1 Wednesday, 1 October 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, can you please
7 call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
9 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T,
10 the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al. Thank you, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 This is Wednesday, October 1st, 2008, and I welcome our witness
13 as well as the accused, counsels for Defence and Mr. Kruger and Mr. Scott
14 and all his team from the OTP as well -- and I also welcome all the other
15 people helping us in this courtroom.
16 I will soon give -- I will now give the floor to the registrar he
17 has an IC number to communicate.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. 1D has submitted its
19 objections to documents tendered by the Prosecution through Witness
20 Kozulj, Ilija. This list shall be given Exhibit Number IC 00859. Thank
21 you, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, I believe that
23 the witness has a problem with his mike.
24 Witness, can you hear us now?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
2 Now for the cross-examination.
3 Mr. Kruger, you have the floor.
4 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, sir. Good
5 morning to the Judges, everybody in and around the courtroom.
6 WITNESS: MIROSLAV PALAMETA [Resumed]
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Kruger:
9 Q. And good morning, Mr. Palameta. My name is Pieter Kruger --
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. -- and I'm from the Office of the Prosecutor, as you've no doubt
12 gathered. Sir, if we can start just with a few general matters. The
13 first thing I'd like to hear from you is it wasn't very clear on Monday
14 about where you were living during various periods that we were talking
15 about. Now, is it correct, first of all, that before April 1992 you were
16 actually working in Mostar -- sorry, in --
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. In Mostar, and did you go home weekends to your home in Stolac?
19 A. Allow me to correct you. Before April 1992, I was working both
20 in Mostar and in Sarajevo
21 April 1992. Would you repeat the rest of your question, please.
22 Q. Certainly. During the -- that period we're talking about now,
23 did you only live in Stolac at your home during the weekends --
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. And --
1 A. Yes, yes, that's correct.
2 Q. The rest of the time were you living in Sarajevo or in Mostar?
3 This is prior to April 1992.
4 A. Before April 1992 I was in Sarajevo
5 and during that time I was not in Mostar. I was in Sarajevo and I would
6 come to Stolac to my home for the weekend.
7 Q. Your home in Stolac, was that in the town of Stolac itself?
8 A. Yes, that's correct.
9 Q. From April 1992 to the end of 1992, did you then live constantly
10 in your home in Stolac?
11 A. From April 1992 I didn't live in my home at all.
12 Q. Could you tell the Court how that came about. That was when you
13 left Stolac during the Serb occupation, I take it?
14 A. Yes, you're right. After the 13th - I'm not sure of the exact
15 date - we left Stolac. My family had left a day or two previously and we
16 lived at different addresses. My parents and my wife and children were
17 in Grac -- in Gradac --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A small town on the Croatian coast
20 where most of the refugees from Stolac were concentrated at that time.
21 Sometimes I stayed with them and sometimes I stayed at other addresses
22 mostly in the Primorje region or in Herzegovina on the unoccupied
24 MR. KRUGER:
25 Q. You returned to Stolac in June 1992; is that correct?
1 A. Yes. The Croats returned to Stolac in 1992, but I did not return
2 in full. I only visited Stolac for a -- well, for a few days about five
3 times, on about five occasions that summer. I was not in Stolac often.
4 I was in the Stolac municipality and elsewhere.
5 Q. The elsewhere, could you perhaps just give the Court an idea what
6 you mean by that.
7 A. Yes. I stayed with my parents when they returned. I was with my
8 wife and children in Gradac, I was in Neum, I was in Zagreb, in various
9 places where I was able to go.
10 Q. Now, sir, during 1993 could you give the Court an idea of where
11 you were living at that stage -- rather, I'll simplify it. Did you live
12 or from time to time at least go to Stolac during 1993?
13 A. During 1993 I can remember being in Stolac only once, sometime in
14 January or February, and after that in the late summer perhaps when I
15 passed through Stolac. At that time I was mostly with my students in
16 Neum, especially during the second semester; before that, I was in
17 Mostar, where I worked in the subdepartment for education. I was in
18 Visici, for example. Sometimes I would spend the night with my aunt in
19 Visici. That's what I can remember right now, but in that period I
20 didn't have much reason to go to Stolac. I was oriented towards other
22 Q. Okay. You went to Stolac in the late summer of 1993. When was
23 that? Would that have been in August? September?
24 A. Unfortunately, I can't recall.
25 Q. Okay. Now, sir, Mr. Jadranko Prlic, you knew him personally
1 during 1992 and 1993?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And later, when you were appointed as ambassador to Rome
4 was in 1997, was Mr. Prlic at that stage the minister of foreign affairs
5 of the Republic of BiH
6 A. Yes, he was, I think he was.
7 Q. And did he appoint you as ambassador then?
8 A. No, I think he could not do that at the time, no.
9 Q. Sir, perhaps just returning very briefly to the issue of where
10 you were living during 1993. As -- working in the subdepartment for
11 education, did you --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- did you have to regularly attend meetings in Mostar?
14 A. I went to Mostar where my office was as often as possible. It
15 may not have been every day, but I went there very often.
16 Q. Did you also have an apartment or a home in Mostar at that --
17 during that time?
18 A. No, I did not.
19 Q. Did you stay anywhere in Mostar for any periods of time during
21 A. Yes, I did, with some relatives of mine. I had relatives there.
22 Q. And was that in the city of Mostar
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, sir, if we can just move to a few things to clear up from
25 your evidence the other day. Do you recall that on Monday you were shown
1 two documents which were decrees, the first one on secondary education in
2 the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
3 is 1D 0019. That's the decree on secondary and primary education in
4 Croatian Republic
5 A. Yes, that's the decree on secondary education.
6 Q. And you were shown Article 75 of that decree which stated that
7 the funding would come from the budget of the Croatian Community of
8 Herceg-Bosna. Do you remember that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And then you were shown a second document which is just the next
11 document in the binder, which was a similar decree but just dealing with
12 primary education. Do you remember that as well?
13 A. Yes, yes.
14 Q. Now, then you were shown two documents emanating from Tuzla
15 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, could I mention just a practical
16 thing. The reference to the first document, it was given by Mr. Kruger
17 as 19, which is in fact 199. And then might I suggest it is helpful he
18 refer to the next document. Not all of us have hard copy. I know what
19 document he's talking about but I'm thinking about for the future when
20 we're all looking at the transcripts months and months down the line to
21 have the number of the exhibit on the transcript is helpful.
22 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour. I understand fully. I take
23 that on board. Thank you to my learned colleague.
24 Q. Sir, indeed, it is correct the document we were referring to
25 first was 1D 00199. The document on primary education was 1D 00200. But
1 then you were shown two documents emanating from Tuzla municipality, and
2 these documents were shown to you on the basis that it shows that similar
3 things were happening not only in Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna but
4 also in other municipalities because it was alleged the central
5 government in Sarajevo
6 not function outside its borders. Do you recall that?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. Now, I'd like to refer you to the first of the two documents that
9 was then shown to you, 1D 00235. You have that document?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. This is the decision of 19 October 1992:
12 "Decision to take over the rights of founder with regard to the
13 School of Commerce
14 Now, I'd like to refer you to Article 4 and there it says: "The
15 School of Commerce
16 Republican Fund For Secondary Education in accordance with the criteria
17 for distributing funds determined by the Fund's Managing Board ..." et
19 During your evidence you referred to the Republican Fund. Is
20 that the fund of the government of BiH?
21 A. For simple reasons I spoke only of the ministry; however, the
22 distribution of funds went through the so-called SIZs. There was an --
23 they were funds. There was one such fund for schools which carried out
24 financial transactions of this type. At the time we were referring to,
25 the last salary paid from that fund was for April 1994 [as interpreted].
1 After that it did not pay a single salary for a long time. I don't know
2 if it continued to exist so that in this case it could not pay the
3 salaries for Tuzla
4 there as these documents are usually copied from previous ones. But de
5 facto there were no such payments. Perhaps whoever enacted this decision
6 thought that the day would come when that fund would make the payments
7 when it became possible. We --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you stood up.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, I just wanted to point out that on line 25
10 he said April 1994 and it should reflect 1992. And also my learned
11 colleague, since he's trying to go about in this particular area
12 regarding funding, in fairness to the witness he should point out to the
13 witness Article 5, the first bulletin point. I think then the gentleman
14 would be given a full opportunity to answer the question as opposed to
15 cherry-picking one portion of the -- the decree that suits the
16 Prosecutor's theory.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger.
18 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Sir, the bullet point that my learned colleague is referring to
20 in Article 5, it says that:
21 "The Tuzla Municipal Assembly shall provide in cooperation with
22 the fund resources necessary ..."
23 [Microphone not activated]
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 MR. KRUGER: [Microphone not activated]
1 Thank you, Your Honour. It's working again.
2 Q. So, sir, if I understand you correctly what you're saying is that
3 you are of the opinion that this fund, the Republican Fund, the reference
4 to it in this document is redundant?
5 A. Referring to 1992, yes. At that point in time, it was redundant.
6 I think it was redundant because to the best of my knowledge the last
7 salaries were paid for April; and after that they ceased to arrive.
8 April 1992 was the last month when salaries arrived.
9 Q. Now, sir, from April onwards you weren't in Sarajevo; is that
11 A. No, I wasn't.
12 Q. So you didn't know or didn't have first-hand knowledge of what
13 was going on in Sarajevo
14 A. On one occasion when I was in Zagreb I learned that
15 Minister Hasic had managed to leave Sarajevo. His deputy,
16 Professor Zukovic, had also left Sarajevo
19 ministry, so at that time the ministry was unable to operate. Only a few
20 people were left in it. In the course of the summer, later on, a new
21 minister was appointed, Professor Kovac. But at that time the ministry
22 did not really function and they told me the fund was not functioning
24 Q. But that's what you were told. You don't know about that from
25 your own knowledge?
1 A. I heard it from the head of the fund. I'm not sure that he was
2 in Sarajevo
3 leave Sarajevo
4 in the fund to be done.
5 Q. Now, sir, the documents that you were shown, that's P -- 1D,
6 sorry, 00235 and 1D 00236, you needn't actually look at them, these are
7 the two Tuzla
8 aware of the decision-making process or the processes involved in Tuzla
9 municipality to bring these documents or to make -- which led to these
10 decisions; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. So if you surmise that Article 4 is maybe just a cut-and-paste
13 which was in error, you simply don't know that, do you?
14 A. Are you referring to Article 4 in 1D 00235 or 236?
15 Q. Yes -- I think the article is similar in both of the documents,
16 but we were talking about the Article 4 in the first one earlier.
17 A. On Monday we spoke about these two texts and compared them to
18 texts of a similar provenance, that is, regulating education and
19 schooling. We compared them on one level, which was that in cases such
20 as these two cases the central government was quite simply isolated and
21 unable to operate. In that case, someone else is taking over the rights
22 of founder, someone who can function as such. That was what we
23 discussed. The very fact that there was no communication with the
24 central government had as its consequence that other entities took over
25 the function of founder which was done in Tuzla, in Mostar, and later on
1 in Jablanica in the documents that we used. This being the case, since
2 there was a fund, the founder would not need to take over the
3 responsibilities of founders in Tuzla
4 the article that you are quoting, Article 4, this article follows from
5 Article 1. In this case, it is contrary to Article 1. How can Tuzla
6 the founder if these things would be done by the central government which
7 are typically done by the founder?
8 Q. Sir, I hear your argument but the question was still: You
9 weren't in Tuzla
10 which led to this; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, that's correct. None of us was in Tuzla.
12 Q. Okay. Now, let's move on to another aspect, and for this if we
13 can go to document P 00312. And I -- it's -- it was a Defence document
14 but I've included it in the Prosecution binder. It's actually the first
15 document in both binders if I'm not mistaken. Now, sir, you remember --
16 A. Yes, I have it.
17 Q. This is the report of the 12 July 1992 meeting with
18 President Tudjman, and you were present as well as various ministers from
19 BiH and certain other people too. I'd like to refer you to page 7 of
20 this document again, and specifically to where President Tudjman is
21 talking about the H-O-S or the HOS. Do you have that portion?
22 A. Yes, it's not on page 7 in my version but I'll try to find it.
23 Q. It's directly after Mr. Z. Cosic has spoken and just before
24 Mr. Manolic speaks.
25 A. Yes, I've got it.
1 Q. Now, sir, you remember that -- sorry, just to refresh everybody's
2 memory. This is where President Tudjman says: "We need Herceg-Bosna.
3 We do not recognise HOS - they are the provocateurs of the former
4 Independent State
5 Now, Judge Antonetti, the President, he asked you about this
6 independent state of Croatia
7 that a little bit further, is it correct that the independent state of
9 A. Judge did not ask me about the NDH because I couldn't tell him
10 much about that, but this is known what you ask me. Yes, this is the
11 acronym for the independent state of Croatia, but I would like to say
12 something before I start discussing this document, if I may. This
13 document is a transcript, obviously, that is not an original. It can be
14 seen in several elements. The language spoken by the participants seems
15 as a language translated or maybe it was just a matter of poor
16 transcription of what was spoken in a certain form. The forms of words,
17 linguistics constructions are attributed to certain persons here who
18 never in their statements or in their written works expressed themselves
19 in that way. That's one thing.
20 Another thing --
21 Q. Sir --
22 A. -- for purposes of this --
23 Q. If I may interrupt you. We're going to come back to this
24 document in a while. At this stage I just want to focus specifically on
25 this portion and just clear up the independent state of Croatia first.
1 Is it correct that this state existed from 1941 until 1945?
2 A. Something like that.
3 Q. It was a puppet Nazi state which was established when the Nazis
4 or the German army marched into Zagreb
5 A. That's possible. I don't know the details when the German army
6 entered. I did not deal with recent history.
7 Q. Okay. But it was established around about - would you
8 agree? - 15 April 1941
9 A. I heard about that.
10 Q. And Ante Pavlovic then became the leader or the president of this
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The NDH --
14 A. -- of state.
15 Q. The NDH, it followed on after the existence of the Croatian
16 Banovina which existed from 1939 to 1941; is that correct?
17 A. I truly can't tell you about the dates in modern history. I did
18 not deal with that period. If you state so, that's entirely possible.
19 But I don't know those dates, they don't mean much to me, I did not deal
20 with that period in history.
21 Q. Okay. Now, sir, just to continue with this, you wouldn't
22 disagree that the Croatian Banovina was set up by the Cvetkovic-Macek
23 Agreement of 1939 which set it up as a Croatian province of the former
24 Kingdom of Yugoslavia
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honours -- excuse me, excuse me, sir. If we
1 could get sort of some relevance of this. What is the purpose of this
2 cross-examination? Obviously, the gentleman is not a historian. He came
3 here to discuss issues of education, language, et cetera, which he was
4 involved in. Granted, he's being pointed out to a transcript dealing
5 with HOS, but I fail to see the relevance between what was happening
6 between 1941 to 1945 or before or thereafter, so perhaps if he could
7 clarify that point I may not have to object again.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's wait and see.
9 Let's wait for the other questions put by Mr. Kruger.
10 MR. KRUGER: Thank you. I won't dwell long upon this, but it is
11 relevant, Your Honour, I submit.
12 Q. Now, sir, would you -- or do you know or have an idea of what
13 territory the NDH comprised?
14 A. Yes, I do believe it comprised the area of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
15 most of the territory of the current Republic of Croatia
16 Q. And is it correct that --
17 A. But as I said, I did not deal with that. Maybe I supposed to
18 know that, but I'm not certain of these things and allow me not to know
19 these things.
20 Q. No, I'm not holding it against you, sir. So you said that
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina, virtually the whole territory, was incorporated into
22 this territory of the NDH; correct?
23 A. Yes, yes. That's correct.
24 Q. Meaning that Sarajevo
25 for instance, Tuzla
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, sir, I would like to just show you a map and if you could
3 perhaps just confirm that what you see is a map of the NDH.
4 MR. KRUGER: Now, Your Honour, this has not been given a
5 Prosecution exhibit number, but if the witness confirms this we would
6 propose that it be given an IC number.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, could you please
8 tell us where this map comes from, which book?
9 MR. KRUGER: Certainly, Your Honour. Your Honour, this map was
10 found on a web site and I unfortunately don't have the web address with
11 me, but if I recall it's www.hercegbosna.com and the English part of
12 that, but I will obtain it and provide it to my learned colleagues and to
13 the Court.
14 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, I'm most grateful for that. May I also
15 ask my learned friend to provide us with a legible copy. I can't make
16 out the key at the bottom, and in fact that may be useful to the map, I
17 don't know, at this stage. A clear, legible copy would be appreciated.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, the key -- we can't
19 really see the key at the bottom, the colours --
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, again, I don't mean to be obstructive
21 here, but the gentleman indicated that he's not sufficiently
22 knowledgeable about this area or this period or the details. Now he's
23 being asked to confirm a map. Granted, we're dealing with professional
24 Judges, but surely -- and this will be factored in, but how can the
25 gentleman confirm something if a proper foundation hasn't been
1 established? The gentleman has indicated he's insufficiently familiar
2 with the period. Now he's being asked to validate the borders of a map.
3 If this is a notorious fact, he can just put the question to him and then
4 maybe establish this notorious fact later on through other evidence and
5 through some other witness.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, please put your
7 question. There's a map coming from the internet. We don't really know
8 where it comes from. On this map we see that Herzegovina,
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Sarajevo
11 put your question.
12 MR. KRUGER: Thank you.
13 Q. Sir, are you able to recognise what this map depicts, despite not
14 being a specialist in that period of the history?
15 A. I can read what is written, but I do not understand some things
16 on this map. I don't know what blue denotes, the green colour, in the
17 present territory of the Republic of Croatia
18 the town of Split
19 This was the centre of the medieval state of Croatia, and now it is
20 outside the state of Croatia
21 it is possible that the NDH did not comprise Split, Sibenik, the island
22 of Korcula. This is unclear to me. This map doesn't make sense. I
23 really cannot -- I'm confused. What I can tell you from general
24 knowledge --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, this carte is not
1 very clear for anyone, which is why I ask you to put your question that
2 is going to support your case. Everyone sees that there are a lot of
3 question marks, for example, on Split
4 included in the NDH.
5 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, I will try to obtain a better copy of
6 the map or a better version of the map. Just to perhaps make a few
7 things or clarify a few things which may assist.
8 Q. Is it correct or did you know that parts of current-day Croatian
9 territory were not included in the NDH? For instance, parts of Dalmatia
10 and Istria
11 A. I know about Istria
13 Q. And we can actually see on this map in the top left-hand corner
14 that there's the yellow part where the Istrian peninsula is and which is
15 marked in yellow and not marked as part of the NDH.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, sir, blue parts -- and we see in Slovenia there's a blue
18 part. Is it correct that Germany
19 know, during the Second World War?
20 A. I heard that they did, but I don't know about my own homeland,
21 about my own country, so I'm not familiar with Slovenia. I generally
22 heard about these things, but I never particularly dealt with recent
23 history. If you ask -- wish to ask me questions relating to the
24 Middle Ages, I would be in a much better position to answer.
25 Q. Well, sir, I'm still going to ask you two questions on this. The
1 green areas are indicated on the key, if we look very hard, as Italian
2 areas. Is it correct or did you hear, are you aware, that during the
3 Second World War parts of this area were controlled by Italy?
4 A. I don't have the key. Can you make it possible for me to see the
5 key? Well, this is illegible, not useful at all. As a professor of
6 literature, if I may say, there was this story which concerns the
7 occupation of the island of Vis.
8 Italians occupied some parts, but I don't know which -- exactly which
9 parts they did occupy - they did occupy some. I know about Zadar, they
10 did occupy Zadar. They considered Zadar as part of Italy. I remember
11 that, but as far as other areas occupied by them are concerned I'm not
12 familiar with that.
13 Q. Now, sir, the whole purpose of this exercise of showing you the
14 map was perhaps just to come to the point of: Is it correct that the HOS
15 in 1992 had territorial aspirations to include the whole -- or which
16 included the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina up to the Drina River
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection. He needs to lay a foundation, and let
18 me refer back to the way we began this cross-examination by referring to
19 the documents in Tuzla
20 was speculating as to the purposes for putting in Article 4. Now he's
21 asking the gentleman without laying a foundation to speculate as to what
22 HOS's intentions were. Unless he can establish some foundation that he
23 was a member of HOS, participated with HOS, has knowledge of -- intimate
24 knowledge of what HOS's policies and politics were, I don't believe he's
25 capable of answering this question --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, I put that
2 question myself to the witness when we had the presidential transcript on
3 the screen and where HOS was mentioned. The witness was at that meeting,
4 so when Tudjman spoke about HOS if the witness had known nothing of HOS
5 and HOS had not rung a bell, he could have -- he would have asked
6 President Tudjman, Please give us some details, I don't understand what
7 you're saying. But he didn't say so, so obviously he did have some
8 notions about all this.
9 Mr. Kruger, you may proceed.
10 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Now, sir, the question is: The HOS in 1992, were their
12 territorial aspirations comparable to what we see in the NDH, including
13 the -- in other words, including the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina up to
14 the Drina
15 A. What I can say - and allow me to say what I know about
16 that - people dressed in black uniforms with insignia HOS on their
17 sleeves, with insignia which harked back to the NDH were worn by those
18 soldiers. Nobody liked them. People -- I know none of them spoke with
19 sympathies about the HOS. So when this was discussed at the meeting, the
20 reaction there was normal when it came to the HOS. Apart from black
21 uniforms, they would put pictures of figures who were compromised in the
22 history on their vehicles. They would strut about trying to intimidate
23 people, look frightening. I did not have any close contact with those
25 Q. Was there any talk at that stage about what these people were
1 claiming territorially?
2 A. It's possible, but, you know, if I may make this statement, you
3 are evoking a very confusing time through your questions. My children,
4 my family were most important. We were outside our homes. Thousands of
5 others were also refugees, and at that time to think about what somebody
6 else thought or to register such things of that type which when I hear
7 them today do not make sense, they are illogical and even silly, stupid
8 in a way, I simply did not register those at the time.
9 Q. Now, sir, just before moving from this, final thing.
10 President Tudjman says: "We need Herceg-Bosna."
11 Do you know what he was referring to?
12 A. Exactly because of the questions I suggested you may ask me, I
13 think that the whole text should be read and those things which are
14 omitted reflect more clearly the atmosphere in which this was discussed.
15 What Tudjman is saying at that moment is the issue of collective
16 subjectivity, and this is the issue which is known by those people who
17 are sitting at the meeting. They are his party colleagues. He is saying
18 that this should be done in the interests of the Croatian people which
19 the Herceg-Bosna is supposed to protect. This was the only organization
20 that at the time could protect the Croats from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and
21 this is how everybody understood that and this is how I understood it.
22 Q. Sir, let's move on to something else. Let's move back to Stolac
23 in April 1992. Now, on Monday you testified - and this is a transcript
24 reference in the provisional transcript page 17, lines 4 to 10 - you
25 stated that the Croatian -- or the Crisis Staff agreed to evacuate the
1 women, children, and elderly. And when they left, the HVO units who
2 stayed, or the men who stayed in the positions, they melted from the
3 field because the women, children, and elderly had gone. Do you recall
4 saying that?
5 A. Yes, I did say that.
6 Q. Now, before exploring this I'd just like to clarify the concept
7 of the Crisis Staff. You said - and this was at the transcript reference
8 page 16 of the provisional transcript, pages [sic] 14 to 15 - you joined
9 the Crisis Staff of the HVO. So this Crisis Staff, did it comprise only
10 of HVO members?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Were you a member or did you then become a member of the HVO by
13 this action?
14 A. Up to that point I was not member of the HVO. I must tell you, I
15 don't know, I'm not certain, whether I did become a member from that
16 point onwards. Maybe I did, but I can't be certain.
17 Q. Okay. Now, sir, you testified that when the refugees returned
18 there weren't many Muslims amongst them, and you said this morning as
19 well that it was the Croats who returned. So my question to you is that
20 when the Stolac Crisis Staff of the HVO took the decision to evacuate
21 Stolac, there weren't any Muslims or SDA members --
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. -- involved in that decision; correct?
24 A. There were no Muslims in making that decision, but at that
25 meeting it was decided that the neighbouring Muslims should be advised of
1 that decision. It was a rash decision, an urgent decision. At that
2 time, as far as I can recall, the SDA had already started cooperating
3 with the Serb side -- forces, they started making arrangements with the
4 Serb forces at Berkovic, a northern part of the municipality settled by
5 Serbs, and in Ljubinje which is a municipality some 30 kilometres away or
6 less. Later on it was confirmed that they had done so. They had
7 contacts -- had communicated with Serb army representatives, and they
8 guaranteed the Serbian forces, Serbian army, free passage through Stolac.
9 So at that moment, although earlier there had been attempts to make
10 arrangements for common defence, that at that time this was -- could not
11 be decided, as far as I can tell you.
12 Q. Now, sir, a number of witnesses have testified about this event
13 in Stolac, and a number of witnesses have indeed said that their
14 neighbours told them, We are leaving, come along. But a number of other
15 people testified that they simply did not hear that there was a decision
16 to evacuate. And when they opened their eyes, their Croat neighbours had
17 all left. Is it possible that this decision to invite the Muslims to
18 also evacuate along with the Croats was not communicated properly or
20 A. It was I who proposed at that meeting that this be done. I
21 personally, where my parents were living, I personally warned the Muslims
22 in the neighbourhood. I know some other people did that at other places.
23 I know also that a substantial number of neighbours did depart, some did
24 not. They reached Pocitelj together with Croats, and at Pocitelj some
25 people - I wasn't there, I was told about that - their compatriot, fellow
1 countrymen, simply told them not to go further; and in most cases those
2 people returned. Of course I say this with some reservations because
3 later I heard and met some people in the place where my parents lived. I
4 met some Muslims. So I allow for this possibility for them to have
5 passed through there despite the suggestions to the contrary. The
6 Muslims left Stolac at the moment when it was a liberated because there
7 were -- there was combat and even before this Stolac was liberated. I
8 personally met a large number of Muslim refugees at Metkovic, and that
9 was a couple of days prior to Stolac's liberation. And at that time
10 during combat operations some people fled to Pocitelj, Capljina, most of
11 the people, women, children, the elderly fled there. I met some of them
12 at Visici, at Pocitelj, it was then, sometime in the summer of 1992.
13 Q. Now, sir, I'm -- I need to just ask you a few questions about
14 this. I don't understand and I haven't heard before that Muslims left or
15 a large number of Muslims left Stolac at the time of its liberation in
16 June 1992. Can you give the Court an idea of the magnitude of this
18 A. I can't explain precisely how many people were involved, but at
19 any rate - and I think I've already said that - Stolac and Mostar and the
20 towns in Herzegovina
21 rivers. Stolac is all built in a valley. Overlooking Stolac there are
22 hills on which there were artillery positions and mortar positions of the
23 Serbian army. One morning when I was on my way to Stolac, I went to a
24 village called Osanici overlooking Stolac which was also liberated, and
25 Stolac was full of red mushrooms because there was mortar fire going on.
1 The roofs were all of red tiles and the roofs being blown up looked like
2 red mushrooms. It was a horrifying picture. One could not continue
3 living there at the time, so people left. Before the attack I mentioned
4 that some Muslims had got to Metkovic and been accommodated in the
5 secondary school there, in the gym, and that food and beverages were
6 distributed to them. I don't know for how long they stayed there, but
7 they left before the liberation of Stolac.
8 Q. And is it correct that they returned afterwards, after the
9 liberation, most of them?
10 A. Yes, certainly.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 A. When it was possible; I can't tell you the dates.
13 Q. Now, sir, just before stepping off this aspect, to the extent --
14 well, you were asked or you touched upon whether there was a defence or a
15 mutual defence agreement, to paraphrase it perhaps, between the Muslims
16 and the Croats prior to the entry of the Serbs or the take-over of the
17 Serbs. And you said -- I don't have your exact words here, but you said
18 there wasn't really a formal agreement such as that that you know of. Is
19 that correct or am I characterizing it correctly, what you said?
20 A. You are referring to agreements between the Muslims and the
22 Q. Sorry, my mistake. The Muslims and the Croats prior to the Serb
23 take-over in April 1992 of Stolac.
24 A. I was in Sarajevo
25 this. I heard a lot of things from the people who had been there before.
1 I knew a lot of people there as my fellow citizens. It was a small town,
2 and all those representatives of the Croats were mostly organized in the
3 HDZ party which had won the elections. All the representatives of the
4 Muslims who were relevant at the time, those who were active in politics
5 and who held positions in the authorities, they were in the SDA party.
6 So at the time it was mostly these two parties that discussed agreements,
7 but these agreements were of an informal nature. They discussed these
8 things at the meetings of their leaderships. I doubt that they even had
9 minutes, and I concluded all this on the basis of statements I heard
10 later on and based on events which happened later on. But I was not
11 present at those discussions.
12 Q. From what you could gather in this way or what you saw, would it
13 be fair to say that there was at least some informal understanding that a
14 mutual defence would be mounted against the Serbs?
15 A. I think so, yes. I think there was that understanding.
16 Q. So, sir, when a few days after the women, children, and elderly,
17 Croatian women, children, and elderly had left, when the Croatian men who
18 were in the HVO melted away from their positions, that would actually be
19 leaving the Muslim defenders in the lurch, wouldn't it?
20 A. It was quite the contrary. I can give you an example, something
21 that sprang to my mind in the meantime, although maybe it's not something
22 popular in courts. When my parents and those other people had to leave
23 the area, when they came to the river Neretva because they couldn't cross
24 the bridge, as the bridge had been blocked by the Serbian forces, we were
25 very worried. In Pocitelj they had to cross the river Neretva using
1 various makeshift devices.
2 At one point we were in the MUP, which was actually the police
3 station, and there were representatives of both Croats and Muslims there.
4 At that point a young man arrived, his name was Skrba, and he was a guard
5 in the VP Dom. He arrived from the area controlled by the Serbs and he
6 was looking for the local chief of the SDA Alija Rizvanbegovic, the
7 president of the party in that area, to tell him that they were waiting
8 for him overlooking -- at a place overlooking Stolac, that the president
9 of the SDS party, the Serb party, and some other people were waiting for
10 him there.
11 I asked him, Who else is there? And they said Milan Mihic. He
12 was a doctor. I knew those people. We had been schoolmates before. I
13 asked, Can I go when Alija goes? And he said, Well, there's no reason
14 for you not to go. And then the president of the municipality who was
15 the mayor, Raguz, also went. The two of us went with this young man, as
16 did Alija Rizvanbegovic, and we arrived at a certain location.
17 Alija Rizvanbegovic, the chief of the SDA, did not join in our
18 conversation while we were there, but he stayed behind after we had left.
19 I asked my colleague, Milan Mihic, to call his colleagues from
20 the SDS, from the Capljina area and ask them to let those people cross
21 the Neretva. And Milan Mihic accompanied me to the MUP, to the police
22 station, and the telephones were still operating at the time. He made a
23 phone call. I listened to the conversation, and the man said he would do
24 it. Then the president of the SDA remained talking to the
25 representatives of the Serb authorities, and I don't know what they
1 discussed. But in any case, this led me to believe the rumours I had
3 Q. Okay. But, sir, if I can return just briefly to the original
4 question. Your choice of words was interesting. "The HVO melted away
5 from their positions ..." Is it correct that when they melted away they
6 left their positions undefended, unoccupied?
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic.
8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wish to object to
9 these questions by my learned friend for the following reasons. The
10 questions refer to early April 1992, which is the period before the Serb
11 occupation, and they presume that there were HVO units holding positions
12 and also that there were military units of some Muslim army. So the
13 issue would be that HVO units retreated before the Serb aggression
14 without putting up any resistance. This, however, is not supported by a
15 single shred of evidence in this case, nor did the witness ever say that
16 there was an organized HVO army in March and early April 1992. I think
17 it's very important to clarify this point because this sequence of
18 questions might mislead us to believe that organized HVO units fled
19 before the JNA and the Serbs assaulting Stolac.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, I confess that I
21 did not quite see what you were aiming at, but you're doing your
22 cross-examination so I'll leave you to answer -- to ask questions.
23 Regarding Ms. Alaburic's remark, the two possibilities, either
24 there are HVO units and Muslim units prior to April 1992; you then should
25 ask the witness who knows Stolac and the wider area whether he was aware
1 of the units. He will say yes or no, and depending on his answer you can
3 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour. I was asking the question
4 based on the testimony of the witness, and if I can refer to the
5 transcript of Monday, the provisional numbering is page 17 and it's at
6 line 10, 9 to 10
7 "The HVO units simply melted from the field ..."
8 Those were the words of the witness, Your Honour. But,
9 Your Honour, I have actually finished with this point so I'll move on to
10 a new topic.
11 Q. Now, sir, let's go back to the infamous document that you've had
12 a look at previously, P 00312, the report of 12 July 1992 --
13 MR. KARNAVAS: I object to the word "infamous." Why is it so
14 infamous? I mean -- a notorious context to it. There's nothing
15 nefarious about it.
16 MR. KRUGER: I withdraw that. It's a bad choice of words,
17 Your Honour.
18 Q. It was referring to -- it comes up a lot in these proceedings
19 today and Monday. Sir, if you look it should be the first document in
20 the Defence binder but it's also the first document in the Prosecution
21 binder, P 00312. You have it?
22 A. Yes, I have it.
23 Q. Now, my first question is that if we look at who's attending this
24 meeting from the BiH side there are ministers, ministers of the BiH, and
25 then you were there, a deputy minister. So this was an official BiH
1 delegation; is that correct?
2 A. In part, that's certainly correct.
3 Q. Okay. Why do you say "in part"?
4 A. At the same time, the people in this delegation were also members
5 of the Presidency and the party of the HDZ, or rather, the HDZ party
6 Presidency, apart from me -- except for me, that is.
7 Q. Okay. And you, who did you represent at that meeting then?
8 A. I was part of the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, while the
9 others were both that and members of the Presidency of the HDZ in
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Professor Brkic at the time was the president of the
11 HDZ. Mate Boban was a member of the Presidency. Iko Stanic was a member
12 of the Presidency. I don't know whether there were any other members of
13 the Presidency there.
14 Q. If we look on the first page it says - and this is in the -- it
15 says: "From the official trip to Zagreb ..." et cetera?
16 And then the next paragraph: "Together with Mr. Brkic,
17 Krsticevic ..." et cetera.
18 And then it says: "... upon the instruction of the BH prime
19 minister ..."
20 Who was that, was that Mr. Izetbegovic? Do you have that, sir?
21 A. I don't see it.
22 Q. It's on the very first page of the document.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honours, just for my learned friend's
24 edification, Mr. Izetbegovic was never the prime minister as far as I
25 understand. Mr. Jure Pelivan was the prime minister at the time.
1 Izetbegovic was the president of the Presidency. There is a big
2 distinction between the two.
3 MR. KRUGER: Thank you.
4 Q. Do you have that, sir? It's on the first page, and I think it's
5 the second paragraph which starts with: "Skupa sa gosp. Brkic ..."
6 "Together with Mr. Brkic ..."
7 A. Yes, yes, I see it now, that's the second paragraph in fact.
8 Q. Okay. And the BH minister, is that then -- or prime minister, is
9 that then Mr. Jure Pelivan at that stage?
10 A. Yes, yes, Jure Pelivan was the prime minister.
11 Q. And what was your mandate? What -- did you receive a mandate
12 from him for this meeting?
13 A. No. Nobody was given a mandate. It was just a discussion, it
14 was just talks, exchanging information, providing information about what
15 was happening on the ground. If you look at the rest of the transcript
16 you'll see that it's quite clear. Whoever transcribed this left out some
17 things which they considered unimportant, but without those parts you can
18 misunderstand the text and misinterpret it. In order to interpret it
19 correctly, you really need to have the whole because sometimes replies
20 put forward by certain participants refer to those missing parts of the
21 text and they reveal the emotional background, the real reasons why some
22 people did not agree to something. Very often these are very personal
24 MR. KARNAVAS: I hate to interrupt again. I'm told that there
25 was a mistranslation. The question was rightly put whether -- as I
1 understood it, whether the gentleman received a mandate from
2 Jure Pelivan, that was I believe the intention of my learned friend. It
3 was translated whether he received a mandate, that is, at the meeting,
4 hence the answer, which may give the appearance that he's being less than
5 truthful or evasive.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, let us avoid
7 wasting time and let us avoid objections. It looks as though the answer
8 you were seeking was given by Mr. Brkic on page 2 in the English version.
9 He thanked Mr. Tudjman for making the meeting possible and for inviting
10 them, so apparently he was invited or they were invited by Mr. Tudjman.
11 That's what Mr. Brkic said.
12 MR. KRUGER:
13 Q. That's indeed in the text. Is it correct that your delegation
14 was invited by President Tudjman to this meeting? And it would be the
15 first place where Mr. Brkic speaks in your text, first line.
16 A. It is in the text, but I'm not sure who organized the meeting.
17 In any case, a sentence like this is a significant piece of protocol. It
18 shows respect for your guests. If you have been invited, then you are of
19 great consequence; if you are the one who asked to be received, it's
20 different. So this has to do with diplomatic relations, with protocol,
21 and I think there's this semantic segment in the sentence -- but
22 actually, I don't know, I'm not aware. It would be Milenko Brkic and
23 Jure Pelivan who could answer your question precisely. I was just there
24 and everyone had been given this document except me, as you can see,
25 because I was not a party member.
1 Q. Okay. Now, sir, let's explore whether this was only an exchange
2 indeed of information. Mr. Brkic - and this is still on page 2 where he
3 speaks - do you recall that he asked President Tudjman about what is
4 the -- what is Herceg-Bosna, what is the HVO, what is the scope of the
5 authority of the HVO? Can you recall that he asked such questions there?
6 A. Yes, yes, I recall all of that.
7 Q. Okay. Now, why would he be asking these questions of
8 President Tudjman?
9 A. Although Greek Heraclitus said that -- anyway, I have to guess
10 here, I have to speculate. The main dialogue was not conducted with
11 Tudjman. The main dialogue was between Brkic and Boban. Brkic spoke
12 first because he was the party chief. Boban was the HVO president. So
13 there was certain relations and certain disagreement among the two of
14 them. Mr. Brkic's questions were rhetorical. He was setting forth his
15 position at that point, trying to say something about his position as the
16 top man who was perhaps not at that point feeling that he was the top man
17 because of certain objections which can be gleaned from the text and from
18 the discourse of Boban who begins in anger saying: "If I had known such
19 things would be said, I wouldn't have come ..."
20 So you can see that this is, in fact, a dialogue between the two
21 of them.
22 Q. Okay. So do you think that Mr. Brkic was therefore expecting
23 answers to these questions to come from this meeting?
24 MR. KARNAVAS: It calls for speculation, Your Honour. Surely --
25 I mean how is he to divine what the gentleman wanted? Surely if I was
1 posing the question, I would be getting objections left and right and
2 perhaps from the Bench as well.
3 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, with respect, the witness was --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, do stick to facts,
5 to certainties. If you ask him to interpret Mr. Brkic's position, he did
6 say that between Brkic and Boban there was no total agreement, they did
7 not see eye to eye. So it seems that he therefore knows Mr. Brkic and
8 knows Mr. Boban very well too, I don't know. But try to move on solid
9 ground; otherwise, you're going to have objections from Mr. Karnavas,
10 it's going to be time wasted. Go straight -- cut to the quick.
11 MR. KRUGER:
12 Q. So, sir, let's cut to the quick then and turn to page 8, and it's
13 page 8 in both the English and the B/C/S version, so your version is also
14 page 8. Do you have page 8?
15 A. Could you please tell me who is speaking? I do have page 8.
16 Q. Now, if you can look at where Mr. T. Krsticevic speaks and he
17 says: "I would like to know whether BH has been order - the dinar as the
18 official BH currency - and what our attitude should be. I'd like an
19 answer on that."
20 Here we have a concrete demand for an answer. Isn't it so, sir,
21 that this meeting was actually there to provide answers for various
23 A. So, as you can see, Mr. Krsticevic, who was the minister of
24 communications and transport in the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina was
25 tasked by the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina to do certain things by
1 Mr. Jure Pelivan who was the prime minister. One of those tasks was to
2 print money to be the legal tender in Bosnia-Herzegovina or in Sarajevo
3 That money was printed and later transported and brought there, but as
4 Mr. Krsticevic as an expert in monetary matters and cognizant of the
5 situation at the time because at the time the Yugoslav dinar was still in
6 circulation there were still huge losses created then with Yugoslav
7 dinar, I don't know much about that. But I know what my father lost then
8 in banks -- banks went down, everything went down. It's far away from
9 the situation in Wall Street today. It was a complete collapse. And at
10 the time when money is not worth anything, where there is no backing for
11 the money, then it is only logical that a person like Krsticevic would
12 ask the question, What should we do? He most probably asked that of
13 other colleagues with whom he had occasion to discuss. He sought every
14 opportunity to hear relevant people telling me and discussing these
15 matters and I'm sure he related that to Mr. Jure Pelivan and the others
16 he met subsequently.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll adjourn now and have a
18 break. So far you've used an hour and a 25 minutes more or less. So we
19 will resume in 20 minutes.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court's back in session.
24 I believe Mr. Scott would like to take the floor.
25 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. Good morning to you,
1 Mr. President, to all of the Judges, good morning. Sorry to be behind
2 the pole. My apologies to, in particular Judge Prandler.
3 Your Honour, I apologise for interrupting the flow of the
4 witness. I know we have a witness on the stand, but I think it's
5 absolutely essential that I raise something procedural so that we can
6 hopefully schedule it and allow time to resolve it or to address it at
7 the -- before the end of today's session because I know the Chamber said
8 we would end at 1.20 today, if I'm not mistaken, instead of 1.45.
9 Your Honour, I'm going to say the next couple of things
10 generically. I'm not going to mention the witness's name because we're
11 in public session. I don't think that's an issue at this moment, but the
12 Prosecution has filed this morning a motion concerning next week's
13 witness. Again, I will not mention the witness by name. That will be
14 distributed by -- that's been filed as a courtesy to the Judges, to you
15 and to the courtroom and to counsel, that will be distributed so that we
16 can take it up, hopefully, later today.
17 The nature of the motion and the relief requested by the
18 Prosecution, Your Honour, concerning next week's witness is that once
19 again the Prosecution finds it has been provided an inadequate summary,
20 inadequate information concerning the witness. This has been a
21 continuing problem. The Prosecution seeks to have the witness stricken,
22 to strike the witness from the witness list, to preclude the witness from
23 testifying, or in the alternative, the Prosecution finally receive a
24 meaningful summary of what this witness's actual evidence will be. Now,
25 I raise it today because presumably depending on the Chamber's ruling we
1 can hopefully or possibly, let me say possibly, prevent the witness from
2 travelling unnecessarily if the Chamber rules today, so he doesn't have
3 to get on a plane and come from Bosnia
4 I would like to reserve enough time toward the end of the day prior to
5 1.20 so this can be addressed on its merits. Thank you.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Just very briefly, Mr. President, just so that
7 we're clear. I received a letter from the Prosecution, I responded, I
8 indicated to them also that I would -- they wanted some specific
9 information. I indicated that I would get back to them. I contacted the
10 witness and got some additional information and provided that information
11 to the Prosecution. So this is the first I hear subsequent to that that
12 they wanted additional information. But again, once I got their request
13 at the first available moment I responded. I then made contact with the
14 witness through our investigator to get more specific information and
15 provided that to the Prosecution based on the questions that they were
16 raising. So we did act in good faith. Now, if they wanted some
17 additional information, I don't know what it is, I'm sure I'll find out
18 in reading their pleading, but in any event we did try to act accordingly
19 and based on what was being requested of us. If it was insufficient,
20 then we'll -- I guess we'll have to argue that.
21 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Mr. President. All that's addressed in
22 the motion. My understanding was we would not address the merits at this
23 time to argue our cases. To respond ever so briefly to Mr. Karnavas
24 since he has jumped ahead to the merits, Your Honour, the Prosecution has
25 repeatedly -- this has been a recurring problem. This is not new to
1 Mr. Karnavas or anyone in the courtroom. This has been a recurring
2 problem with the witnesses that have been presented. We've asked
3 repeatedly. We did indeed send a letter. We made a number of inquiries.
4 You know, you can only ask so many times. We get to the time now that
5 it's only a few days before the witness is scheduled to appear and we
6 have still not received the information required by the Rules and I do
7 ask the Chamber to allow time for us to address this.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, I have your memo
9 here sent on September 19, 2008, to Prosecution, and in this memo you
10 give additional information but that's quite -- there's not much. You
11 are reminding things that you already said in the summary, there's not
12 much new and additional information which is why we have this request.
13 Could you do something by the end of the week? Could you provide the
14 Prosecution by the end of the week with a better resume, a longer resume,
15 a longer summary?
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, if you look at the letter dated
17 September 9, they pose three or -- three particular questions. I had
18 been approached by Mr. Stringer a couple of times and I had told him a
19 couple of times that the gentleman -- because they wanted to know what
20 his status was in the HVO, we told them that he was a simple soldier, did
21 not hold a particular position once he joined the HVO. So you will see
22 on 18 September 2008 I sent a brief note because they wanted
23 verification. I also informed them at that time that I would make
24 contact with the witness in order to get more specific information based
25 on the three questions that they asked. Based on the questions asked, we
1 received additional information to which then I forwarded almost the next
2 day, 19 September, where I provided the detailed information. I don't --
3 I seriously do not know what it is that the Prosecution wants, and I
4 frankly find it really troublesome that we have high-paying [sic]
5 prosecutors, highly experienced, that are claiming that they are
6 incapable of knowing how to cross-examine a simple witness such as this
7 one based on the information and keeping in mind that they've had ten
8 years to investigate this case. I really have a hard time understanding
9 that. They prosecuted this entire case in that region, they would have
10 known of this individual, they could have done their background
11 information. They want me to do their work. I'm sorry; I will not.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, let's not waste
13 any time. The important thing is the witness we have at the moment. I
14 see that you have asked four hours for this witness. I believe that in
15 that four -- in those four hours you will present them a lot of
16 documents. You probably have a work-plan, you know, as you usually have
17 and this is what the Prosecutor would like to have, would like to know
18 what points you're going to address with this witness. Of course I
19 understand that you're quite reluctant to provide this information but it
20 would be simpler.
21 Mr. Scott.
22 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, again, I don't want to truncate my
23 arguments to the Prosecution's prejudice. What I've asked several times
24 is, with great respect to the Chamber and to the witness, that we set
25 this over until the end of today's session, allow enough time; but every
1 time Mr. Karnavas gets on his feet, he argues his case. Now, as Judge
2 Trechsel observed several weeks ago, we've seen again this morning what
3 Mr. Karnavas so often does. When question arises or something comes up,
4 he immediately attacks and criticizes the other side. This issue has
5 nothing, has nothing to do with the experience of Prosecution counsel or
6 our ability or what we do, our ability to do our jobs. The Rules require
7 the Defence to provide this information, not for the Prosecution or the
8 Chamber to guess as to what the witness's testimony might be.
9 So I don't -- I'm tired of these attacks. I'm tired of all these
10 attacks. When it's Mr. Karnavas, with great respect, that does not
11 fulfill his obligations under the law. It has nothing to do with
12 Prosecution counsel. Again, Your Honour -- I see another counsel on
13 their feet. Can we set this off until some time, approximately 1.00, so
14 we can address it at the end of the day and not keep the witness out of
15 the courtroom any longer or are we going to argue it now? I'm happy to
16 argue it now, but let's do it one way or the other.
17 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, of course I am counsel with the same
18 rights of audience as my learned friend Mr. Scott. The only reason I was
19 rising to my feet was to state that there's no need, I think, for
20 temperature to rise in this courtroom. There is a written motion that's
21 before you and I certainly would support my learned friend Mr. Scott that
22 perhaps this matter can be put back and it can be argued at the end of
23 the day. I rose in a spirit of cooperation. It wasn't a matter that
24 should have got beneath the skin of my learned friend, and I'm sorry if
25 it did.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
2 This is what we'll do. We will finish this cross-examination. I
3 believe we only have about an hour left or so, Mr. Kruger has about an
4 hour left, not more. And then we'll deal with this problem at the end of
5 the session.
6 Mr. Stewart, you will have the floor first.
7 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I simply wanted to say that by
8 supporting what Mr. Khan's just said, we all have at least the right to
9 intervene on any of these matters and to know what's going on. So any
10 relevant material for this particular discussion which is going to take
11 place must be made available to all concerned in at least enough time for
12 us to be able to look at it. So it may be that it's all going around
13 right now, but as a matter of principle that's important.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's bring the
15 witness into the courtroom, and we will deal with the matter later on
16 after we are finished with this testimony.
17 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, there should have been a copy provided
18 to each of the Judges and also to counsel. If it hasn't been distributed
19 yet, my apologies. My instructions -- my request had been -- and I
20 realise everyone's busy --
21 MR. STEWART: I think it has, as it happens, so I think we're all
22 on the same hymn sheet on this issue.
23 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, the microphone is on.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Khan.
3 Witness, the cross-examination will continue.
4 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Mr. President, just to briefly return to the map that was
6 previously shown, I have just ascertained that it is already in evidence
7 as P 09536 and it's page 62 of that exhibit.
8 Q. Sir, just before the break we were looking at what Mr. Krsticevic
9 had said. He asked about -- what about the currency, the BH money. I'd
10 like an answer to that. But it's correct, isn't it, that at that very
11 meeting President Tudjman actually expressed his opinion on that money,
12 and I refer you to page 6 of the transcript. President Tudjman says on
13 page 6 and I'll just read it to you:
14 "As far as money is concerned in BH as long as the dinar is not
15 accepted in the entire region you too should not accept it and I have
16 personal and historical experience in this regard."
17 So President Tudjman, he expressed his view, didn't he?
18 A. I'm trying to find that passage. You claim that it was on a
19 preceding page?
20 Q. On page 6 and it's about a third from the top. It starts with
21 [B/C/S spoken], sorry for my pronunciation. Sir, the page numbering is
22 in the middle below the text and there should be a number 6.
23 MR. KRUGER: If I could request the usher to perhaps assist the
24 witness, please.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I found it.
1 MR. KRUGER:
2 Q. So it's correct that President Tudjman did give his opinion and
3 view that the BH dinar should not be accepted?
4 A. "As for the currency in BH, until dinar is not widely accepted in
5 the whole territory you do not have to accept it either and I do have
6 personal historical experience of that."
7 Well, I can see that this is written here. I cannot recall every
8 statement made there. Yes, what was your question, please?
9 Q. So President Tudjman did express his view on it, isn't it?
10 A. Yes, his opinion.
11 Q. And --
12 A. But he did not say, Do not accept the money. Because in your
13 first question you said that he advised that the currency should not be
14 accepted, but this sentence reads: "Until all the others in
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina accept, you should not ..."
16 At that time it was -- it shouldn't -- this money should not be
18 Q. But, sir, he's telling this to the ministers of another state
19 whose currency that is; is that not correct?
20 A. This is a currency, as far as I knew, was a replacement for
21 dinar. It was a currency of sorts --
22 Q. But, sir, if I can interrupt you. The people at that meeting
23 included ministers of another state, not the Republic of Croatia
24 he's telling those ministers of BiH to not accept the currency of BiH
25 provisionally until the certain things occur. Is that correct?
1 A. He expresses his opinion that this currency should not be
2 accepted under those circumstances because he has some historical
3 experience that it wouldn't be advisable to accept it under such
4 circumstances. He expresses and relates his experience. He's not
5 ordering anybody. He's expressing his opinion. He's not saying you
6 shouldn't or you mustn't. He's saying, There's no need for you to do so.
7 Q. Sir, just above that piece he also says: "The system of
8 authority being created by Kljuic and Doko is not for us. For us, the
9 core of authority must lie in the HDZ."
10 Do you see that?
11 A. Just a moment, please. Yes, I can see that.
12 Q. Okay. And he's saying this to a meeting of largely HDZ members?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now let's turn to page -- let me just find this. This page does
15 not have a number, but if you look in the top right-hand corner of the
16 documents you will see a number 0420 and then 1248. So look in the top
17 right-hand corner for page 1248, and that's the page where the
18 conclusions start or are contained. Do you have that?
19 A. Conclusions, yes.
20 Q. Now, in the paragraph above the conclusions, Mr. Manolic speaks.
21 Do you have that?
22 A. Yes, I can see that.
23 Q. Right. And then Mr. Manolic expresses the following and he
24 says -- and that's about the second sentence in: "The party of HDZ is
25 above HVO and civilian administration. Whenever the government has been
1 ruined temporarily, bodies can be established, legally elected
2 authorities must not be touched."
3 Now, he says the party of HDZ is above the HVO. So that's in
4 actual fact how he put it, the HDZ set the policy; is that correct?
5 A. Yes. It seems to me that it was so.
6 Q. Now, let's have a look --
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I'm going to object or I'm going to
8 ask for clarification. Is he asking to validate what Manolic is saying
9 or is he asking what he actually knows? There is a distinction. We can
10 all read the transcript. So which is -- which of it is it?
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, what were you asking?
12 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, if I can move on it will become
13 clear --
14 MR. KARNAVAS: No, I don't want to move on. I raised an
15 objection. I won, now let's go back to the question.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, are you asking for
17 the witness to validate what Mr. Manolic said or are you asking him what
18 he infers from it?
19 MR. KRUGER:
20 Q. Sir, you were at this meeting. Was that your understanding, that
21 this is actually what the situation was, the HDZ sets policy and the HVO
23 A. Allow me to say something else before I specifically answer your
24 question. I really thought that you asked me whether it is true that
25 Manolic said that. I don't know and can't recall what he said, but it's
1 written here. You also said a minute ago that this went for
2 representatives of another country. It is true, but it's also true that
3 they are members of the HDZ. I had an opportunity to start discussing
4 this way of expressing - when we say "we," it means an expression,
5 opinion, within the political party, the HDZ - and the question that you
6 asked about money that should not be accepted, that was a suggestion to
7 fellow party members. Two levels are being mixed here.
8 I, as a witness, and probably other witnesses as well, have
9 problems with the statements because we're not used to legal
10 codifications where there are no rhetorical figures, no metaphors.
11 Things are transformed into terms, expressions, and these are traps for
12 witnesses, pitfalls for them. So please do not force me into a pitfall.
13 This is not a usual situation for me. I'm really trying to answer all
14 your questions with full sincerity and to the best of my knowledge. In
15 this case I do not know what Mr. Manolic thought. I wasn't a party
16 member so that I could learn that. He did say that on that occasion. It
17 seems to me that discussions were held at the level of the political
18 party first and foremost.
19 Q. Now, sir, if -- let's look at the conclusions which will perhaps
20 make this even clearer. The conclusions, 1, do you have point 1?
21 "Role of HDZ in newly emerged circumstances."
22 Do you have that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And the third bullet point says:
25 "In the newly emerged circumstances decisions of the party
1 Presidency also have the value of decisions of Assembly and are binding
2 for all party organs, party representatives in all governing bodies and
3 all members."
4 So --
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. -- does this -- is it true that what is being said here is that
7 the HDZ leadership, which is with President Tudjman at the top, they set
8 the policy for everything which falls under this party of HDZ?
9 A. I think that this passage, conclusions, that it was made when
10 Mr. Brkic, Mr. Boban, and whoever was from Zagreb with them sat down and
11 drafted them. I never heard about those conclusions. Maybe they were
12 produced as a resume or a summary of the entire discussion. Now I can
13 see that the first paragraph discusses the operations of the party, which
14 confirms the position that I seem to remember that this went for party
15 discussions and not something else. The newly emerged circumstances call
16 for more intensive work of the party, just like in the SDS or SDA and
17 wider area, not just in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
18 Q. Sir, if you look -- if you look at the second set of conclusions,
19 and let's look at the second bullet point there.
20 "HDZ representatives in the War Presidency of BiH must represent
21 interests of the Croatian nation, in agreement amongst themselves and
22 with the party Presidency."
23 So, sir, is it not correct that the ministers who attended this
24 meeting with you, and you yourself, weren't you all subject to the input
25 and guidance of the HDZ leadership in Zagreb?
1 A. No. No. This does not refer to what may be felt you are hinting
2 at in your question. The key thing in this text is some misunderstanding
3 and disagreements between HDZ members out on the ground. For instance,
4 one of the participants was a member of parliament, Mr. Iko Stanic, a
5 jurist. And if you were to take a look at his statements, he was not
6 just depressed, he was embittered because the area which was his
7 constituency was under Serb occupation. He felt very unhappy. He did
8 not have his constituency.
9 What was dealt with there was matters and issues of people who
10 were elected into central government but are no longer in their
11 constituency and discussing the situation on the ground on the
12 battle-field. It's more of inter-personal relationships between members
13 of the party, and if I can recall the atmosphere in which the discussion
14 was held and the issues which were discussed there and elsewhere focused
15 on calming down the atmosphere. People who used to be in Sarajevo
16 were -- no longer have their own place. They were grown to be respected
17 but they are not there. Their family members were dispersed elsewhere,
18 maybe killed, et cetera. So in such circumstances you cannot expect very
19 exact statements. These are statements which are subjective for the most
20 part and no objective conclusions could be drawn from them.
21 Q. Sir, let's, before stepping off the document, just look below
22 point 3 of the last item of the conclusions, there is "deliver to." And
23 it says:
24 "Municipal and republican organs of HDZ of BiH.
25 "Central HDZ.
1 "BiH republican governing bodies.
3 Sir, I put it to you, if we look at the nature of this document
4 containing, first of all, the discussion and then the conclusions reached
5 by very senior HDZ leadership figures, if we can put it like that, the
6 whole purpose of this meeting was to give guidance to the HDZ in both
8 A. I wouldn't say so. This was an exchange of opinion, and as I
9 stated already I cannot recall that the conclusions were read out -- or
10 maybe I cannot recall or maybe they were not. Maybe they were attached
11 to this document subsequently. At any rate, it is only logical for a
12 meeting of that nature that was useful to calm down the internal
13 situation to spawn some conclusions. It could never happen that somebody
14 would go to Zagreb
15 impossible to conceive that a person such as Brkic would do so. If you
16 are in dire straits you will discuss matters with whomever you can get
17 hold of, and I don't notice in this text any those of authoritativeness,
18 reflecting a feeling that the people who were invited and came knew
19 nothing and should be told. I can't see any passage reflecting that
20 sentiment in this document. This is a discussion, it's not an everyday
21 or run-of-the-mill discussion.
22 Q. May I interrupt you and just one last item on this. I put it to
23 you that you were at that meeting because you were also a senior
24 Bosnian Croat leadership figure whose input would be valued at such a
25 meeting. Isn't that correct?
1 A. Well, that's very nice, but no, I wasn't.
2 Q. Now, let's move on. Have you or were you aware of allegations
3 during 1992 or 1993, even subsequent perhaps, that Croats or Muslims are
4 actually Croats of Muslim faith?
5 A. That sort of allegation is something I did not hear at that time.
6 I had heard about it in a previous period of time.
7 Q. Which previous period of time? What previous period?
8 A. At the period of political romanticism, the late 19th and early
9 20th century. Maybe it persisted later on, but mostly it was in that
10 period. After the constitution of 1974, even the most politically
11 uneducated could see quite clearly that the Muslims had been given their
12 place in the constitution and that this was an expression of their wishes
13 and the proper assessment of the then-political leadership of Yugoslavia
14 Up to that time --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Witness.
16 Mr. Coric is up.
17 What's the problem?
18 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] I only wish to have this term
19 clarified. I think it was used by the Prosecutor, that people were
20 accused of being Croats. I as a Croat feel badly about this. The
21 Prosecutor used the term "accusation" which was repeated by the witness.
22 I wish to have this clarified. "Accusation" is what I heard in Croatian.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, maybe a translation
24 problem. Could you please shed some light on this.
25 MR. KRUGER: Indeed, Mr. President.
1 The question that I asked did indeed not use "accusation," but it
2 was -- I cannot remember, I think I said it was alleged, the allegation,
3 that people were called so.
4 Q. Sir --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 MR. KRUGER: I wonder if we may move into private session for a
7 few moments.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 Mr. Registrar.
10 [Private session]
11 Pages 32890-32891 redacted. Private session.
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
1 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. Sir, did you become part of such a form of social or community
3 work in Stolac comprising of Muslims and Croats in July or June 1992?
4 A. Yes, there was a body of that kind for social or community work,
6 Q. Is it correct that this is the body which was set up at a meeting
7 on 1 June 1992
8 A. I don't know that. I'm not aware of that. I don't know when it
9 was set up, if it was set up or whether it just emerged spontaneously. I
10 really don't know.
11 Q. Did you know who Colonel Beneta was?
12 A. I think he was one of the commanders of the 116th Brigade.
13 Q. Was that a Croatian army unit -- a Republic of Croatian
14 or an HVO unit at that time?
15 A. At the time when young men from Stolac were being collected for
16 the army to return to Stolac, official representatives of the Stolac
17 authorities, the president of the municipality and others, spoke to the
18 commanders of the southern battle-field to have these units joined to the
19 116th Brigade for purposes of logistics and salaries, wages, because they
20 didn't have any possibility either of visiting their families when they
21 were on leave --
22 Q. Sorry to interrupt you, but the question is quite simply: At
23 that stage, was the 116th Metkovic Brigade a unit of the Croatian --
24 Republic of Croatia
25 A. It was HV, the Croatian army.
1 Q. Okay. Now, sir, there has been testimony about a witness who
2 attended the founding of this form of social or community work which you
3 refer to, and this witness stated that the meeting was in Aladinici where
4 this was set up and that Colonel Beneta chaired the meeting. Is it
5 possible that that could have happened?
6 A. I can't answer that because I don't remember. I can't recall.
7 Q. Is it correct that this organization -- we'll perhaps define it a
8 bit closer in a few moments, but that the chair of this organization was
9 Mr. Zeljko Raguz?
10 A. Zeljko Raguz, yes. After the elections, he was the mayor, that
11 is, the president of the municipality; and at that time he was the person
12 who was, in a manner of speaking, a representative. And could you please
13 give me the name of that?
14 Q. I'll come to the name in a moment and it will become clear why I
15 refrain from it at this stage. I just want to put it in context first.
16 A. All right.
17 Q. The coordinators, is it correct, or you could perhaps say the
18 vice chairs then, is it correct that they were Messrs. Esad Suta and
19 Mr. Niko Kuzman?
20 A. I know those persons, but whether they were coordinators, I can't
21 say. I know them and they were there at the time. What I do know is
22 that Fahrudin Rizvanbegovic, a friend and a colleague of mine, worked
23 with me. But whether they were presidents of sections or something, I
24 really don't know.
25 Q. Sir, this organization, is it correct that that handled the
1 civilian aspects of life in Stolac organizing the more civilian aspects,
2 humanitarian aid, et cetera?
3 A. More or less, yes.
4 Q. And the military matters, was that handled by the Stolac forward
5 command post or IZM?
6 A. I really can't answer that. I don't know that.
7 Q. Now, this Court has heard testimony that this organization that
8 we're actually referring to was called the Crisis Staff for Stolac or the
9 joint SDA/HVO Crisis Staff of Stolac; is that correct?
10 A. It's possible. This expression, Crisis Staff, is familiar to me,
11 the names are familiar to me, but I can't say with precision whether that
12 was the name of the body.
13 Q. But you were a member of this body, weren't you?
14 A. I was engaged in that work.
15 Q. Okay. Until when did you remain engaged in that work?
16 A. It was that summer, I think, until the autumn, the autumn of
17 1992. The reason I'm speaking like this is the following. I'm not
18 trying to avoid your question; I'm only telling you what I know. There
19 were no fixed office hours. There was no obligation to be in a
20 particular place. If someone did not turn up, no question was raised, he
21 was not responsible to anybody. People had a place to sleep, they were
22 able to get lunch somewhere, and they were able to do something useful.
23 Q. Sir, is it correct that, relatively speaking, the relationships
24 or the relationship between the Muslim and the Croat inhabitants of
25 Stolac at that stage was reasonable?
1 A. I don't know what you mean by "reasonable." The relationships --
2 Q. If I can perhaps make it a little bit more specific it may help.
3 Let's take this Crisis Staff, this joint Crisis Staff. The cooperation
4 within that Crisis Staff initially was good between the two sides,
5 participating sides?
6 A. One could say that.
7 Q. Isn't it so --
8 A. One could say it was tolerant, there was tolerance.
9 Q. And is it also fair to say that in light of this, care was also
10 taken to ensure that in the management there was a fair representation, a
11 50/50 representation, of the two sides?
12 A. I don't remember a decision to that effect, but it was
13 approximately like that. I can't be very precise. My recollection of
14 events at that time are not precise, they're rather vague.
15 Q. Sir, do you recall whether the banking of the Crisis Staff was
16 done through the bank in Metkovic in Croatia? Do you know about that?
17 A. I told you a short while ago that the HVO was for logistical
18 purposes and for payment of salaries attached to the 116th Brigade. That
19 was the only way people could get some money, and that was the
20 fundamental motive for this attachment --
21 Q. But, sir --
22 A. -- and that was the only possibility of them returning to Stolac
23 with some sort of logistics but the army --
24 Q. Sorry, if I may interrupt. I simply want to know: Did you know
25 whether the banking of the Crisis Staff was done through the bank in
1 Metkovic in Croatia
2 A. I know that the army received its salaries in a way through the
3 116th, but where they actually took the money I don't know. It's quite
4 possible. My father used to go to Metkovic to use the bank to withdraw
5 money because there was no functioning bank in Stolac or Capljina.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. So it's possible, but I don't know.
8 Q. Okay. So, sir, you also do not know whether or who had to
9 sign --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, so we better
11 understand, could you tell us what is the distance in kilometres between
12 Metkovic and Stolac?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's about 45 kilometres more or
14 less, 45 kilometres by road.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. So Mr. Zeljko Raguz, it's correct that he was replaced after a
18 while by Mr. Andjelko Markovic as president of the Crisis Staff, this
19 joint Crisis Staff?
20 A. Yes. I don't know when exactly this happened, but Zeljko, or
21 rather, Raguz took up that post at the beginning of the war because
22 Mr. Markovic had had a traffic accident and was handicapped at that
23 time -- and with one or two men who were part of the Stolac HDZ
24 leadership -- I can't say exactly when this was. I can't say when
25 Markovic recovered, when he regained his health.
1 Q. When he returned, how did he take over from Mr. Zeljko Raguz?
2 Did Mr. Raguz just step aside or was there an election? How did it
3 happen, if you know?
4 A. I don't have this information. It was probably an agreement
5 between colleagues, probably, because according to the election results
6 and their previous agreements that had been the position. There was
7 Andjelko Markovic, he was supposed to have that position, and then he
8 simply replaced him but I wasn't especially interested in that so I
9 didn't inquire, I didn't investigate it.
10 Q. Are you aware that the relationship which you had said was
11 tenable, I can't remember the exact word you used, between the two
12 groups, but that the relationship between the Muslims and the Croats on
13 the Crisis Staff deteriorated when Mr. Markovic took over again as
14 president; is that correct?
15 A. I don't know that, but I can explain what I said as follows. The
16 tolerant cooperation, which was sometimes very good, to the best of my
17 recollection was founded on a fact. On the 15th of August, 1992, there
18 was a major attack by Serb forces on the entire stretch from Mostar to
19 the south and it focused on the Stolac area. And then in the joint
20 defence of the Muslims and Croats, the Serb forces were repulsed. This
21 was excellent cooperation which showed that that's how it should have
22 been before. I don't know when exactly power was taken over, I don't
23 know the date.
24 Q. Sir, are you aware of any document that Mr. Markovic required the
25 SDA members on the Crisis Staff to sign which they refused to sign and
1 then left the Crisis Staff?
2 A. This is the first time I've heard of that. I'm not aware of that
3 and I never saw those documents.
4 Q. Let's move on to a new topic. Now, sir, on Monday during your
5 evidence in chief, I don't recall that you mentioned that you were
6 actually sitting in cabinet meetings of the HZ HB during 1993. Is it
7 correct that you were actually regularly sitting in cabinet meetings?
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Just for a point of clarification, there are no
9 cabinets at that point. There's a big difference between having heads of
10 department and calling it a cabinet. It gives the impression that this
11 is -- you know, we have a prime minister at the time and that the person
12 who is the prime minister is presiding over everybody, being above
13 everybody. So I object to the term "cabinet."
14 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, I will refer to the government,
15 although there are documents in which it has been described as cabinet as
17 Q. But meetings chaired by Mr. Prlic of ministers of the HZ HB
18 government, HVO government?
19 A. At the time I was not head of the subdepartments nor later. I
20 was deputy. I would attend when the head of the subdepartment was
21 absent, maybe three, four or five occasions that I would take part in
22 those sessions, but I did not attend regularly, I could not have, there
23 was no reason for me to do so.
24 Q. Okay. Now, sir, if we can turn to - and this would be in the
25 Prosecution exhibit binder - to Exhibit P 01324, P 01234.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: [Microphone not activated]
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Kruger, first you said 1324 then you said
3 1234. Now you could say 1234 or 4321. Which is it?
4 MR. KRUGER: My apologies, it's not in the chronological order,
5 1324. My apologies.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
7 MR. KRUGER: 1324.
8 Q. Do you have that document, sir?
9 A. 1324, yes.
10 Q. Okay. It's titled: "Minutes of the 22nd Session of the Croatian
11 Defence Council of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna ... 27 January
12 1993;" correct?
13 A. Yes. It says so here.
14 Q. And then we can also read that present are Dr. Prlic, Mr. Zubak,
15 Mr. Stojic, and a few others, but then in the last line, M. Palameta.
16 That would be you; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, I'd like to refer you to item 6 -- well, sorry, before we go
19 to item 6, just an item on page 2. After number 10, "any other business,
20 the agenda," the first discussion that takes place says: "After
21 Mr. B. Stojic, head of the Defence Department, presented his report,
22 support was given ..."
23 Do you see that?
24 A. I found item 6, but --
25 Q. Sorry, if -- let's start again. On the -- in your version it
1 would be on the first page and you see the ten items of the agenda, and
2 immediately after that there's one sentence and then the paragraph
3 starting "then ..."
4 Second sentence: "After Mr. Bruno Stojic, the head of the
5 Defence Department ... presented his report ..."
6 Do you see that? It's on the first page of your document, sir,
7 at the bottom --
8 A. I'm still at item 6.
9 Q. Yes, where your hand is right now.
10 A. Oh, yes.
11 "After report of the head of the Defence Department
12 Mr. Stojic ..." et cetera.
13 Q. Yes. At the meetings you attended, this one and subsequent ones,
14 is it correct that Mr. Stojic did from time to time, or perhaps at all of
15 them, give reports on military developments in the HZ HB?
16 A. I recall only once this happening when I attended, only once to
17 the best of my recollection.
18 Q. Well, let's turn to item 6 which you --
19 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your indulgence,
20 referring to the question of my learned colleague in Croatian what
21 follows from this sentence I would like you to read it out.
22 "After Mr. B. Stojic, the head of the Defence Department of the
23 HVO of the HZ HB presented his report, support was given for all measures
24 and activities that had been taken by the Defence Department of the HVO
25 of the HZ HB on the protection -- to protect the people under threat and
1 to defuse the conflicts with BH Army units."
2 You have to be very imaginative to present this as a report on
3 security or military situation. It is clearly that this goes for
4 measures to protect the people under threat and to defuse the conflict
5 with the BH Army unit.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger.
7 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour. I won't belabour the point.
8 We'll return to it in the context of a different document perhaps.
9 Q. Sir, let's turn to item 6, it's on page 5 of the English and you
10 have already found it. And this is the subdepartment of education,
11 culture, and sport of the HVO of the HZ HB, that's your department, isn't
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. And what this is about is the submission of the draft
15 decision to establish the football association of the Croatian Community
16 of Herceg-Bosna.
17 "The proposed decision was unanimously adopted with the
18 proviso ..." et cetera. So it's clear from this that the decision was
19 adopted, but can I refer you to the very last sentence of that item.
20 "This decision will not be published in the Official Gazette of
21 the HZ HB."
22 So, sir, is it correct that decisions adopted by the government
23 didn't require to be published necessarily in order to be valid; is that
25 A. I wouldn't draw such an inference from this. I don't recall the
1 reason for this not being published, but it seems to me that practice was
2 such. I can't tell you without the text. If I had the text of the
3 decision in front of me, if I were to see it --
4 Q. Okay, sir, if we can move on. Thank you. We needn't belabour
5 that further. If -- let's turn to document P --
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this may be minor as a
7 question on the agenda, but this had to do with the creation of -- of a
8 football association for Herceg-Bosna. Was there a reason why it should
9 not be published in the Official Gazette of the HZ HB?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't see any reason for this not
11 being published or preventing this from being published. I cannot see a
12 reason. I can't recall that, I must admit. I can't recall why this was
13 not published. I'm very sorry, but --
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Sir, if we can turn to document P 03560. While you're looking
18 for them, they are the minutes of the 46th Session of the HVO HZ HB
19 government held on 19 July 1993
20 have the English version in front of you. The B/C/S version should be
21 just behind that, if you page a few pages further. There.
22 A. Yes, I do have the first page.
23 Q. Once again, Mr. -- or Dr. Prlic chaired the meeting. Mr. Tomic
24 was there, a few others, and then you were there as well, once again
25 M. Palameta, correct, that's you?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, sir, if we can turn to item 7 of the minutes, it's on page 4
3 of the English version. Now, sir, item 7 it says:
4 "After a discussion of the request by the HVO of Capljina
5 municipality to relocate prisoners and a discussion of the status and
6 accommodation conditions of prisoners and persons in isolation, with the
7 aim of improving their accommodation conditions and overcoming the newly
8 arisen situation, unanimous approval was given to adopt the following."
9 First question: The request of the HVO of Capljina, did that
10 come from Mr. Pero Markovic?
11 A. I haven't the faintest idea. I don't know about that request
12 from the municipality of Capljina
13 saw this text, I cannot answer your question.
14 Q. Okay. Under the conclusions, item 1: "Secure accommodation" --
15 this is now the conclusions unanimously approved.
16 "Secure accommodation conditions, material and medical support
17 for prisoners of war in accordance with the Geneva Conventions ..."
18 Next paragraph:
19 "If the existing accommodation conditions are not
20 satisfactory ..." then it goes on "the Department of Justice and
21 General Administration in coordination with the Defence Department ...
22 shall designate new sites ..."
23 And then: "The Defence Department shall be in charge of the new
25 Sir, at this stage is there concern about the detention camps in
1 the Capljina municipality and this concern was being discussed in this
3 A. I can see it here, but after so many years I cannot tell you -- I
4 can't even remember some decisions which concerned my department and
5 subdepartment because I only attended some of the meetings. I cannot
6 answer your question, I don't know.
7 Q. Sir, at that stage I take it that you knew that the camps being
8 referred to were Dretelj and Gabela?
9 A. These could have been detention centres as you said. I -- well,
10 this term "camp" is a bit uneasy. I heard that there were such
11 facilities in Dretelj, that there were centres to detain prisoners of war
12 or detainees.
13 Q. Okay. Sir, did you know about Dretelj as well at that stage --
14 sorry, Gabela? Did you know about Gabela as well?
15 A. Gabela and Dretelj, yes, I also heard about Gabela and Dretelj.
16 Q. Okay. Just the second point under that conclusion. It says that
17 a working group is appointed and it shall consist of Mr. Zoran Buntic,
18 Mr. Darinko Tadic, and Mr. Berislav Pusic. Do you know why Mr. Pusic was
19 appointed to this?
20 A. Mr. Pusic, I don't know. That name did not accept -- I don't
21 recall that a surname Pusic, maybe Pusic.
22 Q. Okay. Now, if we very briefly look at the next document which is
23 P 03565, this is a decision of the Croatian Council of Herceg-Bosna on
24 its meeting from 18 July and it has reached the following decision. And
25 if we look at what is reflected here, it actually reflects the decisions
1 which were taken at the meeting which were reflected in the minutes we
2 just looked at. Would you agree with that? We see prisoners of war have
3 to be provided with accommodation, point 1.
4 "If the current conditions do not meet those rules, head of
5 judiciary," et cetera, have to take those measures.
6 A working group consisting of Buntic, Tadic, Pusic, et cetera,
7 this is the decision implementing the cabinet -- the government decision;
9 A. Yes, this is how it looks like.
10 Q. And it was signed by Dr. Prlic?
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, again I just want to make sure we
12 understand each other. The gentleman is confirming what we can all see.
13 You know, I think that's what needs to be taken out of this entire
14 testimony. Unless the question is being posed: Does he know for a fact?
15 But he's -- it's as if he's aping what's on the document itself. Yes, I
16 can see it. I don't see the point of this.
17 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, I'll ask a question which is very
18 specific which appears in both of the documents we've just had a look at.
19 Q. In this decision just look at point 7 for a moment. It says:
20 "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Croatia
21 informed concerning the entire problem."
22 Why would the HZ HB government be concerned with informing the
23 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Croatia
24 A. I really don't know.
25 Q. Sir, the last document in this series would also be the -- yes,
1 the next document in the sequence, it's P 03573, P 03573. This is the
2 47th Session of the HVO HZ HB held on 20 July 1993. Present Dr. Prlic
3 chairing the meeting, Mr. Stojic is there, and then you are there,
4 Miroslav Palameta; correct?
5 A. There can be nobody else.
6 Q. Okay. Now, sir, at this meeting this is where the commission
7 appointed -- or the working group appointed on the session of 18 July
8 reported back, and it says item 1:
9 "On the proposal of the defence section unanimous decision
10 concerning" -- sorry, that's the wrong one. It's item 2.
11 Item 2, my apologies:
12 "In accordance with the conclusion of the HVO ... from 20 July
13 1993, the working group comprising of ... Buntic, ... Tadic, ... Pusic,
14 had visited Capljina municipality ..."
15 Do you recall this meeting and that the report of that working
16 group was under discussion at this meeting?
17 A. I don't feel well about it, but I can't recall. It is possible.
18 No, I can't recall. I cannot recall, simply.
19 Q. Now, sir --
20 A. I cannot recall.
21 Q. Sir, the period between the appointment of this working group and
22 the time which they had to render their report was very brief, and in
23 that time they had to visit Capljina and the detention centres in
24 question. This report, was it verbal or written if you can recall?
25 A. I cannot really recall that, otherwise I would have told you
1 about that. I can't recall hearing about that.
2 Q. Sir, about a month later or around about September, there is
3 evidence before the Court, a clip from Croatian television, I don't have
4 it here, but it was reported on Croatian television that in Dretelj
5 people were being held under terrible conditions, 300 men to a hangar,
6 they were dehydrating, there were shots fired into hangars, things like
7 that, very terrible things. And then there were images of emaciated
8 people. Was that the first time you heard of those conditions or did you
9 know about them because of what you had heard in this meeting, this
10 series of meetings we're talking about?
11 A. I did not see that programme.
12 Q. But you knew -- at some stage you knew about the conditions in
13 Dretelj, for instance; is that correct?
14 A. It was only later that I heard from people who were there that
15 the conditions were bad.
16 Q. Are you telling the Court that at this meeting there was no
17 mention of men being detained in terrible conditions which merited
18 measures being taken?
19 A. No. What I'm saying here is that I cannot recall that
21 Q. Sir, let's --
22 A. It would be guess-work otherwise. I cannot recall.
23 Q. Sir, let's look at another --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment before we move on to
25 another document.
1 Witness, I realize that there was a military judge called
2 Zoran Palameta. Is he a parent of yours?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I met him. It's not a relative but
4 bears the same family name as I do. Maybe some distant relative. I met
5 that person some three years ago.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
7 Mr. Kruger, we have to have a break. How much longer do you
9 MR. KRUGER: [Microphone not activated]
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
11 MR. KRUGER: My apologies.
12 How much time have I used, if I'm -- may just find out.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have used two hours and 24
14 minutes. Mr. Karnavas had used two hours and 30 minutes. You have six
15 minutes left, no more.
16 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, if I may impose -- would it be possible
17 to have at least half an hour extra because --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No. Equality of arms prevails,
19 especially so because you dealt with topics that had not at all been
20 tackled during examination-in-chief. So you have six minutes left. You
21 have 20 minutes during the break to prepare for your last questions in
22 six minutes.
23 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's break for 20 minutes.
25 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 12.47 p.m.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, good news for you.
3 The registrar made his calculations again and noted that Mr. Karnavas had
4 used up two hours and 43 minutes. You have used up two hours and 24
5 minutes, so you have 19 minutes left and not six. You've got plenty of
6 time, ample time.
7 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour. That was indeed good news.
8 Q. Sir, in light of that --
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- for whom I guess.
10 MR. KRUGER:
11 Q. Sir, the first thing I would like to touch upon is Exhibit Number
12 10648, 10648, you have it right in front of you open at the correct
14 A. If this is a certificate, then yes, I do.
15 Q. It's a copy of the certificate for Jasna Badzak, daughter of
16 Semsudin and Vesna. Now, this certificate if you see that it's actually
17 the re-issue of a certificate. The date of this certificate is -- on the
18 reverse side it says, "This copy of the certificate on completed form,"
19 but is it correct that this is a re-issue of a certificate to reflect
20 qualifications that Jasna Badzak had obtained in 1987 and 1988?
21 A. I would have to take a closer look.
22 Q. Let's read at the start. It says Jasna Badzak, daughter of
23 Semsudin ... born in the place Mostar -- municipality of Mostar
24 attending during the school year 1987 for the first time the second, and
25 then it goes on, and then it reflects the qualifications. Is it correct
1 these were qualifications obtained in 1987/1988?
2 A. Yes, according to the text here, yes. According to what the text
3 says, that's correct.
4 Q. Sir, in 1987/1988, at that stage Jasna Badzak would have been
5 receiving instruction in the Croatian Serbian or the Serbian Croatian
6 language; correct?
7 A. I assume so. There was no other, yes.
8 Q. Now, on this certificate, or rather, let me put it to you that
9 that being so, it's likely that in her original school certificate the
10 first item would have reflected Croatian Serbian language excellent, 5.
11 Would you agree?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. But this certificate says only Croatian language. Now, my
14 question, sir, Jasna Badzak, if she applies for a job and she puts her CV
15 forward and she attaches this certificate, if the job she's applying for
16 requires proficiency in Cyrillic this certificate is not going to help
17 her, is it?
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honours, perhaps the gentleman wasn't aware
19 of the educational system. I don't think that anybody in the former
21 in fact, you know, it's -- even today, but back then, as I understand it,
22 they were so proficient that when they would read they never made --
23 their brain didn't make the distinction at times. Perhaps my friend
24 should spend some time in Bosnia-Herzegovina and speak to those who lived
25 in -- during that period but my colleagues can --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Maybe the witness could tell us
2 about it.
3 Mrs. Nozica.
4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I might be able to
5 assist because I think there's something missing in the translation. If
6 we look at the original of this certificate which the witness has before
7 him, above the word "duplicate" which is handwritten underneath it says
8 Official Gazette of the HR HB 13 PS --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel read more slowly, please.
10 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] So evidently this is a form which
11 was printed and published in 1994 for the needs of the time so that this
12 certificate as a copy was entered into that form. The witness knows
13 whether these forms were used, but this is something that is missing in
14 the translation but can be seen in the original and I think it's a
15 significant detail.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger.
17 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Witness, my question still stands. For anybody who doesn't know
19 the system in the territories of the former Yugoslavia who looks at this
20 form would not from this form alone be able to see that Jasna Badzak is
21 proficient in Cyrillic, yes or no?
22 A. I don't think that question is relevant in this case, whether she
23 knows one or the other script, because as has already been stated here I
24 know that all students, all libraries in Mostar had and still have books
25 in both Cyrillic and Latin. It's understood that everybody could use
1 both alphabets. It wasn't an issue of the script that was used, but
2 rather the name of the language. When it says here Croatian language,
3 one understands that it's here instead of Serbo-Croatian and that it's in
4 fact the same language, and the script is understood, it's implied --
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Witness -- sorry, Mr. Kruger.
6 Witness, it is not really for you to decide whether you think a
7 question is relevant or not; that is for the Chamber to decide. You just
8 have to answer the questions that are put to you, and I would be grateful
9 if you would follow that. Thank you.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. Please forgive me.
11 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. So, Witness --
13 A. If I may correct my response. A student, or rather, the pupil
14 mentioned here would certainly not have any problems for that reason.
15 This would not affect her job prospects or anything else.
16 Q. In Yugoslavia
17 if she were to apply at the United Nations. Isn't that the point, sir?
18 A. I beg your pardon? I didn't understand what you mean, the UN?
19 Q. Your argument would only apply if she --
20 A. Oh, in the United Nations. Well, quite simply, I don't see that
21 she would be handicapped, I don't see that Jasna Badzak would be
22 handicapped, but she would know that best.
23 Q. Final point on this. You have just told the Court that the
24 languages were essentially the same. So yesterday we saw the August 1993
25 decision by the BiH government, deciding that the official language in
1 BiH would be Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and people could call the language
2 whatever they pleased. That's a very reasonable and reconciling
3 position, isn't it?
4 A. That is the constitutional provision, but it's not actually the
5 case because Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are already being set up as
6 three separate standards. These are processes being discussed by
7 linguists, not only in Europe
8 Q. That was a very reasonable position and you held the same opinion
9 when you were on that working group?
10 A. Yes, certainly.
11 Q. And I put it to you, sir, that the HZ HB's refusal to accommodate
12 the Bosniak concerns or requests to also allow the mention of Bosnian in
13 the HZ HB, that was not a reasonable position to take, was it?
14 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm going to object to the form of the question.
15 There has been no evidence, none whatsoever, by any witness that this
16 language, Bosnian, existed at the time or that the HVO was ever
17 approached and asked to put Bosnian as the language for the Muslims, as
18 they were known at the time, Bosniaks as they're known today. So I think
19 posing that question lacks any foundation.
20 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, if I may mention, the witness mentioned
21 it yesterday himself --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, last Monday we
23 noted that the constitution had been amended and that in
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina there were three languages: Croatian, Bosnian, and
25 Serbian. There were these three languages and any of the three could be
1 used. That was written in the text we saw last Monday.
2 MR. KRUGER: Yeah. Your Honour, but regarding my question, the
3 witness himself did mention on Monday, he testified, that he was
4 requested to talk to a group of people from I think it was Stolac
5 municipality, Mr. Prlic requested him to talk to these people and they
6 came and said and requested that Bosnian be --
7 MR. KARNAVAS: No, no. This is -- this is absolutely false.
8 Now, there was a meeting. Dr. Prlic did ask the gentleman to attend the
9 meeting; that's in the evidence. They came. They made no proposal as
10 far as what the language was. There was no name to the language at the
11 time. So if he can point to the transcript, if he can point to anything,
12 anything, of any of the evidence that we've had so far, even
13 Rizvanbegovic who came here, if he can point to anything where it says
14 that at that meeting we propose this to be the language for the Muslim
15 peoples, then fine. But to now suggest that this is what the gentleman
16 indicated, that's absolutely false.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue, Mr. Kruger.
18 MR. KRUGER: [Microphone not activated]
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 MR. KRUGER: Apologies.
21 Q. Turning perhaps finally to Mostar University. During 1993 -- and
22 I would refer specifically to the period then from May 1993 towards the
23 end of 1993, where were the classes of Mostar University held? You have
24 mentioned Neum as one.
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. Siroki Brijeg?
2 A. There were no classes being held in Siroki Brijeg at that time.
3 There had been a relocation to Neum because of the circumstances we
4 mentioned, the conditions that the professors, the teachers, and the
5 students found themselves in, so it was held in Neum or the classes were
6 held in Neum.
7 Q. Were there any classes being held in Mostar?
8 A. I don't think so. There might have been, for example, an
9 examination held there if the professor happened to be there, but there
10 were no classes.
11 Q. Now, sir, at that stage do you maintain that the university still
12 had Muslim professors, teaching staff, other staff?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Isn't it --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And these people, if they were living in Mostar, how would they
17 get to Neum if they were living in East Mostar where the Muslims
18 generally lived?
19 A. Professors had rooms in Neum where they stayed, so they didn't
20 have to travel at all, and that was one of the reasons not to be in
21 Mostar. That was for professors and students to have good conditions, to
22 be able to live there and prepare for exams, study, to be in an
23 environment which was conducive to their work. So they had rooms in
24 Neum, they were there.
25 Q. Okay. Now, sir, is it correct that during July 1993 Muslim males
1 of military age were being arrested and put in places like Heliodrom,
2 Dretelj, Gabela?
3 A. From the university, from Neum, no. Anyone who was at the
4 university, attending university in Neum, are you referring to the
6 Q. No, sir. I'm referring -- sorry, I'm referring to the situation
7 in Herceg-Bosna, in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, in Mostar,
8 Stolac, Capljina, Prozor, Muslim males of military age were being
9 arrested; correct?
10 A. Yes, but I don't know when that happened. You mentioned
11 Heliodrom in Mostar in September, but I really don't know about those
12 events. I was not a witness to that. I was in Neum at the time. I was
13 at the Primorje area. I heard about that.
14 Q. Sir, that's not correct. You were attending meetings of the
15 Croatian government of Herceg-Bosna in July 1993 when these events were
16 going on. We've seen documents to that. Isn't that correct?
17 A. You've already said when those people were imprisoned, but I'm
18 telling you I don't know when that happened exactly. I can't recall that
19 at present, and that's what I was referring to. As for those sessions
20 where there was discussion, as reflected in the minutes, they took place
21 after that and that was what I was referring to. I was referring to the
22 fact that I'm not aware of when exactly that happened.
23 Q. Now, sir, I put it to you that the students of Mostar University
24 Muslim students, simply were not able to attend that university anymore
25 because they would be arrested if they tried to get there; isn't that
2 A. No.
3 Q. And --
4 A. At that time there were Muslim students there, there were Muslim
5 teachers, professors, assistant lecturers, all that existed in Neum. I
6 can't give you precise details now. I could -- I can envision the faces
7 of those people now. For example, there was a chemistry professor, a
8 lady chemistry professor, I can't recall her last name now. There was
9 some assistant lecturers. After classes we would sit together in the
10 hotel and chat. I know that they were in Neum.
11 Q. Now, sir, just a final point. This Court has heard from your
12 friend, Professor Rizvanbegovic, that in 1992, 42 Muslim professors or
13 staff members, lecturers, left Mostar University
14 prepared to accept the new character that the university had been given,
15 which was an exclusively Croatian character. Isn't that correct?
16 A. The day before yesterday we saw a document here in which in the
17 autumn or in early November or December agreed to -- professors agreed to
18 work at the university. Towards the end of 1992 there were about a
19 hundred Muslim employees at the university, including Mr. Rizvanbegovic,
20 a dear friend of mine. Some of these professors did leave and stopped
21 coming but some of them stayed. I don't know at what point in time
22 individual people left, but certainly a large number of professors
23 stayed. I don't know how many left or when.
24 Q. But at least 42, according to Professor Rizvanbegovic, had left;
25 correct? Would you agree with that?
1 A. That's possible. It can be established. I can't be precise now,
2 but this does not happen in 1992. It may have happened later. If I
3 may -- if I may add something. There is a fact. The employees at the
4 university who continued to work later on asked the dean for permission
5 which would be predated and there are documents showing that, saying that
6 they had worked only until early May 1993 because they were having
7 problems in taking retirement but they had continued working at the
9 Q. Thank you. We saw those documents. Did those only apply to the
10 Muslims who had worked there? Croats didn't fall under the same regime?
11 Just a yes or no. We don't need to explore this.
12 A. I think the question you put is not what we talked about before.
13 It was only Muslims employed at the university who needed this ante-dated
14 document and they needed it for purposes of retirement benefits because,
15 as I heard, they were having problems. They were told, Well, but you
16 continued to work.
17 Q. So you just referred as well to the list on which staff members
18 indicated their desire to keep working at the university and just for the
19 record that was Defence Exhibit 1D 02804. Now, sir, we needn't look at
20 that exhibit, but all the names which are people who had signed
21 indicating they wanted to continue working, they had all signed between
22 the period of 23 November and 3 December 1992. My question to you is
23 simply that from that document you don't know, you can't say, which of
24 those people who had indicated, We want to continue working here, were
25 actually still at the university five months later? You can't say?
1 A. I can't be precise about that. There are some persons I could
2 identify but not all of them because I don't know all the people.
3 Q. Okay.
4 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour. No further questions.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 Mr. Karnavas, any re-direct?
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. This
8 cross-examination calls for no re-direct.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
10 Professor, on behalf of my fellow Judges and myself, I thank you
11 for having come to The Hague
12 and I wish you all the best for your return home. I will now ask our
13 usher to escort you out of the courtroom.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Soon we'll have to adjourn. We
17 have only a few minutes.
18 Mr. Karnavas, do you have any comments to make orally following
19 the motion -- Prosecution motion which you have read regarding additional
20 information -- Mr. Scott, I see you up. We have read your motion. We
21 know exactly what is in this motion. What do you want to add, Mr. Scott?
22 MR. SCOTT: Well, Your Honour, since I am the moving party and
23 since I indicated that I would not make my arguments earlier, I think
24 it's appropriate that I make my comments first, I think that's only
25 normal procedure.
1 Your Honour, I certainly won't repeat everything that's in the
2 filing, which is obviously the reason it was filed and the reason that we
3 made sure that both the Judges and the lawyers in the courtroom had the
4 document some time ago. I would just want to emphasize three parts of
5 what we've said. The bottom line is and I would go to in particular to
6 paragraph 11 of our filing because again as the Chamber has indicated the
7 Chamber has read, I'm sure, the document. The point of it is,
8 Your Honour, we're left about being told about some positions that the
9 witness held. We're left talked -- we're left knowing that supposedly in
10 January 1993 at some point he took up a rifle and acted as an ordinary
11 soldier. We really know nothing else about what the evidence of this
12 witness will be concerning the time-period January 1993 in Gornji Vakuf,
13 the time of the indictment. We have no information, simply zero, and
14 that is -- presumably the reason that he is being brought, I would think,
15 if he has relevant evidence to offer.
16 As a further example of information provided, we are told that in
17 November 1993 he started the production of springs for the HVO. I have
18 no clue as to how that's possibly relevant to what happened in
19 Gornji Vakuf in January 1993 and I can only presume that Mr. -- that the
20 witness is not being brought here to talk about the production of
21 springs. I would also emphasize, Your Honours, that in paragraph 13 --
22 you know, Mr. Karnavas said earlier, Well, we have the original summary,
23 we have these two additional letters. Your Honour, the volume of
24 characters on the page does not describe -- does not provide the answer,
25 does not comply with Rule 65 ter. What is required is that there be
1 actual substance of the evidence that the witness is going to give.
2 Every Trial Chamber who has ruled on this, the rulings we have cited,
3 says that merely giving the backgrounds and merely giving a list of
4 topics is not sufficient. And we -- neither the Chamber nor the
5 Prosecution has been provided with any, any, information whatsoever about
6 what the evidence this witness will give as to Gornji Vakuf in January
8 And I will end with this and I'm making my comments very
9 abbreviated because of the time constraints. I would go back to what
10 happened with the witness last week, with Witness Kozulj and
11 Judge Prandler's comments. The Chamber will recall that there were
12 issues that developed because, again, of the summary and the way that the
13 testimony of that witness was described as saying -- for example,
14 asserting that: "All communications with Central Bosnia were cut off."
15 That was the only information that the Prosecution and the Chamber had
16 been provided when that witness came to court.
17 Now, it turned out that that was apparently not the case and, in
18 fact, it was not even clear that that was -- based on some of the
19 statements of counsel that that was intended, but that was the
20 information provided. And as Judge Prandler said on that day at
21 transcript references 32704 to 05 is -- "I believe it is a kind of lesson
22 for every one of us here that the summaries are to be prepared and
23 submitted as broadly and as punctually as possible."
24 If Judge Prandler will allow me, I think what Judge Prandler was
25 saying there as providing substantive information, actual substance as to
1 what evidence the witness will give.
2 Your Honour, this is not a new issue. This is an issue that has
3 been cooking, if you will, since the Defence case started in May. The
4 Prosecution has raised this issue repeatedly. We bent over backwards in
5 this instance partly in response to guidance from Judge Trechsel that
6 can't we resolve these matters more informally. We waited. We made a
7 number of oral inquiries. We sent letters. The bottom line is as we
8 stand here now and the witness is scheduled to begin on Monday, we have
9 no evidence -- we have no information as to what the evidence of this
10 witness -- the relevant evidence of this witness will be.
11 Your Honour, the time has come, the Chamber has to put some teeth
12 behind its rulings and we submit that the teeth to make its point is the
13 witness should be stricken, the evidence of the witness should be
14 precluded and hopefully that will drive the point home with all the
15 Defence teams that adequate summaries that comply with Rule 65 ter have
16 to be provided to the Chamber and to the Prosecution.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, what will you do?
18 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll be very brief about this. First of all, the
19 Prosecution files a motion, then they attack me earlier, he sits down,
20 I'm prevented from responding, now he stands up again, and of course he
21 invokes Judge Trechsel to sort of show that I'm being admonished once
22 again by a particular member of the Trial Bench. And now he goes on and
23 now I have very little time to respond to a written pleading, but all of
24 this begs one question, going back to what Judge Trechsel had indicated
25 was a reasonable proposal.
1 On the 19th of September I submitted what I believed was
2 information that they were asking for. Since the 19th of September I
3 haven't heard back from them. Today is the 1st of October. So if the
4 Prosecutor, who now is whining, wanted more information, why pray tell
5 did they not speak up earlier? The information that we provided them, in
6 my estimation, is sufficient. We will try to provide them some
7 additional information, but if I might -- if I'm to respond to this
8 motion, I'm due my time, all of the time, provided by the Rules to
9 respond. Until then, I cannot be required to stand up on 30 seconds to
10 respond to something that is obviously been cooking for a long time
11 because they wanted to ambush us.
12 That's what I have to say and I'm rather shocked that the
13 Prosecution would take this sort of tactic. They could have easily asked
14 me on the 20th of September, Please provide us some additional
15 information. We're not clear. I thought in all honesty that I had
16 provided them with this information. If they wanted more, they could
17 have asked for more. Now they're going to say, Well, how often do they
18 have to write? Well, look at the questions that they pose, Your Honours.
19 They have three questions. I posed those questions to our investigator
20 to speak with the witness. The witness is not coming until Thursday
21 night, I believe. When he comes we will meet with him, we will meet with
22 him on Friday, we'll try to provide them with some information by Friday
23 afternoon, but before that I'm afraid I can't do anything.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understood you right, if I
25 understood you well, you'll do everything -- you'll do your utmost to
1 provide additional information to the Prosecution by Friday. This
2 witness is coming on Thursday so you have to meet him first, which means
3 that Friday you will send him a more detailed summary. Is that what
4 we're supposed to understand?
5 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
6 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
8 MR. SCOTT: I have to respond a couple of comment and I'll be, as
9 I always am, I believe, rather brief. Your Honour, as Mr. Karnavas
10 anticipated, and he's right, it's not up to the Prosecution to call every
11 day, Is there an update, can you tell us more today? It's up to the
12 Defence under the Rules to meet their obligations. That doesn't mean I
13 have to call Mr. Karnavas every day and say, Is there something more.
14 We've asked repeatedly. The Chamber can read the summaries and decide.
15 Now, Your Honour, with the greatest respect to the Chamber it is
16 not simply an answer every time this happens, Well, we'll give it to you
17 on Friday, we'll give it to you on Sunday night. The Rules required,
18 when the 65 ter filings were made on the 31st of March this year, some
19 months ago now, some months ago, that's when the Defence was required to
20 comply. If Mr. Karnavas is standing up and saying to the Chamber now, I
21 don't know what the witness is going to say even on the 1st of October
22 with the witness coming on Monday, if Mr. Karnavas is telling this
23 Chamber he doesn't know what his witness, the witness that he listed,
24 doesn't know what the witness is going to say, well, I leave it to the
25 Chamber's hands. But it is not an answer. And he did can make this
1 answer every time, You'll get it on Friday, you'll get it on Sunday
2 night, that's not what the Rules require, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Judges have
4 deliberated and are requesting Mr. Karnavas and Mr. Karnavas had
5 undertaken to do this so they're asking Mr. Karnavas to give a more
6 detailed summary to the Prosecution.
7 For the future, Mr. Karnavas, in order to avoid this kind of
8 problem check all your witnesses to come and make sure that all your
9 summaries are okay, don't need to be supplemented. I know that you're
10 overworked, but please do this. You know, you have to do the proofing of
11 the witness, you have to prepare all these documents. I know it's a lot
12 of work, but to make sure that we don't waste time with this again,
13 please check your witness list to come and make -- check what summaries
14 are maybe still insufficient. We will now meet on Monday at 2.15. Thank
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.23 p.m.
17 to be reconvened on Monday, the 6th day of
18 October, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.