.

22        Q.   We see that this is December 23.  It's a decision on the

23     allocation of funds for the need of the Department of Justice; and, here,

24     we see that on behalf of the HVO, Dr. Jadranko Prlic has signed this

25     decision.  You would confirm this, would you not, that this is -- this

Page 30421

 1     decision was passed?

 2        A.   Correct.  This is a HVO decision on the allocation of the funds

 3     for the judiciary.  I believe that this referred to the -- or was used

 4     for the redecoration of the Court in Mostar to which the Municipal Court

 5     of Mostar was moved, after the JNA attack on Mostar, during which the

 6     building of the Municipal Court of Mostar had burned down.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 02123, 2123.

 9        Q.   This is a decision to appoint -- on the appointment of the

10     assistant of the head of the Judicial, Justice, and General

11     Administration; and we can see the gentleman who was being appointed.

12     Can you confirm that the gentleman was appointed to this position?

13        A.   Yes.  This is a decision on the appointment of my assistant for

14     criminal and disciplinary punishments, and he was an attorney from

15     Mostar, Aid Glavic.

16        Q.   Could you please tell us again, for the record, whether he was a

17     Croat or a Muslim?

18        A.   He was a Muslim, a Bosniak.

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 02124.

20        Q.   It's dated 15 January 1993, 15 January 1993.  This is -- as we

21     can see, it's pursuant to Article 5 of the decree of the establishment of

22     a branch of the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the territory of

23     Herceg-Bosna.  And if we look at Article 1, we can see there's a decision

24     here taken by the HVO that was signed by Dr. Jadranko Prlic, and we see

25     the appointments of certain individuals.  Can you confirm that and can

Page 30422

 1     you please tell us, of the individuals that were appointed to this branch

 2     of the Supreme Court, how many of them are Croats and how many are

 3     Muslim, or Serb, or other?

 4        A.   Correct.  This is a decision and the appointment into the

 5     Department of the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, headquartered in

 6     Mostar, which is a relocated Department of the Republican Court.  And we

 7     spoke at great length about this court yesterday.  People who were

 8     appointed, and there were seven of them, seven judges, four of them were

 9     Croats and three were Muslims, Bosniaks.

10        Q.   All right.

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on to the next document, 1D 0 --

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, Mr. Karnavas.  I read eight names on

13     this list, and I would like the witness to identify the names he says are

14     names of Muslim judges.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  Indeed, there are

16     eight names on the list, and the following are Muslims, Bosniaks:  Semir

17     Pusic from Mostar, the president of the court; Alija Zaklan, a judge; and

18     Mehmed Sator, another judge, yes.

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you.

20             JUDGE MINDUA:  [Interpretation] Sorry, Mr. Karnavas.

21             Witness, normally speaking, a Supreme Court has several chambers

22     or sections, depending on the countries.  You may have a constitutional

23     chamber, an administrative chamber, and so on and so forth.  But here we

24     are talking about a branch of the Supreme Court.  What does that mean?

25     Is that branch specified in a specific area of the law, or is it just a

Page 30423

 1     branch dealing with everything which is a sort of a subsidiary of the

 2     Supreme Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina that is located in a different

 3     area from Sarajevo?  Because here I read that the so-called "branch" is

 4     to be established in Mostar.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a general department with

 6     general jurisdiction, rather than a specialised chamber; and we spoke

 7     about that yesterday.  I don't know whether my answer today satisfies

 8     you.

 9             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes.  Thank you very much.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, to your knowledge,

11     this Supreme Court, and I note with great interest that the president of

12     the Court is a Muslim, but this Supreme Court, did it have to rule on any

13     kind of proceedings?  Did it deal with any proceedings?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The department passed all the

15     decisions, depending on the case.  As you may well know, in certain

16     cases, this department issued decisions in a chamber composed of three

17     judges, which was the most common case.  The laws often prescribe that

18     decisions were adopted by three judges in a chamber, but there were also

19     situations in which there was an independent judge passing decisions or

20     five judges in a chamber.  All situations were possible, but the

21     president, as an individual judge, could only pass decisions which

22     concerned the internal affairs of the court itself.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Fine.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:

25        Q.   Okay.  As I understand your testimony from yesterday, then today,

Page 30424

 1     this branch of the Supreme Court essentially functioned as the third

 2     instance; is that correct?

 3        A.   Correct.

 4        Q.   And would it be fair to say that it was necessary, under your

 5     legal system, in order for certain cases to be finalised, they had to go

 6     through the third-instance court?

 7             MR. STRINGER:  I object to the leading question, Mr. President.

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'm trying to save some time, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  I believe that in common law,

10     you're right; but we are sitting here in an international court, and the

11     Judges are qualified enough to decide how far the question can go.  And

12     here the question is so obvious that even if it's a leading question, we

13     may allow it.

14             So, please, Mr. Karnavas, please proceed.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I start my answer, please?

16             We've already said that this was a third-instance court.

17     However, there were cases in which the higher court in Mostar issued the

18     decision in the first instance; and then the Supreme Court appeared as an

19     appeals court, but it could also appear as a court issuing extraordinary

20     legal remedies.  So two options were possible.  It could act as a

21     second-instance court or a third-instance court, sitting on certain

22     extraordinary cases which called for the protection of the legality, for

23     example.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you.

25        Q.   And, again, just to make sure it wasn't lost yesterday or the day

Page 30425

 1     before when I asked you the question:  Decisions that came out of this

 2     branch of the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, were they ever -- to

 3     your knowledge, were any of those decisions overturned after the

 4     formation of the Federation as a result of the Washington Agreement or,

 5     later on, after the Dayton Peace Accord?

 6        A.   No.  No decision of the Supreme Court was ever overturned for the

 7     reason of the lack of competence of this department.

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Well, that was exactly the question that ought

 9     to have been asked prior to the last question.  Was there any remedy

10     against a judgement of this Bench of the Supreme Court to a higher

11     instance, whatever?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] An appeal could be lodged to the

13     Constitutional Court, or the Chamber for Human Rights was allowed, but

14     this never happened.  No decision was ever the subject of any appeal

15     procedure, let alone being overturned by anybody.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  And this may be of some assistance to

18     Judge Trechsel as well.

19        Q.   After the Dayton Accord, were there internationals involved in

20     overseeing the judiciary, especially -- was there an Ombudsman office as

21     well, to deal with any such matters where there might have been

22     complaints, perceived complaints of violations of human rights or any

23     other rights?

24        A.   Yes.  In Bosnia-Herzegovina, after the Washington and Dayton

25     Accords, both the Ombudsman office and the Court of Human Rights were

Page 30426

 1     established, and there were eight foreign judges participating in those.

 2     Some of them were even members of the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg.

 3     The composition of this court that acted as the Chamber for Human Rights

 4     was eight foreigners, seven locals.  The president of that court was

 5     Michel Picard, a foreign national.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you.  If we go on to 1D 02379, 2379.

 7        Q.   Here is a decision dated 15 January 1993, and it's for the

 8     selection of certain judges to the Lower Court in Stolac.

 9             Can you confirm that the HVO took this decision that was signed

10     by the then-president, Dr. Jadranko Prlic?  And can you please tell us

11     whether any of the judges that were selected for that court were Muslim;

12     and if so, who and in what position?

13        A.   Yes.  This is a decision on the first selection of judges for the

14     Lower Court in Stolac, as may be seen in the document.  Three judges were

15     appointed, of whom one was Bosniak, Muslim; and two Croats.  The Bosniak

16     member was Edin Beca, the president of the court.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on to 1D 01898.

19        Q.   This is 16 January 1993; and, here, we see that it's for -- the

20     following judges were elected to the Bosanski Brod District Military

21     Court.  If we look to the second page, we see that it is signed by the

22     then-head of the Defence Department, Bruno Stojic.

23             And can you confirm that this decision -- this proposal, I should

24     say, not decision, but can you confirm this proposal?  And in looking at

25     some of the names, can you confirm that there are Muslims who are being

Page 30427

 1     proposed to sit on these courts?

 2        A.   Correct.  This is not a decision; this is a proposal by the

 3     Defence Department, i.e., the head of the Defendant Department, for the

 4     appointment of judges for the District Military Court in Bosanski Brod.

 5     This is a proposal for the appointment of five judges of whom --

 6     actually, six judges, of whom five are Croats and one is a Muslim,

 7     Bosniak.  He is under number 4, Fuad Perlice.

 8        Q.   And then we see there is another list of elected judge jurors,

 9     and then -- and for some of us, we may not be familiar with that concept.

10     What is it a judge juror?  Is that a layperson who serves, also, along

11     with professional judges?

12        A.   No.  A judge juror is something that could be similar to the

13     persons who serve in the Anglo-Saxon system.  They are laymen.  They

14     don't have to have legal education.  But there were situations in which

15     there was a judge sitting independently with two lay jurors.  So they are

16     actually lay jurors.  They're not legally educated persons.  And there

17     were also instances in which there was a chamber of three judges which

18     could also have an additional two lay persons sitting as judge jurors.

19     In practice, they were just making up the numbers.

20        Q.   All right.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on to the next number, 1D 02382, 2382.

22        Q.   And, here, we see that this is a list of employees of the Mostar

23     Lower Court who are under work obligation during January 1993.  And we

24     know that there was a general mobilisation, so that individuals 18 to 60

25     had to respond.  Can you please tell us what "work obligation" means for

Page 30428

 1     those who may not be familiar with the concept?

 2        A.   I'll do my best.

 3             The system of All People's Defence then, in the former

 4     Yugoslavia, implied that in peacetime every person of age had their war

 5     assignment.  As soon as a person became of age, that person was given a

 6     war assignment.  That war assignment could be one of several things:  One

 7     could be an assignment to a military unit, another to a unit of

 8     Territorial Defence, the third one could be into a unit of civilian

 9     protection, or the fourth option was the so-called work obligation.

10             In such a system, "work obligation" meant that people who were

11     under work obligation during a state of war were not duty-bound to serve

12     in any of the military units or any of the units of the civilian

13     protection or Territorial Defence.  That duty to serve was discharged in

14     their company or an institution they had worked for up to then.

15             In this particular case, these are the judges for whom eight was

16     envisaged that their obligation would be work obligation in court.  In

17     other words, they would continue to discharge their judicial duties.

18     Thus, the HZ-HB, for all the judges who were judges before the war,

19     regardless of their assignment, even if they had been assigned to a

20     military unit, the HZ-HB introduced work obligations for them, which

21     means that even if one of the judges had been mobilised, we, as the

22     department, asked for these persons to be demobilised and returned to the

23     court in order to continue performing their judicial duties.  And as may

24     be seen from the list, all the judges of the Municipal Court in Mostar

25     performed their judicial duties.  And even if some of them had been

Page 30429

 1     assigned into the army, we asked for them to be demobilised and returned

 2     to their original duties.

 3             My answer may have been too long, but I don't know how else I

 4     could have explained this term "work obligation," and I apologise.

 5        Q.   You spoke of judges, but also here we see "Administrative

 6     Technical Section," and we see court registry officers, typists,

 7     cleaners.  Were they -- based on the answer that you gave us, were they

 8     also employed by the courts and simply continued working under this work

 9     obligation, or are these new people that are being brought in to fill

10     those positions?

11        A.   In all the cases, those are people who performed the same duties

12     in the court even before the war.  I would like to say that of the 12

13     judges who were on the list as the judges of the Basic Court in Mostar,

14     eight were Muslims, Bosniaks; three were Croats; one was a Serb; and the

15     president of the Basic Court in Mostar was also a Bosniak, a Muslim, Ziba

16     Nozic.  The HZ-HB never changed this composition.

17             And now, with regard to a question I was asked yesterday, before

18     the war, this Basic Court in Mostar had 23 judges, of whom 11 Serbs,

19     eight Muslims, and only four Croats.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 02388 --

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, if I understand

23     correctly, this Lower Court that existed, prior to events prior to the

24     war, continued after January 1993, but what seems to me important, and

25     you pointed this out because it was not obvious for the Judges, is that

Page 30430

 1     this Lower Court will function after January 1993 with a majority of

 2     Muslim judges, including the president, a Muslim?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.  The

 4     Basic Court or the Municipal Court of Mostar continued working in the

 5     same composition, save for the fact that some of the Serbs had left,

 6     together with the JNA.  I suppose that we will see that later.  Based on

 7     the structure of the Higher Court in Mostar, we will see what happened to

 8     them.  All the other judges who had been appointed to the Municipal Court

 9     in Mostar remained in their positions, and this is the composition that

10     the HZ-HB accepted.

11             Just a while ago, when we spoke about the decree on regular

12     courts, we also said that the HZ-HB did not establish any new regular

13     court, nor did it abolish any regular court.  But I need to emphasise

14     here that since the building of the Basic Court in Mostar had burnt down,

15     they were moved after the month of January, and we saw that funds had

16     been approved for that, to the building of the former building of the

17     Court of Associated Labour that had been reappointed for that purpose.

18     And all that was done because the former building of that court was

19     destroyed.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I assume that this Associated

21     Labour building that housed the tribunal destroyed by the Serbs was in

22     Mostar West or East?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was on the border between East

24     and West Mostar, but it was in East Mostar.  It was destroyed at the

25     beginning of the war in May 1992.  I believe that it was destroyed by the

Page 30431

 1     shelling on the part of the JNA, Then it caught fire and burned to the

 2     ground; and all the documentation of the court was also destroyed, as I

 3     told you on the first day of my testimony.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  During the conflict in

 5     Mostar, we know there was a frontline, the HVO on one side -- can you

 6     hear?

 7             I repeat.  During the conflict, there was a demarcation line or a

 8     frontline.  How did the defendants go to the court?  Could Muslims travel

 9     to see the judges?  And vice versa, could the Croats go to the court to

10     meet the judges, to meet their lawyers?  And you, as a lawyer, during the

11     conflict did judicial activity continue?  Were there trials, hearings,

12     proceedings, and rulings?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was a time of fierce fighting

14     in Mostar, during which nobody could go to any courts, either Croats or

15     Bosniaks, because both buildings in the vicinity of this separation line

16     were inaccessible.  Therefore, during the peak of the conflict, neither

17     Croats nor Bosniaks could access any of the courts.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Just to follow up, Witness, here, just to follow

19     up, it sounds now as if the courts were not working, practically, during

20     the conflict period or during a certain period.  Could you give us more

21     information on that?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I said this, I meant the

23     period between May 1993 and sometime up to mid-1994.  During that period

24     of time, if these courts were operational at all, it was just the judge

25     on duty who went there, and they could, indeed, do very little.  They

Page 30432

 1     could not perform their duties properly.

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Would this also apply to Western Mostar?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This applies to Croat judges and

 4     Bosniak judges, and to citizens of both Croat and Bosniak origin.

 5     Because of the location of these courts, of their buildings, on the very

 6     separation line, the access to neither of the courts was possible.  What

 7     we tried to maintain was to provide access to the buildings for the judge

 8     on duty and the prosecutor on duty for the most urgent cases.

 9             It was possible, from the Bosniak side, to hit every person in

10     any of the court buildings from infantry weapons, and the same was

11     possible from the Croat side.  What I'm saying is that this could be done

12     from both sides.  Anybody in the court buildings could be a target.  And

13     the buildings themselves were very damaged, and it had very few window

14     panes.  Both court buildings had very few window panes left.  I'm

15     basically speaking about the Basic Court, the Higher Court, as well as

16     the Municipal Court and --

17            THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  The Municipal

18     Prosecutor's Office and the District Prosecutor's Office.

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:

21        Q.   What about 1992, were the courts working then?

22        A.   From 1992 until mid-1993, that is, until the outbreak of the

23     fiercest fighting in Mostar, both the Municipal Court in Mostar and the

24     Higher Court in Mostar, and both prosecutors' offices, continued to

25     discharge their functions.  And as you can see from this list, they were

Page 30433

 1     able to do so with the number of staff listed here.  So the Municipal

 2     Court in Mostar did not work with full capacity because we said before

 3     the war there were 25 judges; but in this -- in this period, there

 4     were 12.

 5        Q.   Thank you.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 02388, 1D 02388.

 7        Q.   If we look at this document, and if you look at the second

 8     page -- well, if you look at the original page, this is a list of

 9     judicial employees who received salaries for the month of 1993 -- January

10     1993, and we've already seen some of the names.  Could you please tell us

11     what positions these individuals held - and we do see a disparity in the

12     payment - just very quickly?

13        A.   Can you hear me?

14             In this specific case, we have judges and prosecutors who were

15     assigned to the Municipal Court and the Municipal Prosecutor's Office in

16     Stolac.  The difference in salaries results from the fact that Edin Beca

17     was the president of the Court, while Niko Moro was the Municipal

18     Prosecutor.  The person under number 4 was his assistant, and numbers 2

19     and 3 were judges.  So the difference in salaries is accounted for by

20     their respective positions.  The president of the Court had a higher

21     salary than a judge.

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  And if we look at now the next document, 1D 02383,

24     2383, this is 4 February 1993.

25        Q.   You'll see at the very top it's the Department of Justice and

Page 30434

 1     General Administration.  At the end of this document, we see the name of

 2     the president of the Court, Mladen Barbaric.

 3             And I just want to focus everyone's attention, and particularly

 4     your attention, to paragraph number 3 on the first page.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'm told that there is no translation.

 6        Q.   Mr. Buntic, have you been able to hear me?

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  Okay.  Obviously, Mr. Buntic has not heard me, and

 8     that time should not be used against me.  It must have been at least five

 9     minutes.

10        Q.   Can you hear me, Mr. Buntic, now?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

13             MR. KARNAVAS:  All right.  We're going back to this document,

14     1D 02383, and let us focus our attention now on paragraph number 3.

15        Q.   It says:

16             "According to the guidelines from the Ministry of Justice and the

17     General Administration of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a

18     wartime staffing plan was prepared in June 1992, with a total of 41

19     employees (one court president, 14 judges, and 26 staff)."

20             Now, could you explain to us a little bit about this particular

21     paragraph in 1D 02383, because it says clearly that at least there are

22     some guidelines that are being applied from the Republic of Bosnia and

23     Herzegovina.

24        A.   In this specific case, we are dealing with information that, at

25     my request, was provided by the president of the Higher Court in Mostar.

Page 30435

 1     And he informs me that according to the wartime staffing plan, a wartime

 2     staffing was established according to which the Higher Court in Mostar

 3     must have a president and 14 judges; while in peacetime, the prescribed

 4     number was 19 judges plus the president, so 20 in total.

 5             He also provides information about the identity of the 14 judges

 6     who, according to the wartime staffing plan, were to continue working as

 7     judges.  He provides a list of the judges, from which it is obvious that

 8     in the composition of the then-Higher Court in Mostar, there were six

 9     Muslims, Bosniaks; five Croats; two Serbs; and one Jew.

10             Can I please continue about the composition before the war?

11             Before the war, there were eight Muslims, six Serbs, five Croats,

12     and one Jew.  I'm saying this to supplement what I said yesterday;

13     namely, that regardless of the population make-up in Herzegovina, that is

14     the jurisdiction of this court in Mostar where Croats were in the

15     majority, Croats were represented only with 20 per cent in the

16     composition of the judiciary.

17             I'm not sure if I need to provide the names because I know the

18     ethnicity of each of them.

19        Q.   That's not necessary, unless the Judges want.  We do need to move

20     a little bit quicker, Mr. Buntic.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 023 --

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.  There seems to be

23     a very important item, which is the conclusion of the letter of

24     Mr. Barbaric, because he refers to Judge Nada Dalipagic; and he states

25     that this court, from the presidents of the Republic of Bosnia, received

Page 30436

 1     no document nor the Official Gazette, for that matter.  So we have the

 2     impression that this judge, who is the president of the Court, states

 3     very clearly that they are cut off from the Presidency of

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina from Sarajevo, and we can draw the conclusion that

 5     he's trying to make due as best he can.

 6           Do you think that this last sentence correctly summarises the

 7     situation in which these judges found themselves?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's true, Your Honour.  The

 9     president of the Higher Court in Mostar confirms in this sentence all

10     that we have discussed earlier, that is, yesterday; namely, that there

11     was absolutely no possibility for the Official Gazette to come from

12     Sarajevo to Mostar.  I'm talking about official channels.  Whether it

13     could be smuggled somehow across the separation lines, I don't know about

14     that; but mail could not reach Mostar from Sarajevo, including the

15     Official Gazette.

16             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you.  And I take it there are no questions

17     from the Bench concerning the use of the guidelines from the Ministry of

18     Justice in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

19             That being so, I'll move on to the next document.  1D 02381.

20        Q.   Very quickly, we see a list of employees, Lower Court, who are

21     under work obligation?

22             You already explained to us what the "work obligation" meant?

23     Can you confirm, given your position, that this is accurate?

24        A.   Correct.  Here, again, we have a list of judges and staff of the

25     Municipal Court in Mostar, submitted by the president of the Basic Court,

Page 30437

 1     Mrs. Ziba Nozic; and it is the list is provided for the purpose of

 2     payment of salaries to the judges and staff whom the president of the

 3     court had found to have worked in that month.

 4        Q.   If we look at the judges, and then we can look at the typists and

 5     what have you, If you could tell us how many of the judges, for instance,

 6     are on this list are Muslim; and then do the same thing for the typists

 7     and anyone else that you see on the list.

 8        A.   As we said a moment ago, this list included -- includes seven

 9     Muslim judges, four Croat judges, and one Serb.

10        Q.   The president of the court?

11        A.   The president of the court continued to be Mrs. Ziba Nozic.  She

12     had been appointed to this position before the war, and she was never

13     relieved by any enactment of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna or

14     any other body.

15        Q.   What about the land registry officer?

16        A.   I'm not sure we are talking about the same person.  Maybe you

17     meant the registry books that we managed to save from the fire in the

18     Municipal Court in Mostar.  They were relocated during the war to Citluk

19     and returned after war to the Municipal Court in Mostar.  Is that what

20     you meant, the registry books, land registry books?

21        Q.   No.  We're on this document, and we're looking at the names,

22     Mr. Buntic.  Very quickly, if you look at number 13, and then if you look

23     at number 23, you know, we're trying to get an assessment because the

24     allegations are that this whole region was Croat-ised and ethnic

25     cleansing is going on.  So this is the purpose of all of this.  It may

Page 30438

 1     not make sense in a normal setting to be discussing it because that's

 2     crude fashions, but we must do it in this case.

 3        A.   You're right.  Under number 13 and number 23, we see Amira Nozic

 4     and Mustafa Velagic.  They are land registry officers; that is, persons

 5     who were in charge of and were authorised to enter -- to make entries

 6     into the land registry books, recording ownership of real estate.  They

 7     continued in their positions during the war.  Nobody replaced them.

 8        Q.   This is very important, because if you try to Croat-ise an area,

 9     you're obviously going to ethnically cleanse even in those departments.

10     So what is their ethnicity, sir?  That is the point I'm asking you.

11             MR. STRINGER:  I object to the statement or argument of counsel.

12             MR. KARNAVAS:  It's based on the Prosecution theory which we've

13     heard for two and a half years.

14             MR. STRINGER:  No.  It' an argument.  It's actually a tirade.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:

16        Q.   Mr. Buntic, help us out here, because the Croatian Community of

17     Herceg-Bosna, the HVO of which you were the minister of justice, is being

18     accused of having ethnically cleansing even in the court system.  Could

19     you lease tell us here how many of these positions are Muslim?  That's

20     why I asked concretely the land registry, which is a rather important

21     position.

22        A.   I'm sorry if I didn't understand the question at first.  Both are

23     ethnic Muslims, Bosniaks.  On the staff of the Court, there are seven

24     Muslim judges, four Croats, and one Serb; whereas, in these other

25     services, both the land registry officers are Bosniaks; whereas, among

Page 30439

 1     other staff, I could go through them one by one, but I believe it's

 2     obvious, from the list itself, that there are Croats, Muslims, and Serbs.

 3     All three ethnicities are represented.

 4        Q.   Very well.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on to the next document, 1D 00274.

 6        Q.   And this is just as an aside for the Judges to get a better

 7     understanding.

 8             Here, we have the president of the municipal HVO in Livno

 9     appointing a Dinko Galic, who is an engineer, to be the acting president

10     of the Livno Municipal Court.  And, perhaps, you could explain to us how

11     is it that an engineer is being appointed to be none other than the

12     president of a misdemeanor court in Livno?

13        A.   I know this may cause a laugh in the courtroom, but you have to

14     understand that there were no other solutions in that situation.  As you

15     saw yesterday, we had to organise a district military court, a district

16     prosecutors' office in Livno, to preserve the operation of the Municipal

17     Court.

18             Until that time, the position of the misdemeanor judge - I

19     believe his name was Mr. Bravo - who is appointed to the District Court,

20     we had to assign him to the Municipal Court, a regular court, after which

21     this position of the misdemeanor judge was vacant.  And there was no one

22     with a law degree in Livno or in other places to fill this vacancy.  A

23     similar situation was in Tomislavgrad, where throughout the war the court

24     had to function only with one judge, that is, the president, Andrija

25     Kolak.  There were no other people available, so the only option was to

Page 30440

 1     appoint an engineer by training until a list became available with

 2     someone from a law degree to fill this vacancy.

 3             Maybe I'm too lengthy, but it's not easy to answer with a "yes"

 4     or "no."

 5        Q.   Let me just stop you here.  Could you just explain to us, very

 6     briefly, in one sentence - you don't have to go on for 20 lines, just one

 7     sentence - how is it that it is the president of the Municipal Court of

 8     the municipality of the municipal HVO that is making the appointment for

 9     this municipal misdemeanor court?

10        A.   The Municipal Council was in charge of that before the war and

11     during the war.  The Municipal Council was always the one who appointed

12     misdemeanor judges.

13        Q.   I'm going to have to cut you off on occasion, Mr. Buntic, if

14     you're going on, because we just need concrete answers.

15             I want to speak about January 15, 1993, in particular, this

16     decision that was rendered by the HVO, and I'm referring to --

17        A.   I would appreciate it very much, if the Defence has completed the

18     topic of the judiciary, I would appreciate it very much if the Court

19     would allow me to make a brief statement regarding this topic, the

20     operation of the judiciary, very briefly.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to confer with my

22     fellow Judges.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  Mr. Karnavas, after

25     considering the matter, the Trial Chamber believes that if the witness

Page 30441

 1     wishes to supplement answers given to your questions, then that time

 2     should be deducted from your time.  So it's up to you to decide whether

 3     you want your witness to give additional information on that particular

 4     topic, or you may think that what has been said so far is sufficient for

 5     the Judges and you decide to move on to another topic.  It's up to you.

 6             I know that I'm putting you in quite a tricky position, but

 7     you've seen worse than this and you'll see worse than this in the future.

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I believe that I will

 9     ask one general question, and that might assist.

10        Q.   Mr. Buntic, is there anything else you wish to tell us about the

11     judiciary before I move on to the next topic?  Make it brief, if

12     possible.

13        A.   Two minutes.

14             Your Honours, over the past three days, I gave evidence about a

15     great number of regulations, decisions, and documents in the spirit of

16     the judicial system; and I, therefore, ask to be allowed to make this

17     brief statement about the way in which the judiciary of the Croatian

18     Community of Herceg-Bosna operated in reality.

19             For that purpose:  I, Zoran Buntic, before this Court and under

20     oath, hereby state:  If this Court, in the course of these proceedings,

21     finds that any judge appointed by any body or agency of the Croatian

22     Community of Herceg-Bosna, and regardless of who proposed the

23     appointment, had committed any act punishable under the Statute of this

24     Court, I, Zoran Buntic, former representative of the General

25     Administration Department in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna,

Page 30442

 1     assume hereby the responsibility for any such acts and hereby invite the

 2     international prosecutor here present to issue an indictment against me.

 3     This statement also applies to any action taken by my deputies and my

 4     assistants.  This statement does not apply to the judges appointed by the

 5     Wartime Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, so help me God.

 6             After this, I would like to briefly explain this statement that

 7     I've just made.

 8             In the work of the courts and judicial departments of the

 9     General Administration, there was absolutely no interference whatsoever

10     by the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna or any of the

11     accused here.  On the contrary, within the limits of what was possible at

12     the time and their own capacity, they contributed to the functioning of

13     the judicial system.  I led my department independently on my own to the

14     best of my abilities and with good intentions.  My deputy and my

15     assistants discharged the functions assigned to them with due diligence

16     and performed my instructions.  So within -- with my full mental capacity

17     and without incitement from anyone, I decided to make the statement that

18     I did.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Mr. Karnavas, you have the

20     floor.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you, Mr. Buntic.  I'm sure we all appreciate

22     those remarks and observations.

23             We now want to switch to January 15, 1993, and I'll refer to

24     document P 01155, P 01155.

25        Q.   We've seen this document before in this court.  This is dated

Page 30443

 1     January 15, 1993.  It's a decision taken by the HVO, signed by

 2     Dr. Jadranko Prlic.  And is it safe to say that you are familiar with

 3     this decision?

 4        A.   I am.  And as far as I know, a day or two after this decision,

 5     the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina made an

 6     order that was very similar to this decision.

 7        Q.   All right.  Now, were you -- were you in Mostar on 15 January

 8     1992 when this decision was issued?

 9        A.   No.  On the 15th of January, 1993, I was not in Mostar.  At that

10     time, I was coming back from Geneva, where I had attended negotiations

11     concerning the implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan.  I heard of this

12     decision on TV.  I believe that on the 15th, I was somewhere in Zagreb or

13     on my way home.

14        Q.   I'm going to walk you through step by step.  So if you could

15     please tell us, what exactly did you do in Geneva, who were you with, and

16     what, if anything, was reached, decided?

17        A.   In Geneva, I know that I was there with Mr. Akmadzic, and I

18     believe there was somebody from the military.  Akmadzic and I dealt with

19     civilian issues, civil affairs.  I believe there was also someone from

20     the military staff of the HVO, where they talked about military issues

21     with the Bosniak delegation; whereas, our team discussed the future

22     constitutional arrangements for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

23             We had reached an agreement on the text, and I remember that this

24     text was, indeed, a great insight with the constitutional principles

25     along the lines of the Vance-Owen Plan.  I believe it was harmonised, as

Page 30444

 1     well as the military agreement.  I believe the military agreement was

 2     also reached, but I'm not sure about that.  I believe, in fact, our

 3     agreement was certainly agreed and initialled in Geneva.  I believe the

 4     same is true of the military agreement, but don't hold me to that.

 5        Q.   All right.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now, if we go on to the next document, 1D 00818.

 7        Q.   This is dated 18 January 1993.  And if we look at the names, we

 8     do not see you there having been a participant.  We see others, but we

 9     don't see you.  And, of course, if we just look through this, these

10     minutes, we see that at some point there is a discussion concerning

11     communications that were had between Mr. Alija Izetbegovic and

12     Dr. Jadranko Prlic.

13             My first question is:  Were you present on the 18th of January,

14     1993, when there was a discussion, there was a meeting?

15        A.   No.  As you can see from the record, my deputy, Karlo Sesar,

16     attended.  I returned a day or two later.  On the 19th or perhaps 20th, I

17     was back in Mostar, but not on that day.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  If you look at the next document, which is P01227,

19     these are the minutes on the 19th of January, 1993.

20        Q.   And, here, we do see your name.  Can you confirm to us that you

21     did, in fact, attend the extraordinary session that was held on that day?

22        A.   Correct.  I attended this session, as you can see from the

23     minutes.  I returned on the 19th.  I wasn't sure a moment ago whether I

24     returned on the 19th or the 20th; but from the minutes, you can see I was

25     there on the 19th.

Page 30445

 1        Q.   Would you have been briefed, incidentally, by your associate,

 2     your deputy, about what, if anything, had transpired the previous day

 3     during that extraordinary session on 18 January 1993?

 4        A.   He told me briefly what had been discussed at that session.  He

 5     told me there had been a session a day earlier and what was discussed.

 6        Q.   All right.  Have you had a chance to look at this particular

 7     document, the one of 19 January 1993; that is, P 01227?  And can you

 8     confirm to us whether the minutes, as stated, truncated as they are,

 9     whether they reflect what was being discussed at the time?

10        A.   I think the minutes are done properly and reflect what had been

11     discussed.

12             MR. KARNAVAS:  And then if we look at 1D 00820, this is dated

13     20 January 1993.

14        Q.   It's a letter from Mr. Mate Boban, wherein he indicates that he

15     wishes to -- for certain changes to be made to the decision that had been

16     issued on 15 January 1993.  Were you aware of this, sir, at the time?

17        A.   No.  I saw this document for the first time when you showed it

18     to me.

19        Q.   Were changes -- were changes made to the decision of 15 January

20     1993 subsequent to your arrival in Mostar?  And we saw that you were

21     there on the 19th of January, 1993.

22        A.   As you were able to see, I was in Mostar already on the 19th.

23     This document is of the 21st, and I was back in Mostar already on

24     the 19th.

25        Q.   Going back to the decision of January 15, what was your

Page 30446

 1     understanding of this decision?

 2        A.   I've told you already that I had been in Geneva for negotiations

 3     about the implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan, that certain matters

 4     were resolved there, agreement was reached about the basic constitutional

 5     arrangements for Bosnia and Herzegovina.  I believe that the military

 6     agreement was also reached.  I don't know the details of that agreement.

 7             But what Mr. Akmadzic and I were told was that everything had to

 8     be done to put an end to the war between Bosniaks and Croats, and that

 9     that was not possible without separating the warring sides.  I was told

10     that that agreement contained provisions about the separation of the two

11     sides, and I saw this decision in that context.  It's not an order to

12     anyone.

13             It requires a certain conduct on both sides, and that in areas

14     which have a majority population, one of the armies had to be withdrawn,

15     units of the HVO had to withdraw from provinces 1, 5, and 9.  So it's not

16     prejudicial to any of the sides, because provinces 3, 8, and 9, and 10

17     were considered to be majority Croatian, because indeed they were.

18             It was not possible to leave both armies in one area.  One had to

19     withdraw.  Provinces 1, 5, and 9 were majority Bosniaks, so it was clear

20     that Croatian units had to be subordinated, as it says here, to the

21     VH Army, in order to have peace, to restore peace.  The presence of both

22     armies in one locality, in one region, is impossible.  I'm saying it's

23     impossible, because it will always lead to a conflict.  There is no

24     civilian authority that is able to control them and maintain peace if

25     they continue to be in the same area.

Page 30447

 1             That's my opinion, my position, and I stand by it.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Now, if we go on to our next topic, this deals with

 3     districts.  We'll try -- I don't know if we can deal with this --

 4             MR. KARNAVAS:  Well, Your Honours, if I look at the time, it

 5     might be more prudent to have a break at this point, before I start the

 6     next chapter, because it's impossible to do it in five minutes.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Fine.  It's 25 past 10.00.

 8     The best is for us to have a break now to allow Mr. Karnavas to prepare

 9     for the next topic, and we'll resume in 20 minutes.

10                           [The witness stands down]

11                           --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  I understand that the

14     Prosecution wishes to intervene.

15             MR. STRINGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16             We just wanted to take a brief opportunity to raise a couple of

17     timing-related issues with the Trial Chamber in respect of this witness,

18     because it's clear that we're going not only deeply into this week but

19     perhaps deeply into next week with Mr. Buntic.  I don't know, at this

20     point, what other examinations the other Defence teams have planned.  We

21     have some information from the Coric team which I'd also like to raise.

22             But with respect to the following witness -- actually, the

23     following two witnesses, and I don't know whether they are both open

24     session or not, and whether I don't know if I can say the names - I know

25     Mr. Zuzul is - but we don't know how we're going to accommodate the

Page 30448

 1     witnesses who are scheduled for next week, given the way it's going with

 2     Mr. Buntic.  And if, in fact, there's going to be any adjustments made,

 3     it would be very helpful to the Prosecution to know.  That's my first

 4     point.

 5             And if I could just raise the other, then the Trial Chamber could

 6     hear from the Defence.

 7             We've been -- yesterday, we were given notice by the Coric team

 8     of its intention to use some exhibits with this witness, Mr. Buntic; and

 9     it appears to us to be a situation which the Prosecution's being placed

10     in the position of having to perhaps cross-examine him or follow up with

11     Mr. Buntic on areas that are outside the scope of his direct examination

12     or which otherwise are certainly matters which we should have been given

13     more notice about.  These are registers, photos copies of registries from

14     Mostar and Western Herzegovina.

15             We can't read them, we don't have translations of them, I don't

16     know how the Coric team intends to proceed in of this witness on direct.

17     But the indications from the Prosecution perspective are that this is

18     going to lead to something that we haven't had sufficient notice about or

19     sufficient ability to prepare for in cross-examination, and it's possible

20     we're going to be asking that this witness be brought back to The Hague

21     at a later time, after we've had sufficient opportunity to prepare.  I

22     don't know, because I don't know what the witness is going to say and I

23     don't know what the Coric team is intending to do.

24             But it appears to us, based on the late notice of --  and the

25     information that we have at hand, is that there's a good possibility that

Page 30449

 1     we're going to feel prejudiced by what's going to be happening during the

 2     so-called cross-examination of Mr. Buntic by the Coric team.

 3             And I just raise that now, and I asked the witness not be brought

 4     in because I thought it appropriate not to have him here while we talk

 5     about what the Coric team may or may not be planning to do with him on

 6     cross.

 7             Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Fine.

 9             Madam, you may answer.

10             MS. TOMASEGOVIC-TOMIC: [Interpretation] I will respond.

11             These are from various prosecution offices from Herzegovina.

12     Yesterday, we provided CDs of these documents, and we sent an e-mail

13     showing what parts of these registers, and they are only several examples

14     for illustration, and where they can be found.  These CDs are on our

15     65 ter list.  They have their number.  On the 31st of March, they were

16     submitted in a timely fashion.

17             I believe that this witness spoke about the establishment of

18     military prosecutors' offices, military courts, and also of the civilian

19     judicial system.  I don't want to overstep the boundaries of the

20     examination-in-chief of this witness.  I wish to show him the registries

21     solely for purposes of identification.  I want the witness simply to tell

22     me whether these are, in fact, the registries, whether this is what the

23     registers looked like; and there is no translation needed for that

24     because this has been provided to the OTP.  The list of abbreviations, we

25     will ask him to explain.

Page 30450

 1             For example, His Honour Judge Trechsel yesterday asked what "KT"

 2     stands for; and for all the Judges, we have prepared a list.  This is not

 3     to be tendered into evidence, but is simply an explanation of what is

 4     meant by "KT," or by "KF," and so on and so forth.  We've also prepared

 5     the articles of the law mentioned in these registers, and I only want to

 6     show some examples.  For example, where we have a criminal report or

 7     something else from a file, how this can be identified with a file number

 8     in the registry.  I don't think this falls outside the scope of the

 9     examination-in-chief or that it requires preparation longer than one day.

10             Yesterday, everyone, including Mrs. Majkovski and the Prosecutor

11     and the Registrar received the list of every image from the register that

12     we will refer to.  And this can be then zoomed in, too, electronically,

13     and one can see whether the numbers correspond to the numbers from the

14     criminal report and the names of the persons concerned.

15             That's all I wanted to say.  That is what I will deal with in my

16     cross-examination.  There will be no surprises; and precisely for this

17     reason, yesterday we provided this, and it's all on the list of the

18     31st of March.  There's not a single document that is not on that list.

19             Thank you, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Fine.  As I 0understand it,

21     these lists were forwarded on CD-ROM the 31st of March to the

22     Prosecutor's Office.  So the Prosecutor's Office is in possession of

23     these registers since the 31st of March, so you've had them for several

24     months, not since yesterday.  Secondly, and personally, and I'm not

25     committing my fellow Judges, but it's part of an investigation at the

Page 30451

 1     very least regarding justice, because it is stated in the indictment.

 2     The question of justice, we had to get the Prosecutor's Office to verify

 3     the list of prosecutors were on the ground.  It wasn't done by the

 4     Prosecution but by the Defence, and now the Prosecution says it doesn't

 5     have enough time to prepare itself.

 6             So, since March 31st, you're in possession of these registers;

 7     but from what I understand, the legal counsel, she just wants a few

 8     minutes to determine that the prosecutors in question recorded the cases

 9     under the numbers "KT," "KF," et cetera, and the witness will say, "Yes,

10     which proves that justice continued to operate."  That's all she wishes

11     to establish, and there's no need for weeks or even months to be able to

12     cross-examine the witness on this.

13             So on the first point, Mr. Karnavas, what is your view?

14             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.

15             I was going to address this issue at the end of the -- at the end

16     of the day today.  I was going to ask for a couple of minutes just to

17     brief this issue.

18             We acknowledge that we are going to go into next week with this

19     particular witness, and the following witness is an important witness.

20     He is due to arrive shortly.  He will be on standby until he goes on.  I

21     understand that we have Mr. Zuzul, who is expected to testify, who also

22     come back, and it has been prearranged.

23             And so we - Ms. Tomanovic and I - had concluded that it would be

24     best to ask or to inform the Court that in our opinion, it might be best

25     to postpone Mr. Zuzul's arrival until the following week, in other words,

Page 30452

 1     to start on Monday, as opposed to him coming on a Friday.  This way, we

 2     have the following witness testifying, and then we don't start -- disrupt

 3     that in order to hear Mr. Zuzul and then go back.  This way, we would

 4     finish the second one.  Mr. Zuzul will then pick up from there, so he can

 5     be here to be ready for Monday.  In other words, he would arrive here on

 6     Sunday, to be ready to testify on Monday.  Monday is a full day, as I

 7     understand, the following Monday.  And we still have another short

 8     witness after that.

 9             So based on our calculations, we're not going to be losing any

10     time.  As you can see, we're very, very efficient and very well prepared,

11     even for these eventualities, and we welcome this intervention.

12             However, I must say that in the future, we could save a lot of

13     courtroom time if we just communicate to each other, especially with the

14     second issue.  There was no need to spend ten minutes.  I think if they

15     had a five-minute conversation outside the record, this matter could have

16     been clarified; and then if they still needed to go on record to raise

17     their objections of how they're being, you know, prejudiced, they could

18     do so.  But I think this could have been handled quite nicely.  And right

19     now, we've had all these people sitting around, international taxpayers'

20     dollars being abused, in my opinion, on matters that could be handled

21     with a tete-a-tete.

22             Thank you.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With this witness, we will end

24     on Thursday with him.  He will remain, and we will resume with him on

25     Monday afternoon, July 14th; and then we will move on to the witness of

Page 30453

 1     next week, and we'll also have a hearing on Friday.  So we should end

 2     with your witness on Friday, and then we will hear Mr. Zuzul on Monday

 3     morning and afternoon.

 4             Let me clarify because the Chamber saw the problem.  We will end

 5     at 12.30 on Monday, so that people can have lunch, and then we will

 6     resume at 2.15 p.m., working until 6.00 p.m. in order to complete this.

 7     That's the timeline.  As Mr. Karnavas indicates, the Prosecution and the

 8     Defence can settle that amongst themselves, and that will save time so

 9     we're not running behind.  Everything is proceeding at a speedy pace.

10             We can bring in the witness.

11             MR. STRINGER:  Mr. President, just so the Trial Chamber's aware,

12     by our records.  The Prosecution has five hours for the cross-examination

13     of Mr. Zuzul.  The Prosecution intends to use all of that time, and so we

14     still think that there's a likelihood that we will not be able to finish

15     both of the witnesses during that final week before the summer recess.

16     But, obviously, we'll see how things go.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, normally, Mr. Stringer,

18     with five hours on Monday, Mr. Zuzul, if there's no objections or

19     numerous additional questions, we should end on Monday with Mr. Zuzul.

20             MR. STRINGER:  That would be our hope, Mr. President.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  There's no need for anticipatory anxiety.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  We must always be

23     optimistic.

24             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Or as the Jewish mother says, "I see it, I

25     believe it."

Page 30454

 1                           [The witness entered court]

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  The hearing resumes.

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.

 4        Q.   Mr. Buntic, again, good morning.  We're going to move to the next

 5     topic dealing with districts; and, again, I'm going to beg you, I'm going

 6     to beg you to please, at times, be a little shorter.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  We're going to look at 1D 00509, 1D 00509.

 8        Q.   This is a decree with the power of law on the power of work --

 9     and work of districts.  It's dated 13 August 1992 in Sarajevo.

10             And just very briefly, are you familiar with this particular

11     decree?

12        A.   I'm familiar with the degree and I have -- I have an echo in my

13     headphones.  I have already provided my testimony about this subject by

14     pointing out that the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, because of the

15     blockade of Sarajevo and the central state bodies, and I'm talking about

16     the Parliament, Presidency, and government, they were forced to pass a

17     decree on the establishment of new bodies that would be functioning

18     during the war.  And it is of no essence what their names would be:  The

19     districts, as they're referred to by the Presidency, or the unions of

20     municipalities, as we call them.

21             As a lawyer, by trade, I believe that I'm allowed to note that

22     the then-prevailing Constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina allowed for the

23     association of several municipalities into unions, with a purpose of

24     defending their territory; whereas, that same Constitution did not give

25     the authority to the president to change the internal territorial

Page 30455

 1     organisation of the then-existing Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 2             I would kindly ask the usher to help me with the headphones.  I'm

 3     am hearing an echo in my headphones.

 4             MR. KARNAVAS:  Mr. Registrar, please stop the time.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  He was on the phone.  I was wondering or I was

 7     hoping that he didn't -- okay.

 8        Q.   Now, so, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying to the

 9     Trial Chamber here is that this decree, in your opinion, as a trained

10     lawyer, familiar with the system in your country, and especially the

11     Constitution, the then-existing Constitution, that this decree was

12     unconstitutional.

13        A.   [Interpretation] Correct.  In my view and according to the

14     then-prevailing Constitution, the literal territorial organisation of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina could only have been changed pursuant to a decision by

16     the Assembly, because this is a constitutional matter and the Parliament

17     of Bosnia-Herzegovina could not transfer that authority on to the

18     Presidency.

19             And if I may be allowed, I would like to read parts of Article 4

20     of this decree, if that would not constitute too long an answer.

21        Q.   Okay.  Go ahead.

22             JUDGE PRANDLER:  Before it is necessary to give us some further

23     for information, I would like to ask the following:  A decree has been

24     adopted by the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I would

25     like to know -- it was, of course, dated 13th August 1992.  Now, the

Page 30456

 1     question is that if Mr. Buntic might be able to tell us:  What was the

 2     voting, if any, voting results of the voting in the Presidency in view of

 3     the fact that there should have been also the then-Croatian members of

 4     the Presidency participating in the decision-making?

 5             So my question is if you know anything about the internal

 6     proceedings, what happened within the Presidency when the decree was

 7     adopted, and if the Croat members also voted for it.  It would be

 8     important, in my view, because you said that it was against the

 9     Constitution; and then we have to look at it, how the Presidency adopted

10     this decree.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not familiar with

12     these details.  I'm not familiar with the way the Presidency passed this

13     decree and whether at that session all the members of the Presidency were

14     present.  I just said that the Presidency did not have such

15     constitutional powers because the Parliament of Bosnia-Herzegovina could

16     not transfer such powers on to the Presidency, according to the

17     Constitution.  This the exclusive power of the Assembly and could not be

18     transferred on to the Presidency in war or in the immediate threat of

19     war.  Legal authorities could be transferred, but the matters that were

20     regulated by the Constitution could not be transferred.  The

21     municipalities, themselves, could, however, issue a decision on

22     association.  They could associate themselves into a union of

23     municipalities.

24             For the Presidency to issue a decision changing the territorial

25     organisation of the state, it was not possible, because it is a

Page 30457

 1     constitutional matter rather than a law.

 2             JUDGE PRANDLER:  Thank you for your answer, but I simply would

 3     like to state that it would have been better then to attach that part of

 4     the Constitution which is relevant, as far as this very decree, and in

 5     order to show to us, to the Bench, that it was anyway against the

 6     Constitution itself.  And, again, I say that since it was wartime and in

 7     wartime many of the provisions of the Constitution had been referred to

 8     the Presidency to act upon, therefore we should know, really, that

 9     according to the Constitution, according to the Presidency, according to

10     the members of the Presidency, if this act of adopting the decree was

11     legal or illegal.

12             Thank you.

13             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you, Judge Prandler, for that, and just let

14     me respond very briefly to your observation.

15             We try not to try the entire case through any particular witness.

16     So we do -- and given the time constraints, we can't do that.  I agree,

17     in a perfect world, that's what I would do.  But I have both my hands

18     tied behind my back and one of my legs has been taken, and you're asking

19     me to sprint.  It's rather difficult.  So we're put in a position where

20     we have to discriminate.  That's number 1.

21             Number 2, we do intend to tie it up through another witness.

22     However, that being said, we do welcome the judicial hint.  We welcome

23     that there's an issue that you obviously wish to hear from, and we will

24     try to provide that information to you through another witness.

25        Q.   Now, you wanted to make reference to certain portions of

Page 30458

 1     Article 4, so if you could do so rather quickly, Mr. Buntic.

 2        A.   Article 4 says:

 3             "Within the areas that are regulated by republican regulations,

 4     the district or bodies within the purview of their duties and authorities

 5     may, if the interests of defence and protection and the agency of

 6     regulation of certain matters and relationships so require, issue

 7     regulations to regulate that matters and relationships of an immediate

 8     importance for the district should these regulations not be passed in due

 9     course by the Republican organs."

10               And this quote points to the fact that the districts could also

11     pass regulations from the areas that were within the purview of the

12     Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and we have the same

13     case in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

14        Q.   Thank you.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we could go on to the next document, and I

16     believe the Trial Chamber has seen the next document, which is 1D 02565.

17        Q.   And, here, we see that this is a letter from the Minister of

18     Energetics, Mining, and Industry, and it's to a Mr. Demirovic.  And in

19     the first -- the first letter, we see that he's being asked to provide

20     certain materials to Mr. Prlic.  So Demirovic is the go-between to

21     Mr. Prlic.

22             If we go to the next page, we see that this is another letter.

23     This one is from the vice-president of the government of RBiH,

24     Mr. Ljubuntija.  This is to the commander of the 4th Corps of the Army of

25     BiH, in other words, the Muslim army; and, there, he's being asked to

Page 30459

 1     urgently implement the matter.  This is -- we can see Dr. Jadranko Prlic

 2     is being copied.

 3             And then if we flip the page, we see this is on February 25th,

 4     yet you see another document.  This time it's from the Ministry of

 5     Defence, the deputy minister, Mr. Bisic; and he is writing about the

 6     setting up of the Mostar-Livno district.  This is February 25th, 1993.

 7             Now, let me stop right there.

 8             By February 25th, 1993, had the Croatian Community of

 9     Herceg-Bosna been set up and had it been operational for some time?

10        A.   Yes.  The Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna at that time had

11     already been established.  It was operational, and I believe that it is

12     interesting to point out that everything was happening at a time after

13     the Vance-Owen Plan was signed in Geneva and accepted by both sides.

14     That plan employed a completely different territorial organisation than

15     the one that is being proposed and requested; i.e., whose implementation,

16     even through military force and through a military commander, is

17     requested by Vlatko Lugunja, vice president of the government of the

18     Republic of Bosnia and Hercegovina.

19             I'm familiar with these documents.  They were discussed at the

20     Croatian Defence Council.

21        Q.   A little bit step by step, I want to slow down because it's

22     rather interesting.  The first decree is August 13; and now, several

23     months later, it appears that the army now wants to implement this, the

24     Ministry of Defence.  And, of course, it's March 3, 1993, that Mr. Prlic

25     is going to be noticed of this, at least that's what it appears from the

Page 30460

 1     first page of the document.

 2             And can you please tell us, from August 13 to March 1993 - it's

 3     August 1992 to March 1993 - can you please tell us whether any ongoing

 4     negotiations had been taking place concerning the internal organisation

 5     of Bosnia-Herzegovina to which the representatives of the Muslim nation

 6     were discussing with the representatives of the Serb and the Croat

 7     nation?

 8        A.   Yes.  I personally participated in these talks and negotiations,

 9     which were conducted in Neum between the 19th and 23rd December, 1992.

10     On the Muslim/Bosniak side, Professor Kasim Trnka was the head of the

11     Bosniak delegation.  Attorney-at-all Camil Salahovic and Mensud Borogovac

12     from Tuzla were members of the delegation.  I was the head of our

13     delegation; and with me, there were also Professor Ante Margetic and Anto

14     Valenta.

15        Q.   Throughout this period, because it would appear that this is the

16     first notice, did any representatives from Sarajevo come to share their

17     views on how to implement this particular decree, especially if you look

18     back to the decree at 1D 00509, if you look back to it, and you look at

19     Article 5, which says:

20             "Funds for work of district bodies shall be ensured in the

21     Republic's budget."

22             MR. KARNAVAS:  And I say this for the Trial Chamber's convenience

23     because we heard from the Minister of Finance, and what we had learned

24     was that there was no budget, to speak of, as a result of the situation

25     on the ground.

Page 30461

 1        Q.   So did anybody come from Sarajevo to explain how these districts

 2     were to work, how to implement this decree, and where the money would

 3     come from to pay the salaries for the judges, for the court system?  So

 4     all the things that this piece of paper, this decree, claims are the

 5     responsibilities of these newly-created territorial districts.

 6        A.   I was not privy to any document of that kind.  Nobody ever spoke

 7     to me about the financing of these districts.  So when I say "no

 8     document," I mean documents of a financial nature or talks about the

 9     financing of these districts.  As for the rest of the issues, I was fully

10     familiar with the issues when it came to these districts.

11        Q.   Yesterday, I believe we saw an interview - I can dig it up here -

12     where you indicated that Alija Izetbegovic had been in Mostar, and that

13     there was a 50/50 arrangement.  You recall that interview, And we do know

14     that Alija Izetbegovic was in Mostar in October 1992.

15             Now, did Mr. Izetbegovic and his entourage, his colleagues, his

16     collaborators, did they come with expert services to describe how these

17     districts were to function, how they were to be organised, how to

18     implement this legal instrument, and, of course, where they would find

19     the money, the budget, in order to make these districts, these

20     newly-created districts, function?

21        A.   I've already said that nobody ever spoke to me about financing or

22     wrote to me about financing.  We never discussed the matter of financing,

23     I repeat.

24        Q.   I'm not so worried about the wondering.  I'm worrying -- I'm

25     wondering whether they had somebody draft this decree.  It's rather

Page 30462

 1     detailed.  Obviously, when you draft such a decree, you have in mind how

 2     it's going to be implemented; otherwise, it's just empty words on a piece

 3     of paper.

 4             My question, again, concretely:  Was there a delegation that ever

 5     came from the government of Sarajevo, the Presidency?  Did they ever send

 6     a delegation to explain how to organise these districts, so at least you

 7     would have some sort of knowledge of how they intended to implement this

 8     particular decree which for several months went unnoticed until March

 9     1993?

10        A.   I've already said that when it came to the implementation of

11     financing and the implementation of this particular decree on the

12     establishment of the districts, nobody ever spoke to me.  I'm not

13     familiar with any talks about that.  I'm not familiar with the arrival of

14     any delegation that was supposed to implement this.  I'm familiar with

15     these letters, and I know the documents arrived and were discussed.  But

16     as for some delegations arriving to implement things or to talk about

17     things, I wouldn't know anything about that.

18             What I already told you yesterday or the day before is that

19     sometime in the month of July or August, the only person I spoke to was

20     the Deputy Minister of Justice and General Administration, and that was

21     about the functioning of the courts.  That was either in July or August

22     1992, either the end of July or the beginning of August.  I testified

23     about that, I provided my testimony to that effect, but I'm not familiar

24     with any other delegation that arrived in order to implement anything.

25             This is the third time you're asking me, and I don't know whether

Page 30463

 1     my answer satisfies you, but I can't tell you anything more than I

 2     actually knew.

 3        Q.   I'm satisfied.  I just want to make a clear record of this.

 4             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now, if we look at document P 01161 -- P 01661.

 5        Q.   We see these are minutes of the 30th session of the HVO, and you

 6     indicated that you were familiar with the decree that we talked of.  I

 7     don't see your name in the minutes, but first let me ask you:  Have you

 8     had an opportunity to review these minutes, and do you recognise or can

 9     you confirm to us, one way or the other, that you would have been aware

10     of the discussions in this particular session as a result of your

11     position in the HVO?

12        A.   I know that because of the following session of the HVO, these

13     minutes were adopted.  I was not at this session.  I delegated my deputy,

14     Karlo Sesar, to attend the session.  But knowing how the HVO function, I

15     know that the minutes of the previous sessions are adopted at the

16     following sessions.  So I had an opportunity to read the minutes, and my

17     deputy also informed me and reported to me about the discussions that

18     were held at this particular session that I didn't attend.

19        Q.   All right.  Two very quick points.  If we look at item 2, under

20     item 2, it is said that, and I'm reading in the middle of the paragraph,

21     that:

22             "A special social and political communities which should function

23     during a state of war is neither envisaged by the current Constitution of

24     the Republic of BH, nor is it in line with the Vance-Owen Peace Plan or

25     the agreements signed by the Muslim and Croat delegations in their talks

Page 30464

 1     in New York."

 2             Then I'll skip a paragraph, I'll skip the next paragraph, and

 3     then it goes on to say:

 4             "In addition to being illegitimate and unacceptable, the decision

 5     on districts is also impossible to implement.  For instance, the district

 6     of Mostar includes, according to the decision, the municipality of

 7     Bileca, Gacko, Ljubinje, Nevesinje, Trebinje, which have wholly been

 8     occupied by the aggressor for almost a year now.  On the other hand, it

 9     is obvious from the list of powers and duties of the district

10     administrative bodies that BH is being divided as a unitary basis, which

11     is the aim of strengthening the central government of the republic.  This

12     is a concept similar to the former Yugoslavia, just in another form."

13             And then it goes on, at the very beginning of the next paragraph,

14     it says:

15             "The decision on the establishment of the so-called districts of

16     Mostar and Livno obviously ignores the existence of the HVO HZ-HB."

17             And my first question is:  Do you agree with what is being stated

18     here in these minutes?

19             Now, you told us or we already heard from you that it's not

20     constitutional, and we'll provide the additional information for

21     Judge Prandler and others.  You told us that this was not in compliance

22     with the Vance-Owen Peace Plan that you were involved in, and we'll see

23     concretely in a second.

24               But do you agree with the part where it says "impossible to

25     implement because these areas are under Serb occupation," and, number 2,

Page 30465

 1     that this seems to be another way of diluting the Croatian people's

 2     constitutive powers in establishing a unitary state?

 3        A.   I believe that I've already partly provided my opinion about

 4     that.

 5             It is correct that the territorial organisation of the districts

 6     by and large operates from the Vance-Owen Plan that had been adopted by

 7     the Bosniak and the Croat side.  It is true that Gacko, Ljubinje,

 8     Trebinje, Nevesinje, Bileca became a part of the District of Mostar,

 9     although they were under Serb occupation; and, realistically, it was not

10     possible to include them into this district.

11             It is also true that the establishment of these districts, as may

12     be seen from the previous documents, was requested through the commanders

13     of the BiH Army, i.e., the 4th Corps, which is very indicative and very

14     characteristic.  It is true that all of this was happening at a time when

15     attempts were made to implement the Vance-Owen Plan.

16             In my opinion, all of this was nothing but an obstruction to the

17     implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan, even by force if necessary through

18     the BH Army, i.e., through the 4th Corps, when it came concretely to the

19     issue of Mostar.

20             And I believe that after this session which was held at the time,

21     the HVO sent a letter to the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina in

22     which they expressed a position very similar to the one I provided just

23     now and that I provided earlier.

24        Q.   All right.  Now, if we look at the letter that you mentioned, or

25     if we look at document 1D 01972, we see that it is signed by Dr. Jadranko

Page 30466

 1     Prlic on behalf of the HVO, dealing specifically on the formation of

 2     Mostar and Livno districts.

 3             Is this what you were referring to about the letter that was sent

 4     to the government, which is also based on the minutes of the meeting that

 5     we saw earlier in P 01661?

 6        A.   That's correct.  I took part in the drafting of this document

 7     that was signed by Dr. Jadranko Prlic, president of the HVO.

 8        Q.   We do note, we do note that on item 4, page 2, it makes reference

 9     to, it says here:  "The formation of Mostar and Livno districts has not

10     been regulated either by the current Constitution of the Republic of

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was signed by both Muslim and Croatian

12     delegations at the peace negotiations in Geneva and New York."

13             And can we conclude from this that you're talking about the

14     Vance-Owen Peace Plan?

15        A.   Correct.  It's about the Vance-Owen Plan, and it notes that the

16     establishment of this district is neither in conformity with the

17     Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina or with the already accepted and

18     signed Vance-Owen Plan.

19        Q.   All right.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we look at P 09276.  This was a map that was

21     provided, I believe, by the Prosecution.  It's map 11.  I don't know if

22     we're able to pull it up in the e-court.

23             And while that's being done, if I could have the assistance of

24     the usher to put something on the ELMO.  I don't know if that's possible

25     to do both at the same time.  If not, I could do it one at a time.  And

Page 30467

 1     on the ELMO, I guess we will need some sort of IC number for this

 2     document, this map.  What is on the ELMO is not on the e-court.

 3             And, Your Honours, it may be of some assistance to you if you go

 4     back to the decree itself and you look under Article 6 of item 4.  It

 5     talks about the District of Mostar, and it lays out -- I apologise.  I

 6     apologise, Your Honours.

 7             If you look at the bottom, at the very end, there's a decree with

 8     the power amending, so that would be the second-to-last page of this

 9     document, Your Honours.  It's attached to the decree.  This is the

10     amending of it.

11             Again, under item 4, it says:  "District of Mostar, Centre in

12     Mostar, for the territories of the municipalities of Bileca, Capljina,

13     Cikluk, Gacko, Grude, Jablanice, Konjic, Siroki Brijeg, Ljubinje,

14     Ljubuski, Mostar, Neum, Nevesinje, Posusje, Stolac, and Trebinje."

15             My apologies to my colleagues for my pronunciation of the names,

16     but that's the best I can do.

17        Q.   If we look at what was envisaged in the district for Mostar, and

18     if we now compare this with map 11 of P 09276, and we can provide this to

19     you, sir.  Do you have it?  Okay.

20             Now, can you please tell us whether Mostar District comports with

21     the Vance-Owen Peace Plan that was being negotiated at that very moment,

22     where Izetbegovic and company were signing and agreeing, while at the

23     same time pushing the military to establish a district of this sort

24     which, as you said now and back then with your colleagues, was

25     unconstitutional?

Page 30468

 1        A.   I would like to thank you because I believe these maps confirm

 2     what I've already said; namely, that there are significant - not small,

 3     significant - departures in the structure of the district from the agreed

 4     and initialled Vance-Owen Plan.

 5             If we look at these maps, specifically the District of Mostar, we

 6     will see that municipalities Gacko, Nevesinje, Bileca, Ljubinje, and

 7     Trebinje, under the Vance-Owen Plan belong to a Serb province or a

 8     province with a majority Serb population; whereas, these same

 9     municipalities, in the establishment of districts, were included in

10     Mostar District.  I believe this one example of the Mostar District is

11     sufficient; although, I could also speak of District Livno where, with

12     the use of the BH Army and its security services, security services being

13     attached to the services in Mostar, Livno, they wanted to belong to

14     Mostar.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  For the Judges, I'm going to eat up some of my

16     time, and I don't mind.  It's like being in, I guess, a casino, where you

17     have so many chips to play.

18        Q.   So let's put Livno on just to show you.  Again, it's worth

19     showing because we see Livno; and from your answers, it would appear that

20     a double policy or some nefarious attitudes are being displayed by the

21     negotiators?

22             MR. STRINGER:  Objection to the state of counsel, again,

23     characterizing the evidence.  It's for the witness to testify, and for

24     the Trial Chamber to draw its conclusions.

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'm only trying to help the Trial Chamber,

Page 30469

 1     Your Honour, but I take his point.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not clearly visible on the map

 3     whether it is, indeed, so.  I can't read the text, but I believe this is

 4     Glamoc, which according to the Vance-Owen Plan was included in a province

 5     with a majority Serb population.  Here, it is included in Livno District.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:

 7        Q.   All right.  If you look at -- if you look back at document

 8     1D 00509, and you look at the amended redistricting, if you want to call

 9     it that, under number 10, you see there Livno, with the centre of Livno,

10     the territories are Glamoc, Kupres, Livno, Prozor, Tomislav Grad.

11        A.   That's correct.  This confirms that I was right when I said that

12     Glamoc was included in Livno District.  I've said that earlier.  In the

13     previous territorial arrangement, it was included in a territory with a

14     majority Serb population.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Just one final question on this before we move on to

16     the next topic.

17             You were involved in these international negotiations, and help

18     us out here.  During those negotiations, did they ever pull out this

19     decree and make this part of the negotiating process, and inform, say,

20     Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen that this was, in fact, what the Presidency had

21     decided and was, in fact, implementing at the time?

22        A.   I don't know if the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina advised

23     Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen of these contracts; but at the peace conference

24     that I attended, these districts were not a subject of discussion.  I

25     don't know if the Presidency informed them of this, but these provinces,

Page 30470

 1     as they were accepted in the Vance-Owen Plan, we harmonised, we agreed at

 2     the meeting in Neum on the 22nd and 23rd of December, 1993, because it

 3     was 95 agreed -- 95 per cent agreed in conformity with the Vance-Owen

 4     maps.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  We're going to move on to the next topic, and this

 6     dealing primarily with the area I call it "April 1993."  It's, for

 7     general purposes, sort of the topic for it.

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  And, first, I want to show P 01798, 1798.

 9        Q.   And this is the 34th session held on 3 April 1993, the third

10     session of the HVO.  We see that your name is there being present; and,

11     of course, we see from the very first item that Mr. Boban is there.  And

12     they're analysing the themes of the peace plan which had already been

13     signed by the representatives of the Croatian and Muslim people in BH.

14     So this is a month after the letter from the Ministry of Defence

15     regarding the districts.  Here, it would appear that we're back to the

16     peace plan.

17               And, of course, I want to focus your attention to the

18     second-to-last paragraph on page 2, where it says, and this is part of a

19     letter, as I understand it, or a letter to be sent, that:

20             "Until the Republic is fully demilitarised, the armed forces will

21     be organised in accordance with the relevant documents of the Vance-Owen

22     Peace Plan, in accordance with the joint statement issued after the

23     agreement by Mr. Boban," Mr. Mate Boban, "and Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, who

24     led the delegations of the Croat and Muslims at the peace talks.

25             "The statement was signed by Mr. Mate Boban, and its integral

Page 30471

 1     part reads as follows," and we don't need to read it.

 2             Now, having attended this meeting - and you don't need to go into

 3     any detail.  If the Judges have questions, I'm sure they will ask - was

 4     it your understanding at the time that this was correct, that, in fact,

 5     Mr. Alija Izetbegovic and Mr. Boban had, indeed, signed an agreement

 6     concerning the Vance-Owen Peace Plan?

 7        A.   At this session, Mr. Boban presented it this way in his

 8     introductory remarks.

 9        Q.   All right.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  And I'll move on to the next document, unless

11     there are any questions from the Judges.  1D 02003.

12        Q.   This is dated 9 May 1993; and, here, we see that it says the HVO

13     decided, at a meeting on 3 April 1993, that members of the HZ-HB HVO

14     should visit all municipalities and provinces 3, 8, and 10 in order to

15     familiarise the persons responsibility with the essence of the Vance-Owen

16     documents and decisions made at the meeting of the HZ-HB HVO.

17             And, of course, if we look at number 6, we see for Konjic,

18     Jablanica, Prozor, and Rama, we see your name along with Mr. Kvesic, who

19     I understand was with the Department of the Interior at the time.

20             And my question is:  Did you, indeed, go visit those areas as it

21     reflects in this particular plan, May 9th?

22        A.   I'm familiar with this plan, but I did not go with Mr. Kvesic to

23     these municipalities, because very soon after this, I was to go visit

24     Central Bosnia.  I know, from the reports, that Mr. Kvesic did go.

25        Q.   Did you go to Central Bosnia?

Page 30472

 1        A.   Correct.

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now, let's look at 1D 02738.

 3        Q.   And this is from "Vjesnik," dated 29 April 1993.  Now, this

 4     predates the plan, and it says here, very first paragraph, this is

 5     Mostar:

 6             "The Vice-President of the Croatian Defence Council of the

 7     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, Creso Zubak; the head of the

 8     Department for Justice and Administration, Zoran Buntic; and the head of

 9     the Under-Department of Labour, Social Welfare, and the Family, are on a

10     two-day visit to the municipalities of Central Bosnia."

11             So is this what you were telling about earlier, that you spent

12     two days in Central Bosnia?

13        A.   Correct.  This is a report about this trip to Central Bosnia.

14        Q.   If we go on to the next document, this may be of some interest

15     both to you and the Trial Chamber, P02142, dated 29 April 1993, Citluk,

16     where you hail from, as I understand it, and where you practice law.

17             If we look on page 4 -- if we look on page 4, we see your name,

18     and there you provide some commentary, some opinion; and we need to get

19     from you some testimony concerning what exactly you're trying to say

20     here, to ensure that the Trial Chamber understands from you and can

21     perhaps ask you questions, as opposed to hearing theories from the

22     parties.

23             What are you saying here?

24        A.   It's obvious from this that this meeting was held a day or two

25     after I returned from Central Bosnia, where I had been with this

Page 30473

 1     delegation visiting municipalities Vitez, Busovaca, Travnik, Kresevo,

 2     Kiseljak, and Zenica.  We found that the situation was particularly

 3     difficult and grave in Zenica, where we had intended to visit the Zenica

 4     HVO; however, that was not possible.

 5             What was possible was to find the leadership of the HVO, Zenica,

 6     in St. Ilijas's Church in town, where we were received by Fra Stipan, the

 7     priest.  And I have to emphasise that we arrived in Zenica on the SFOR

 8     armoured personnel carriers, practically secretly because it was the only

 9     possible means of travel there.  And as we were entering the church, we

10    were shielded by SFOR APCs; whereas, just outside the church, in the park,

11     there were around 50 tents holding between 100 and 300 persons.  And it

12     was quite obvious that none of these persons were citizens of Bosnia and

13     Herzegovina, which was obvious from their appearance and their clothing.

14             Inside, we found the president of Zenica HVO, who informed us

15     that all of the Zenica HVO had been disarmed, and that they were all

16     being locked up in some mine in Zenica.

17             The people were crying for help because they were in a desperate

18     and hopeless situation, and they also wanted advice, what to do.  I

19     remember very clearly that I said at that meeting what was the official

20     political position of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, that they

21     had to remain in that territory, after which the people asked me a very

22     logical question:  How?  How were they to stay, and how we can defend

23     them from what was outside in the park opposite the church?

24             It was a fact that everyone in the HVO, Zenica, was disarmed and

25     held imprisoned in some mine.

Page 30474

 1             So after I presented the official views, the president asked me,

 2     "Okay.  That's your official view."  In fact, the priest, Fra Stipe,

 3     asked me if I can give him my personal opinion, and I said, "No.  I'm

 4     only authorised to give you the official position."

 5              After that, I went to a meeting in Citluk; and from the

 6     representatives who attended the meeting, I sought their opinion, what to

 7     do and how to proceed in these situations.  How were we to help those

 8     people who were obviously seeking help and needed help?

 9             This segment that reflects what I said, I don't think it

10     faithfully reflects my thoughts and what I said.  It's obviously the

11     phrasing chosen by the clerk who made the notes, but some of his

12     formulations are clumsy and awkward and might lend themselves to

13     misinterpretation.

14             I mean, I can see that five sentences here begin with the words:

15     "He thinks ... ," "He thinks ... ," so this is the understanding of the

16     recording clerk, not what I actually said.

17        Q.   First of all, who are these people that you said were obviously

18     not citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina?  You said "from their appearance."

19     Perhaps you could tell us what they looked like, and perhaps you could

20     tell us who they were, if you know.

21        A.   It was quite evident that those people come from the Middle East.

22     It was obvious from their appearance with the small beards, the way they

23     were dressed, the turbans, and all the rest, all different headgear.  It

24     was obvious they were not from Bosnia-Herzegovina, it was obvious they

25     were not citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, And all this was later

Page 30475

 1     confirmed by the president of the HVO and Father Stipe.

 2        Q.   All right.  Now, you say "the president of the HVO."  That's the

 3     president of the local HVO?

 4        A.   I apologise.  You are correct.  The HVO, Zenica.

 5        Q.   All right.  Let me put to you what is being alleged here.  It's

 6     being alleged here that what you're representing, and others, during that

 7     time was reverse ethnic cleansing, to cleanse the Croats from Central

 8     Bosnia in order to repopulate them into Herzegovina, in order to make it

 9     more homogeneous than it already was.  Was this -- are you suggesting

10     that in this particular meeting, concretely?

11        A.   No.

12        Q.   Okay.

13             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now, just for the Court's attention, I want to go

14     back to a document.  We'll have to flip back a little bit.  It's

15     1D 01670, unless it was --

16        Q.   It's your next document.  We rearranged your binder.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  We saw this document yesterday or the day before,

18     Your Honours, 1D 01670.  And these are the minutes -- it was yesterday,

19     in fact -- no.  It was the day before.  It's the 3 July 1992 minutes of

20     the meeting of the Presidency.

21             And as you may recall, I indicated that Mr. Buntic was responding

22     to what a Mr. Blago Artukovic from Zenica said on 3 July 1992.  Of

23     course, the Citluk meeting is April 29, 1993.

24        Q.   So let's see, let's take a walk back in history, and see what

25     Mr. Artukovic said to which you responded?

Page 30476

 1             On page 4 of the minutes -- Mr. Buntic, I believe it's the very

 2     next document in your binder.  It's 1D 01670.

 3             On page 4, item 8, it says:

 4             "Blago Artukovic, Zenica:

 5             "Due to the prominent Muslim population in Zenica Municipality,

 6     the HVO organisation there was quite poor.  The Muslims did not accept a

 7     single suggestion from the HVO.

 8              "He suggested that they be given political and military

 9     assistance.  The situation was quite grave and the HVO numbered around

10     700 soldiers only.

11             "The SDA and their leaders were advocating a unitary BH known as

12     a civic one, and would not renounce that principle.  The people were

13     inadequately informed of the work and organisation of the HVO and HZ-HB."

14             And, of course, then you respond to that.

15             Naturally, he's speaking back on 3 July 1992.  Would it be fair

16     to say, Mr. Buntic, that when you went back there nearly a year, not

17     quite a year later, that the situation was even more dangerous for the

18     Croats as had been noted by Mr. Artukovic on 3 July 1992?

19        A.   As may be seen, there is a time difference here and the situation

20     as it was when we were visiting Zenica.  I described it.  It was alarming

21     and called for action.  People's lives were at stake, and what Artukovic

22     said at that time during that session obviously came true in the month of

23     April 1993.

24        Q.   All right.

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  We're going to move on to the next topic, and this

Page 30477

 1     deals with the implementation of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan.  That's how

 2     I've titled it basically, so it doesn't necessarily mean that they were

 3     actually implementing anything.  They were trying.

 4             If we look at now several documents in succession.  Okay, the

 5     next document is 1D 01596.

 6        Q.   This is the next chapter, the next area I'm going to, Mr. Buntic.

 7     Your documents have been organised in that fashion.

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  So if you go into the next section, we're going to

 9     be looking at 1D 01596, 1597, 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, and 1602.  These

10     are documents that we have seen.  We've tendered them in the past, three

11     times, and to no avail.  They haven't been accepted yet.

12        Q.   But let me ask you this, Mr. Buntic:  As a result of the

13     Medjugorje agreement on May 18th, 1993, were you aware that Dr. Jadranko

14     Prlic had been appointed to a position, which I believe was prime

15     minister, as a result of that agreement?

16        A.   I was aware of that.  Dr. Jadranko Prlic, himself, told us that.

17     He was appointed the prime minister of a transitional government, in

18     keeping with the Vance-Owen Plan.  I'm familiar with Jadranko Prlic's

19     documents proving his efforts to establish this transitional government.

20        Q.   [Previous translation continues]... step by step.  We're talking

21     about prime minister for Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time, or what was

22     envisaged out of Medjugorje.  Correct?

23        A.   I believe that the proper term was a transitional government.  He

24     was the prime minister of this transitional government.  I believe that

25     that was its name.  I'm also familiar with some other facts, because

Page 30478

 1     after that appointment, Mr. Jadranko Prlic did not chair two or three

 2     sessions of the HVO.  It was his deputy, Mr. Kresimir Zubak, who chaired

 3     those sessions.  And I remember that, maybe two or three sessions later,

 4     that he did not chair.  When he arrived at one of the sequences sessions

 5     which was not held in Mostar, but in Siroki Brijeg, he was being joked

 6     about.  There were jokes because -- and teased because the government had

 7     a lot more work than we had at the time.  So we asked what he was doing

 8     there amongst us because the Vance-Owen Plan had to be implemented.

 9        Q.   All right.  Was it your understanding at the time that during the

10     sessions that he missed, that he was working in his capacity -- in his

11     newly-appointed capacity?  Was that the understanding that you had, and

12     others?

13        A.   The way I understood it was that he was no longer the president

14     of the HVO, because according to the agreement, he had been appointed the

15     prime minister of the transitional government.  And as I've just told

16     you, I believe that government had a lot more work with regard to the

17     implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan, which I thought was a major job

18     that had to be carried out, and that he no longer was due to waste time

19     at the HVO session because this other duty was more important.

20        Q.   All right.  If we go on now to another set of documents.  As I

21     understand it, you've told us already that you had been in Geneva in

22     January.  Did you go back or did you participate in any other activities

23     related to the implementation of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan?  And,

24     specifically, I'm referring to drafting legislation.

25        A.   Yes.  I was in Geneva sometime between the end of May 1993 until

Page 30479

 1     the end of the first week of June 1993.  The negotiations and the work

 2     that we did was carried out in the United Nations building in Geneva.

 3     The person in charge was Szasz, I believe was his name.  He was an

 4     official of the United Nations, and Mr. Owen or Mr. Stoltenberg's

 5     secretary, who also worked in the administration of the United Nations.

 6             On the Croatian side, I was a member of the negotiations; and on

 7     the Bosniak side, it was Professor Kasim Trnka.  Our task was to prepare

 8     and offer the draft proposals for documents that would serve for the

 9     implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan.  For the seven or ten days that we

10     stayed in Geneva, this is exactly what we did all that time.

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  Very quickly, if we look at 1D 02314, 1D 02314,

12     and we look at the bottom of the page, we see the name "Paul Szasz."  I

13     believe that's how to pronounce it.  It appears to be a Hungarian name.

14     I'm not sure.  It's S-Z-A-S-Z.  He's a legal adviser.

15        Q.   And would that be the gentleman that you're speaking of?

16        A.   Yes.  This is indicated here he is the legal adviser of the

17     United Nations.

18        Q.   Thank you.  I'm going to have you look very quickly at documents,

19     and I'm going to name them.  And I would like you to flip through them

20     briefly, and I'll ask you a question.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  It's 1D 02407, and this is a draft decree on the

22     law establishing the provinces and their government bodies; 1D 02408, the

23     draft decree law on the Ombudsman for the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina;

24     1D 02409, and this is a final text on the decree on the law on courts --

25     on the Court of Human Rights of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina; 1D

Page 30480

 1     02410, draft decree on the adoption of international instruments for the

 2     protection of human rights in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina; 1D

 3     02411, a draft decree law on cooperation with the International

 4     Monitoring Mission for Human Rights; 1D 02412, this is a decree on

 5     military counsel for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; and, lastly,

 6     1D 02413, the decision to appoint members of the Military Consul of the

 7     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 8        Q.   Mr. Buntic, do you recognise these documents, and can you confirm

 9     to the Trial Chamber whether these are, indeed, the drafts that you had

10     worked on while you were in Geneva, as was requested by Mr. Owen, working

11     along with legal adviser for the UN, Mr. Szasz?

12        A.   Yes.  These are the documents, and it is correct that I

13     participated in the drafting, myself, together with Mr. Trnka.  It is

14     also correct that in the heading of these documents, at the top of these

15     documents, you can see my handwriting, and I'm absolutely sure that this

16     is my handwriting.

17        Q.   All right.  Now, very briefly, before we leave this chapter:

18     After these drafts were done in Geneva, can you please tell us what did

19     you and others do concerning these drafts or any other matters related to

20     the implementation of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan?

21        A.   I remember very well that I did not go home from Geneva.  I

22     arrived at the Split Airport, where I was told to wait for the rest of

23     the delegation at Split Airport.  I was told that a flight had been

24     scheduled for Sarajevo for further negotiations with the Bosniak side

25     about the implementation and adoption of these documents that we had

Page 30481

 1     agreed upon in Geneva.  The rest of the delegation from Mostar arrived at

 2     the airport.  Members of the delegation were Mr. Boban, Mr. Prlic,

 3     Mr. Akmadzic, Mr. Petkovic, and maybe somebody else, but I'm not sure.

 4     And we were supposed to take off from Divulje in an UNPROFOR helicopter

 5     to Sarajevo to continue talks about the way the documents would be

 6     implemented and adopted by the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 7             I know we got on two helicopters; and just before arriving in

 8     Sarajevo, the helicopter, which carried Mr. Boban, here present,

 9     General Petkovic, and I, was hit from an anti-aircraft machine-gun.  The

10     helicopter swayed and almost fell to the ground.  The commander ordered

11     us to return, and that's why we returned to Split.  The helicopter was

12     inspected, and that's when we learned that it had been hit seven times

13     and that one of the bullets ended up some 12 centimetres from the tank.

14     We asked the flight captain what would have happened if that had been the

15     case, if it had ended up in the reservoir, and he said, "You wouldn't

16     feel anything.  You would be dead in two seconds or less."

17             And whatever I'm saying here, I believe that it can be confirmed

18     by General Petkovic.  That was the story of the second helicopter.

19             The first helicopter carried Mr. Prlic, Mr. Akmadzic, and maybe

20     somebody else, but I can't remember at the moment.  I can't remember who

21     the third person was, if there was any.

22        Q.   [Previous translation continues]... on your return, do you recall

23     meeting anybody or having any discussions with anyone, formal or

24     informal?  You say you returned back to Split, to the air base.

25        A.   When we returned, they told us to stay put while the helicopter

Page 30482

 1     was being inspected to establish what had happened, because that is what

 2     was requested, and I know that a person talked to us.  I remember that he

 3     was from Israel, but it's hard for me to remember his name after such a

 4     long time.  I know that he represented a monitoring mission or some other

 5     international institution, but I really can't remember either his name or

 6     his position.  The only thing that I'm sure of is that he was from Israel

 7     and that he was a member of the international forces or an international

 8     organisation, but I don't know what his position was.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  We need to take a break.

10             Yes, Mr. Karnavas, what did you want to add?

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  I just wanted to ask him about when this would

12     have occurred, what was the month and the year when he took off from the

13     UNPROFOR base in Divulje, flew in UNPROFOR, and, so, does he recall.

14     Then that would be the end of that.

15        Q.   Do you recall the month and the year, sir?

16        A.   It was June, and it was 1993.  I'm sure of that.  I'm not exactly

17     sure about the date, but I believe it was the end of the first week of

18     June or thereabouts.  I know that we had been in Geneva from maybe the

19     end of May to the beginning of June, but I know that I returned from

20     Geneva in June.  I didn't go home, so it must have been either the end of

21     the first week or the beginning of the second week of June, or

22     thereabouts.

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Mr. Karnavas, when you say

25     that you will be finished, does it mean that you've completed your

Page 30483

 1     examination-in-chief?

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  I didn't say that, Your Honour.  I said that we

 3     could --

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Because I believe that you have

 5     about ten minutes left.  The Registrar will tell us later on.

 6                           --- Recess taken at 12.23 p.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to

 9     Mr. Karnavas, we need two IC numbers for the photographs that were shown

10     to the witness.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  The map referring to the

12     District of Mostar shall be given IC number 00826; while the second one,

13     referring to Livno, shall be given Exhibit number IC 00827.

14             Thank you, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Thank you.

16             Mr. Karnavas, I believe you have 26 minutes left out of the seven

17     hours you requested.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  That's correct.  That's correct, Your Honour, and

19     we just might be able to do it.

20        Q.   Okay.  Mr. Buntic, the next section deals with the Croatian

21     Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna.  I just need a confirmation, because

22     we will have another witness go into greater detail.  So I just want to

23     cover three basic documents very quickly, and then we'll move on to the

24     next two topics, which are a little bit more important.

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  The first document is P 04560, P 04560.

Page 30484

 1        Q.   This is the 50th session of the HVO.  And if we look at under

 2     item 2, 3, and 4 on page 3 in the English --  page 2 in the English

 3     document, we would see that your task, along with others, Mr. Zubak,

 4     Mr. Petkovic and others, is to draft the decision constituting the

 5     chamber, the deputies, the rules of procedure, and fundamental decisions?

 6             So do you recall and can you confirm for us that, indeed, not

 7     only were you tasked, but you, indeed, carried out those tasks?

 8        A.   That's correct.  I attended this session.  It's correct this

 9     group was established, it's correct that I worked on the drafting of

10     documents indicated here, and it's true that was the assignment given

11     this group.

12             MR. STRINGER:  Excuse me.  At least on my screen, the e-court

13     doesn't appear to be working.  I'm hoping that -- now it's working.

14     Thank you.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  I hope you stopped the clock on that.

16             Now, I feel it's overtime, Your Honour, and, you know, we're

17     playing.

18             1D 01778.  And along with this document, we're going to be

19     looking at P 04611, Your Honours.

20        Q.   But if we look at first 1D 01778, we see that this is an

21     agreement regarding Bosnia-Herzegovina.  We see it's "Mostar, 1993," at

22     the bottom.  And, of course, we're going to be covering this in greater

23     detail with another witness, particularly with respect to Roman

24     numeral II and Roman numeral III in this document which deals with the

25     constituent republics and their responsibilities the common institutions

Page 30485

 1     of the Union of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 2             But just for confirmation purposes, can you please tell us what

 3     this agreement is, where did it come from, and how it was used?  Just one

 4     sentence.

 5        A.   This is a draft agreement on the Stoltenberg plan, which was the

 6     immediate proposal of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna.  It is a

 7     copy of a brochure, in fact, that was distributed at the time to all the

 8     MPs of the Parliament on the founding session.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Now, I asked -- well, let me ask you this way:  Was this

10     document used, this agreement and the contents there in, were they used

11     by you or any others in your work in drafting any legislation that would

12     have been part of the implementing process of the Owen-Stoltenberg Peace

13     Plan?

14        A.   Correct.  That's the agreement that serves the basis for the

15     drafting of documents and the creation of the Croatian Republic of

16     Herceg-Bosna.

17        Q.   All right.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now, if we look at P 04611, P 04611, we see that

19     this is -- the first page is the preamble, rather long.

20        Q.   If we go to the second page, we see this the basic decision on

21     establishing and proclaiming the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna.  So

22     with leave from the Court, I will ask a leading question, which is:  Was

23     the document that we saw, the agreement, was this the basis for the

24     drafting of the preamble in this particular basic decision?

25        A.   I think I've already answered this question, saying that this

Page 30486

 1     agreement was especially important and it was the motive why we have

 2     opted for these arrangements.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             MR. KARNAVAS:  We're going to go on to the next topic, and we

 5     need the usher's assistance.  The next one I've titled:  "Reports," and

 6     hopefully it will become obvious.

 7             If we look at 1D 02370, 1D 02370, that's the first document.

 8        Q.     And from here, it's a Department for Justice and General

 9     Administration, Mostar; and if we look through this document -- first of

10     all, do you recognise the document?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Okay.

13        A.   It's a report of the Higher Court for Misdemeanors, which was

14     hereby submitted to the General Administration.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  All right.  And unless there are any questions

16     from the Bench, I will move on to the next document.  I think it's rather

17     self-explanatory that the document contains certain observations,

18     including problems.

19             All right.  Seeing no --

20        Q.   Go ahead.  If you wish to say something, be brief, please?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps I'd like to draw your

22     attention to two issues here in para 7.  We see that misdemeanor courts,

23     too, emphasised the problem of the payment system not working, and the

24     other problem is the legislative bodies, due to inflation, do not

25     determine fines quickly enough.  And this is hereby confirmed by reports

Page 30487

 1     from the courts, themselves.

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you.

 3             If we go on to the next document, 1D 01978, 1978, well, this is a

 4     report on the District Military Court until 30 June 1993.

 5        Q.   And, here, from the very first paragraph, we see that it's broken

 6     down to first quarter and second quarter.  And if we look at the last

 7     sentence in the first page in English, that is, it says:

 8             "The basic prerequisite for the court to work successfully is

 9     unity.  During the previous period, there was no unity in the District

10     Military Court in Mostar."

11             It then goes on to say:

12             "The circumstances were such that there were two military

13     factions, the HDZ -- HB-HZ and the former BH.  This resulted in an absurd

14     situation where part of the Court implemented the general policy of the

15     other political authorities, which is contrary to the one which

16     established the Court."

17             Then it goes on to say:

18             "For example, during the period in question, not a single session

19     of a full bench of judges was held, which is also the result of

20     obstruction of the work of the Court."

21             Now, I recognise that your department was in charge of civilian

22     courts, but can you comment on this particular document and what is being

23     said here?  And, again, this is for -- the purpose of this chapter of our

24     direct is to demonstrate transparency and reporting.

25        A.   Correct.  This is a report of the District Military Court, which

Page 30488

 1     was supposed to submit its reports to both the Department for Defence and

 2     the Department for Justice and General Administration.  I would like to

 3     point out the reasons for my statement, the statement that I made perhaps

 4     an hour ago, saying that I assumed the responsibility for the work of all

 5     the judges in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, but do not take

 6     responsibility for the work of judges appointed by the Presidency of the

 7     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  And now I will tell you why.

 8             The reason why is that these judges appeared in court only once a

 9     month when it was pay day, and we see that from this report.

10        Q.   All right.

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on to the next document, 1D020004, dated

12     6 August 1993.

13        Q.   If you look at the very last page, we see your name, head of the

14     department, "Zoran Buntic."  And just can you confirm that this is your

15     report?  And, of course, there may be some things that the Court may wish

16     to question you about.

17             We see, for instance, in the second paragraph, that reports of

18     the District Military Prosecutor's Office and District Military Courts

19     are submitted to the head of the Defence Department at the same interval,

20     and then from the head of the Defence Department to the Presidency or the

21     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?

22             Perhaps you can comment on that a little bit.  I mean, what was

23     the purpose of it, if you know?

24             Then I would ask you also to look at item 13 on page 3, where it

25     says:  "Certain commanders of civilian and military police, those who

Page 30489

 1     deal with requests which have not been made by the HVO or of the HZ-HB,

 2     do not act in line with decisions of civilian and military courts, but

 3     simply ignore them.

 4             "We want all those responsibility to warn that legally-valid

 5     decisions are not to be discussed, but observed."

 6             If you could comment on that, please, very briefly.

 7        A.   That's correct.  This is my report, the one that I wrote

 8     personally.  I don't know why my signature is not here, but it is my

 9     report and I stand by it.  I stand by every word of it.

10             I was trying to draw the attention, through this report, that

11     reports should be submitted as prescribed by the valid regulations of the

12     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna; and, somehow, people automatically

13     submitted them to the Department for Justice and General Administration.

14             I personally stand by every word in this report.  I wrote it

15     myself.  I don't know why the signature is missing, but it's not logical

16     that this document was not signed.

17        Q.   All right.  Now, I'm going to go through a series of reports.

18     I'm just going to read out the numbers, and you have them in

19     chronological order.  So you just have to look at them, and I'm going to

20     ask you whether you can confirm these reports.

21             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, Mr. Karnavas.  This previous

22     document, it's rather interesting, in particular the number 13 you have

23     drawn attention to, which seems to indicate that it was difficult to

24     implement the law, to have the law respected.

25             And I would like to ask you, Witness:  Did you take any further

Page 30490

 1     steps in order to change this?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a report dated for the 1st

 3     of January, 1993, until the 6th of August, 1993.  As you know,

 4     immediately after this report, I left the position of chief of Department

 5     for Justice and General Administration, as you know.  On the 28th of

 6     August, 1993, the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna was established, and

 7     I was no longer a minister of justice there.  I was in that position

 8     before Herceg-Bosna was set up.

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:

10        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Buntic.  Now, I'm going to read several numbers

11     out, and I'll go through them rather slowly, and ask you whether you can

12     confirm that these are reports.  Again, this is in order for the Trial

13     Chamber to see what was happening and to take notice of the transparency.

14             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 01974, this is dated 5 August, 1993; 1D 02015,

15     again, this is from Livno, 5 August 1993; 1D 02005, we see your name at

16     the bottom; 1D 02341, this is 26 August 1993; 1D 02378, 27 August 1993;

17     1D 02377, 8 October 1993; 1D 02376, this is 9 October 1993; 1D 02369,

18     11 October 1993; 1D 02375, this is a report from 1 January 1993 to

19     30 September 1993; 1D 02374, again, from 1 January to 30 September 1993;

20     1D 02368, 12 October 1993; 1D 01777, this is 19 October 1993; 1D 01797,

21     8 November 1993; 1D 02285, and we see that this is 26 November 1993; and,

22     finally, 1D 01976, and this is a report from July to November 1993.

23             I'm sorry.  There's one more document:  1D 02372, 16 December

24     1993.

25        Q.   Now, I do understand from your previous answer that you would not

Page 30491

 1     have been -- you did not occupy the position as the head of the

 2     department; however, you were familiar with the reporting process, and as

 3     I understand it, you have looked through these documents.

 4             Can you confirm to the Trial Chamber that these documents

 5     represent the sort of reporting that was ongoing at the time?

 6        A.   Obviously, these are reports of the work of judiciary bodies,

 7     courts, prosecutors' offices, misdemeanor courts, in the territory of the

 8     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna for the period indicated; but as I

 9     said, all these reports were also submitted to the Department for Justice

10     and General Administration.  And until the 28th of August, they were

11     submitted to the Department for Justice and General Administration, and,

12     afterwards, to the Ministry of Justice.

13             Until August, I received them; but after that date, the 28th of

14     August, they were received by the Minister of Justice of the Republic of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was later Mr. Zubak.

16             Yes, those are the reports.

17              MR. STRINGER:  Excuse me.  Counsel, I apologise for the

18     interruption, and, Mr. President, I'm going to lodge an objection.  If

19     you want to take it against the Prosecution's time for cross, that's

20     okay.  But I want to raise at this point, once upon a time, a witness by

21     the name of Christopher Beese as a Prosecution witness.  The Prosecution

22     attempted to tender through Mr. Beese, who was with the ECMM, a large

23     number of ECMM documents that he had reviewed ahead of time and was

24     indicating were all appropriate reports of the ECMM.

25             The Prosecution was not permitted to tender the documents of the

Page 30492

 1     ECMM through him in that way.  I think that's essentially what is now

 2     happening here.  And I recognise that counsel's under time limitations,

 3     but I think it's worth noting for the record, and we will raise this in

 4     our written response to whatever documents are tendered by Mr. Karnavas,

 5     but I think that what's happening here is the very same process that the

 6     Prosecution was denied using with Mr. Beese on the ECMM documents.

 7             So I just note that objection for the record.  And if you want to

 8     assign the time for my objection to my cross, I'm okay with that.  I

 9     don't want to cut Mr. Karnavas off or limit his time, but I just wanted

10     to raise it for the record at this time.

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'll respond, Mr. President, when we see their

12     written submissions on this, but again I wanted to note that the

13     purpose -- one of the primary purposes was to demonstrate the reporting

14     that was ongoing for transparency purposes.  But we take Mr. Stringer's

15     observations to heart.  We look forward to his written submissions, and

16     we will respond accordingly.  And we welcome that intervention because we

17     do recognise he has the need to make a record, as we do.

18             1D 01676 is the next document -- 75.  I'm sorry, 1675.

19        Q.   Here, this is dated 18 August 1993, and we can see that this is a

20     working meeting.  We see that you are named there, so you would have been

21     present.  And, of course, we see that your department -- well, what's

22     interesting is paragraph 3 and paragraph number 6.  But then if we look

23     at Roman numeral II, it talks about analysis of the application of

24     criminal sanctions established, and that:  "In some areas criminal

25     sanctions are not being put into effect, although valid and excusable and

Page 30493

 1     executable court decisions exist.  In other areas, the circumstances for

 2     their application are nonexistent; and, thus, not only is the purpose of

 3     punishment not accomplished, but the result is also utter distrust in the

 4     organs of authority and a rise of the feelings of insecurity among the

 5     citizens.  Concerning this matter, the meeting established the following

 6     conclusions," and we can see certain conclusions.

 7             Can you verify, sir, whether, indeed, you were at this particular

 8     meeting?  And I suspect you might have also contributed to the analysis

 9     that I just read and to the conclusion that are reached, that are

10     contained herein.

11        A.   As you can see from the header and from the introductory part of

12     the record, I did attend and did participate in the work of this session.

13     I have the minutes here from the 18th of August.  You said "8th August."

14     I don't know if we mean the same record.  I have minutes of the 18th of

15     August.  It's true that I attended that meeting where these topics were

16     discussed, and I believe the conclusions, as phrased here, correctly

17     reflect the conclusions of that meeting.

18        Q.   All right.

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  One last document in this area, and that's

20     1D 01813, 1813.

21        Q.   This is dated 18 September 1993, and we see that this is a letter

22     to the supreme commander of the armed forces of the Croatian Republic of

23     Herceg-Bosna and to the president of the Chamber of Deputies of the

24     Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna; and it's by Dr. Jadranko Prlic,

25     president of the government of the HR-HB.

Page 30494

 1             And if we look at the very first paragraph, it says that:

 2             "In the analysis of the application of the law in the Croatian

 3     Republic of Herceg-Bosna made several months ago, the Government of HR-HB

 4     stated that all forms of unlawfulness had increased, especially crime.

 5     It has, therefore, adopted the appropriate measures and activities to

 6     prevent and combat this."

 7             And I'm wondering whether you might able to provide some

 8     assistance of whether you were aware of the problems that are being

 9     discussed and the solutions that are being proposed in this particular

10     document.

11        A.   It's obviously an enactment, a document that was made after this

12     session, the same day when the session was held on the 18th of August,

13     1993.  And as far as I know, this was followed, I think, by Action Pauk,

14     Spider, an action to combat crime in the Croatian Community of

15     Herceg-Bosna, which was soon to be replaced by the Croatian Republic of

16     Herceg-Bosna.

17        Q.   All right.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'm told the date is wrong.  It says 18th

19     September --

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:

22        Q.   You indicated that it was 18 August; and from the document, it's

23     18 September.  So did you misspeak or are we to take it that the meeting

24     was actually on the 18th of August?

25        A.   I'm sorry.  That meeting was held on the 18th of August, and this

Page 30495

 1     document, yes, right says 18th September.  The document is of the 18th of

 2     September, one month later, already at the time when the Republic --

 3     Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna was created.

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.  Witness, on the last

 5     paragraph of the first page, this document refers to a meeting of

 6     17 September 1993, not "a month ago."

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if we have the same

 8     documents before us.  Under 1D 01675, I have minutes from a working

 9     meeting held on the 18th August, 18 August 1993; and that is the document

10     that I have under the number I just mentioned.

11             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I, Witness, am looking at document 1D 01813.  I

12     was of the opinion that that was the one counsel has actually put before

13     us; 1D 01813, dated 18 September 1993.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's a different document.

15             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  No.  Your document is different, Witness.  This

16     is the document.  You seem to be looking at the wrong document, and I ask

17     you to look at the right one.  Sorry.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  Maybe I can clarify it.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:

21        Q.   Mr. Buntic, let's move to the last document in this chapter, and

22     that is 1D 01813.  Mr. Prlic has written to the Supreme Command, the

23     supreme commander of the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well

24     as to the president of Chamber of Deputies.  He's referring to a

25     situation that obviously has been building up, because he has indicated

Page 30496

 1     that in an analysis of the application of the laws of the Croatian

 2     Republic of Herceg-Bosna made "several months ago" - and we know that up

 3     until August sometime, you were in the Department of Justice - the

 4     government of the HR-HB stated that all forms of unlawfulness had

 5     increased, especially crime.  It has, therefore, adopted the appropriate

 6     measures and activities.

 7             Now, can you comment on this, on this particular document itself,

 8     and do you know whether any actions were taken as a result of this

 9     particular letter by Dr. Jadranko Prlic, who at the time was serving as

10     president of the government, and this must have been a decision that the

11     government took?

12        A.   When I stopped working in the HZ-HB and when the HZ-HB stopped

13     existing, I think that this document is the implementation of the

14     conclusions that were reached at the meeting on the 18th of August, 1993.

15     As far as I know, after this document, an action was launched to fight

16     crime, and its name was Pauk or Spider.  And I believe this document is

17     in this regard, and that's the only thing I can say because as of that

18     time I was no longer involved.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Let's go to the very last topic, and that's --

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry.

21             Mr. Buntic, you were not in office anymore when this letter was

22     written.  I wonder what you know about this letter and about the proposal

23     to have a meeting concerning the crime problem.  How do you know about it

24     when you were not in office anymore at that time?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have told you the

Page 30497

 1     truth.  I was at the meeting on the 18th of August, 1993.  We're talking

 2     about the previous document, number 1D 01675.  Obviously, at that

 3     session, certain conclusions were reached.

 4             I've also stated that the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna

 5     became the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna on the 28th of August, 1993,

 6     and that I was no longer in any position.  But I believe that this

 7     document, dated 18 September, was part of the implementation of the

 8     conclusions which were adopted at the session on the 18th of August,

 9     1993, and I've also said that I believe - I'm not sure, therefore, but I

10     know how I would in my answer - that after this document, an action was

11     launched under the title "Pauk" to fight crime, which was then to be

12     implemented for the next six or seven months.

13             But I said it with a caveat that I wasn't sure, that I believed

14     it was in regards to the conclusions of that session, and that the Action

15     Pauk ensued.  But I'm not sure of those facts.  I just believe that that

16     was the case.

17             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  Thank you.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Mr. Karnavas, there are two or

20     three minutes remaining.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  Very well.  I think it will be a topic that will

22     pique everyone's interests, including members of the Bench.  So I'm sure

23     the questions that I don't ask, the Bench might wish to ask.  This deals

24     with the issue of prisons.

25             If we look at - and specifically, Your Honours, just in case I'm

Page 30498

 1     cut off - the documents that I would like to go through with the

 2     gentleman are P 00452, 1D 01105, 1D 02826, 1D 02384, P 03350, P 02679,

 3     P 03560, P 03573, 1D 02909.  So these are the documents.

 4             I put them on the record, because especially I heard a rather

 5     interesting observation from Judge Prandler where he indicated why we

 6     didn't bring the Constitution and so on, and I just wanted to demonstrate

 7     through this.  Again, it's impossible, with the time constraints, to do

 8     everything, but I don't want to leave the impression that we're shying

 9     away from a particular area, which then calls into question my

10     credibility as an advocate for my client or the credibility of the

11     witness.  So there is no intention or we're not trying to hide.  We're

12     just trying to make due with the time that we have.

13             So if we look at P 00452 --

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  One moment, Mr. Karnavas.  My

15     colleague has pointed out that we all agree, but if you feel that the

16     issues are important, since you're master of your own time credit, you

17     can take additional time that we deducted from your time.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'll do that, I'll do that.  I recognise I only

19     have so many chips to play, you know, and I have to make some decisions.

20     On this hand, I'll play as many as I can.

21             If we look at P 00452, this is a decision.

22        Q.   It says here that:  "The Central Military Prison of the HZ-HB is

23     hereby established at the Mostar-Jesenica location, within the Heliodrom

24     barracks."

25             Now, can you tell me us if you know anything about this, because

Page 30499

 1     obviously your department to some extent was or would have been involved,

 2     it would appear from what we saw a couple of days ago.

 3        A.   I'll try and be brief.  At the end of the first day of my

 4     testimony, I said that upon taking over my duties, I had spoken with the

 5     president of the Higher Court in Mostar, who was in charge of the

 6     situation in the District Investigation Prison in Mostar.  That was the

 7     only institution of that kind which we had in the entire territory of the

 8     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  The president of that court informed

 9     me at the time that in addition to the prisoners who were serving various

10     sentences, there were also prisoners of war there.

11           Shortly after that, I sent a letter, i.e., I sent a proposal to the

12     Defence Department, giving them my reasons why civilians and military

13     personnel cannot share the same facility, and I meant ordinary prisoners

14     and prisoners of war.  We also spoke about a decree, how locations would

15     be chosen where detained persons would be kept.

16             Immediately after that, the Defence Department, as we can see

17     here already on the 3rd of September, issued a decision to establish the

18     Central Military Prison for the entire territory of the Croatian

19     Community of Herceg-Bosna.  And as it is indicated here, it was

20     established in Mostar, in the area called Jesenica, which was a former

21     barracks of the JNA, also known as Heliodrom.

22        Q.   I think that's fine.

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  We'll go on to the next document, 1D 01045.

24        Q.   Here, we have a decision granting permission to the Misdemeanor

25     Prison and the detention facility in the Capljina barracks to higher

Page 30500

 1     certain employees.  And we see, if we look at the bottom of it, this is

 2     the president of the Croatian Defence Council, Pero Margetic.  And as I

 3     understand, he was the president of the HVO for Capljina.

 4             Can you please explain how is it that he's making this decision.

 5        A.   One correction.  It is not Pero Margetic but Pero Markovic.  It

 6     is true that he was the president of the Municipal Board of Capljina, and

 7     this is a misdemeanor prison.  It was the municipal organs that were

 8     authorised in the matter.

 9        Q.   All right.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 02836, this is dated 16 March 1993.

11        Q.   We see you at the bottom of the page, your name; and this is a

12     request for the delivery of uniforms for Mostar District Prison Services.

13     And, of course, we see that you're writing to the Republic of Croatia,

14     the Ministry of Justice.

15             And I have two questions:  One, why did you write to the Republic

16     of Croatia; and, two, more importantly, did you have any contact, that

17     is, personal contact, with representatives of the Republic of Croatia

18     concerning this or any other matter related to the establishment or the

19     functioning of this or other prisons which you were responsible for?

20        A.   I believe that it was immediately before this day that the

21     decision was passed at a HVO session about the appearance of the uniforms

22     for the army, for the police, and the judicial police, since at the time

23     we did not have the money to create our own uniforms.  What we adopted

24     was the appearance of uniforms such as existed in the Republic of

25     Croatia.  The style and the colour was the same as in the Republic of

Page 30501

 1     Croatia, and I just told you why.  We did not have any money to come up

 2     with some new solutions for uniforms, and this looked like a very

 3     practical solution.  And that's why this request was sent to the Minister

 4     of Justice in the General Administration of the Republic of Croatia, with

 5     a request for their assistance.  We requested them to send us uniforms

 6     for the judicial police.  It is true that I signed those documents.

 7             And as for your second question, I will answer by saying this:

 8     Never, during my term of office, did I meet with the Minister of Justice

 9     of the Republic of Croatia.  Even later on, when I was the president of

10     the Judicial Council of the Republic of Croatia, I never met with the

11     president of the Judicial Council of the Republic of Croatia.

12             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we look at the next document, 1D 02384,

13     1D 02384, this is nominations for prison wardens.

14        Q.   And we see, at the bottom, this is the assistant to the head of

15     the HZ-HB Justice Department, Mato Tadic, who I understand it currently

16     sits on the Constitutional Court in Bosnia-Herzegovina and has been --

17     has held Ministry positions since the Dayton Peace Accord.

18             Can you please explain who Tadic, Mato Tadic, was at the time,

19     whether you had any working relationship with him, and how is it that it

20     is he that is making the nominations for the prison wardens?  And this is

21     for a military and civilian prison to be established in Bosanski Brod,

22     Orasje District.  Be very brief about it, please.

23        A.   It is true that this is about Mr. Tadic, who was my assistant,

24     indeed, all the time he was in Bosanska Posavina.  It was very difficult

25     or impossible for us to communicate, for the well-known reasons, but this

Page 30502

 1     is not about him appointing anybody.  It is obvious that he submits a

 2     proposal for the prison warden to be appointed, and this proposal was

 3     sent to the HQ of the HZ-HB for Bosanska Posavina, i.e., Orasje to be

 4     more precise, because at that time, we could not establish physical

 5     communication.  That was in March 1993.

 6        Q.   Would you confirm that he currently sits on the Constitutional

 7     Court in BiH, or do I have it wrong?

 8        A.   That's correct.  And before that, he was the Minister of Justice

 9     of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we look at the next document, P 03350, this is

12     a work report.

13        Q.   It's dated for the period of 1 January 1993 to 31 June 1993.

14     Very transparent.  We see your name at the bottom of the last page.  And,

15     of course, the Judges may wish to ask questions, although I would kindly

16     ask that the questions be asked tomorrow, so I can finish up, myself.

17             But you will notice that on item number 11, which is on page 3 in

18     English, it talks about the Capljina prison has been relocated to Gabela

19     and its warden appointed.  And then on number 12, it talks about the

20     Mostar District Prison is not functioning, so the prisoners have been

21     relocated to the Heliodrom.  And, of course, the Trial Chamber may wish

22     to ask about number 13.  I'm not going to ask, due to my time

23     limitations.

24             But could you please explain to us, on number 11, the Capljina

25     prison having been relocated to Gabela, what are we talking about here?

Page 30503

 1        A.   In one of the previous documents with regard to the same subject,

 2     we saw that the Municipality of Capljina adopted a decision on

 3     establishing a misdemeanor prison in the Capljina barracks.  As I already

 4     said, municipalities had full authority both for the establishment of

 5     prisons as well as for their functioning and the work of misdemeanor

 6     courts.  They were also authorised; and in keeping with the law, they

 7     could, indeed, issue decisions on the establishment of misdemeanor

 8     prisons.

 9             Document number 1D 01105, i.e., this particular decision that

10     we're looking at, shows that the Municipality of Capljina did exactly

11     that.

12        Q.   Thank you.  That was my next question, but I'm glad you

13     anticipated it.  And, again, I know the Judges may have questions on

14     this.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'm told that I need to repeat the number.  That

16     was 1D 01105.  That was the document that we saw earlier, Your Honours,

17     and that's the document that Mr. Buntic was referring to, confirming what

18     he had said earlier.

19        Q.   And, again, thank you for anticipating my question.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'm going to move on to the next document, P

21     02679, and this is a decision.

22        Q.   It's dated June 8, 1993.  We see that it's signed by

23     Dr. Jadranko Prlic on behalf of the HVO.  It's a decision made by the

24     HVO.  And it says here that the county military prison and the county

25     prison for the areas of Capljina, Neum, Ljubuski, and Rama municipalities

Page 30504

 1     is hereby being set up in Gabela.

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  And before I ask my question, I wish to point to

 3     everyone's attention the preamble, which makes reference to Article 145,

 4     paragraph 2 of the Law on Implementing Criminal Procedure of the

 5     Misdemeanor Sanctions.  And, of course, for Your Honours and for everyone

 6     else's information, that would be 1D 02909.  That's where you would find

 7     Article 145.

 8        Q.   Very briefly, did you participate in the meeting or -- you know,

 9     the HVO meetings that took place in passing this particular decision, if

10     you recall?

11        A.   I don't remember that the HVO issued this decision.  Also, I

12     don't remember that this decision was ever published in the

13     Official Gazette of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  I did not

14     see this decision before.  The first time I seen it was here.

15        Q.   All right.

16             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on to the next document, P 03560, this is

17     minutes of the 46th session of the HVO, 19 July 1993.

18        Q.   We see that you're present in that particular session, and then

19     we can look at the conclusions in that.  And, of course, under item 7, on

20     page 4, before conclusions, we see after item 7 says:

21           "After discussion of the request of the HVO at the Capljina

22     Municipality to relocate prisoners in a discussion on the status and

23     accommodation conditions of prisoners and persons in isolations, with the

24     aim of improving their accommodation conditions and overcoming the

25     newly-arisen situation, unanimous approval was given in adopting the

Page 30505

 1     following," and then we go to and we see the part of the conclusions to

 2     secure accommodation conditions relative -- you know, that are in

 3     accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

 4             And, of course, we see that you are part of a working group,

 5     under item 2.  And, of course, a deadline is being given of the following

 6     day, 20 July 1993.

 7             Could you please comment on this?  Obviously, you must have been

 8     present.  You were tasked.  What was this about, sir?

 9        A.  As may be seen from the minutes, this is a request by the

10     Municipality of Capljina to relocate quite a large number of prisoners

11     who were in the territory of Capljina that moment, due to the bad

12     conditions that prevailed in the places where those people were detained.

13              It is true that by conclusion of the government, a group was

14     assigned, consisting of Zoran Buntic, Darinko Tadic, and Berislav Pusic.

15     It is also true that on that same day or maybe the following day, we

16     visited the Municipality of Capljina, as had been provided for by the

17     conclusion.  And we spoke about the problems that they had emphasised in

18     the request, and that was discussed at the government session.

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  And if we then look at P0 3573, we see that these

20     are minutes of the 47th session.

21        Q.   It's dated July 20th.  That would be the deadline that was given

22     the previous day.  We see that you are, indeed, present, and I assume

23     you've looked at this document.

24             And would it be fair to say that it was on this date that you

25     gave a report based on your -- the observations that you had been tasked

Page 30506

 1     with?

 2        A.  As it is stated here in the minutes, on that same day or on the

 3     following day, we submitted our report to the HVO about our visit to the

 4     Municipality of Capljina, and we also had certain proposals for them, for

 5     the HVO.

 6             This group carried out the task given to it by the HVO.  We

 7     visited Capljina, and, on the following day, we submitted our report

 8     about that visit.

 9        Q.   Thank you very much, Mr. Buntic.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  That concludes my direct examination.  That was a

11     little shorter on this particular topic, but I believe Your Honours may

12     wish to ask some questions based on the answers that we just received.

13             Again, thank you, sir, and I trust you will be as forthright with

14     the Prosecution and anyone else who asks you questions over the course of

15     the next few days.

16             Thank you.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Mr. Stringer, 30 seconds.

18             MR. STRINGER:  Mr. President, the Prosecution would be grateful

19     to have some idea from the other Defence teams how much time they have in

20     mind to use during their own examinations.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Very briefly, D2.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the counsel.

23             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, D2 intends to submit

24     their request for additional time, because on direct, some topics were

25     touched upon that are of some importance for the Defence of Mr. Stojic,

Page 30507

 1     in terms of reporting prisons, military judiciary, and judiciary, and

 2     especially the establishment of Heliodrom that the witness mainly

 3     outlined in his testimony.  But these are very important issues, and the

 4     time allocated to me will be too short.  And based on the documents that

 5     we are going to submit, we will be able to judge whether you can allocate

 6     us additional time for our examination.

 7             Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Yes.  But how much time will

 9     you need, Ms. Nozica, how much time?

10             MR. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the distribution of

11     time, since you're asking me first and I can only talk about my time,

12     I've been allocated 30 minutes, and I need an additional one hour.  And I

13     am prepared to deduct that from my total time because I believe it is

14     important to clarify some issues with this witness.

15             MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] General Praljak's Defence will need

16     about 15 minutes for cross-examination, not more.  Thank you.

17             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, according to my

18     calculations, we should be allocated 50 per cent of the time that was

19     spent on direct examination, which is a little bit more than my learned

20     friend Nozica calculated as particular times for particular Defence

21     teams.  In my view, we are entitled to 42 minutes or thereabouts, and I'm

22     going to submit my request for additional time of one hour and a half.

23     Tomorrow, you will be able to see whether the topics that I need to

24     discuss with the witness are relevant or not.

25             MS. TOMASEGOVIC-TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

Page 30508

 1     My situation is largely dependent on the technical situation.  If we have

 2     42 minutes, as my learned friend Alaburic has stated, I'm grateful; and

 3     if I were to show all the CDs and if I were able to have the technical

 4     support, then I would be able to finish within that time or maybe a

 5     couple of minutes more than that.

 6             Thank you.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  D6?

 8             MR. IBRISIMOVIC:  Mr. Pusic's Defence will take no longer than 15

 9     minutes.  Thank you very much.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Fine.  We'll let you know what

11     we decide tomorrow.  We have to stop here because there's another trial

12     after us.

13             See you tomorrow at 9.00.

14                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

15                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 10th day of

16                           July, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.