Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 31872

 1                           Wednesday, 3 September 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           [The Accused Coric not present]

 6                           --- Upon commencing at 8.59 a.m.

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

 8     case.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning,

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

11     the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.  Thank you, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13             Today is Wednesday, and I would like to greet the witness, as

14     well as all the accused here, the Defence counsel and the OTP, as well as

15     all those who assist us in this courtroom, including the court reporter

16     who provided a tremendous performance yesterday because she worked both

17     in the morning and in the afternoon session.  Thank you very much to her.

18             We are going to start now with the cross-examination of the

19     witness that will be conducted by Mr. Bos, and good morning to Mr. Bos.

20             And you have the floor.

21             MR. BOS:  Good morning, Mr. President.  Good morning, Your

22     Honours.  Good morning, everybody in and around the courtroom.

23                           WITNESS:  ZORAN PERKOVIC [Resumed]

24                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

25                           Cross-examination by Mr. Bos:

Page 31873

 1        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Perkovic.  Mr. Perkovic, I'm going to have a

 2     couple of questions for you, and I've organized it in such a way that

 3     will go in chronological order through the evidence.  So I'll start with

 4     some questions on your background.

 5             Now, you testified that in 1988/1989 you were president of the

 6     youth organization of the Socialist Federal Republic of Bosnia and

 7     Herzegovina; is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes, in 1988.

 9        Q.   Can you tell us, who was your predecessor in that organization?

10        A.   My predecessor was Mr. Milos Jelic.  He was the president of the

11     youth organization in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

12        Q.   Do you know whether Mr. Jadranko Prlic was ever president of this

13     organization?

14        A.   At the level of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I know

15     that he was not the president of the youth organization at that level

16     ever.

17        Q.   When did you first meet Mr. Jadranko Prlic?

18        A.   We met in 1988, so the first time we met was when I was the

19     president of the youth organization of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

20        Q.   And what was Mr. Prlic's function at that time?

21        A.   He was the president of the Executive Board in the Assembly of

22     the Mostar municipality.

23        Q.   And how well -- was this just one meeting, or did you have more

24     meetings during that period with Mr. Prlic?

25        A.   We - I as the president - had to deal with the issue of the

Page 31874

 1     employment of two of our colleagues whose term of office had expired,

 2     they were from Mostar, and that was the reason why I met with Mr. Prlic

 3     who was at the time the president of the Executive Board of the Municipal

 4     Assembly.  He asked me to help him, but I think that we only met just a

 5     few times in the period up to the war.

 6        Q.   So -- and then the next time that you worked closely with

 7     Mr. Prlic was during the war when you were a member of -- president of

 8     the Commission of Regulation; is that correct?

 9        A.   Yes.  That's when I met him for the first time in this first

10     period when I came to Herzegovina in August 1992.

11        Q.   During that period of time, were you well acquainted with

12     Mr. Prlic?

13        A.   No, it was just an acquaintance.

14        Q.   Did you ever work with Mr. Prlic after -- after the war, after

15     the Dayton Agreements, in any function?

16        A.   After the Dayton Agreements, up until my arrival in the foreign

17     ministry, I had two jobs, as I've already said.  I was the deputy

18     minister of justice and administration in the last cabinet of the

19     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; and, at the same time, Mr. Prlic was

20     also a member of that cabinet, government, which means that for a while,

21     for about a year and a half, we were in the same government.  He was the

22     minister and I was a deputy minister.

23        Q.   Okay.  Now, let's go back again to 1990.  This was a time when

24     you ran for the BiH Presidency as member of the SDP; is that correct?

25        A.   Yes.  The Presidency of the SDP nominated me for this position,

Page 31875

 1     member of the Presidency.

 2        Q.   And is it correct that Mr. Ivo Komsic was the leader of the SDP

 3     at that time?

 4        A.   The president of the SDP in BiH was Mr. Nijaz Durakovic; Ivo

 5     Komsic was a member of the SDP Presidency.  Together with me, or I

 6     together with him, we were candidates for the post in the BiH Presidency

 7     representing the Croatian people.

 8        Q.   Now, you've testified on Monday that your involvement with the

 9     SDP party in 1992 subsided, that's the word that was in the transcript.

10     What was the reason for this?  Can you explain how you were -- got away

11     from that party?

12        A.   After leaving Sarajevo, I went to Livno where every work stopped,

13     and the SDP branch there virtually ceased to exist.  And throughout this

14     time, from 1992 until 1995, for all intents and purposes in the area

15     where I was, which is the area of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna,

16     any kind of a party politics virtually ceased to exist.  So that was one

17     of the reasons, a key reason.  And upon my return to Sarajevo, the

18     circumstances and the people in the party changed substantially, and I no

19     longer saw myself as a member of that political party.

20        Q.   Now, from 1990 to April 1992, you were the assistant minister for

21     administration in the BiH government in Sarajevo; is that correct?

22        A.   That's correct.

23        Q.   And then you left Sarajevo in April 1992.  I'm just wondering,

24     when you left in April, did you resign as assistant minister or were you

25     fired from that job?  Can you explain what happened in relation to that

Page 31876

 1     function.

 2        A.   I asked my minister to approve my departure from Sarajevo because

 3     my family, my wife and my son who was one year old, were in Livno, and I

 4     asked for some short time off to take care of my family, to find some

 5     accommodation for them, and in general to see to their bare necessities.

 6     When I left Sarajevo, it was not my intention to leave Sarajevo for good,

 7     at the time, in April, when I decided to leave Sarajevo for a couple of

 8     days or maybe a week or two.

 9             At the time when I left, Sarajevo was not under siege yet, so I

10     was able to leave Sarajevo by train.  I went by train to Visoko.  The

11     town was not blocked yet.  But a few days after I left, Sarajevo was

12     completely blocked.  It was impossible to go back.  In an unorganized

13     manner, it was possible to do so, only if the trip back were organized by

14     UNPROFOR or in some other way.

15             I knew that as a Croat I didn't stand a chance of passing through

16     the blockade without being arrested by the Serb forces that besieged the

17     town.  And then in August 1992, for reasons that I've already explained,

18     I went back to Sarajevo --

19        Q.   Let me stop you there --

20        A.   -- and, well, you know how the story progresses from there.

21        Q.   Because in that meantime, before you go back to Sarajevo in

22     August 1992, you do some work for the Livno municipality and then later

23     on you become involved in drafting legislation for the Croatian Community

24     of Herceg-Bosna.

25             I'm just wondering, was it not a problem for you that you still

Page 31877

 1     had a position in Sarajevo while doing these other jobs?  Did you not

 2     consider that a problem?  Did you inform, for example, the Sarajevo --

 3     people in Sarajevo?  I don't know if it was possible.  Can you explain to

 4     us.

 5        A.   Throughout that time, up until my return to Sarajevo in August,

 6     all those tasks that I was supposed to do, my job, I did as part of my

 7     work obligation because that was my wartime assignment.  I was not paid

 8     for the work that I did; and as every other person under that kind of

 9     obligation, I merely performed the tasks that were given to me in

10     accordance with my wartime assignment.

11             So, throughout this period my -- I was employed with the Ministry

12     of Justice and Administration in Sarajevo.  I think that was the case up

13     until October 1992, when my employment was terminated in the Ministry of

14     Justice and Administration, at least that is what I can see in my work

15     record booklet.

16        Q.   So when you came back in August 1992 in Sarajevo, your position

17     was -- you were still the assistant minister, and it was only in October

18     1992 that somebody else took that job; is that how I should understand

19     it?

20        A.   No.  When I returned to Sarajevo in August, my post, that of an

21     assistant minister, was occupied by another person.  Another person was

22     appointed.  And I was offered to retain employment but at a lower level,

23     and I did not accept that offer, so that in the end, I think it was in

24     early October, my employment was terminated.

25        Q.   Now, just one question about your functions after the war.

Page 31878

 1     You've testified that from 1995 until 1999, you were chef de cabinet for

 2     the president of the BiH Federation; is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes.  But I just want to make a small note.  In that period, the

 4     president and the vice-president of the Federation rotated over a period

 5     of one year.  So I was always the chef de cabinet -- or rather, one year

 6     I was the chef de cabinet of this person who was the president of the

 7     Federation, and then the next year I was again the chef de cabinet of the

 8     same person, but at that time he was the vice-president of the

 9     Federation.

10        Q.   Very well.  Now, during this period, were you ever a member of

11     the federal commission of missing persons, the Bosnian Croat side?

12        A.   The commission for missing persons at that time had professionals

13     working there and also representatives of other institutions who were

14     also on the commission.  I was never a professional member of the

15     commission, but for a while I represented the state institutions that

16     nominated me and I was a member of that commission in that capacity.

17        Q.   And did you work with Berislav Pusic in that capacity?

18        A.   Yes, I worked with him.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

20             MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have to object.

21     This goes beyond the scope of the examination-in-chief.  I never heard

22     any mention of Mr. Berislav Pusic's work in the examination-in-chief, and

23     that is why I never asked any questions in my cross-examination.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Bos, during the

25     examination-in-chief, the situation of Mr. Pusic was never mentioned.

Page 31879

 1             MR. BOS:  No, Your Honours, I don't intend to take this further.

 2     I just want to -- I think it's important for the Chamber to know that

 3     this witness, you know, worked together with Berislav Pusic.  That's the

 4     only information that I intend to reveal here.  I'm not taking this any

 5     further.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  Please move on to

 7     another topic.

 8             MR. BOS:

 9        Q.   Mr. Perkovic, you've stated that in April 1992 you left Sarajevo

10     by train because, you know, the siege hadn't started.  Now, in August

11     1992, when you got back to Sarajevo, it's correct that you flew back on

12     an UNPROFOR plane; am I right in understanding?  Is that correct?

13        A.   Yes, that's correct.

14        Q.   And at this time you flew together with the president, Pelivan,

15     who was also in this plane.  Did Mr. Pelivan at that time -- was he in

16     Herzegovina and was he flying back to Sarajevo just like you?

17        A.   As far as I can recall, he was in Herzegovina, too.

18        Q.   Now, is it correct that during this period and also throughout

19     the war that UNPROFOR planes could go in and out of Sarajevo?

20        A.   In the period while I was in Sarajevo, that was from August until

21     November, the end of November, UNPROFOR planes could not fly for a month

22     and a half because one of those planes had been downed; and after this

23     incident, all flights were suspended.  It was possible that there were

24     longer or shorter breaks in this service, but I recall this particular

25     suspension very well.

Page 31880

 1        Q.   Very well.  So there may have been suspensions, but all in all, I

 2     mean, there were UNPROFOR flights going in and out of Sarajevo; isn't

 3     that correct?

 4        A.   That's correct.

 5        Q.   And did it happen more often that government officials from the

 6     BiH government would, you know, use these planes in order to move around

 7     in Bosnia-Herzegovina or outside Bosnia?

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, can we be a little more precise of

 9     government officials.  I mean, it's one thing for Mr. Izetbegovic; it is

10     another for functionaries, you know, simple bureaucrats, who make the

11     system move.

12             MR. BOS:

13        Q.   Well, let me put it this way, Mr. Perkovic, you were on this

14     plane going to Sarajevo in August 1992.  Was that exceptional that you

15     could take this plane to Sarajevo on an UNPROFOR plane, or did other

16     officials on your level on occasion fly with UNPROFOR flights?

17        A.   As far as I'm concerned, the prime minister put me on this flight

18     because on the list of Mr. Pelivan's associates, they put my name on it.

19     I think that lower-level officials could not get on to those UNPROFOR

20     flights without the backing of the highest institutions of

21     Bosnia-Herzegovina, of the state.  There was a clear procedure in place,

22     and it was clearly defined who can ask to use the planes to get into

23     Sarajevo and Bosnia-Herzegovina and to get out of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

24             What you asked me about, it was impossible to use those planes to

25     fly from one place to another within Bosnia-Herzegovina; they were not

Page 31881

 1     used for this purpose at all.

 2        Q.   Now, when you went back to Sarajevo in August 1992, I think you

 3     stayed there until about December 1992, and then you again went to

 4     Herzegovina; is that correct?

 5        A.   Yes.  I remained there up until the end of November 1992.

 6        Q.   How did you get out of Sarajevo at that time?

 7        A.   A liaison officer, Vladimir Pogarcic, he was in charge of

 8     liaising with UNPROFOR, he put me on the list as a member of the

 9     delegation that was leaving Sarajevo to attend a meeting of some sort, a

10     conference.  So that's how I got out of Sarajevo, as a member of that

11     delegation, although in effect I was not.

12        Q.   And where did that plane fly to?

13        A.   It was Sarajevo-Split, so I got off at Split, Republic of

14     Croatia.

15        Q.   Now, on Monday you testified that throughout the war, there was

16     contact between the republican institutions in Sarajevo and the

17     institutions of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and later the

18     Republic of Herceg-Bosna.  Do you recall that evidence?

19        A.   Yes, I do.

20        Q.   Now, one of the things you stated was the following, and I'm

21     reading from the transcript of the 1st of September, page 89:  "It was

22     the nature of my work, and I was working with the regulation commission

23     at the time.  I was probably among the people who had the least contacts

24     of that nature.  People working across the various departments were

25     probably encountering more opportunities to meet all sorts of people

Page 31882

 1     working with the BiH administration.  My own experience based on these

 2     contacts was very positive and satisfying in every way."

 3             Do you recall this evidence?

 4        A.   Yes, I do.

 5        Q.   Now, did these officials of the BiH administration from Sarajevo,

 6     did they come to Herceg-Bosna or did officials from Herceg-Bosna also go

 7     to Sarajevo when these meetings took place throughout the war?  Where did

 8     they meet?

 9        A.   For the most parts, those meetings took place outside of Bosnia

10     and Herzegovina, for instance, in Zagreb where the Government of the

11     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the first months of the war had its

12     office in the Palace Hotel in Zagreb.  Apart from that, most of the

13     meetings took place in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  I don't

14     think that in the first months of the war that any of the HZ HB officials

15     was able to get into Sarajevo except in the way that I described, by

16     using UNPROFOR; and to my knowledge, this did not happen.

17        Q.   So you say the first months of the war.  Did that change later

18     then?  Did there come a time that it was possible to get into Sarajevo,

19     and can you tell us around what time that was?

20        A.   At a later stage, this regime for getting into Sarajevo by plane,

21     by UNPROFOR planes, was a bit more lax.  And it was also possible to get

22     into Sarajevo by land because at one point - I can't recall when it

23     was - convoys started getting in and out of Sarajevo by land, and they

24     brought in supplies, food, and so on.

25        Q.   But I'm just going to press you on this one.  When you say "at a

Page 31883

 1     later stage," can you give an approximate month or --

 2        A.   I said that I left Sarajevo in August, and I know that up until

 3     that period it was possible to get in and out only by air.  I know, I

 4     recall, that later on those convoys were able to get in and out of

 5     Sarajevo by land.  I think it started sometime in 1993, but I did not

 6     have anything to do with this at all, so I'm just telling you this on the

 7     basis of my recollection.

 8        Q.   Very well.  And besides meetings between the BiH administration

 9     and the Herzegovina administration, was it possible to have contacts in

10     other ways, for example, by telephone or by fax or by satellite phone?

11     Was it possible to communicate?

12        A.   As far as I know, in July -- or rather, in September 1992, there

13     were three satellite phones in Sarajevo.  One was kept in the office of

14     the prime minister of the republic, another was in the office of the

15     president of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the third was in

16     the offices of a businessman who used to be an interior minister of

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  To my knowledge, those were the only three satellite

18     phones in existence in Sarajevo at the time.  There were also ham radio

19     operators, and I tried to get in touch over ham radio to let my family

20     know that I was alive because my family had not heard from me for three

21     months.

22        Q.   And did you manage to get this touch with them?

23                           [French on English channel]

24        A.   -- that I sent -- or rather, the messages that those ham --

25                           [French on English channel]

Page 31884

 1        A.   -- tried to send --

 2                           [French on English channel]

 3        A.   -- never reached Livno.

 4             MR. BOS:  I'm getting some French translation.

 5        Q.   But it seems that the message never got through; that's I think

 6     what we can read from the transcript.

 7             Now, you've testified on Monday that you also had several

 8     meetings with BiH government representatives in 1993.  You spoke about

 9     the assistant minister of justice and the assistant minister of interior,

10     and then you also referred to a meeting that you had with Mr. Ivo Komsic

11     in Medjugorje; is that correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Can you tell us again, first of all, approximately when did that

14     meeting take place and what was discussed at that meeting?

15        A.   Are you asking me about the meeting with Mr. Komsic?

16        Q.   Yes, I am, yes.

17        A.   I had only one meeting with Mr. Komsic at the Annamaria Hotel in

18     Medjugorje.  I was invited to that meeting because a message had been

19     left for me that I found as I went back to my office that some

20     individuals were inquiring after me.  When I came to the Annamaria Hotel,

21     that's the name of the hotel, I met Father Petar Andjelovic and a member

22     of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mr. Komsic.

23             They told me that they came to have a word with me because in

24     Sarajevo, there was a vacant post for a member of the Presidency of

25     Bosnia-Herzegovina, the post that was reserved for a Croat

Page 31885

 1     representative.  They told me that on the basis of the votes I received,

 2     I was the next one in line who was supposed to take over that position.

 3     They told me also that they had just come from Zagreb where they had

 4     informed President Tudjman of this intention of theirs.  He, the

 5     president, was not acquainted with me and had no objection to that.  They

 6     also told me that they had agreed on this with President Izetbegovic and

 7     that they were only waiting for my consent.

 8             My reply was that I was taken by surprise by this offer because

 9     due to poor communications, I wasn't aware of the fact that Mr. Kljuic

10     had resigned from his post as member of the Presidency of

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I asked them to give me some time to think it over.

12     After a short while, after I mulled it over, I told them that I had the

13     courage to take that job on, on condition that this matter be discussed

14     with the highest officials of Herceg-Bosna, primarily with Mr. Boban.  My

15     position was that I wanted to make sure that this was agreed upon and

16     that guarantees would be provided for my family that was in Herceg-Bosna.

17             To my knowledge, this agreement was reached; however, it was

18     never implemented.  I did not regret it much because the wartime

19     situation was quite difficult.  This was not implemented for the

20     following reason:  When the Croat side in Herceg-Bosna consented to my

21     being engaged in this way, Mr. Kljuic changed his mind, re-assumed his

22     post as member of the Presidency because he went back to Sarajevo, and

23     overnight he had been re-appointed.  With hindsight, I think that this

24     was a mere bluff based on their expectations that I would not be

25     accepting the post.

Page 31886

 1        Q.   Do you know why Mr. Kljuic changed his mind?  Did you find out?

 2     Did it have anything to do with your being -- that, you know, with the

 3     fact that you would take his position?

 4        A.   I heard stories that were hearsay.  I never heard a story from

 5     Mr. Kljuic.  The story was that some other deal had been reached with

 6     Mr. Izetbegovic, most probably on the basis of their assessment of

 7     Mr. Kljuic being more forthcoming for cooperation than I.

 8        Q.   Just one last question:  When did you have that meeting with

 9     Mr. Komsic in Medjugorje, approximately what month in 1993?

10        A.   I don't have the exact recollection.  I think it was sometime in

11     October 1993.  As for these talks that were held with me about me taking

12     the position in the Presidency of BH, Mr. Ljubo Lucic published a book

13     which contains a detailed description of these meetings and the

14     discussions taking place in Sarajevo which I was not aware of at the

15     time.

16        Q.   Very well.  Okay.  Well, we'll leave this topic aside.

17             I'm now going to ask you again some questions about the period

18     1991, dealing specifically with the period prior to the February 1992

19     referendum, when you were the assistant minister of administration in the

20     BiH government.

21             And I'm going to ask the usher to put a quote from your evidence

22     in the Kordic case on the ELMO in relation to this period.  It's correct

23     that you testified in the Kordic case in June 2000, Mr. Perkovic?

24        A.   Yes, that's correct.

25        Q.   Now, on the screen, there will appear a quote from your evidence

Page 31887

 1     in that case, and it's both in the English and in the B/C/S language.

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  [Microphone not activated]

 3             MR. BOS:  The reference is on the bottom of the quote.

 4             MR. KARNAVAS:  May we have the page number, please?

 5             MR. BOS:  The page number is 20665, and it's the 7 June session.

 6        Q.   Now, it's on the ELMO, but maybe I'll just read out the quote and

 7     I'll do it slowly.

 8             "Q.  Can you tell me, please, did you know Mate Boban's position

 9     on the future of the territory of Herceg-Bosna?  What was your

10     understanding of his position, if you knew?"

11             Then your answer:  "It is important to distinguish between two

12     different periods here, the period of the proclamation of

13     Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent state in carrying out the referendum

14     and, on the other hand, the period after the referendum was carried out

15     and after Bosnia-Herzegovina was proclaimed an independent state.

16             "In the period up to the proclamation of Bosnia-Herzegovina as an

17     independent state, the Croat political leaders of Bosnia-Herzegovina had

18     different alternatives in terms of viewing the Bosnian-Herzegovinian

19     crisis and also the fate of the Croat people as a constituent people in

20     this Republic.

21             "After the proclamation, after the proclamation of

22     Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent state, Mr. Boban signed three peace

23     plans on behalf of the Croats of Bosnia-Herzegovina:  The Cutileiro Plan,

24     the Vance-Owen Plan, and the Owen-Stoltenberg Plan.  All these plans

25     included that area into the territory of the State of

Page 31888

 1     Bosnia-Herzegovina."

 2             Do you recall this testimony?

 3        A.   Your reading it out has refreshed my memory, and I do believe

 4     that this is what I said.

 5        Q.   Now, I'd like to focus on when you talk about the different

 6     alternatives in terms of viewing the Bosnia-Herzegovina crisis that were

 7     discussed by the Croat people in 1991.  Can you elaborate a bit on this,

 8     on what kind of alternatives were proposed by the Croat leaders during

 9     this period?

10        A.   In this statement of mine, I referred to Croatian politicians.

11     There was a whole spectrum of Croatian politicians who were from

12     different political parties which viewed the position of the Croat people

13     in Bosnia-Herzegovina differently.  Thus, for instance, the Croatian

14     politicians from the SDP, the Social Democratic Party; and I counted

15     myself as one of those, Mr. Komsic, and others.  We believed that

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina in the process of the break-up of Yugoslavia was

17     supposed to be an independent state with a decentralised administration

18     within Bosnia and Herzegovina with more efficient structures, state

19     agencies, and so on.

20             The Croat politicians from the HDZ probably held different views

21     on the issue of decentralisation, which was formulated in their

22     aspirations for the so-called cantonisation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

23             The politicians of the Croat people from some other parties, such

24     as the party of Mr. Markovic, the erstwhile prime minister of Yugoslavia,

25     evidently held the following view, to my knowledge:  That the internal

Page 31889

 1     system of the republic should be retained in the model that was

 2     previously espoused; that's to say, to have the centralised republican

 3     authorities and then local authorities on the other side.

 4             In a word, the Croat politicians held different views on what the

 5     future system of Bosnia-Herzegovina should be, and this large spectrum of

 6     positions was later manifested in the development of the Constitution of

 7     Bosnia-Herzegovina after the multi-party elections were held.

 8        Q.   Was one of the views the idea of establishing the borders of a

 9     Croatian Banovina, meaning that part of Bosnia-Herzegovina would actually

10     be -- become part of Croatia and following the borders of an entity which

11     was called the Croatian Banovina?  Do you recall whether that idea was

12     also being expressed as an population; and if so, by whom?

13        A.   In the period up to the start of the war, I attended several

14     meetings of the Croatian Democratic Party in the capacity of the

15     assistant minister, as a leader of the Croat people in that ministry.  To

16     my knowledge, none of these meetings discussed that particular idea, that

17     particular solution.  Therefore, I attended only a couple of such

18     meetings, but none of them discussed the option of the Croatian Banovina.

19        Q.   But are you acquainted with or are you familiar with this term

20     "Banovina"?  Was that something that came up during that period?

21             I mean, let me ask you this:  Do you know the term the

22     "Banovina"?  Was it something that was discussed during this period

23     either in the newspapers, not necessarily in meetings that you attended,

24     but in general as something that was an issue discussed by some Croat

25     political leaders?

Page 31890

 1        A.   I was not aware of such discussions.  As for the term, I'm quite

 2     familiar with it because I am familiar with the history of that general

 3     region, and, in particular, of the history of the Croat people in the

 4     territory of the former SFRY.

 5        Q.   So is it your evidence that you never -- during this period, you

 6     never read in the newspaper or you never saw on television Croat leaders

 7     discussing this particular idea of the Banovina?  Is that your evidence,

 8     that you'd never heard about that in 1991?

 9        A.   Your question did not refer to newspapers, and I didn't even talk

10     about anyone mentioning the term in the press or not.  I told you that

11     none of the official meetings I attended in that period of time included

12     discussions on the Croatian Banovina.  We received in Bosnia-Herzegovina

13     all the papers, newspapers, published in Croatia and Serbia, including

14     all the Herzegovina publications.

15             It was difficult to read through all that and be aware of

16     everything, and I do not exclude the possibility that someone may have

17     discussed it and that it was published in the newspapers.  I was

18     referring to the conduct of the bodies and agencies that formed part of

19     the government, of the state.

20        Q.   Do you know which political parties supported this idea of the

21     Banovina, or can you mention any name of somebody who supported this

22     idea?

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  Objection to the form of the question.  He never

24     indicated that a particular party supported.  So if he wishes to rephrase

25     it as to whether a political party supported it, that's fine; but the way

Page 31891

 1     the question is phrased, it assumes a fact that's not in evidence.

 2             MR. BOS:  Well, I'm happy to rephrase it in the way that

 3     Mr. Karnavas has suggested it.

 4        Q.   So do you know whether there was a political party supporting

 5     this idea and during this period?

 6        A.   I don't know of a single political party in Bosnia-Herzegovina

 7     that supported this idea.

 8        Q.   Very well.  Let's move to another topic.  We had a long

 9     discussion on Monday about the terms "teritorija" and "podrucje," and I'd

10     like to come back to that topic which I'm afraid we'll have to do one

11     more time.

12             Now, let me try to summarize what you testified about this.  You

13     seem to be saying that there is a legal distinction between the term

14     "teritorija" and "podrucje," and you're saying "teritorija" refers to an

15     area in which a government exercises authority, as opposed to the term

16     "podrucje" which is translated more as area and which can be an area

17     within a territory.  Would that be a good summary of your evidence?

18        A.   Since you're asking me, I'll try and repeat what I said on

19     Monday.  I said, first of all, that there is a legal and layman's

20     understanding of these terms, and the two or not the same.  When I spoke

21     of territory, I said that in my view, territory is an area with clearly

22     defined borders over which sovereign authority is exercised.  When I

23     spoke of area, I said that the borders of an area are not as clearly

24     determined.  And that in that context, area is part of an area which

25     isn't clearly defined, it doesn't have clearly defined borders, whether

Page 31892

 1     they can deviate one kilometre to the left or to the right.  And it was

 2     in this way that I distinguished between the two terms; namely, territory

 3     and area.

 4        Q.   Very well.  I'm going to ask you to look at an exhibit, and I

 5     think the binder of exhibit is next to your desk, and it's an exhibit

 6     that --

 7             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, Mr. Bos.  If I look at the transcript

 8     and I have heard it like this, page 20, line 7, 8, 9.  I'm quoting what

 9     is written here.  "When I spoke of an area, I said that the borders of an

10     area are not as clearly determined.  And that in that context, area is

11     part of an area which isn't clearly defined ..."

12             Now, I find this a bit strange.  You say "area is part of an

13     area."  Did you mean area is part of a territory, or did you use the term

14     "podrucje" twice?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm trying to remember.  I don't

16     know if I've been precise enough, but I believe that a minute ago I

17     explained my view of the definition of territory and area, and that it's

18     the same that I explained on Monday.  If the borders of an area are not

19     clearly defined, you have, let's say, a surface area, space, which isn't

20     clearly delineated with certain markers, then, of course, we can consider

21     this area to be part of territory since territory has clearly defined

22     borders.

23             MR. BOS:  Judge Trechsel, I think one of the problems of the

24     confusion is that the interpreters, you know, may not know exactly how to

25     translate, or, well, they may know but which may be different from what

Page 31893

 1     Mr. Perkovic thinks on how to interpret this term into English.

 2        Q.   Let's move on to 1D 02011 which is a Defence exhibit that was

 3     shown to you also on Thursday [sic].  You'll find the number on the tabs,

 4     Mr. Perkovic.  It's 1D 02011.  Maybe the usher can help you.

 5        A.   Can you please enlarge this?

 6        Q.   It's the fourth document from that one.  Now, you were shown this

 7     document yesterday as well.  It's a report; and if we look at the last

 8     page of the report, it bears your signature on page 6.  And it's a list

 9     of the various decrees that I think your commission reviewed before they

10     were adopted.  Is that correct?  This is in the period January to June

11     1993.

12        A.   Yes, that's correct.

13        Q.   If we look on this -- have a closer look on this list and then

14     particularly on the original B/C/S version of this list, and if we look

15     at the titles, you will see that the terms "teritorija" and "podrucje"

16     are really being used interchangeable, I would say.  For example, just

17     listing the ones where the reference is made to "te ritorija," number 2,

18     number 10, number 11, number 13, number 18, number 25, number 27,

19     number 30, number 39, number 40, number 43, number 49, and number 50.

20     And in all those laws, there's a reference to the term "teritorija," and

21     then in other laws, again, there's a reference to the term "podrucje."

22             Now, is it correct that the decrees on this list were all

23     reviewed by the Commission of Regulation of which you were the head of?

24        A.   In my response -- or rather, let me first answer your question.

25     I think that under our procedure the regulations commission was

Page 31894

 1     duty-bound to advance an opinion on each and every draft decree, which I

 2     believe it did.  I can't say that it was done in every case but in most

 3     of the cases.

 4        Q.   Very well.  And -- but given your evidence this week about the

 5     distinction between "teritorija" and podrucje," wouldn't you agree that

 6     if we look at this list that according to your theory, all these decrees

 7     should have had the term "podrucje" and that every decree where it says

 8     "teritorija" is basically a wrong term in the title of the decree?  Would

 9     you agree with that?

10        A.   I tried to explain this yesterday when I said that in the

11     procedure of passing decrees in that period up until the time when the

12     Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna was constituted, we had only one filter

13     in place; whereas, in the republic, there were six or seven such filters.

14     So such omissions are possible.  Unfortunately, these are not the only

15     omissions that there are.

16             As I read those decrees and regulations, I saw that there were

17     many technical omissions that should have been prevented.  But given that

18     there were only three of us working there and that two of my colleagues

19     had never done any work in administration, it was only to be expected

20     that there would be omissions on the part of this commission, and we see

21     that this was indeed the case.

22             And I think that the use of the word "territory" is contrary to

23     the fundamental decisions of the HZ HB which all contain the term "area,"

24     "podrucje," and I think that this was an omission on the part of the

25     commission.  In other words, I was responsible because I was the head of

Page 31895

 1     the commission.  I was responsible for the omissions.

 2        Q.   Very well.  I'd like you to look at another document which is

 3     Exhibit P 00019.

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  May I just dwell --

 5             MR. BOS:  Yes.

 6             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  -- for a moment on this which has always arose

 7     my interest.

 8             You have admitted that your commission committed an omission, but

 9     there was someone else who first drafted this who also seems to have

10     mixed up the terms, so there's already two now; isn't that correct?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you look at those decrees, Your

12     Honour, you will see that for the most part they come from the so-called

13     economic departments, departments where there were no lawyers working.

14     When we talked about those terms yesterday and the day before yesterday,

15     I said that in everyday parlance many people, intellectuals, people with

16     come education, but people who are not legal professionals use those two

17     terms as synonymous, interchangeably.

18             So I can't rule out the possibility that when these decrees were

19     being drafted in various departments, this term might have been used by

20     people who saw the two as being identical because they never thought

21     about the legal use of these terms.

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Were these decrees not ultimately adopted by

23     someone else than your commission?  Your commission didn't formally adopt

24     them, did it?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The regulations commission merely

Page 31896

 1     provided its opinion about the draft decrees; and when I now admitted

 2     that there was an omission on the part of the commission, I assume that

 3     in the opinions that we provided regarding the decrees when -- where

 4     there was this mistake that this was not pointed out, the fact that an

 5     improper term was used there.  And as we analysed the regulations of the

 6     HZ HB, we saw that those decrees were tabled before the HVO of the

 7     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and that the HVO of the Croatian

 8     Community of Herceg-Bosna adopted these legal instruments.

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  So that was the third opportunity to take note

10     of this incorrect, as you admit, incorrect terminology; and at the HVO, I

11     suppose there were some lawyers around and wouldn't they at least have

12     read the title?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Between the institution proposing a

14     regulation and the institution adopting the regulation, there was only

15     the commission, and it is not an incident that such a complicated

16     procedure was in place in the republic for passing or adopting

17     regulations.  We were aware of it, but unfortunately we did not have the

18     resources in terms of personnel, finances, and so on, to set up such a

19     control mechanism.

20             That is why I say that such omissions on the part of the

21     commission were quite likely, and most of the members of the government

22     were not lawyers and they did not really have to know all that.  And this

23     is the case even today.  Members of the government do not have to be

24     aware of all the legal nuances in the meaning of some terms.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Bos, please continue.

Page 31897

 1             MR. BOS:  Thank you, Judge Trechsel.

 2        Q.   Witness, can I ask you to have a look at another exhibit which is

 3     P 00019; it's probably all the way in the front of the binder.

 4             Now, this document, while you're trying to find it, is the

 5     Constitution of Croatia, and the original version in B/C/S is the one

 6     that was published in the Narodne Novine and the English translation of

 7     it was an English translation from the Croatian government -- from the

 8     Croatian parliament.

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  Before any questions are asked, may we ask for

10     relevance of this particular document being shown to the gentleman and

11     why.  As I understand it, the gentleman has not worked for the Republic

12     of Croatia.  That testimony hasn't come in on cross -- on direct

13     examination.  So if we could have at least some sort of guidance as to

14     why this document is being shown, unless it's for comparative purposes,

15     in which case perhaps we should bring in the Constitution of Hungary,

16     Slovenia, Poland, some other countries as well.  I don't know.  What is

17     the relevance of this?

18             MR. BOS:  The relevance is, again, on the term "teritorija" and

19     "podrucje" and how this term is being used in the Croatian Constitution.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  In that event, I definitely object.  We're talking

21     about apples and pears.  One, we're talking about the Republic of

22     Croatian which is a country.  Here, we are talking about a community

23     which was provided for in the Constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  So,

24     with that respect, I do object to this line of questioning.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] According to the Chamber, we

Page 31898

 1     have an issue with the terms of "teritorija" and "podrucje."  The

 2     Prosecutor is trying to clarify this with the witness, and in doing so he

 3     submits a document from the Croatian parliament.  And I suppose that on

 4     the basis of that text, the Prosecutor is going to ask the witness if the

 5     terms used in that particular document are terms that are generally used

 6     in law.

 7             This is your purpose, Mr. Bos, isn't it?

 8             MR. BOS:  Well, Your Honour, yes, and the Croatian constitution

 9     is written in exactly the same language as the laws that Mr. Perkovic

10     drafted.  And this is purely a language issue, so I really do not see why

11     we cannot use this document.

12             MR. KARNAVAS:  Here's what's happening.  I understand that the

13     Prosecution's theory is the Croatian Community is a state within a state.

14     We even heard members from the Trial Chamber at occasion heard that it

15     was a state or a para-state.  We object to that.  Now we're trying to say

16     here's a constitution of a country, and we're going to use their terms

17     where they're describing their territory of a country recognised by

18     the UN versus a community where it never asked the UN for any

19     recognition.  And it had specific reasons, it was temporary in nature,

20     it's very clear, and I don't think it's appropriate.  That's why.

21             Now, if they can show somewhere in the constitution that they're

22     referring to an area within Croatia and the word "territory" used for

23     that area, that's one thing, but this is what I object to.  And I

24     understand that we have a goal in mind and we're going to try to reach

25     that goal, and I understand what's happening over here, that they want to

Page 31899

 1     give the Trial Chamber the ability to tick off the boxes.

 2             I'm saying:  No.  This is not an appropriate method.  Now, I

 3     would like to hear from the Bench how this comparison can be made.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             MR. BOS:  Purely a language issue, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber dismisses the

 7     objection.  It is in the transcript, it may be used later on by

 8     Mr. Prlic's Defence if they so wish, but it is the opinion of the Chamber

 9     that you should carry on.  So please, Mr. Bos.

10             MR. BOS:

11        Q.   Mr. Perkovic, can I draw your attention to Article 2 of the

12     constitution, and let me read out the third paragraph of this article:

13             "The Republic of Croatia so exercise in accordance with

14     international law sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the maritime areas

15     and the seabed and subsoil thereof of the Adriatic Sea outside the state

16     territory up to the borders with its neighbours."

17             Now, Mr. Perkovic, if we look at the B/C/S version of this

18     particular part of Article 2, is it correct that it's referring to the

19     term "podrucje"?

20        A.   If I may ask you to show Article 3 in the Croatian language, if I

21     can see it on the screen, please.

22        Q.   Well, you will have a hard copy in the binder, Mr. Perkovic.  We

23     can have it on the screen, but on the back of the English version is the

24     B/C/S version.  I'm sorry.  We've organized it the other way around, so

25     first the English version and then the B/C/S.

Page 31900

 1             It's Article 2 and then the third paragraph.  Do you have it in

 2     front of you?

 3        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, this is fully consistent with what I have said.

 4     In Article 3, there is mention of the exercise of the jurisdiction of the

 5     Republic of Croatia outside of the state area, "podrucje"; and in this

 6     article, the term "podrucje" is properly used --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat this answer.

 8             MR. BOS:

 9        Q.   Mr. Perkovic, Mr. Perkovic, the interpreters didn't catch you, so

10     I'm afraid you will have to repeat your answer.

11        A.   The example that you showed, paragraph 3 in Article 2, is fully

12     consistent with what I have said.  In paragraph 3, it is stated that the

13     Republic of Croatia shall exercise its jurisdiction in maritime areas,

14     "podrucje," and in the area of the Adriatic Sea outside of the state

15     area, "podrucje," up until the borders with its neighbours.

16             So the term "podrucje," area, is used here to define a coastal

17     area outside of the territory of the Republic of Croatia in the sense of

18     this definition, because this area in the coastal area is not strictly

19     defined in terms of its borders as is the border of the Republic of

20     Croatia.  And I think that this example is fully consistent with what I

21     have said in my explanation.

22             And just one more note, I think that it would be quite

23     interesting to look at - I'm sorry that you don't have it - if we're

24     talking about legal terminology that is in use in Bosnia-Herzegovina and

25     in the Croatian language and all the regulations are published in that

Page 31901

 1     language, you should have shown us the constitutions of the cantons,

 2     including the Croat cantons, so that we could see what terminology is

 3     used when the borders of those cantons are being defined.

 4        Q.   Well, Mr. Perkovic, thank you for your answer, but I'm going to

 5     disagree with you on this one.  When we read this article, and

 6     particularly the last part of the third paragraph, it says:  "... the

 7     subsoil territory of the Adriatic Sea outside the state territory up to

 8     the borders with its neighbours."

 9             Now, as far as I am concerned, the state territory here means the

10     complete territory of Croatia, and not just parts of Croatia.

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'm going to object.  The counsel now is

12     testifying.  We can -- you know, he can put that in his closing argument,

13     but this is an improper form of the question.  If he wishes to put it in

14     the form of a question, that's different.  I saw no inflection, rather

15     than this was a declarative statement, and I took that to be a closing

16     statement.

17             MR. KOVACIC:  Your Honour --

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos, you made a statement.

19     You could have asked a question.  You could have said:  If I tell you

20     that, do you agree or disagree?  And he may have answered you:  I

21     disagree.

22             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in light of the

23     objection raised by my learned friend Mr. Karnavas, I didn't want to

24     interrupt earlier.  But at page 26 at line 14 to 17, there we have a

25     question of my learned friend Mr. Bos, where he says that the Croatian

Page 31902

 1     constitution uses the same language as the laws that Mr. Perkovic

 2     drafted.  It's again the counsel testifying.  He's simply testifying

 3     here -- [Microphone not activated].

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 5             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] It is a fact that needs to be

 6     proven.

 7             MR. BOS:  I was referring to the Croatian language --

 8             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may, just to

 9     draw your attention to the translation of this provision in paragraph 3

10     of Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, I would like

11     to stress that in the Croatian text, the term that is used is "drzavnoga

12     podrucje," "state area."  And in the English version, this has been

13     translated as "state territory."  So, again, we have a situation where

14     the term "podrucje" is translated into English as "territory."

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I had not failed to notice

16     this.

17             Mr. Bos.

18             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise for taking up the

19     time, but only one line of my objection is now on the transcript.  It

20     appears that my microphone had gone off although the light was on.

21             So, for the record, let me repeat that my learned friend

22     Mr. Prosecutor, I didn't want to interrupt him earlier, but my learned

23     friend at page 26, lines 14 through 17, we have his question recorded as

24     follows:  He claims that the Croatian constitution is written in a

25     completely -- in the same language as the laws that Mr. Perkovic drafted.

Page 31903

 1             And I claim that this is counsel testifying about facts, because

 2     the question whether the Croatian language as used in the Croatian

 3     constitution is completely identical with the language that was in use in

 4     Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Croatian language in 1993/1994, it's a fact

 5     that has to be established.  This is testimony; it's not a question.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Witness, you speak the

 7     language which in this Tribunal is called B/C/S.  According to you, when

 8     you drafted a text for Herceg-Bosna at the time, if you compare the

 9     language you used then and the language which is used in the Croatian

10     constitution, is it the same language or is it a different -- or are

11     there differences?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I always say that I speak the

13     Croatian language as an ethnic Croat.  And the language that Croats speak

14     in Bosnia and Herzegovina is called the Croatian language by us;

15     although, to a certain extent, this language is different from the

16     Croatian language used by most of the people in the Republic of Croatia.

17             Linguistically speaking, let me give you an example.  I know, for

18     instance, that in the Republic of Croatia, the term "pismohrama" is used

19     for what we call "arhiva," "archive."  In Bosnia and Herzegovina, as I

20     said, we use the term "arhiva" for "archive," and we feel that "arhiva"

21     is also a Croatian word that is part of the Croatian language.  There are

22     other differences.

23             But when the decrees of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna

24     were being drafted, we tried to draft them in the Croatian language in

25     accordance with our usage and the usage of our parents, fathers, and so

Page 31904

 1     on.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Final question:  Imagine you

 3     would have had to draft the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, it's

 4     just a hypothesis, would you have used the exact terms which are now used

 5     in the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would have used the Croatian

 7     language in the same way that I use it when I write today.

 8             And to give you a striking example, in the place where I was born

 9     that we discussed at length yesterday, in Livno, at the main square there

10     is a monument to the Croatian King Tomislav.  And when this monument was

11     being restored five years ago, the term "hiladujgodisnjica" was used

12     instead of "tisucgodisnjica" for a "thousand."  And Croats from that area

13     put that in because, they thought and they felt that "hiladujgodisnjica"

14     is a word that we have been using for centuries in Bosnia and Herzegovina

15     for the number of 1.000, and we thought that this was part of the

16     Croatian language.

17             And I have yet to see a single piece of legislation or regulation

18     in the Republic of Croatia that uses the term "hiladujgodisnjica."  They

19     only use the term "tisucgodisnjica."  So there is a difference in the way

20     in which you look at things.

21             I'm sorry.  I forgot to switch off my mobile phone.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI:  [No interpretation]

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So there is a difference, not a big

24     difference, but there is a difference also in legal terminology that is

25     in use in the Croatian language in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as opposed to the

Page 31905

 1     legal terminology that is used in the Croatian language in the Republic

 2     of Croatia.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic.

 4             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 5     Unlike the previous people who spoke here in courtroom, I would like to

 6     say that I think that the witness does not have the requisite expertise

 7     to provide an answer to the question why the term "podrucje" was used in

 8     Article 2 instead of the term "teritorija."  This is a term that has to

 9     do with the international law of the sea.

10             I'm not an expert so I couldn't -- and I also can't testify here

11     and I couldn't provide you with a correct answer.  But I do remember that

12     this was at issue at the time that the term "podrucje" was used advisedly

13     in light of the provisions of the international law of the sea, and an

14     expert for this area of the law could provide you an answer.

15             Also, it would perhaps be wise to look at Articles 32 and 33 to

16     assist us because again the term "teritorija" is used, and this is an

17     article that all of us would be able to understand better given our legal

18     background, including the witness.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20             Let's proceed, Mr. Bos, because personally I want this to be on

21     record.  I do think that this is not a very important issue.

22             MR. BOS:  And I was about to move away from the issue.

23             I can see that Mr. Praljak was on his feet and I see also that

24     it's almost 10.30, so maybe Mr. Praljak can say something or we can maybe

25     have the break now.

Page 31906

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, I know that you've

 2     already taken the floor on linguistic issues and semantic issues.

 3             The floor is yours.

 4             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 5     You have heard my colleague explain this.  You can say or you can use the

 6     term "area" to describe somebody's occupation.  You can say he is working

 7     in the area of mathematics, law, or medicine.  I don't want to waste your

 8     time, but these are two completely terms, and the context of the terms

 9     are based on the usage in any given language.  And this is the only way

10     in which we can get at the sense and the contents of a term.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

12             It's 10.30.  We're going to have a break because it's time, and

13     we'll resume in 20 minutes' time.

14                           --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

15                           --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  The court is back in

17     session.

18             Mr. Bos.

19             MR. BOS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20        Q.   Mr. Perkovic, I would like you to look at another document, which

21     is P 00302, and this document is the founding document of the Croatian

22     Community of Herceg-Bosna, the 18 November 1991 founding document.

23             You have the document in front of you?  I would like to focus

24     your attention to --

25        A.   Yes.

Page 31907

 1        Q.   -- to Article 2 of this document, which reads:  "The Croatian

 2     Community of Herceg-Bosna shall consist of the following

 3     municipalities ..." and then we have a whole list of names of

 4     municipalities.

 5             Now, what we see here is there are two municipalities, and one of

 6     them is Skender Vakuf where between brackets there is another name,

 7     Dobratici - sorry for the pronunciation - and the other one is the last

 8     one, Trebinje, and then in brackets Ravno.

 9             Now, is it correct, Mr. Perkovic, that Dobratici and Ravno were

10     actually areas in Skender Vakuf and Trebinje?

11        A.   Yes.  These are parts of the municipality of Ravno and the

12     municipality of Skender Vakuf.

13        Q.   So you're saying parts of the municipality of Ravno or the

14     municipality of Trebinje?

15        A.   Ravno is part of the Trebinje municipality, and Dobratici is part

16     of the Skender Vakuf municipality.

17        Q.   Very well.  Now, Mr. Perkovic, doesn't it imply that if specific

18     areas are being mentioned here as being part of the Croatian community,

19     that for the other municipalities, the full territory would be part of

20     the Croatian community?

21        A.   We're talking about an original document from the 18th of

22     November, 1991, where the community established in part of an area where

23     this -- these people live, and the areas of Dobratici and Ravno gravitate

24     in organizational terms towards this community.  However, if we look at

25     the time-period and if we look at Article 2, then we'll see that an

Page 31908

 1     enormous part of the areas inhabited by the Croats, which is the subject

 2     otherwise of this document, is not regulated by this particular decree,

 3     such as Posavina -- Bosnian Posavina and other large areas such as Zepce.

 4             So this is an 18th of November document where Dobratici and Ravno

 5     were set up as separate organizational units of the party, of the

 6     political party.  As I said at the start of my answer, at that point in

 7     time - and this was confirmed by the Government of

 8     Bosnia-Herzegovina - this particular aspect of organizing was viewed as

 9     organizing along the political party line.

10        Q.   You didn't really answer my question, but maybe I can phrase it

11     differently.  According to you, the municipalities, other than Skender

12     and Trebinje, would this particular decision have meant the complete

13     territory of the municipalities or parts of these territory?

14        A.   I repeat, the emphasis was on the political party organizing.

15     There was the basic structure of the HDZ in Ravno and basic structure of

16     the HDZ in Dobratici.  Since these two organizations were present in the

17     area, that's the reason why --

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry.  Mr. Perkovic, Mr. Bos now has

19     started off by saying, "You have not really answered my question," and I

20     think he has a strong point.  Now, you should not repeat what you have

21     said before, but you should actually answer his question because you make

22     us lose a lot of time otherwise.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Therefore, we're talking about the

24     organizing in parts of the territory of the municipality or the area of

25     Skender Vakuf and the area of Trebinje.

Page 31909

 1             MR. BOS:

 2        Q.   Now, maybe I have not been clear, and I will again repeat the

 3     question.  My question concerns the other municipalities listed in the

 4     article, not Skender Vakuf and Trebinje.

 5             In your opinion, did the drafters of this decision intend to

 6     include the full territory of the municipalities as part of the Croatian

 7     Community of Herceg-Bosna?

 8        A.   As far as this decision is concerned, the entire territory of

 9     these municipalities was included in the Croatian Community of

10     Herceg-Bosna in terms of the political party organizing because there

11     were municipal party structures based in individual municipalities, and

12     the areas they covered as political party structures were identical to

13     the areas of municipalities themselves.  And I was referring to HDZ

14     structures.

15        Q.   So, well, I'm trying to understand your question [sic].  So can

16     we take it from your question [sic] that you're saying that the Croatian

17     Community of Herceg-Bosna at that time was the entire territory of the

18     municipalities listed in Article 2?

19        A.   Yes, save for the municipalities of Trebinje and Skender Vakuf.

20        Q.   Very well.  Very well.  Okay.  I think we can skip the following

21     exhibit, and then I would like to move to another topic which is the

22     constitutional legitimacy of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

23             And I would like you for that to refer to document 2D 00594, and

24     this is a document that you were shown also I think on Monday.

25             It's all the way in the back, Mr. Perkovic.  Do you have the

Page 31910

 1     document?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Do you recall this document from Monday?

 4        A.   Yes, I do.

 5        Q.   Now, I'd like to focus your attention under item 2, and in

 6     particular the second paragraph, and maybe I'll just read it out to you:

 7             "Based on mentioned opinions, as well as propositions and

 8     opinions which were voiced during the discussion, the Government

 9     determined that Decision on implementation of Croatian Community of

10     Herceg-Bosna and Decision by Regional committee of HDZ Bosnian Posavina

11     were not reached according to procedure specified for creation of social

12     political communities, neither they contain regulations which could

13     produce any kind of legal effects such as implementation of the

14     institutions of the authority because they lack elements of the

15     government institutions."

16             Now, would you agree with me with what's been said here is that

17     the BH government, you know, may have not found that the HDZ wasn't

18     illegal -- the HZ HB was an illegal organization, but, nevertheless, that

19     they could not be considered government institution because they lacked

20     elements for that purpose?  Is that how I should understand this

21     paragraph?

22        A.   The government finds in this paragraph that you've quoted that

23     the HZ HB has not been established and does not operate as a

24     socio-political association, community.  Under the then-system, the

25     levels of the municipality, town, and republic were considered to be

Page 31911

 1     socio-political communities.  The government of the HB --

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  BH.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- believed that the HZ HB did not

 4     fall into this category of being a socio-political community and that the

 5     decision it adopted does not show any intentions of it exerting authority

 6     as a state has authority.  And in line with this, the government goes on

 7     to conclude that on the basis of this, there is no need for the

 8     government to discuss this at one of its meetings.

 9             This is something that I said, that the government did not

10     consider this to be any sort of state authority in view of who the

11     founders of that structure were, and in view of the fact that the HZ HB

12     as -- or rather, that the HDZ BH as a legitimately established political

13     party in the BH was entitled to use whatever forms of political party

14     organizing it sees fit to use.

15             On the basis of this, the government found that there was --

16     there were no grounds for the procedure of the assessment of the

17     constitutionality of this decision to be instituted.

18        Q.   It's exactly on that last point that I wanted to come back to,

19     because it's correct that you drafted an opinion on this issue which I

20     think is the opinions that have been referred to here in this document.

21             And in your opinion, you included that the BH government in

22     relation to the legality of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, that

23     this community was not an illegal form of organization and that there was

24     no basis for a complaint to be filed before the constitutional court.  Is

25     that correct?

Page 31912

 1        A.   I participated in the development of the draft of this opinion,

 2     as I said, together with another colleague of mine.  Under the

 3     constitution of Bosnia -- or rather, when this opinion was forwarded to a

 4     government meeting, under the Constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the

 5     government ex officio, once it finds that the constitution has been

 6     violated, is duty-bound to initiate the relevant procedure before the

 7     constitutional court.

 8             Given the fact that the government has not taken any steps after

 9     having considered this decision, it is only logical to conclude that the

10     establishment of the Croatian Community HB at the time in November

11     1992 -- or rather, sorry, 1991 was not considered to be

12     anti-constitutional.

13        Q.   Now, we've just saw the founding document of the Croatian

14     community was adopted on the 18th of November; and so this document, as

15     you say -- this meeting in the BH government was held on the 21st of

16     November.  So I presume in that period, between 18 November and the 21st,

17     that in those two days, you and your colleagues actually drafted this

18     opinion on the basis of the document -- the founding document that we

19     just saw before; is that correct?

20        A.   Correct.

21        Q.   Now, I would like you to look at Exhibit P 00476, and this is, in

22     fact, the constitutional court decision which was published on the

23     18th of September, 1992.

24             P 00476, it's again somewhere in the beginning of the binder.

25             MR. BOS:  Maybe the usher can assist to get the document in the

Page 31913

 1     binder, P 00476.

 2        Q.   Now, let me ask you first, have you ever seen this decision of

 3     the constitutional court?

 4        A.   Yes, once, but I believe it was after the war in 1996 or 1997

 5     that I had the occasion of reading it for the first time.

 6        Q.   Now, it's dated 18 September 1992.  At that time, you were in

 7     Sarajevo, weren't you?  You returned to Sarajevo in August 1992 and you

 8     left again in December 1992.  So when this decision was published, you

 9     never noticed that?  You were in Sarajevo.  Was this something that just

10     simply didn't get your attention?

11        A.   No.  Upon my return to Sarajevo, immediately as I got there, I

12     learned that another individual had been appointed to my position.  I

13     requested that I be given an opportunity to return to my post.  I said

14     that I had practically no business to discharge in Sarajevo for two

15     months, save for arranging the regulations that were relevant.

16             So, given that I was outside of these institutions, I was unable

17     to access such information.  If you're not receiving Official Gazettes,

18     then I don't think you're able to get informed since at the time the

19     newspaper stands were closed.  And I believe all those who were present

20     in Sarajevo at the time can vouch for the fact that I would not have been

21     able to get by this information unless I had been part of the government

22     institutions.

23             It is for this reason that I saw this decision only after the

24     war, since I was interested in the statement of reasons laid out in that

25     decision of the constitutional court.

Page 31914

 1        Q.   Very well --

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  [Microphone not activated]

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for His Honour, please.

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  You have described your activity as, I quote

 5     from page 41, line 7, " ... arranging the regulations that were

 6     relevant."  I must confess that I cannot understand what this refers to.

 7     Can you explain more precisely what you did.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry, Your Honour, I do not

 9     understand your question.  Are you asking me what it was that I was doing

10     in Sarajevo in terms of organizing regulations, what I was just referring

11     to or something else?

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  No, that's right.  I quote again what you are

13     written down here as having said.  I quote from the end of line 5, page

14     41:  "I said that I had practically no business to discharge in Sarajevo

15     for two months, save for arranging the regulations that were relevant."

16     It's this last half sentence that I would be grateful if you could

17     explain what it means.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Upon my arrival in Sarajevo, I

19     spent the first 15 days trying to arrange with my colleagues amendments

20     to the regulations then valid in the BH which had to do with the

21     organization of the judiciary in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

22             Since I did not accept the position that was offered to me, which

23     was at a much lower level, and in view of the fact that over these 15

24     days I didn't have any other engagements because it was impossible to

25     leave Sarajevo, I was left practically without any duties at all for the

Page 31915

 1     subsequent two months, and I was hoping that I would be able to find a

 2     way to leave Sarajevo.  As a result of that, for these two months, I was

 3     neither in the Ministry of the Administration nor was I doing anything

 4     else, except for trying to find a way to get out of Sarajevo.

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 6             MR. BOS:

 7        Q.   Now, Mr. Perkovic, let's have a closer look at this decision, and

 8     particularly the first part of the decision.  Now, what we see here is

 9     a -- it starts offer with a whole list of decrees from the Croatian

10     Community of Herceg-Bosna.  There's nine in total.  And then there's the

11     statement of reasons which starts by saying:  "On July 1992 on its own

12     initiative, the constitutional court initiated proceedings for the

13     evaluation of the legality and constitutionality of the above-mentioned

14     general enactments."

15             Do you see that?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Now, would you agree with me that decision is based on nine

18     enactments of which one of them was the decision on the establishment of

19     the Croatian community of 18 November, the first one; whereas, you would

20     have based your opinion on the first document only, wouldn't you agree

21     that the constitutional court did not only evaluate this one decision

22     but, in fact, nine subsequent -- eight subsequent decisions of the

23     Herceg-Bosna community?

24             So, in fact, the constitutional court evaluated this at a time

25     that Herceg-Bosna was much more developed than at the time that you

Page 31916

 1     rendered your opinion?  Would you agree or know that?

 2        A.   We're discussing the period of time of just under one year after

 3     the establishment of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  In that

 4     period of time, the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna evolved as it did;

 5     and for that reason, the quality of the relations within the HZ HB at the

 6     time when it was being examined by the constitutional court following the

 7     18th of November -- on the 18th of November and in the subsequent period

 8     differed greatly.

 9             When we were discussing the areas covered and the organization of

10     the structure, well, that was a rather different situation that we had in

11     September 1992 compared to the situation when the founding enactment was

12     adopted.  At that period, in 1992, the HZ HB had taken upon itself the

13     role of defending the Croat people in that area.

14        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Perkovic.  I think we're going to leave this

15     document aside now.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please.

17             To your knowledge, Witness, the constitutional court at the time

18     and still today, was it in a position to examine such cases of its own

19     accord, or was it necessary for the government or political party to

20     seize the constitutional court?  Based on the legislation at the time,

21     were the judges of the constitutional court allowed to act of their own

22     accord?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The procedure of the evaluation of

24     constitutionality before the constitutional court, as far as I can

25     remember the provisions of the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina, could

Page 31917

 1     be initiated by the highest authorities in the country; namely, the

 2     parliament, the Assembly, that is, of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the

 3     government of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Most often, the procedure was

 4     initiated pursuant to a proposal or the initiative of the Government of

 5     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 6             When it comes to this particular decision, I wish to note that a

 7     number of important provisions which concern the mechanism according to

 8     which decisions are rendered by the constitutional court were not

 9     honoured, primarily the entitlement of the party proposing or adopting a

10     given enactment to give its opinion before the constitutional court.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The constitutional court was in

12     a position to give its evaluation after having decided to examine the

13     matter proprio motu; that's my question.  Was that possible?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Under the Constitution of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina, it was possible.  I believe that the constitutional

16     court could initiate the procedure proprio motu and render a decision.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18             MR. BOS:

19        Q.   Mr. Perkovic, I now want to move again to August 1992, and I want

20     to read out again a part of your testimony from the Kordic case and see

21     if it jogs your memory.

22             This is page number 20587 of the testimony of 7 June 2000 in the

23     Kordic case, and I'll read out the parts which I'm interested in:

24             "When the war began in Bosnia-Herzegovina, relevant contacts with

25     representatives of financial institutions were maintained so that in

Page 31918

 1     August 1992 at Siroki Brijeg, that is, the Croatian Community of

 2     Herceg-Bosna directly, the prime minister of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mr. Jure

 3     Pelivan, and the minister of finance of the Government of

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mr. Mustafa or Mahmut Logo, I'm not sure, came to

 5     that Siroki Brijeg.

 6             "At that meeting held at Siroki Brijeg the discussion, the

 7     discussion also broached the subject of the issue of Bosnian legal

 8     tender, and those gentlemen showed a specimen of what that future

 9     currency of Bosnia-Herzegovina should look like."

10             Do you recall this evidence, Mr. Perkovic, and do you recall that

11     meeting?

12        A.   Yes.  I remember the meeting with Mr. Pelivan and Mr. Logo.  The

13     meeting was held in Siroki Brijeg and was attended by the Croatian

14     officials from various institutions of Bosnia-Herzegovina who happened to

15     be in the area.  I do recall that a number of issues were discussed

16     including Mr. Pelivan, prime minister of the HZ HB, showing us the

17     prototype of a BH bank note and telling us that very soon that legal

18     tender would be placed in circulation.

19        Q.   Do you recall who from the Croatian Herzegovina community were

20     present at that meeting?

21        A.   I can recall some people who held appropriate posts in the organs

22     of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I think that it was Mr. Bozo

23     Misura, who was head of the general services of the organs of the

24     republic; Mr. Miroslav Palameta, who was the deputy minister of education

25     of Bosnia and Herzegovina; I think that there was also Mr. Mariofil

Page 31919

 1     Ljubic, who was the deputy president of the BH parliament; and there were

 2     some other people.  I can't recall all of them, but I know that there was

 3     a certain number of people there at that meeting, people who held

 4     appropriate positions in Sarajevo.

 5        Q.   And when Mr. Pelivan came with this specimen of a new BH currency

 6     and came with that proposal to introduce this currency, what was the

 7     reaction of the Herceg-Bosna authorities who were present at that

 8     meeting?

 9        A.   At this meeting, the meeting that we're talking about,

10     Mr. Pelivan just outlined briefly the activities that he and the people

11     in the Government of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina were engaged in;

12     and in the context of this short briefing that he gave us, he showed us

13     this specimen and he said what I've just told you, that preparations were

14     underway to circulate BH currency.

15             The focus of the discussion was on reaching an agreement about

16     the return of the Croatian personnel to their jobs in Sarajevo or an

17     alternative solution proposed by Mr. Pelivan as the prime minister, which

18     was that part of the state administration be relocated from Sarajevo to

19     Zenica.  We all participated in the debate about this proposal, and we

20     supported it because we knew that it would be much simpler to do this

21     work in Zenica than in Sarajevo; on the other hand, we understood that

22     because of the overall situation in Sarajevo, it was impossible for the

23     entire administration to simply move because that would mean that they

24     would leave the capital in the lurch.  But we thought that there could be

25     a good compromise for just some elements of the administration to leave

Page 31920

 1     and to start working in Zenica.

 2             All of us who worked in the organs of the republic at the time

 3     told Mr. Pelivan that we were prepared to resume our posts and to

 4     continue working on our old jobs in a new location if an agreement were

 5     to be achieved to that effect.

 6             Unfortunately, ten or 15 days after that, that was on the eve of

 7     my departure to Sarajevo, I said that I had flown back into Sarajevo on

 8     the same plane as Mr. Pelivan.  But on my arrival in Sarajevo, I

 9     immediately realized that there was not support of this idea that was

10     mooted by the prime minister.  So, at that meeting, there was no debate

11     about the way in which this money were to be circulated, there was just

12     this brief instance when the prime minister showed us the specimen.

13             But the prime minister had a number of meetings in Bosnia and

14     Herzegovina, and I cannot rule out the possibility that this issue was

15     discussed at one such meeting.

16        Q.   Just in order to clarify what you've just said, when you say that

17     the Bosnian Croat authorities reacted positively to the proposal, this

18     was when you were talking about the proposal to open an office in Zenica,

19     but I was specifically asking you about this proposal for this new BH

20     currency.

21             Did they -- at least that's how I understood your answer, and

22     correct me if I'm wrong.  But did that also include -- were they also

23     positive to that proposal for the new BH currency?  Can you clarify that.

24        A.   I told you that this was a meeting with the representatives of

25     the Croatian people that were in the organs of the republic in Sarajevo.

Page 31921

 1     I did not speak about the Bosnian Croat authorities.  I spoke about the

 2     representatives of the Croatian people who worked in the organs of the

 3     republic in Sarajevo; they attended the meeting.

 4             And since the new BH currency was not discussed at all, I told

 5     you what was on the agenda of that meeting, and let me repeat it once

 6     again.  It was the expectations raised by the prime minister that we

 7     should all go back to our jobs and his idea that a part of the

 8     administration should move out to Zenica.  The entire meeting with us --

 9     the entire meeting with us was spent discussing how best to ensure the

10     functioning of the administration outside of Sarajevo.

11        Q.   So, well, sorry that I may have misunderstood, and I'm just going

12     to clarify and hopefully ask it one more time.  So that meeting was not

13     with members of the Croatian community, but these were all Croats from

14     the BiH administration in Sarajevo who met in Siroki Brijeg.  Is that how

15     I should understand it?

16        A.   Yes, that's correct.

17        Q.   Well, let's move then to --

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  Before we move on, Your Honour, I do wish to point

19     out that the gentleman gave a more fuller explanation in his testimony

20     during the Kordic trial.  The Prosecution read approximately from lines 3

21     to line 16 of page 20587, but the gentleman did go on to state that for

22     whatever reason that currency was not used, that coupons were used

23     instead, and, of course, German marks.

24             So I do wish to put -- so either the entire page or the entire

25     question and answer from that section of the Kordic trial should be

Page 31922

 1     introduced into evidence, or at least the gentleman should be given an

 2     opportunity to comment on that or at least make sure to validate that

 3     that is exactly -- that that is the entire answer to the question being

 4     posed.

 5             And I state this because otherwise it gives the impression that

 6     you have the government of Sarajevo coming down, talking about a

 7     currency, then the Croats in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna using

 8     other currency, thereby giving the impression that the idea was pushed

 9     aside by the Croats in the Croatian community when, in fact, the Bosnian

10     dinar never came into circulation as it had been expected.  I think that

11     is the complete story.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, following this

13     objection, can you confirm that as part of your testimony in the Kordic

14     case you gave the information Mr. Karnavas has just provided?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  The fact is that this

16     currency was not used even in the areas controlled by the BH army.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

18             Mr. Bos.

19             MR. BOS:

20        Q.   Mr. Perkovic, moving to another topic again.  On Monday, you

21     testified that the HVO was to be seen as a necessity or an alternative

22     for the state institutions of Bosnia-Herzegovina that ceased to

23     effectively function in the region of Herceg-Bosna.  Do you recall that

24     evidence?

25        A.   Yes, I do.

Page 31923

 1        Q.   Do you recall that the BH government around August 1992 rendered

 2     a decree to establish a district system in order to control and govern

 3     the full territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the time of war?  Do you

 4     remember that the BH government rendered this -- well, came with this

 5     decree to implement districts in the Bosnia-Herzegovina area?

 6        A.   Yes, I do know that this decree was passed.

 7        Q.   Maybe you could have a look at the text of the decree, which is

 8     1D 00509.  Do you have it?

 9        A.   Can you please assist me and tell me where is it.

10        Q.   Somewhere in the back of the binder, 1D 00509, and the usher will

11     assist you.  Now, we see here it's dated 13 August 1992, a decree with

12     the power of law on establishment and work of districts, and let me just

13     read out Article 1:

14             "By means of this Decree, Districts as special socio-political

15     communities shall be established to function during the state of war (in

16     further text:  Districts), as well as their names, centres, and

17     territories, their rights and duties, the organization and scope of

18     competence of District bodies and district executive bodies and district

19     bodies in the organization and preparation of citizens for armed fight in

20     the territory of District, as well as and other issues of interest for

21     the organization and work of District."

22             Now, you've stated that you've seen this decree.  Is it correct

23     that in October 1992, there was an amendment to the decree because I

24     think initially, if we look at Article 6, the decree was -- set up seven

25     districts; and then, in October 1992, they reorganize this and it became

Page 31924

 1     ten districts.  If you look at the one-but-last page of the document,

 2     you'll see the amendments to this decree.  It's on --

 3        A.   Yes, that's correct.  The decree from October 1992 amended the

 4     original text of the decree.

 5        Q.   And if we look in this list of ten districts, we see under

 6     number 4 the district of Mostar and under number 10 the district of

 7     Livno.  And would you agree that the municipalities listed for these two

 8     districts in general, maybe not fully, but covered a lot of the area

 9     which was covered under Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?

10        A.   When we're talking about the Livno district, because it's smaller

11     so let's take that as our starting point, in the Croatian Community of

12     Herceg-Bosna, there was no area of the municipalities of Glamoc, the

13     municipality of Glamoc, in fact.  So if we're talking about the Mostar

14     district, practically all the municipalities in the area called Eastern

15     Herzegovina were not part of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, the

16     municipalities of Bileca, Gacko, Ljubinje, Nevesinje, Trebinje, with the

17     exception of Ravno, the area of Ravno.

18        Q.   Very well.  That's what we saw on the document.  Now, Witness,

19     would you agree with me that this decree that was rendered here by the

20     BiH government was a serious attempt of the BiH government to sort of

21     control and govern the full territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina while being

22     at war?

23        A.   It is my deep conviction that this is an unconstitutional attempt

24     on the part of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina because the issue

25     of the internal organization of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the issue of

Page 31925

 1     the number of socio-political communities or the level of socio-political

 2     communities is provided for in the constitution of the Republic of Bosnia

 3     and Herzegovina.  And I think that the government passing a bylaw that

 4     has a force of a law could not change the internal structure of the

 5     government in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 6             And let me go back to the question that was asked before the

 7     break.  I think that the constitutional court of Bosnia and Herzegovina

 8     should have reacted either proprio motu or at the proposal of another

 9     institution in the same manner in which it did following the decisions

10     enacted by the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna if it really had been

11     its intention to protect the provisions of the Constitution of the

12     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

13        Q.   Very well.  Okay.  That's -- that is your opinion.  Could I ask

14     you to look at document 1D 02565.  It's another Defence exhibit, and this

15     is a document dated the 23rd of February, 1993.

16             And you will see that -- you will see that the document, the

17     first two pages -- I'm sorry, you're still --

18             MR. BOS:  Again, maybe the usher can help.  It's document

19     1D 02565.

20        Q.   It's, again, near the end of the binder, Mr. Perkovic.  If you

21     have the document, you will see that the first two pages are letters.

22     The first one is --

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI:  [No interpretation]

24             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't

25     know, please interrupt me if this is not important, but I did not have

Page 31926

 1     the Prosecution documents before, and I have managed to read the previous

 2     document only now.  That's document 1D 00509.

 3             I managed to read Articles 1 and 3 in the B/C/S version, in

 4     Croatian, and I could see that the terms "podrucje" and "teritorija" in

 5     the Croatian are rendered as "territory" in the English version.

 6             This is of particular importance in Article 1, 3, paragraph 3,

 7     because we can see that a distinction is drawn in the same manner in

 8     which it was done in the HZ HB documents we looked at earlier.

 9             Perhaps it would be best for the witness to read the text of this

10     article -- of this document, Articles 1 and 3, in Croatian.  This is an

11     official document of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and this distinction is

12     clearly visible.  That's why I think it would be a good idea, to clarify

13     this.

14             MR. BOS:  Your Honours, I'm going to ask to have this done in

15     re-direct.  This is again -- you know, I would really like to continue

16     with my evidence, and this is really a matter which should be dealt with

17     in --

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel pause for the interpreters

19     between questions and answers, please.  Thank you.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  Is there a ruling on that?

21             MR. BOS:  I know my --

22             MR. KARNAVAS:  I know there is a shaking by one of the Judges,

23     but is there a ruling, because if there is an objection.  I do think this

24     shouldn't be dealt with on my time.  This is something that the Court

25     should deal with on its time.

Page 31927

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is an objection.  What I

 2     meant is that during the break, I looked up the words in a Serbo-Croatian

 3     dictionary, Cambridge publisher, and this is a dictionary we use here, so

 4     please use it.  And as to the translation of the word "podrucje," there

 5     are three words, territory, region, area.  This is it.  So the three

 6     English words are used to render "podrucje."

 7             Now, Mrs. Tomic has just told us that this was translated into

 8     English as "territory."  Well, no wonder, because this is in the

 9     dictionary.

10             What we can do is refer this to the translation service where

11     there are competent people who will provide us with the accurate

12     translation of this term; otherwise, we may go on about this for hours

13     and hours.  My colleague will ask the floor and say some things, Mr. Bos

14     will say, and other counsel will say something.  It's going to go on for

15     days.  We have this relevant language service, the CLSS, and they should

16     be providing us with the answer.

17             Now, this being said, if the Defence thinks that this is of

18     paramount importance and that the whole trial is based on this term,

19     you're entitled to summoning a linguistic expert who will be testifying

20     for hours and days to talk to us about this.

21             Now, let's proceed, Mr. Bos.

22             MR. BOS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

23        Q.   Mr. Perkovic, you have the document in front of you, I can see.

24     Now, you'll see that the first two pages are --

25        A.   Yes.

Page 31928

 1        Q.   -- letters, sort of cover letters for the document, that then

 2     follows on the third page which is -- and maybe we'll just see.

 3             The first letter is sent to Mr. Demirovic; the second cover

 4     letter is sent to Mr. Pasalic, commander of the 4th Corps; and copies of

 5     that letter are sent to the CSB, Mr. Ramo Maslesa and Mr. Jadranko Prlic,

 6     as the plenipotentiary of the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 7             Do you see that?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Now, I'd like to focus your attention now on the documents

10     starting on the third page, which is a document from the Government of

11     the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the setting up of Mostar and Livno

12     districts.

13             And the Prosecution thinks this is an important document, so I'm

14     going to read out a large part of the document so this may take a while.

15     But I think it's important that we get this on the record, and I'll start

16     with reading the second paragraph of that document and you can follow

17     from the hard copy:

18             "In accordance with the latest information" -- and this is a

19     document dated 25th of February, 1993, and it's starting on the second

20     paragraph:

21             "In accordance with the latest information from the districts,

22     obtained until February 25th, 1993, the district organs had been formed

23     in the following districts:  Bihac, Gorazde, Tuzla, and Zenica; in Banja

24     Luka, Doboj, Sarajevo, and Travnik districts.  Republic commissions were

25     formed for these districts, and this commissions perform the function of

Page 31929

 1     the Presidencies of these districts."

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Next page on the original, please.

 3             MR. BOS:

 4        Q.   "Mostar district for the territories of the following

 5     municipalities," and I won't read out all of them, but then also, "and

 6     Livno district for the territories of the following municipalities ...

 7     are not in function yet."

 8             And then third paragraph, and I will read that in full:

 9             "Because of the familiar reasons that are in the first place of

10     the political origin and that relate to the setting up of the authorities

11     of the so-called 'Herceg-Bosna,' the constitution of Mostar and Livno

12     districts did not begin immediately, in accordance with the positive

13     regulations of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

14             "However, the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and

15     Herzegovina, with the aim to set up these districts, sent a letter to

16     Mr. Mate Boban on 29 September 1992, in which, when speaking of the issue

17     of setting up of these districts, the following was said among other

18     things:  At the beginning of the war, in very complex situation in Mostar

19     and Livno regions, the temporary organs of Herceg-Bosna were formed.  The

20     Agreement between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Bosnia and

21     Herzegovina, dated July 1, 1992, defines that the temporary authorities

22     of Herceg-Bosna would be harmonized with the legislation of the Republic

23     of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Therefore, we propose with the aim of

24     harmonization of practice of organization of war organs in the whole

25     territory of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, you should instigate the

Page 31930

 1     proceedings of renaming of temporary organs of Herceg-Bosna for Mostar

 2     and Livno regions into the district organs of Mostar and Livno districts,

 3     in accordance with the mentioned decree.  At the same time, it is

 4     requested from Mate Boban in this letter that he proposes the candidates

 5     for the most responsible functions in the organs and bodies of these

 6     districts."

 7             Sir, do you recall that around this time in February 1993 that

 8     the BH government was putting this proposal to implement these Mostar and

 9     Livno districts which hadn't been implemented yet?

10        A.   At the time these events unfolded, I was not aware of them;

11     however, I came to know something about these initiatives at a later

12     date.  Therefore, I can say that the initiative to establish districts

13     was something I got to know about later but was not aware of at the time.

14        Q.   So when did you get to know about and in what context, can you

15     elaborate on that?

16        A.   I got to know about them perhaps a month or two after the

17     initiative had been forwarded in the context of the information we

18     received on matters concerning the internal organization of the BH

19     institutions, and especially on those matters where different opinions

20     were espoused.  There was this one meeting discussing the internal

21     organization of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and all these debates were closely

22     linked with various peace plans that reached us, one after the other.

23             We had information that the Bosniak side regarded this matter --

24     or rather, wanted this matter to be resolved through the establishment of

25     districts, which would be the regional forms of socio-political

Page 31931

 1     communities, which in the view of the Croat side remained to be

 2     centralised a form of organization, or if not centralised at least

 3     insufficiently decentralised.

 4        Q.   Now, if we look at the text, there is a reference to an agreement

 5     between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina

 6     dated the 1st of July, 1992.

 7             Now, I've been trying to trace down this agreement, and I think

 8     that this agreement is, in fact, the agreement of the 21st of July, 1992.

 9     And I would like to show you that document which is P 00339, and this is

10     the agreement on friendship and cooperation that was signed on that day.

11             MR. BOS:  And maybe we can have a look at the text of that

12     agreement, which is in the binder as well, P 00339.

13        Q.   Mr. Perkovic, do you recall that around the 21st of July, 1992,

14     that this agreement was being -- well, was being signed by the

15     republic -- by Mr. Izetbegovic and Mr. Franjo Tudjman, this agreement on

16     friendship and cooperation?

17        A.   This agreement received extensive media coverage so that

18     practically every citizen in the area who followed the Croatian press or

19     the Croatian TV was able to know that an agreement on friendship and

20     cooperation had been signed between the two countries.  Later on, some

21     ten days later perhaps, I was able to read the text of the agreement.

22        Q.   Could I focus your attention on item number 6 in the agreement,

23     and then in particular the second part of item number 6; and, again, I'll

24     read out this part:

25             "Provisional civil authorities established in wartime conditions

Page 31932

 1     with the scope of the Croatian Defence Council will be made to conform as

 2     soon as possible with the constitutional-juridical system of the Republic

 3     of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and talks pertaining to this matter will be

 4     initiated immediately in the spirit of the principles stated in Point 1

 5     of this Agreement."

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  If he could be given an opportunity to look at

 7     point 1 since that's part of what he's being asked to comment on.

 8             MR. BOS:  Very well.

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  There you go.  Thank you.

10             MR. BOS:

11        Q.   And I can read out point 1 as well, if need be.

12             Point 1:  "The President of the Presidency of the Republic of

13     Bosnia and Herzegovina and the President of the Republic of Croatia have

14     agreed that the future state system of Bosnia and Herzegovina will

15     proceed from the principle of full equality of the three constituent

16     nations:  Muslims, Croats, and Serbs.  The constitutional-political

17     system of the country will be based on constituent units in the

18     establishment of which due account will be taken of national, historical,

19     cultural, economic, traffic, and other elements."

20             Witness, would you agree with me that what's raised in point 6

21     is, in fact, exactly, you know, the point that the BiH government was

22     making in that document in which they pressed about the setting up of the

23     Livno and Mostar district, that, in fact, there was an agreement between

24     Mr. Tudjman and Mr. Izetbegovic that these districts could be set up?

25        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, there are several reasons at least why I cannot

Page 31933

 1     agree with this statement of yours, and I'll focus on the most important

 2     ones.

 3             With this agreement, the presidents of the two countries have

 4     agreed that the constitutional political system of the country would be

 5     based on constituent units.  The powers given to the districts clearly

 6     show that the districts are not constituent units because the definition

 7     of a constituent unit dictates the way in which it is to be conformed to

 8     the constitution.

 9             Second, it is highly unusual that the issue of the definition of

10     socio-political communities should be covered by the bodies of the

11     defence.  From the documents you've showed to me, we can see that it is a

12     letter that the Ministry of Defence sent to the government of Bosnia and

13     Herzegovina; although, according to the organisation and the remit of

14     ministries, as far as I remember, this did not fall at all within the

15     remit of the ministry of defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

16             Even more unusual is the fact that in the second document you

17     showed that me, the communications issue is resolved through the State

18     Security Service.  I'm particularly surprised by the fact that the

19     documents you showed to me suggest that these documents be delivered to

20     Mr. Prlic and Mr. Boban.  As we know that by that time for several months

21     already, pursuant to the decisions of the constitutional court which you

22     asked me about a moment ago, the HZ HB is a non-constitutional entity.

23             Therefore, I wouldn't see on what basis these organs would be

24     communicating with Mr. Prlic and Mr. Boban.  Would they be communicating

25     with them only as with BH citizens since they did not have any other

Page 31934

 1     political roles than those in the HZ HB?  At the same time, in that area

 2     there were Croat citizens who held certain republican positions and

 3     powers.

 4             In sum, it is evident from all the documents that were shown to

 5     me that there did not exist either the intention or the wish for a

 6     solution to be found about the internal system of Bosnia-Herzegovina

 7     between the Croats and Muslims on the principles of equality which would

 8     have been acceptable to both these peoples and which would have made

 9     possible an adjustment or a transformation of the organs of the Croatian

10     Community of Herceg-Bosna in the way suggested in the agreement signed by

11     Messrs. Izetbegovic and Tudjman.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, something caught my

13     attention in your answer, and I would like to check if you said what you

14     said.  You said that the three constituent units require decisions to be

15     taken by way of consensus.  I heard you say this.

16             Does that mean that decisions in Bosnia-Herzegovina required a

17     agreement from the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, although there might be

18     disagreements on some issues, which would have meant that all the

19     decision-making would have been blocked in the state?  Is that what you

20     actually meant?  Every decision made by the Presidency or by the

21     legislator required unanimity among the three constituent units, Muslims,

22     Serbs, and Croats.  Could you elaborate on this.

23             You have touched upon it briefly in your answer and you were

24     answering another question, but this really caught my attention because

25     listening to you I thought if one of the constituent units disagreed,

Page 31935

 1     this would block the whole system.  So is this what you actually meant?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Presiding Judge, in my answer,

 3     I did not mention a -- any number of constituent units.  I didn't mention

 4     three constituent units.  I spoke of an undefined number of constituent

 5     units; there could have been five, seven, or ten of them.

 6             I spoke of the basic principle, which is that the issue of the

 7     internal system of a country, particularly a multi-ethnic country such as

 8     Bosnia-Herzegovina where constituent peoples live and a country which has

 9     its constituent units, that a consensus should be achieved; and on the

10     basis of a consensus, the mechanism for decision-making can be defined.

11             It is precisely such solutions that we have today in

12     Bosnia-Herzegovina at the level of the state and sometimes they require

13     that the procedures be quite lengthy, but they espouse the basic

14     principle on which today's Bosnia-Herzegovina rests, which is the

15     equality of the constituent peoples in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16             From the way these districts were formulated and the way they

17     were supposed to be established and the numbers in which they were

18     supposed to be established as well as the powers which they were supposed

19     to have, we could see that the decision on this had already been taken.

20     The Croat side was practically only asked to accept what has already been

21     defined without giving any suggestions on the issues.  And the carrot

22     given to them was that Mr. Boban or Mr. Prlic, as far as I remember,

23     would be allowed to offer their own cadres who would be ethnic Croats to

24     govern these districts.

25             This approach is quite contrary to the intentions and the spirit

Page 31936

 1     in which the Izetbegovic-Tudjman agreement on friendship was signed.  It

 2     is particularly contrary to Article 1 which we've just been referring to.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for this accurate and

 4     exhaustive answer.

 5             MR. BOS:

 6        Q.   In relation to this topic, let me show you one more document

 7     which is 1D 01972.  It is a Defence exhibit which again will be probably

 8     in the back of your binder.  Do you have the letter?  It's not dated, but

 9     it starts off -- it's a letter signed by Mr. Prlic and addressed to

10     Mr. Zlatko Lagumdzija, the vice-president of the Republic of

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

12             It begins by saying:  "In your letter without number of 3 March

13     1993, you informed me of the conclusions of the Government of the

14     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina regarding the foundation and putting

15     into operation of the Mostar and Livno districts."

16             Would you agree with me that this letter by Mr. Prlic is an

17     effective response to the documents that we just saw before?

18        A.   The letter is not dated.  We can't see when it was sent.

19        Q.   No, we can't, but --

20        A.   But one could infer that this might be a reply to the document

21     sent earlier.  Although, in those documents that were sent earlier, I did

22     not observe that it was Mr. Lagumdzija, the prime minister, who sent the

23     letter to Mr. Prlic.  I believe that it was a third party that was asked

24     to send the letter to Mr. Prlic.  Nevertheless, one could assume that

25     this was an answer to or a response to those documents.

Page 31937

 1             I apologise, but I also observe the absence of any signatures,

 2     and this begs the question of whether this is an actual document.

 3     Mr. Prosecutor, there is no date, no signature, we only have the heading,

 4     which makes it very difficult for me to say whether this is, indeed, a

 5     letter by Mr. Prlic and whether it was ever sent.

 6        Q.   Well, Mr. Perkovic, this is a Defence exhibit, so I think we

 7     could presume that if the Defence submitted this evidence that this

 8     letter is, in fact, an authenticated letter.

 9             But looking at the content of the letter, would you agree with

10     the position -- with the response Mr. Prlic is making in this letter?

11        A.   Labouring under the assumption that this letter was sent,

12     Mr. Prlic deals with one aspect of the problem which seems very important

13     to me and which is the gist of what I was discussing a moment ago.

14     That's item 4 of the letter which says that:  "The establishment of the

15     Mostar and Livno districts has not been prescribed in the Constitution of

16     the HZ HB [as interpreted] or other enactments signed during peace

17     negotiations by both Muslim and Croat delegations in Geneva and New

18     York."

19             The constitution of the BH was definitely not signed either in

20     Geneva or in New York, so I suppose they're referring to other documents.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honours, on page 64, line 12, the gentleman

22     said the Constitution of "BiH," as opposed to "HZ HB."  Line 12, you will

23     see.  We all know that HZ HB did not have a constitution.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter corrects herself.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 31938

 1             MR. BOS:

 2        Q.   Just one last question on this letter, Mr. Perkovic:  How do you

 3     think that a letter like this would have reached Sarajevo --

 4                           [French on English channel]

 5        Q.   -- it must have been around March 1993 that this letter was being

 6     sent to Mr. Lagumdzija.

 7        A.   There were several ways.  It could be sent through international

 8     representatives, representatives of UNPROFOR who enjoyed at least some

 9     freedom of movement throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina.  It could have been

10     handed over to the Embassy of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Zagreb, for instance,

11     or to some other BH embassy in the world.  It could have been delivered

12     to one of the officials of the republican organs who happened to be in

13     the area.  Just as Mr. Lagumdzija or Mr. Demirovic used to send some

14     other documents to their own officials in the area with the request that

15     the documents be forwarded to Mr. Boban.

16             In other words, some sort of a roundabout mechanism could be used

17     to make sure that a letter reached Sarajevo or reached Mostar from

18     Sarajevo.

19             MR. BOS:  Unless the Chamber has any other questions on this

20     topic, I would like to move to another topic.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We don't have questions, but

22     this might be a right time for the break, the last break for this

23     morning.  So we'll have a break and I'll ask the registrar to count the

24     time during the break.

25                           --- Recess taken at 12.22 p.m.

Page 31939

 1                           --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

 3             Mr. Bos, you have the floor.

 4             MR. BOS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 5        Q.   Witness, I'd like you to have a look at another document in the

 6     binder probably near the end it's 1D 02018, and this is a 3 July 1992

 7     decree on public enterprises in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

 8     Let me read out Article 1 here:

 9             "In the interest of socio-economic development and the protection

10     of nature and natural resources of the Croatian people and other peoples

11     in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, the Presidency of the Croatian

12     Community of Herceg-Bosna has adopted a decree establishing public

13     enterprises in the following areas of activity," and then we see a whole

14     list of activities:  "Production, transmission, and distribution of

15     electrical energy... water management ... forestry ... mining ... postal,

16     telephone, and telegraph services ... rail transport ... road

17     transport ... official journal of the Croatian Community of

18     Herceg-Bosna ... information activities, radio, and television ... and

19     special purposes industry."

20             Just on that point, (j), special purposes industry, what kind of

21     industry would I have to think about here?

22        A.   [Microphone not activated]

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the witness, please.

24             MR. BOS:

25        Q.   You will have to switch on your microphone.

Page 31940

 1        A.   The special purposes industry mainly comprises military industry,

 2     the manufacture of arms and all sorts of equipment important and relevant

 3     for the armed forces.

 4        Q.   Now, it says here in the first line that they adopt a decree in

 5     establishing these public enterprises.  Now, would that mean that these

 6     enterprises were established, or does it, in fact, mean that these

 7     enterprises already existed and were taken over?  How should I read the

 8     term "establishing" here?

 9        A.   The other term synonymous of "utemeljiti," "establish," is

10     "osnovati," "to found."  In other words, this decree with its contents

11     prescribes the areas in which these public companies are to be

12     established.  What follows from there is the obligation to prepare the

13     founding documents of these public companies which are to be deposited or

14     filed with Registry of the relevant court.

15        Q.   So would that mean that these enterprises did already exist or

16     did not exist at all?  Let's say, for example, let's take water

17     management activities, any enterprises that wouldn't be established,

18     would that be a completely new enterprise, or would that be a enterprise

19     that already existed and then would be taken over by the Croatian

20     Community of Herceg-Bosna?

21        A.   This means that a new company is being set up as a new legal

22     entity which is registered at such with the court registry; so, in other

23     words, it is a new public company that is being set up.

24        Q.   You're saying a legal entity, but does that mean that -- maybe I

25     can describe it -- let's phrase it this way:  Would that mean that the

Page 31941

 1     whole company didn't exist yet, that there is still -- that there weren't

 2     any employees, that there wasn't any building, whatever, and that

 3     everything had to start from scratch, or are you talking simply legally,

 4     that they were taken over legally or established legally?

 5        A.   According to the valid regulations in the Republic of

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina which had been taken over and applied in this period,

 7     all the socio-political communities and authorities could establish

 8     public companies.  There were municipalities which were able to establish

 9     public companies all the way up to the republican level.

10             Here, we have the authorities of the Croatian Community of

11     Herceg-Bosna passing regulations which create the legal prerequisite

12     allowing these bodies to establish no public companies as legal entities.

13     In other words, the establishment of these companies as new legal

14     entities did not make the existence of existing public companies null and

15     void.

16             Let's take as an example the power supply company.  If the

17     company of Elektroprivreda, power supply company, of Croatian community

18     of Herceg-Bosna was set up, this did not preclude the existence of the

19     Bosnian power supply company.  What was being set up here was a new legal

20     entity.

21        Q.   Is it your evidence, then, on all these items that are listed in

22     item 1 that the Croatian communities created new entities aside from the

23     existing BH enterprises on all these -- you know, on all these things

24     like energy, electricity, water, postal, so is it your evidence that the

25     BiH enterprises of these public utilities still existed and that the

Page 31942

 1     Croatian community simply established aside from those existing public

 2     utility companies new companies; is that your evidence?

 3        A.   Yes, precisely that.

 4        Q.   And that's on all these matters that are listed?

 5        A.   The decree creates a possibility for public companies to be

 6     established in all these fields or branchs.  Some were, in fact, set up

 7     quite soon thereafter; whereas, for some other fields, I don't know that

 8     they ever set up a public company.  For instance, I know that the public

 9     company of Elektroprivreda, power supply company, of HZ HB was set up.

10             But I don't know that in the mining industry the possibility of a

11     public company being set up had ever been used.  I don't know that a

12     public company was ever set up in the mining industry or in the field of

13     information.  To my knowledge, the HZ HB TV was never set up and never

14     made operational, unlike the HZ HB radio.  However, that said, in most of

15     these branchs public companies were set up.

16        Q.   Well, I won't push this point any further, but maybe then I'm

17     going to ask you to look at another exhibit which is 1D 00196.

18             This is an exhibit dated January 1993, and it concerns

19     regulations on the registration of vehicles of the internal affairs

20     department of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  Now, I'd like to

21     focus your attention on Article 3, and let me read out this article:

22             "Under the terms of these regulations, police markings shall be

23     the following:  A combination of colour blue number 5013 and colour white

24     number 9010 in accordance with the RAL catalogue of colours for vehicle

25     registration; a plate with police written on it; police number plates;

Page 31943

 1     and a drawing (emblem) or a police badge sticker ..."

 2             Then I'll stop there.

 3             "The plate with police written on it, the number plates, and the

 4     police badge image must be made in such a way as to reflect light."

 5             Then if I then can show you Article 13, which again describes:

 6     "The form and size of digits and letters on police number plates and

 7     plates with police written on them shall be identical to the size,

 8     colour, and form of the number plates prescribed by the regulations on

 9     vehicle registration, except that the letters and digits shall be blue.

10             "The registration markings shall be written in the left or upper

11     part of the number plates and shall consist of three digits, while the

12     vehicle registration number also consisting of three digits, shall be

13     written in the right or lower part of the number plates.  In between

14     shall be the coat of arms of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna,

15     which shall be the same size, colour, and form as the civilian number

16     plates."

17             Then, well, you can read the rest yourself.

18             Now, would you agree with me that these are very detailed

19     regulations on how the signs of a police car needs to be, you know, on

20     the markings of a police vehicle in Herzegovina?

21        A.   Well, yes, these regulations provide for the entire appearance of

22     registration plate, of a license plate.  That's true.

23        Q.   You've testified that legislation during this period was all

24     temporary legislation needed in order to -- you know, for wartime and for

25     a time of war.  Can you explain why a regulation like this needed to be

Page 31944

 1     put in place?  It seems to me that you can hardly consider this as

 2     something which is really important and that, therefore, a temporary

 3     regulation needs to be established.

 4             Can you just explain, what is the importance -- I would assume

 5     that in January 1993 police vehicles were -- the existing police vehicles

 6     were well known and recognised by the people living in Herzegovina.  Why

 7     was there a need, first, to change it; and, secondly, why was there a

 8     need to regulate all this?

 9        A.   Let me respond to your question backwards.  The issue of

10     regulating in detail, every public document and registration or licence

11     plates are a kind of a public document is traditionally dealt with in

12     this matter.  When you stipulate the way in which a birth certificate

13     should look, the format of a birth certificate or a citizenship

14     certificate, every segment of this document is stipulated in greatest

15     detail.  Let us say that this is part of a tradition in the drafting of

16     the regulations that pertain to the way in which public documents are to

17     be produced or, let's say, other documents that make it possible for

18     somebody or something to be identified.  In this case, we're talking

19     about the identification of a passenger vehicle.

20             Going back to the second part of your question, why this had to

21     be done, this had to be done for a very simple reason because the

22     republican regulation that was in force until the war broke out in Bosnia

23     and Herzegovina stipulated that police vehicles, the registration plates

24     of the police vehicles, should bear the sign of a five-point star, a

25     symbol of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the symbol of

Page 31945

 1     the former SFRY.  So the very same symbol, sign, that caused the organs

 2     of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna to be set up in order to mount

 3     a defence against those who bore this symbol, the five-point star, on

 4     their caps as they mounted this aggression against this area.  So

 5     wouldn't it seem logical to you that institutions and bodies of the

 6     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna should change this symbol?

 7             And in this context, when the insignia were changed, the symbols

 8     and signs were changed, and this went for all of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

 9     including the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  In Sarajevo, the coat

10     of arms was changed.  It was quite logical for those symbols and signs to

11     be changed because the population did not want to accept those symbols,

12     not only on the police vehicles but in other aspects of life.

13             So this is why this was changed.

14        Q.   So if I understand what you're saying, then, for the Muslim

15     population living in the region of Herceg-Bosna, they would agree that

16     these symbols on the police vehicles were to be changed into symbols from

17     the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?

18        A.   No referendum was organized on this issue, so I cannot speak in

19     general whether the Bosniak population agreed with that or not.  But I do

20     not know of any case in which a Bosniak or other non-Croat would protest

21     or anything else or ask either during the war or afterwards not to drive

22     a vehicle bearing those symbols.  Perhaps one could say that during the

23     war the people were too afraid to protest, but the same symbols were in

24     use for almost two years after the war ended, and I'm not aware of a

25     single case in which there were any objections, complaints, or protests

Page 31946

 1     against those symbols on anyone's part, including persons who were not

 2     ethnic Croats.

 3        Q.   Let's move to another law.  Now, first of all, yesterday you

 4     testified I think that -- you said that wherever possible in drafting

 5     legislation from the Croatian community, wherever possible you tried to

 6     follow the existing provisions, albeit the SFRY legislation or the BiH

 7     legislation; is that correct?

 8        A.   I said that we had tried to stay in line with the regulations of

 9     Bosnia and Herzegovina that were valid at the time.  I was not talking

10     about the regulations of the former SFRY.

11             MR. BOS:  Let's look at Exhibit P 01579.

12        Q.   It's probably somewhere in the front of your binder.  Now, this

13     is a March 1993 decree on border crossing and traffic in the border area

14     of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna in times of war and immediate

15     threat of war, and what I'm interested in is Article 1.  I think I'll

16     read it out again:

17             "The Law on Border Crossing and Traffic in the Border Area," and

18     there's a reference to the SFRY Official Gazette, "which became part of

19     the Republic's legislature by the Decree with the Force of Law of the

20     Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, "and there's a

21     reference to the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, "shall apply

22     in the territory of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, provided that

23     its provisions are not in contravention of this Decree or other

24     regulations based on this Decree."

25             Now, I'm interested in that last sentence.  Was this a sentence

Page 31947

 1     that was often used whenever you would have a decree where you would

 2     apply the decree in combination with existing BiH legislation?

 3        A.   Well, you can see how the regulations were adopted, this is the

 4     usual method, and you can see here that this is a federal regulation, a

 5     regulation of the former SFRY, which was first adopted by the Republic of

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina as its regulation; and then the Croatian Community of

 7     Herceg-Bosna adopted it as a republican regulation.  And in the last

 8     sentence you can see the legal standard, where it is stipulated that this

 9     regulation, which now has the status of a republican regulation, the

10     regulation of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, shall apply with the

11     exception of the articles -- provisions that are in contravention of

12     other articles contained in this decree.

13             In other words, if any article of this adopted law is in

14     collision with any of the articles of this decree, this decree shall have

15     primacy in application.

16             But now that you ask me this, I would like to remind you of Avery

17     important thing, Article 2.  I think it's very important because it gives

18     us an answer to the question that we've been discussing over the past

19     days and today, where it is indicated that this space was the territory

20     of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the area of the Croatian

21     Community of Herceg-Bosna.  This is just a small contribution on my part

22     to this debate about territory and area.

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could all other

24     microphones in the courtroom be switched off.  It appears that somebody's

25     microphone is switched on.

Page 31948

 1             MR. BOS:

 2        Q.   Okay.  So if I understand your evidence, and I think that's what

 3     you said that is based on the language in Article 1, it appears that the

 4     regulation -- the provisions of the Croatian community would prevail --

 5     yeah, would prevail over the existing BiH legislation?

 6        A.   Yes, if these provisions or regulations were in conflict.

 7        Q.   Now, doesn't that, in other words, mean that the Croatian

 8     community by adopting regulations, it could adopt to the extent that it

 9     actually suited the Croatian community, and that whatever didn't suit

10     them they would issue a decree or regulation on?

11        A.   Well, this was a relatively short period of time in which a legal

12     system of a country that had broken up had to be adopted, and this system

13     took 50 years to build.  In technical terms, in terms of personnel, it

14     was impossible for all the legal instruments, primarily laws of that

15     country, to be analysed and then to take all of those who were

16     unacceptable - and many were unacceptable because they reflected the

17     previous social and political system, social self-government - to change

18     them accordingly.

19             But it was not possible, there was not enough time to amend them

20     by adopting detailed regulations; and this is why this standard was used,

21     stipulating that this is being adopted but that any provisions that are

22     contrary to the key issues regulated by this -- by a given decree shall

23     not apply or that the solutions contained in the given decree shall be

24     given primacy.

25             So this was simply the same method that was used also at the

Page 31949

 1     level of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  In April 1992, I myself

 2     took part in this exercise, where in a single issue of the Official

 3     Gazette all of the federal regulations were adopted, the federal

 4     regulations that the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina felt should be

 5     adopted; and the same legal standard was applied.  It was stated that the

 6     federal regulations shall apply unless they are in contravention of the

 7     relevant republican regulations.

 8             So the same legal standard was applied in this decree and in a

 9     number of other decrees passed by the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna

10     when the regulations were adopted.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Okay.  Well, let's move again to another topic which

12     you've touched upon also in -- on Monday and Tuesday, which is the

13     supremacy of the HVO Croatian community over the municipal HVOs.  Maybe

14     you can look at Exhibit P 00303.  It's an exhibit that you saw before.

15             So this is the statutory decision on the temporary organization

16     of executive authority and administration in the territory of the HZ HB,

17     and I'd like to focus your attention again on Article 14 and 15 which

18     deals with the supremacy of the HVO and which reads:  "The HVO shall

19     supervise the work of its departments and municipal HVOs.  The HVO may

20     use its supervisory power to annul or abolish individual legal acts

21     passed by the bodies referred to in the foregoing paragraph."

22             Then in Article 15:  "In a municipal HVO, if a municipal HVO has

23     passed a decision or performed an act violating the basic legal

24     provisions of the HZ HB, the HVO has the right and duty to dissolve the

25     said municipal HVO.  The mandate of all HVO members shall cease on the

Page 31950

 1     day the decision to dissolve the separate HVA is issued, and the HVO

 2     shall propose members for the new municipal HVO within eight days of

 3     having dissolved the old one."

 4             I think you testified about this on Monday or Tuesday as well;

 5     and from what I understand from your evidence, you were saying, yes, that

 6     it's correct that de jure the Croatian community had such powers to

 7     supervise the work of the municipalities, but that de facto this was

 8     different.  Is that correct?

 9        A.   This article created a legal basis for inspections to be carried

10     out by or supervision to be carried out by the HVO.  In the period that

11     we're talking about, the situation was different.  In reality, this kind

12     of supervision could not be done and it was not done.

13        Q.   To your knowledge, were ever decisions issued by the HVO,

14     referring to Articles 14 and 15?  So, in other words, was there ever a

15     regulation by the municipality annulled or abolished by the Croatian

16     community?

17        A.   In Article 14, paragraph 2, it is stated that the HVO shall have

18     supervisory power of the municipal bodies of the HVO.  Individual

19     administrative acts are acts that the municipal authorities pass at the

20     request of natural persons or legal entities.

21             Let us assume that one such act, legal act, was passed at the

22     request of a citizen, of a natural person, and that person is then

23     unhappy with the solutions contained.  That person is unhappy with the

24     way that their right is being defined there.  There are two models for

25     supervision.  One is to control this individual legal act through the

Page 31951

 1     mechanism of appeal.  If you ascertain that the rights of the citizens

 2     have been violated, you as the second-instance body have the power to

 3     annul this act or to amend it, to pass your own act, to rectify the

 4     situation.

 5             The second model that exists in the legal practice of

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina is to supervise, exert supervision, through

 7     inspectorates.  A citizen can resort to an inspectorate and complain that

 8     the municipal authorities violated their rights.  For a year and a half,

 9     this was my job:  You go out, you verify the complaints filed by the

10     citizens, and if you ascertain that they were valid, you take appropriate

11     legal measures, legal remedies, all the way down to the termination of

12     employment of the person who violated the rights of the complainant.

13             When I said it was impossible, in fact, to implement this kind of

14     supervision on the part of the HVO, I was talking about the fact that for

15     a long time the Croatian Defence Council did not have at that level, the

16     level of the HZ HB, inspections, inspectorates, although legal requisites

17     were in place for them to exist.  They did not exist, nevertheless,

18     because there were no personnel, trained personnel, who could do this

19     kind of a job.

20             Yesterday, in answer to some of the questions, I said at one

21     point that we saw that when the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna

22     adopted the Law on Administrative Procedures, which made it possible to

23     have a two-instance system and made it possible for the citizens to

24     appeal against the decisions of the municipal authorities, to rectify any

25     errors.

Page 31952

 1             And there was also a third possibility, when the HVO HZ HB learnt

 2     about some decisions passed by the municipal authorities, which in its

 3     opinion were in contravention of the regulations of the Croatian

 4     Community of Herceg-Bosna and did so sua sponte, I am aware of several

 5     such instances when the HVO HZ HB ascertained that the municipal

 6     authorities did pass regulations that were in contravention of the

 7     regulations of the HZ HB, and then the HVO HZ HB intervened and those

 8     decisions passed by the lower-level instances, the municipal HVOs, were

 9     then annulled, they were made invalid.

10        Q.   So, looking at the last part of your answer, where the question I

11     put to you was, "Were decisions ever annulled," it seems that you are

12     saying, yes, it did happen that the HVO HZ HB annulled or abolished

13     decisions of municipalities; is that correct?

14        A.   Yes, that's correct.

15        Q.   Maybe if we can look at P 00431 in your binder.  Would you agree

16     with me that this is such a decision which you've just talked about that

17     would render invalid part of a municipality decision?  Would this be an

18     example of that?

19        A.   Yes.  Here, we have an example upon such decision when the HVO

20     intervened and invalidates a decision of a municipal decision or part

21     thereof, the part that the HVO deemed to be unlawful because it is

22     violating the regulations of the HZ HB.

23        Q.   And if we can look at another exhibit which is P 02248, this is a

24     decision on the invalidation of the decision on mobilisation of

25     material-technical goods in the municipality of Mostar, number 01225/93,

Page 31953

 1     24 March 1993, and it's a decision signed by Mr. Prlic.

 2             Again, would this also be an example of such a decision?

 3        A.   Yes.  This is one of the several decisions that I know of.

 4        Q.   And if I can now ask you to look at Exhibit 1D 01611, that's

 5     probably in the back of your binder.  These are minutes of the Croatian

 6     Community of Herceg-Bosna, session 45, held on the 12th of June, 1993,

 7     and I'm particularly interested in item number 9:  "Discussion on the

 8     implementation -- discussion to implement the mobilisation in certain

 9     municipalities."

10             If we can go to item 9 which is on page 3 of the English version

11     of the document, let me just read out the first paragraph of item 9:

12             "The head of the defence department HVO HZ HB, Mr. Stojic,

13     informed the session on how the mobilisation was proceeding.  The

14     mobilisation was proceeding rather well in certain municipalities (for

15     example, Capljina, Stolac, Bugojno, and Gornji Vakuf), but it was not at

16     the required level in other municipalities (for example, Mostar,

17     Ljubuski, Citluk, Posusje, and Grude).  This was the reason to hold

18     meetings in Citluk and Grude and make personnel changes in some

19     municipalities."

20             Then it continues, and then on the conclusions:  "1, the decision

21     assigning members of the HVO HZ HB to monitor the implementation of

22     mobilisation in municipalities is hereby amended and reads as follows,"

23     and then we get a group of names and then a list.

24             On the next page, I'll read out number 5:  "By the end of the

25     week, hold a working meeting with the presidents of the HVO on the

Page 31954

 1     implementation of regulations on the territory of the HZ HB."

 2             Now, would you agree with me, Mr. Perkovic, that this is an

 3     example where you can see that the HVO clearly had supremacy over the

 4     municipalities and was very much involved in the operation of the

 5     municipalities?

 6        A.   Regarding item 9, I don't know what personnel changes are

 7     referred to here, but I am absolutely or mostly sure that those were not

 8     the decisions of the Croatian Defence Council of the HZ HB and about any

 9     personnel changes that were implemented by the HVO HZ HB.

10             Second, we don't see from here that the personnel changes

11     referred to the changes within the municipal Croatian Defence Councils or

12     to personnel changes within the defence offices within the

13     municipalities, and you will agree that these are as different as chalk

14     and cheese.  So the issue of personnel changes in the defence offices

15     were not within the jurisdiction of the Croatian Defence Council of the

16     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  So this would be my comment

17     regarding Article 9.

18             It is not contested, and this is what I have been repeating in

19     the course of my testimony, that the Croatian Defence Council had various

20     contacts with the heads of the municipal HVOs and that sometimes meetings

21     were held with the leaders of the municipal HVOs.  That gave them an

22     opportunity to fix some things, to get a fuller picture, or perhaps to

23     exert pressure on the municipal HVOs to improve their efficiency in

24     performing some tasks.

25             But the HVO HZ HB did not avail itself of the mechanisms

Page 31955

 1     contained in the decree that made it possible for them to remove from

 2     office the members of the municipal HVOs, and that was not because it was

 3     felt that all the municipal HVOs were doing an excellent job.  Quite the

 4     contrary was the case.  The prevailing belief was that it would be a very

 5     good thing to perform some changes in some municipal HVOs, but I think

 6     that the HVO HZ HB did not have the political power to do so.

 7             So there were legal prerequisites to do it, but there was no

 8     political power to actually do it at that time simply because the leaders

 9     of those municipal HVOs were superior to the HVO on a different basis, by

10     virtue of the fact that they were members of the Presidency of the HZ HB.

11        Q.   Just on item number 5 -- point number 5 under item number 9, when

12     they talk about holding a working meeting with the presidents of the

13     municipal HVOs, did that happen more often, that there would be working

14     meetings with the presidents of municipalities on the implementation of

15     regulations?

16        A.   What happened most often, what was most often the case, was that

17     some members of the HVO of the HZ HB would meet with the municipal HVO

18     leader.  It was customary practice to go out into the field, as the word

19     goes, in a delegation numbering one to three members that would discuss

20     the relevant issues, the issues relevant to that particular municipality,

21     with the municipal leaders.  Most often [as interpreted], meetings

22     comprised the entire HVO HZ HB and the municipal HVO on the other side.

23             I do not rule out the possibility that a couple of such meetings

24     took place with the municipal HVO in Mostar, but for the most part the

25     contacts were carried out through a delegation of the HVO HZ HB and the

Page 31956

 1     relevant HVO municipal structure or by having a representative of a

 2     municipal HVO structure coming to visit the HVO HZ HB.

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'm told that on the record, page 82, line 15, the

 4     gentleman said, "rarely meetings comprised of," as opposed to "most

 5     often, meetings comprised."  I don't know, I'm told that this is what the

 6     gentleman indicated.  Perhaps he can repeat that part of his answer,

 7     whether it was "most often, meetings comprised the entire HVO HZ HB and

 8     municipal HVOs," or "rarely," which of the two.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Witness, do you

10     confirm this point or you don't?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not following the transcript,

12     so I'll repeat.  I said that meetings that included the entire HVO HZ HB

13     and the entire HVO municipal structures took place rarely.  I only know

14     of a couple of such cases.  Most of the time such meetings were held

15     between the delegations of the HVO, on the one hand side, and the

16     municipal HVOs or the leader of the municipal HVO or other important

17     officials of a given HVO municipal structure.

18             MR. BOS:

19        Q.   Mr. Perkovic, let's move again to another topic, and I want to

20     discuss with you briefly now about the HVO camps, and for that I will

21     again refer to part of your testimony in the Kordic case.  This is on

22     transcript page 20684 of 7 June 2007, and I'll read out what you said

23     then:

24             "I'm not denying, and I already said that, that at the local

25     level there were such treatments of civilians, non-Croat population.

Page 31957

 1     This cannot be justified by war operations, and also there is no for that

 2     in the legislation of Herceg-Bosna."

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos, there must be a

 4     problem because Mrs. Tomic is standing up.

 5             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 6     I will not be going into what the testimony of this witness was in the

 7     Kordic case; however, in this case, in the examination-in-chief, this

 8     topic was not touched upon at all and this is completely beyond the scope

 9     of the examination-in-chief.  Thank you.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Bos --

11             MR. BOS:  [Previous translation continues] ... I think, under

12     Rule 90, I'm entitled to visit evidence which is relevant to the case.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to consult my

14     colleagues.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Rule 90 stipulates that

17     during cross-examination, you can only refer to points that were broached

18     upon during the direct examination, but a party is entitled to dealing

19     with other matters, and I'm going to read this out to you:

20             "Cross-examination shall be limited to the subject matter of the

21     evidence-in-chief and matter affecting the credibility of the witness,

22     and, where the witness is able to give evidence relevant to the case for

23     the cross-examining party, to the subject matter of that case."

24             It's Article 90 (H), so there's no need for a translation.  You

25     can read this in your language, and it states that a party during

Page 31958

 1     cross-examination is entitled to asking questions on the basis that

 2     points that were dealt with during the direct examination regarding

 3     credibility but also for things which are to do with the cause of the

 4     party; in this case, it's the indictment.  It is broad.  You can either

 5     interpret this strictly or broadly.  I personally interpret this

 6     restrictively, but the Chamber interprets this broadly, so you are

 7     allowed to ask your questions.

 8             MR. BOS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 9             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I be allowed to

10     remind you that at one point of my cross-examination, I ventured into

11     dealing with a topic that was not covered by the examination-in-chief,

12     and I also quoted Rule 90 because I deemed that the topic was important,

13     and that in view of the indictment and my case, I was entitled to examine

14     on that topic.  The position of the Trial Chamber on that occasion was

15     different.  If I may remind you, you invoked the guide-lines and passed a

16     decision that I should not be allowed to cross-examine on this issue;

17     rather, that this would be considered as part of our case and should be

18     deducted from the time of General Petkovic.

19             I believe that the situation we are faced with at present should

20     be dealt with in the same way because we should honour the equality of

21     arms.  Since the Prosecutor has already exhausted the time they had for

22     their cross-examination, I think that the same principle should apply as

23     was applied in my case.

24             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, let me add one thing.

25     In accordance with Rule 90(H) that you have just referred to,

Page 31959

 1     particularly in view of the last paragraph, (ii), it is quite evident

 2     that in this case, the Prosecutor should file a request to be allowed to

 3     examine on a topic that was not covered by the examination-in-chief and

 4     to explain what their case is, and why they believe that in this case

 5     they should be allowed to go beyond the scope of cross-examination -- of

 6     examination-in-chief.

 7             Only once the Prosecutor has stated his reasons will the

 8     Trial Chamber be in a position to render a decision on this, though

 9     admittedly the Trial Chamber does have the discretionary power to make a

10     ruling, but should first hear the Prosecutor and his argument.  The

11     Prosecutor only said that he invokes Rule 90 but did not state his

12     reasons for doing so.  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In our ruling the 24th of

14     April, 2008, on the guide-lines, paragraph 7, guide-line number 3, as to

15     the rules governing cross-examination, it is reminded that pursuant to

16     Rule 90, cross-examination may deal with a matter that has not been

17     raised in direct examination, and there is a footnote, decision on the on

18     the mode of interrogating witnesses, the 10th of May, paragraph 13.  I

19     disagreed with that paragraph, and this is the reason why paragraph 8 was

20     added, which I'm going to read out to you:

21             "Nonetheless, the cross-examination dealing with a subject not

22     raised in the direct examination is not a cross-examination strictly

23     speaking, but an examination resembling the direct examination."

24     Footnote, decision 10th of May, 2007, paragraph 13:  "As a result, the

25     rules applying to direct examination must be respected.  Consequently,

Page 31960

 1     leading questions shall not be permitted in this type of examination."

 2             This means, Mr. Bos, when asking questions on the camps which

 3     were not raised during direct examination, you are not entitled to asking

 4     leading questions, but you should proceed as if you were carrying out a

 5     direct examination.  This is what our decision -- our Chamber ruling

 6     states on 24th of April, 2008.

 7             Well, let's not open this topic because it's time; and in 25

 8     minutes' time, I will have to be in Courtroom III.  We shall be resuming

 9     tomorrow at 9.00.  According to the Registry's calculations, you've used

10     up three hours and 15 minutes.  So, roughly speaking, you have an hour

11     and a three-quarters still.  So this is what I had to say to conclude

12     today's session.

13             I wish you a good day, and we'll see you tomorrow.

14                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.,

15                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 4th day of

16                           September, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.