Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 34465

 1                           Wednesday, 12 November 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

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

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

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

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

10             I'll repeat what I was saying.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters apologise.  The microphone was on

12     the wrong channel.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I'll repeat what I

14     was saying.  There was a channel that was not the appropriate one.

15             Today on Wednesday, I would like to greet everyone present, the

16     accused, the Defence team, the Prosecution as well.  I would also like to

17     greet the registrar and the usher.

18             We'll continue our hearing with cross-examination, and I will now

19     give the floor to the OTP for the beginning of their cross-examination.

20     Nevertheless, I would like to ask the usher to bring the witness into the

21     courtroom.

22                           [The witness entered court]

23                           WITNESS:  ZDRAVKO BATINIC [Resumed]

24                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Batinic.  You may

Page 34466

 1     sit down.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.  Thank

 3     you.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Prosecutor, I give you

 5     the floor now.

 6             MS. MOE:  Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning to the Trial

 7     Chamber, to everyone in and around the courtroom, and to Mr. Batinic.

 8                           Cross-examination by Ms. Moe:

 9        Q.   My name is Hedvig Moe.  I'm a trial attorney with the

10     Prosecution, and I will now be asking you some questions.

11             I'd like to ask you a couple of general -- more general questions

12     starting out, Witness.  You said that you were born and raised in Gornji

13     Vakuf, as far as I can remember, but then you went away for a few years

14     to study to become an electrical engineer.  How long did you stay away

15     from Gornji Vakuf for your studies?

16        A.   I left Gornji Vakuf 19 -- in 1974.  I enrolled at university in

17     Zagreb, the faculty for traffic.  I was at that transport faculty for

18     three years, and after a certain while, because of certain problems, I

19     had to leave that university.  I then found a job.  I worked.  I got

20     married there.  I served in the Yugoslav army for one year in Krusevac.

21     I returned from the army.  I continued to work.  I enrolled to study

22     mechanical engineering, and in 1977 I finally graduated from the faculty

23     of mechanical engineering.  I returned to Gornji Vakuf in 1998, so I

24     lived and worked for a total of 14 years outside of Gornji Vakuf.

25        Q.   And am I understanding you correctly that after 1998 up until the

Page 34467

 1     present date you have been in Gornji Vakuf and lived there?

 2        A.   From 1988.

 3        Q.   So 1988 is when you came back, and from then on you stayed in

 4     Gornji Vakuf; is that correct?

 5        A.   Correct, but Gornji Vakuf is now Uskoplje.

 6        Q.   A couple of questions to the population of Gornji Vakuf.  You've

 7     touched upon the census of 1991.  Would it be correct to say that there

 8     were approximately 25.000 persons living in Gornji Vakuf at the time in

 9     1991 according to the census?

10        A.   Yes.  To be more precise, 25.181 inhabitants.

11        Q.   And would it also be correct to say that there was a slight

12     Muslim majority in that population?

13        A.   It wasn't an insignificant majority, as there were 14.063

14     inhabitants who declared themselves to be Muslims in the 1991 census.  In

15     percentages, that would amount to 56.1 per cent of the population.  That

16     percentage declared themselves to be Muslims.  10.706 inhabitants said

17     they were Croats or, rather, 43.6 per cent of the population.  1.3 per

18     cent, the remainder, were Serbs, of whom there were about a hundred and

19     ten, and Yugoslavs, and so on and so forth.

20        Q.   Thank you for those specifications.  And also, if I understood

21     you correctly, there was a -- and that would be slight, a slight Muslim

22     majority, also, in the Assembly of Gornji Vakuf, if we go back to 1992,

23     and the War Presidency later on; is that correct?

24        A.   Yes.  Yes.  The composition of the Assembly after the first

25     multi-party elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina was as follows:  26

Page 34468

 1     Muslims and 24 Croats.  In the Crisis Staff of the Gornji Vakuf

 2     municipality, which was founded by a decision of the Municipal Assembly

 3     of Gornji Vakuf on the 7th of April, 1992, the national composition was

 4     as follows:  8 Muslims and 7 Croats.  In the Presidency of the

 5     municipality, when the Council for National Defence in accordance with

 6     the rules of Bosnia and Herzegovina in force at the time came to be

 7     called the Presidency of the municipality, there were 11 individuals, 6

 8     of whom were Muslims and 5 of whom were Croats.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  I'd then like to ask you a few questions as to issues

10     that came up during the Defence examination of you Monday and Tuesday.

11             Firstly, you said yesterday that you and Mr. Praljak know each

12     other, and I believe you used the words "from that time."  When did you

13     first get to know Mr. Praljak?

14        A.   I met General Praljak for the first time in Uskoplje in 1993.  It

15     was on the 1st of August.

16        Q.   Have you had any contact with Mr. -- or General Praljak after

17     that first meeting in August of 1993?

18        A.   During the war I didn't meet him again, but after the war I saw

19     General Praljak on -- on a number of occasions.

20        Q.   To first go back to the August 1993 meeting, what were the

21     circumstances of you meeting him at that time?

22        A.   We met in town, in the part of town where the majority of the

23     population was Croatian.  It was in the municipality of Gornji Vakuf.

24     And the circumstances were such that at the time the HVO forces, who were

25     withdrawing the previous night -- who had been withdrawing the previous

Page 34469

 1     night in the face of the Muslim forces attack, they had started returning

 2     to certain defence lines in the town and around the town, and they were

 3     led by General Praljak.

 4        Q.   Do you have knowledge of whether General Praljak was in the

 5     Gornji Vakuf area during 1992 and the first months of 1993 up until the

 6     1st of August when you met him?

 7        A.   I'm not aware of that.

 8        Q.   So does that mean you're not aware of him being there?  You don't

 9     know whether he was there?

10        A.   That's quite correct.

11        Q.   You said you met General Praljak also after that 1st August of

12     1993 meeting after the war.  Was that socialising?  Was it coincidence?

13     Would you consider him an acquaintance of yours?  Could you be a little

14     bit more specific?

15        A.   A long time after the war, I was elected to the Presidency of the

16     HDZ of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and there were a number of demonstrations

17     or assemblies of ours, and General Praljak would attend them as a guest,

18     and we would see each other on such occasions.

19        Q.   So these were HDZ gatherings?  Am I understanding you correctly?

20        A.   I said elective assemblies or meetings, and the members of the

21     Presidency of the HDZ of Bosnia and Herzegovina would meet.  Mr. Praljak

22     wouldn't attend them because he wasn't a member of the Presidency of the

23     HDZ of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters correction:  The witness did not

25     say "demonstrations" but "meetings."

Page 34470

 1             MS. MOE:  Thank you.

 2        Q.   Did you meet with General Praljak or his counsel prior to

 3     testifying in The Hague either when you were here last time at the

 4     beginning of October or now?

 5        A.   Prior to coming to The Hague, I did not have any contact with the

 6     Defence team representing General Praljak.  When I came to The Hague for

 7     the first time to testify, I didn't do that for reasons that are familiar

 8     to you.  I met the assistant of Mr. Praljak's lead attorney, and she is

 9     present here in the -- in the courtroom.

10        Q.   And that was -- that was the first time you came to The Hague, so

11     in October; is that correct?

12        A.   That's correct.  That's correct.  And now this weekend before

13     coming to The Hague.

14        Q.   Thank you.  A different question that was also an issue that was

15     touched upon yesterday as well.  You were asked about international

16     presence in Gornji Vakuf, about UNPROFOR presence in Gornji Vakuf in

17     January 1993, and as far as I recall, you couldn't confirm that there was

18     UNPROFOR presence in town at that time.

19             An officer of UNPROFOR with BritBat, which was the force that was

20     in Gornji Vakuf at the time, he testified here in The Hague.

21             MS. MOE:  And the transcript reference for counsel is page 8427,

22     and that should be from line 14.

23        Q.   And, Witness, he was asked whether it was correct that he served

24     as an intelligence officer for the Cheshire Regiment from early November

25     1992 to early May 1993 at Gornji Vakuf, and his answer was:  "Yes, that

Page 34471

 1     is correct."

 2             Does that jog your memory?  Does it comply with your

 3     understanding at the time?

 4        A.   I can't remember that.  At that time, towards the end of 1992 up

 5     until the 11th of January, 1993, I did not meet such representatives, and

 6     I didn't talk to such representatives.  So this is not something that I

 7     could confirm.

 8        Q.   So you're saying that you can -- you can neither confirm nor

 9     deny; is that correct?

10        A.   That's correct.

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  Confirm or deny what?  He hasn't met anybody up

12     until January 11th, 1993, so what can he confirm or deny?  He just

13     indicated that he hasn't met anyone.  The question is unclear.  I don't

14     know what the point is.

15             MS. MOE:

16        Q.   My point is, Witness, this Williams who was an officer with the

17     Cheshire Regiment, he says that he was in Gornji Vakuf from November 1992

18     until May 1993.  And if I understand you correctly, you didn't meet him

19     or any other representatives of the UNPROFOR force in 1992 up until

20     January 1993, and that means you can neither confirm nor deny what

21     Mr. Williams said; is that correct?

22        A.   With your leave, this is how I would answer the question.  I said

23     this, and I'll repeat it:  In the autumn of 1992, right up until the 11th

24     of January, 1993, while I was working as the president of the executive

25     committee of the Assembly of the municipality of Gornji Vakuf and while

Page 34472

 1     performing my duties as a member of the Presidency in Gornji Vakuf, I

 2     didn't meet such people.  I didn't speak to them.  From the 11th of

 3     January, 1993, onwards, I no longer had such a role that would allow me

 4     to meet such people, so during that period of time I didn't see any such

 5     people, either.

 6        Q.   Do you know whether UNPROFOR representatives were there in Gornji

 7     Vakuf prior to January 1993?

 8        A.   No, I don't know.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, yesterday I put a

11     question to you because I was surprised that you hadn't seen them,

12     because we know through the testimony of this officer that he was

13     involved in intelligence, and when you're involved in intelligence you

14     should at least go and meet the political officials or administrative

15     officials of the place where one works, unless one is a secret agent such

16     as James Bond, but that wasn't the case because he was in uniform.  So

17     that's what is a little surprising, that you didn't see him, and he told

18     us, "I was involved in intelligence."  So we have a mystery there.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on the 11th of

20     January, 1993, I was at a meeting with representatives of the European

21     Community.  These were people in white, dressed in white.  I am the

22     president of the municipality of Gornji Vakuf.  Mr. Abdulah Garaca

23     attended the meeting.  There were similar meetings that were held earlier

24     on with representatives of the European Union or, rather, with monitors,

25     as we called them.  But as for members of the forces that you have asked

Page 34473

 1     me about, I had no contact with such individuals, and I cannot confirm

 2     that they were there during the period of time that Madam Prosecutor is

 3     referring to.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

 5             MS. MOE:

 6        Q.   Thank you.  I'll move on.  I'd like to go back to a few documents

 7     that you looked at with -- during Mr. Karnavas's direct examination

 8     yesterday.  You should have the binder still with the documents that

 9     Mr. Karnavas showed you.

10             MS. MOE:  Maybe the usher can be of assistance.

11        Q.   I'd like us to look at Exhibit number 1D 01696.  Can you remember

12     that document from yesterday, Mr. Batinic?

13        A.   Could you repeat that, please?

14        Q.   Can you remember having looked at that document with Mr. Karnavas

15     here in court?

16        A.   Yes, of course.

17        Q.   So this is a 31st of July, 1992, Gornji Vakuf Executive Committee

18     conclusion, and as was read out by Mr. Karnavas yesterday, I believe, it

19     says in number 1:  "The Gornji Vakuf municipal Executive Committee agrees

20     with the installation of the equipment for receiving the HTV signal on

21     the Gornji Vakuf TV repeater provided there is no interference with the

22     TVBH signal."

23             We see your signature, and we see that copies are provided,

24     number 4 there, the SDA, Party of Democratic Action.  Is that correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 34474

 1        Q.   Then I'd like you to go to Exhibit 1D 01789.  That should in the

 2     same binder.  That's a document going from the president of the Gornji

 3     Vakuf SDA to Gornji Vakuf HDZ, and we see up in the right-hand corner

 4     that the date is 30 -- excuse me, 23rd of November, 1992.  Do you

 5     remember that document from the examination by Mr. Karnavas?

 6        A.   I remember it very well.

 7        Q.   And it says here from the SDA:  "With reference to your request

 8     for authorisation to install an HTV, Croatian television, signal

 9     receiver ..."

10             And your request, would that be the HDZ request?

11        A.   No.  The HDZ request is not at all what one has in mind here.

12        Q.   But the letter goes to Gornji Vakuf HDZ, doesn't it?  And it

13     would then be -- wouldn't it be natural to say your request, that that

14     would be the HDZ request?

15        A.   It's true that the addressee is the HDZ in Gornji Vakuf.

16     However, Mr. Abdulah Topcic, the then president of the Gornji Vakuf SDA,

17     did not want to communicate or speak with civilian representatives of the

18     HVO, in this case with Mr. Ivan Saric, who sent a request to the

19     Executive Committee of the municipality about the possibility of

20     installing equipment on the TV relay so that one could follow the

21     Croatian television programme in the area.  This is why Mr. Topcic

22     changed the -- the name so to put it.  He only wanted to speak to

23     representatives of the HDZ, and the HDZ of Gornji Vakuf didn't send him

24     this request, by no means.

25        Q.   So you're saying the request came from the HVO, or when getting

Page 34475

 1     back to him, he -- Abdulah Topcic addressed the reply to the HDZ.  Is

 2     that correctly understood?

 3        A.   Yes, but I should point out that the HVO did not send a request

 4     to the SDA but to the Executive Committee of the municipality of Gornji

 5     Vakuf.

 6        Q.   And we can see down left on this document that the Executive

 7     Committee is copied; is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Continuing from where I was reading from the document, it says:

10     "...we hereby inform you that the party has neither the authority nor the

11     right to authorise this," which I understand is the instalment of an HTV

12     signal receiver, "because the relay is owned by the BH RTV, who should,

13     therefore, be approached in view of the above."

14             When you were asked by Mr. Karnavas about this letter - that

15     would be Mr. Karnavas on pages 25 to 26 of yesterday's transcript - you

16     said, Mr. Batinic:  "This letter by the president of the SDA for Gornji

17     Vakuf municipality does not respect of the conclusion of the Executive

18     Council of the municipality; and at the same time, the armed forces are

19     being asked, probably of the BH army, of the 1st Company of the 1st

20     Battalion, to prevent any attempt to mount a signal to receive the

21     Croatian television."

22             However, what I just read out is -- my understanding is that the

23     SDA says one has to contact the BH RTV in this matter because the party

24     has neither the authority nor the right to authorise such instalment.

25     Isn't that correct, Mr. Batinic?

Page 34476

 1        A.   Partially.  The RTV of Bosnia-Herzegovina did own the TV relay.

 2     However, at the time it was not possible to have contact with those who

 3     managed the RTV in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  As a result, the HVO in

 4     Gornji Vakuf contacted the Executive Committee of the Municipal Assembly

 5     of Gornji Vakuf, and after the conclusion of the Executive Committee of

 6     the Gornji Vakuf municipality of the 27th of July, 1992, that was almost

 7     four months later, and after the equipment was not installed but everyone

 8     insisted on having it installed, after all of this the SDA confirms here

 9     that they don't admit the conclusions of the legitimate body of the

10     authorities of the municipality of Gornji Vakuf.

11        Q.   But isn't this the SDA voicing its opinion on the conclusion of

12     the Executive Committee?  The SDA was copied in that letter from the

13     Executive Committee as we saw.  There's nothing improper in the SDA

14     voicing its opinion, is it?

15        A.   No, there's nothing improper for the SDA to express its opinion,

16     but what is inappropriate is for this letter to be addressed to the armed

17     forces of, in those days, the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whereby

18     they are in a sense being assigned the task of preventing this.

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, I can hear Mr. Scott making comments.

20     Perhaps he could refrain.  If he wishes to send notes to his colleague,

21     fine, but there's sort of a running commentary.  As the witness is

22     testifying, Mr. Scott is making comments.

23             MR. SCOTT:  I apologise, Your Honour, if I have been too vocal

24     about it, and I will try to lower my voice if that is indeed a problem.

25     I'm sure the witness has not been influenced in the slightest, but

Page 34477

 1     nonetheless, I will lower my voice.

 2             MS. MOE:

 3        Q.   Back to what you last said, Mr. Batinic, this letter, however,

 4     from the SDA, it's not addressed to any armed forces, is it?  We can see

 5     there's a copy to Gornji Vakuf OS and also to the RTV BH, but it is

 6     addressed to the Gornji Vakuf HDZ, isn't it?

 7        A.   Madam Prosecutor, in the title the indication is who the

 8     addressee is of this text, that is the HDZ of Gornji Vakuf.  It is also

 9     addressed to the armed forces, in brackets, the 1st Company of the

10     1st Battalion, and the formation that had such a name was only a unit of

11     the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

12        Q.   And what you're referring to, Mr. Batinic, when you say

13     "addressed to the arm forces," that is the copy to the Gornji Vakuf OS

14     that we see in the left-hand lower corner of the letter; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes, quite so.

16        Q.   Thank you.  I'd like to move on to a different document.  We're

17     still in the same binder.  This is number 1D 01699.

18             This is -- we can see in the right-hand corner, upper corner,

19     it's from 4th of May, 1993.  Do you have it in front of you?

20        A.   The 29th of April, 1993.

21        Q.   Yeah, I'm sorry.  The upper corner is a handwritten insertion,

22     and you're quite right.  The date is the 29th of April, 1993.

23             It's a conclusion signed by the president of the Presidency, and

24     it says under conclusion:  "All Croat officials relieved of their duties

25     in administrative organs hereby lose their status of administrative

Page 34478

 1     officials until a final agreement has been reached on the organisation of

 2     all organs based on the principle of parity."  And copied are Gornji

 3     Vakuf HDZ and Gornji Vakuf SDA.

 4             Can you remember this document from Mr. Karnavas's examination?

 5        A.   At the time this document was drafted, I didn't see it; but I did

 6     see it later on after this period of time.

 7        Q.   And can you remember being shown this document by Mr. Karnavas

 8     here in court?

 9        A.   Yes, I do remember.

10        Q.   So you were asked about this document, and this would be on page

11     29, Mr. Karnavas, from yesterday, from line 11, and the answer comes a

12     bit further down, and you said -- or you were asked:  "Can you explain

13     this conclusion?"  And you answered, Mr. Batinic:  "Very simple.  As two

14     administrations had been set up, which were services for the two peoples,

15     they considered it logical for employees of the joint administration to

16     be fired from the administration that was headed by Mr. Garaca."

17             But, Witness, this is a reference, as far as I can see, to all

18     Croat officials relieved, as in have already been relieved, of their

19     duties in administrative organs.  It's not a firing of Croat officials

20     that takes place with this conclusion.  Isn't that true from what we're

21     reading?

22        A.   It is not true.  If you read this text more closely, you will see

23     that it says they are losing their status of workers in the

24     administration, and a worker in the administration is a person who is an

25     employee of the Municipal Assembly, of any Assembly.

Page 34479

 1        Q.   I can see that it refers to losing the status of administrative

 2     officials, but doesn't it also refer to the Croat officials having been

 3     relieved?  It says relieved at an earlier stage of their duties.

 4        A.   It says here who were working until being relieved.  Now, when

 5     exactly they were relieved, when the decisions to relieve them were

 6     passed, I don't know.  It is a fact this is the decision of a single

 7     ethnic Presidency.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  I'd like to move to a different document, and this is

 9     a document that was brought up by Ms. Alaburic yesterday, and that should

10     be in the binder that you got from Mr. Petkovic's Defence counsel.  I

11     think that should be the right one.  And I'd ask you to look up number 3D

12     00511, please.

13             Do you remember that document from Ms. Alaburic's examination

14     yesterday?

15        A.   Yes, I do.

16        Q.   I know you have the B/C/S version in front of you.  There is also

17     an English version where it says that the month that this conclusion was

18     made is illegible, meaning that we can't read the month.  Could you

19     please have a look at the B/C/S version, at the date that's in the upper

20     right corner.  Is it correct that that appears to refer to 11,7, as in

21     Roman numerals, 1992?

22        A.   I'm not quite sure what it says here, since there's the number

23     11, then comma, number 7, and then Roman numeral II, and then dot, and

24     then 92.

25        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  Yet another document.  This is in the binder

Page 34480

 1     that you got from Ms. Nozica from Mr. Stojic's Defence yesterday, and

 2     that should be the pink one that's to your right.  And I'd ask you to

 3     look up document -- or Exhibit number P 01102, please.  Can you remember

 4     this document from yesterday?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   I just wanted to ask you about one specific issue.  You see in

 7     the first paragraph, and that was also read out to you yesterday, a

 8     reference to soldiers from the Ludvig Pavlovic Unit.  Can you see that?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   The Ludvig Pavlovic Unit, that wasn't a local Gornji Vakuf unit,

11     was it?

12        A.   Correct, but it did have members from Gornji Vakuf who were

13     Croats.

14        Q.   Thank you.  I'll now go into a couple of the incidents in Gornji

15     Vakuf and issues about Gornji Vakuf that you also talked about yesterday,

16     and they would be -- those documents that I'm going to show you would be

17     in Mr. Karnavas's binder.  So the big binder from yesterday.  But there's

18     a Prosecution binder to the right of you.

19             MS. MOE:  Maybe the usher can be of assistance.

20        Q.   And we should have all the documents that I now will be referring

21     to in that binder so you don't have to change around.  And I'll ask you

22     to look at Exhibit number 1D 00208.  Actually, there are two -- two

23     binders.  So that might be in the second one.  It should be in the second

24     one.

25             It's a report from Mr. Ivan Saric, and it says:  "...on incidents

Page 34481

 1     that took place in the Gornji Vakuf municipality."

 2             Can you remember that document from yesterday?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And I'll read out to you, that would be the fourth paragraph, but

 5     I think also Mr. Karnavas touched upon yesterday.  It starts with:  "On

 6     the morning of Wednesday, 21st of October, 1992, something really did

 7     start to happen.  One could feel it the most on the streets of Gornji

 8     Vakuf.  People moved only in 'their part of town.'  Well-armed soldiers

 9     of the HVO and the BH army were seen at every corner.  The faces of the

10     people were full of fear.  Rumours were going around that one or the

11     other had already captured some points in the town, bilateral disarmament

12     had started, and so on.  Zdravko Batinic and Fabijan Trbara, members of

13     the Gornji Vakuf HVO, could feel and see all this for themselves since

14     they were in the centre of the town at the time (from 0830 hours to 0900

15     hours).  An explanation for what they found such a surprising turn of

16     events was given to them by the representatives the BH army (Hanefija

17     Prijic aka Paraga and his commander Fahrudin Agic).  According to them,

18     the reason for such a situation was the passage of an armed HVO unit

19     through Gornji Vakuf from the direction of Prozor towards Novi Travnik on

20     the night between Tuesday and Wednesday.  Since at the time the president

21     of the Gornji Vakuf HVO was not in Gornji Vakuf, Batinic and Trbara, as

22     members of the Gornji Vakuf HVO, took upon themselves the obligation and

23     responsibility to calm the situation down and remove the possibility of a

24     conflict that seemed imminent."

25             And if I understood you correctly yesterday when this report was

Page 34482

 1     presented to you, you confirm the events but not the fact that it says

 2     here you were a member of the Gornji Vakuf HVO.  Is that correctly

 3     understood by me?

 4        A.   Yes, you understood me correctly.

 5        Q.   And we can see that this report from Saric, it goes to the

 6     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, to the Croatian Defence Council.  Why

 7     would Mr. Saric, who was the president of the HVO, feel the need to

 8     report on these incidents to the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, the

 9     Croatian Defence Council?

10        A.   Because in the territory of Gornji Vakuf municipality, the

11     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and the Croatian Defence Council did

12     not wish any kind of incidents to take place.

13        Q.   But why would he report to the central authorities?  Why would he

14     present you as an HVO member and the HVO members as someone taking charge

15     of the situation?

16        A.   Mr. Saric was de jure the president of the HVO as the

17     administrative and executive authority for the municipality of Gornji

18     Vakuf appointed by the president of the Croatian Community of

19     Herceg-Bosna, Mr. Mate Boban, and it was his task and duty to report to

20     the Presidency of the HZ HB and, therefore, also the HVO about all events

21     of significance in the territory he was in and for which he was

22     appointed.

23             As for his statement that Zdravko Batinic - that is I myself -

24     was a member of the HVO as a civilian administrative and executive

25     authority, that is not true because Zdravko Batinic never de jure or de

Page 34483

 1     facto was ever a member of the HVO, of the civilian or administrative

 2     authority.  Nobody appointed me to that position.  I never received any

 3     decision to that effect.  We did discuss this thing, this possibility,

 4     but that was all.

 5        Q.   When Mr. Saric makes the representation that HVO members are

 6     calming down the situation, would that have been an attempt to show to

 7     others in the HZ HB hierarchy that Mr. Saric had actually established a

 8     civilian authority which was in fact functioning?

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  Objection, Your Honour.  It calls for speculation.

10     How can the gentleman opine on what Mr. Saric had in mind when he did

11     this?  He's being asked to speculate.

12             MS. MOE:  This is --

13             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'd like a ruling.

14             MS. MOE:  If I may, Your Honour, Mr. President.  This is the

15     quote from the amended 65 ter summary from Mr. Karnavas on behalf of --

16     or representing Mr. Batinic's testimony, and I tried to ask open

17     questions to start with, but the quote that I just presented is from the

18     amended 65 ter summary.  So I might present it in that sense to the

19     witness, then ask him whether that is correct that he said so.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may put the question, the

21     more so as this document shows that Mr. Batinic played a certain role at

22     this point in time, and we need to know why he played such a role and

23     what the context was.

24             MS. MOE:

25        Q.   I'll first go back to what I was saying to you just before

Page 34484

 1     Karnavas took the floor, Mr. Batinic, and this is from the 65 ter

 2     summary, which is a summary that we get from the counsel of Mr. Prlic

 3     stating what your testimony will be about before you come to court, and

 4     what I quoted was from there, and I'm asking you now whether the quote

 5     that I will now repeat, whether that is correct, if that was your

 6     understanding.

 7              "He" - that would be you - "has no idea why Saric is

 8     embellishing, but he thinks this may be an attempt to show to others in

 9     the HZ HB hierarchy that he had actually established a civilian authority

10     which was, in fact, functioning."

11             Is that correct?

12        A.   That is what I said.

13        Q.   So that would -- I understand you correctly, then, that Mr. Saric

14     reports to his superiors upwards in the HZ HB hierarchy, and it's

15     important for him to show that the civilian local HVO in Gornji Vakuf is

16     functioning?

17        A.   I don't know what Mr. Saric thought important, but it is a fact

18     that what I said today in the courtroom is true.  If I may have a minute

19     to explain what is written here towards the end.

20        Q.   Please do so.

21        A.   Thank you.  It is not true that Mr. Trbara convened any meeting

22     together with me.  On that morning, the atmosphere was reaching boiling

23     point in town, and the text describing it by Mr. Saric in his report

24     regarding incidents between the 19th and the 31st of October, 1992, is

25     correct.  However, at the time and on that day in the territory of the

Page 34485

 1     municipality, the president of the Presidency of the municipality of

 2     Gornji Vakuf, Mr. Muhamed Palalic, was not physically present, and for --

 3     due to this, I felt it my responsibility to take some steps to avoid any

 4     kind of incident taking place.  Through the postman or the courier of the

 5     municipality, I sent some 20 invitations for a meeting at the Radusa

 6     Hotel, a meeting of the most responsible representatives of the Croatian

 7     people, prominent figures in social life, the commander of the armed

 8     forces of the HVO, as well as the leading representatives of the Muslim

 9     people and the commander of the armed forces of the TO or the BH army,

10     whatever it was at the time.

11             We did have a meeting at the Radusa Hotel.  The debate was

12     extremely useful, and at the end it was agreed that through equipment

13     which could be installed at the TV relay, Zdravko Batinic as the

14     president of the executive council of the Municipal Assembly should

15     address the people as well as Dr. Mihad Edzelovic the most influential

16     member of the SDA in those days for Gornji Vakuf, and that is what we

17     did.  We made a joint statement for the citizens of Gornji Vakuf on local

18     television, and tensions eased, and on that day nothing happened.  That

19     is the truth.

20             MS. MOE:  I don't have any more questions for this document, but

21     I'll leave it to the Trial Chamber's -- Trial Chamber if they do.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Continue, please.

23             MS. MOE:  Thank you.

24        Q.   A different document, Mr. Batinic, on -- on the same issue.  This

25     would be in the first -- the big binder that's to your right.  And I'd

Page 34486

 1     like you to look up Exhibit P 01184, please.

 2        A.   Could somebody help me, because I don't seem to be able to find

 3     my way around these documents.

 4        Q.   The usher will give you a hand.

 5        A.   There's so many papers.

 6        Q.   It's 01184.  Do you have it, Mr. Batinic?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And if you look first at the -- at the last page just to get the

 9     date right.  That's the second-to-last page of the document.  There is

10     written 18th of January, 1993.  If you can't find it in your binder, it

11     should be on the screen in front of you.  If you see the handwritten

12     passage down to your right.

13        A.   Yes, I do.  I see it.

14        Q.   And if you back to the first page, we see up to the upper-left

15     corner that this is from the office of the president of the Croatian

16     Defence Council, and we see that it goes to the HVO Croatian Defence

17     Council command to Croatian Defence Council of the municipality and to

18     Croatian population of the Gornji Vakuf municipality.  And if you look

19     down on that page, you see that it's from Dr. Jadranko Prlic, president

20     of the HVO of the HZ HB.

21             Do you recognise this document?

22        A.   No.

23        Q.   It's addressed to the Croatian population of the Gornji Vakuf

24     municipality, so I'll read out a part of it, so I'm asking you to pay

25     attention.  It says:

Page 34487

 1              "Gornji Vakuf.

 2              "At its today's special session, the Croatian Defence Council of

 3     the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna discussed political and security

 4     conditions in the area of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and

 5     especially in the area of your municipality.

 6              "From the reports of the Defence Section of the HVO of the HZ

 7     Herceg-Bosna, then from the contacts with your officials and officers, as

 8     well as on the basis of reports of objective media, it is obvious that

 9     the Muslim forces are intending to take over the rule to enable HVO

10     defensive activities and then, by applying terror, to cause an exodus of

11     the Croatian people from that area.

12              "Giving full support to resisting such intentions, the Croatian

13     Defence Council of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna is determined

14     to provide you with any form of help, including the force and combat

15     readiness of the armed forces of the HVO.  You are not alone, and you

16     will not be left at the mercy of the Muslim extremists who seem to have

17     armed themselves for settling accounts with the Croatian people instead

18     of joining in the common struggle against the Serbian-Chetnik aggressor.

19              "The Croatian Defence Council and the entire Croatian Community

20     of Herceg-Bosna are with you."

21             When Prlic says in this letter that the HVO of the HZ HB gives

22     full support to you in Gornji Vakuf and will provide you with any form of

23     help, including the force and combat readiness of the armed forces of the

24     HVO, did you have this -- or did you know about this at the time?  Was

25     that your view, that the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna was behind

Page 34488

 1     you?

 2        A.   We were firmly convinced that we wouldn't be alone in that

 3     difficult armed conflict in the month of January 1993.  We expected the

 4     assistance of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, all forms of

 5     assistance.  At the time, what we most needed was military assistance.

 6     Forces in the HVO were attacked by several thousand members of the ABiH

 7     from a number of directions, in the town from the direction of Bugojno,

 8     and so on and so forth.  And without forces assisting, Herceg-Bosna --

 9     Herceg-Bosna couldn't have defended itself, and I believe that this is

10     why Mr. Prlic sent this letter of support to the Croatian people in

11     Gornji Vakuf.

12        Q.   Can you remember having had referred to you the particular --

13     this particular letter, or is this a view, an opinion you had based on

14     other sources?

15        A.   I haven't seen this letter before, but I don't know which sources

16     you have in mind.

17        Q.   You said that you were firmly convinced that you wouldn't be left

18     alone and that you would have the support of the Croatian Community of

19     Herceg-Bosna.  Do I understand you correctly that that was the view you

20     had based on -- well, on different -- on different sources, on different

21     documents or discussions that you'd -- you'd had with other people?

22        A.   No.  I based this opinion above all on the fact that the Croatian

23     Community of Herceg-Bosna had been founded to protect the Croatian people

24     in the area of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Whenever the Croatian population,

25     any part of it, was threatened or attacked, the HZ HB was prepared to

Page 34489

 1     assist those people, wherever they were, if this was possible.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  I have one more document on the October events,

 3     October 1992 events, that I would like to show to you, and that should be

 4     in the same binder that you have.  It's P 00712.

 5             If you look at the first page, you can see that it is a letter or

 6     a report to the military police administration in Mostar, Mr. Valentin

 7     Coric:  "Subject:  Report on events in Prozor and Gornji Vakuf

 8     municipalities," and it's from the commander of the 2nd military police

 9     battalion, Zdenko Andabak.  And if you look up to the right-hand corner,

10     the date is the 6th of November.

11             You've talked about the October events in Gornji Vakuf.  There

12     were some incidents in Prozor in October 1992, as well, weren't there?

13     On the 23rd of October, there was fighting in Prozor.  Am I correct?

14        A.   Yes, you're right.

15        Q.   And the HVO took over Prozor; is that correct?

16        A.   I can't say that that's correct.  After the fighting in the town

17     of Prozor, the HVO had in a certain sense taken control of the town of

18     Prozor.

19        Q.   And then you're referring to the October fighting; is that

20     correct?

21        A.   Which date do you have in mind when you say October 1992?

22        Q.   23rd of October, 1992.

23        A.   On the 23rd of October, 1992, as far as I know the initial clash

24     had only just started, the clash that involved the neighbouring

25     municipality, a clash between TO and HVO forces.

Page 34490

 1        Q.   But can we agree that - and I'm using your words - after the

 2     fighting in the town of Prozor in October 1992, the HVO had in a certain

 3     sense taken control of the town of Prozor?

 4        A.   On the 23rd, the clashes began in the area of the Prozor

 5     municipality; but it was on the 24th of October, 1992, that the HVO took

 6     control of the area of Prozor municipality.

 7        Q.   Thank you for that specification, Mr. Batinic.  This fighting in

 8     Prozor, did that increase tensions in Gornji Vakuf, as well, being a

 9     neighbouring municipality?

10        A.   Absolutely, yes.  With your leave, may I continue?

11        Q.   I'd like to ask you a couple of questions first to this document.

12        A.   [In English] Okay.  Okay.

13        Q.   But start with that, and we'll see how we go.  I read out what

14     this report is about.  I assume you don't know that report.  You don't

15     recognise the document itself, do you?

16        A.   [Interpretation] That's quite right.

17        Q.   I would, however, like to read out a few portions from this

18     report and to ask you whether that complies with your knowledge and with

19     what you saw on the ground at this time in October 1992, and I'd like you

20     to go to page 5 in the B/C/S version.  That should also be page 5 in the

21     English version.  That's the page that starts dealing with Gornji Vakuf

22     municipality.

23             Have you found that, Mr. Batinic?  It starts with a section on

24     Prozor, this report, and then goes on to deal with Gornji Vakuf on page 5

25     of the version you have.  It should be on the screen in front of you

Page 34491

 1     also.  Are you able to find it?  Do you have it in front of you?

 2        A.   Only on the screen.

 3        Q.   Sorry, it should be page 4 of the B/C/S version.  But you see it,

 4     don't you?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   This is a report, a continuation on the report on Prozor and

 7     Gornji Vakuf, and there's first a reference to the 19th of October, 1992.

 8     It says:  "The command of the Gornji Vakuf Main Staff issued a decision

 9     on placing members of the military police at full combat readiness."

10             Were you aware of that decision at the time?

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  Perhaps -- I didn't think he understood that that

12     was a question.

13             MS. MOE:

14        Q.   I'll repeat it, Mr. Batinic.  You see there's first a reference

15     to the 19th of October, 1992, and it says, at the time, there was a

16     decision on placing members of the military police at full combat

17     readiness, and I was asking you, at the time, were you aware of that

18     decision?

19        A.   No.

20        Q.   Then it goes on to the 23rd of October:  "Full combat readiness

21     was also ordered for all Gornji Vakuf HVO units."

22             Were you aware of that decision at the time?

23        A.   I wasn't aware of this decision of the 23rd of October, 1992 --

24     of the 29th of October, but I myself realised that tension had increased

25     to such an extent that both sides in Gornji Vakuf and around Gornji Vakuf

Page 34492

 1     were at full combat readiness when it came to their armed forces.  That

 2     concerned the Territorial Defence and the HVO.

 3        Q.   And this realisation of yours, would that be something you had by

 4     the 23rd of October?  Am I understand you correctly?

 5        A.   Yes.  On the 23rd of October, 1992.  You understood me correctly.

 6     On that same day, we had two meetings in order to prevent an armed

 7     conflict of any kind from breaking out in the area of the municipality of

 8     Gornji Vakuf.

 9        Q.   If I could ask you to go back to the document.  The next entry is

10     the 24th of October, but I'm moving on, and if you see the next entry

11     after that, it's the 25th of October.  Do you see that?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And right above 25th of October, there's the sentence that says

14     the following:  "Following the street fighting, HVO members captured all

15     the factories and took control of them."  And this should then be the

16     24th of October.  Were you aware of the HVO members having captured all

17     the factories in Gornji Vakuf and taking control of them on the 24th of

18     October, 1992?

19        A.   I'll partially answer your question by saying yes -- or, rather,

20     no, but I don't have to explain that [as interpreted].

21        Q.   Well, I'd like to ask you to be a bit more specific if you can.

22     What's the yes part, and what is the no part?

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  The gentleman indicated he did want to explain,

24     not that he did not want to explain.  In the record it shows that he did

25     not want to explain.  Yes -- partially yes, no, and then it looks like it

Page 34493

 1     says that he doesn't want to explain.  He does want to explain.  That's

 2     why the --

 3             MS. MOE:

 4        Q.   Sorry, Mr. Batinic.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 6             MS. MOE:

 7        Q.   I heard you saying that you didn't want to explain, and I would

 8     like you to explain.  So please go ahead.

 9             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I just wanted to say one

10     thing since the witness requested an explanation, that Mr. Karnavas got

11     up before me with his objection, but I think it will be fair to the

12     witness and to everyone else in the courtroom not to read out only parts

13     of this report, because my colleague skips one sentence and reads out the

14     following one, but the events in the report are linked.  If the witness

15     was given the opportunity to read through the entire page, he'd be able

16     to understand all the events.  In this way, the events are taken out of

17     context, and this confuses the witness because we have events for one

18     day.  We have full combat readiness mentioned in this document with

19     regard to both military forces.  We see that something was taken over,

20     that there was an armed conflict.  This conflict was started, according

21     to this document, by the TO or the BH army, and then the response was to

22     see certain features.  This all makes sense, and as a result I don't

23     think it's a good idea to selectively read through the document because

24     we have a chronological description of the events and of the acts of both

25     sides, and it's also linked to other events in other municipalities, for

Page 34494

 1     example, in the municipality of Travnik.  Thank you.

 2             MS. MOE:  Your Honours, I don't see how what I'm doing now is

 3     different from what is the usual practice in this case, and if

 4     Mr. Karnavas who brought in the witness wants to go back to any parts of

 5     this report, he can certainly do so on redirect.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  Well, there is something called the rule of

 7     completeness.  You can't take something out of context, and I would

 8     suggest giving the gentleman an opportunity to at least look at the

 9     entire text in context.  He can look at it himself, and then he can

10     answer the question, but, you know, there is such a thing as the rule of

11     completeness, and I'm sure that my colleague Mr. Scott would agree with

12     me on that.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Prosecutor, the document

14     is not one the witness knows, but perhaps he is familiar with the

15     context.  So to avoid this entire debate, one should have asked him,

16     first of all, whether he knew how these events took place, if he had

17     perfect knowledge or partial knowledge of these events, and then you

18     could have continued by referring to certain particular issues.

19             MS. MOE:  I'll take that on board, Mr. President.

20        Q.   If we go back to where we were, Mr. Batinic, it was the 24th of

21     October, as I referred to before quoting from the report, and we have

22     heard you testify about how you were in Gornji Vakuf at the time in

23     October and how you were involved in some of the incidents there.  So

24     I'll ask you again.  I know you don't have knowledge about this report in

25     particular, because that's what I asked you initially, but do you have

Page 34495

 1     any knowledge -- or did you have any knowledge at the time of the HVO

 2     members capturing all the factories in Gornji Vakuf and taking control of

 3     them?

 4        A.   I said I had to explain this, but first of all I want to deny

 5     what you have just said.  I didn't participate in any incidents at the

 6     time in Gornji Vakuf -- or, rather, not during the period -- or not on

 7     the 24th of October, 1992.  I was one of those who tried to prevent

 8     incidents at all costs.

 9        Q.   If I may just on that.  There might have been a translation issue

10     here because what I was referring to was actually your involvement in

11     what you said, what you talked about, calming down the tension.  So that

12     was my -- that was my intention, to refer to that.

13             So if you could please go on and explain your answer to my

14     question regarding the factories.

15        A.   Yes.  At the entrance to Gornji Vakuf when coming from the

16     direction of Bugojno in 1992, there were four companies to the right of

17     the main road and at the entrance to Gornji Vakuf.  There was a

18     construction company called Kozara.  There was a factory for processing

19     metal called Tom.  There was the Unis factory and the Borac factory.

20     These settlements are linked to part town inhabited by Croats who were in

21     the majority there.  In the factories and behind the factories at that

22     time, between the 24th and 25th of October, 1992, there was no fighting,

23     nor was it necessary for the HVO to fight for the factories; but as a

24     preventive measure, they deployed a minor number of men so that TO forces

25     would not enter the factories through Vrbas.  There was no fighting and

Page 34496

 1     no seizing of the factories by the HVO.

 2        Q.   So am I understanding correctly, then, that -- and I know you

 3     haven't seen the document before, but you -- your knowledge at the time

 4     related to this report or in -- as regards the issues of this report on

 5     the factories, you believe Mr. Andabak was referring to the factories you

 6     testified about just now?

 7        A.   In that area we have some other factories, but none of them were

 8     in the area of conflict in relation to Mr. Andabak's mission, apart from

 9     the ones I have mentioned.

10        Q.   If we go on to the 25th of October -- can you see there's a

11     reference to the 25th of October right below what I read out now?

12        A.   Yes, I can see that.

13        Q.   Then there's a reference to the 26th of October.  At the time,

14     you were still in Gornji Vakuf, weren't you?

15        A.   Yes.  On the 20th of June, 1992, I was in Gornji Vakuf.

16        Q.   What I was referring to was the 26th of October, 1992, which is

17     the date in the report.  On the 26th of October, 1992, were you then in

18     Gornji Vakuf?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   I'd like to read out what it says in the report here about 26th

21     of October and ask you whether that complies with your knowledge, being

22     present in Gornji Vakuf at the time.

23              "HVO units took the Gornji Vakuf MUP, Ministry of the Interior,

24     building and post, which they still have under their control."

25             Does that comply with your understanding at the time?

Page 34497

 1        A.   Yes, it does, but I should point out from the building of the MUP

 2     and the post office in the part of town -- well, it was in the part of

 3     town where the Croats were in the majority.

 4        Q.   And the MUP building or the M-U-P building, is that the same as

 5     the police station, the same building?

 6        A.   That's correct.  We called it the public security station.

 7        Q.   Were these buildings under the control of the ABiH prior to the

 8     26th of October?  In other words, did the HVO, on the 26th of October,

 9     take over control of the MUP building and the post office?

10        A.   No.  The TO forces weren't in the MUP building.  They weren't in

11     the post office, either.  When it says they took -- or perhaps this

12     hasn't been phrased correctly.  One should have said they were in the MUP

13     building and the post office, but they were on the margins of that part

14     of town where Croats are the majority.  So it was logical for HVO forces

15     to deploy these margins of inhabited places, to protect the Croatian

16     people in those places.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  If I may add a question here.

19             How would -- how do you explain the fact that Mr. Andabak finds

20     it important enough to say in this report the HVO took over the MUP, et

21     cetera, when you say that they were there anyway?  From whom did they

22     take it over, from whom?  Was -- was there no act that could be described

23     at all as a taking-over?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to what I knew, Your

25     Honour, there was no fighting to take control of the public security

Page 34498

 1     station and the post office.  At that time, it was somehow logical for

 2     each side to remain in their part of the town, in part of town where the

 3     Croats were in the majority.  That's where the HVO would remain; and in

 4     the part of town where the Muslims were in the majority, members of the

 5     TO, well, remained in that part of town.

 6             It was important for a sort of imaginary line not to be crossed

 7     by either of the sides, an imaginary demarcation line.

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I hear this, but it does not quite answer the

 9     question.  "Taking over" means that you gain possession in a large sense

10     of something of which before you did not have possession.  So after the

11     26th -- as of the 26th, we must conclude from this passage, assuming that

12     it is a true report, that the HVO had "possession" of MUP.

13             Who was in possession before that?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Members of the public security

15     station, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  And would they be mixed?  Would there also be

17     some Muslims?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The public security station was

19     mixed in ethic terms.  So there were Muslim policemen who worked there,

20     too, naturally.  But if I may, just one sentence.  As soon as the tension

21     in the town was felt, everyone took shelter in "their own part of town."

22     So the HVO forces or colleagues, policemen who were Croats, didn't have

23     to forcibly expel Muslim colleagues from the public security station.

24             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  I think that has clarified the fact.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll have our break now, a

Page 34499

 1     20-minute break.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Scott.

 5             MR. SCOTT:  Good morning, Your Honours and everyone in the

 6     courtroom, counsel.

 7             Your Honour, I regret needing to interrupt at the moment the

 8     cross-examination of my colleague, Ms. Moe, and I apologise to her as

 9     well as everyone else for that.  However, there's something I do need to

10     raise this week, and I put it off -- I intentionally put it off not to

11     take the time during the Defence questioning, but I feel that I cannot --

12     I feel that I cannot put it until later this week given -- depending what

13     the schedule might be and what the Chamber's ruling might be, so I ask

14     the Court's indulgence for a few moments to address an issue relating to

15     next week's witness, Mr. Tomic, who you know is returning.

16             Your Honour, my concern in part, and I say in part, arises out of

17     what I've heard, and I'm not being critical in any way, and I hope

18     Mr. Karnavas will not take this to mean more than what I intend it to

19     mean.  I've heard Mr. Karnavas to say on several occasions that he would

20     like two hours for direct -- for redirect examination.  Now, ultimately,

21     of course, of course, that is in the Trial Chamber's hands, and the Trial

22     Chamber can choose to give Mr. Karnavas two hours or three hours or four

23     hours.

24             But the concern the Prosecution has, Your Honour, is that there

25     needs to be some proportionality and some parity, some fairness here with

Page 34500

 1     the amount of time provided for Defence questioning and the time provided

 2     to the Prosecution for its questioning.  And again, I raise this today

 3     because with the greatest respect to the Chamber, I would appreciate a

 4     ruling as soon as possible on my request to the Chamber, because it will

 5     affect, it will directly effect our continuing preparations for next

 6     week's witness, and it's not something that can be simply resolve at 2.15

 7     next Monday.  After -- we will have no opportunity at that point to

 8     respond or to -- to adjust our preparations accordingly concerning a

 9     witness that everyone in the courtroom recognises is an important

10     witness.  I think Mr. Karnavas himself has indicated this is one of the

11     most important witnesses.  So if that's the case, Your Honour, ever --

12     evermore reason why the Prosecution should have a fair opportunity to

13     question the witness as well.

14             I hope that I -- I'll ask -- I think it's very important, Your

15     Honour, and it will take more than one minute because I do have some

16     information that I do want to put before the Chamber, and I have a short

17     handout to be provided to the Judges and, of course, to the Defence

18     counsel.  If the usher can assist us, please.

19             I'll give everybody just a couple of seconds to orient yourself

20     to the document.

21             Your Honour, the top of the page, this is a summary of the Tomic

22     situation to date, if you will.  To date, the direct examination and the

23     co-accused examination has taken a total of 11 hours and 17 minutes, and

24     these -- all these times, I should say, just so everyone's clear, all

25     these times come directly from the registry.  They're not -- they're not

Page 34501

 1     the Prosecution's invention.  This all comes from the time records kept

 2     by the registry.

 3             The total time with Mr. Tomic by the Defence to date is 11 hours,

 4     7 minutes.  The Chamber had indicated that the Prosecution cross could be

 5     eight hours.  Mr. Karnavas has requested two hours of direct -- of

 6     redirect.  Now, if that -- if that were to play out, if that were to

 7     become the situation, I would note, Your Honours, that that would mean

 8     that with this witness the Defence will have been given a total of 13

 9     hours and 7 minutes, and the Prosecution only 8 hours.  Now, keep that in

10     mind for a moment.

11             Now, we went back and looked at some of the other redirects in

12     this case, and to be fair, we looked at the longest redirect in the

13     Prosecution case and the longest redirect in the Defence cases to date.

14     In the Prosecution case, the longest witness was Witness EA, the longest

15     redirect.  The direct of that witness took 6 hours, 46 minutes.  The

16     total Defence time, note, Your Honours, the total Defence time was 10

17     hours.  Redirect was 56 minutes.  So on a total -- in response to a total

18     Defence questioning of 10 hours - 10 hours, not 8 hours, 10 hours - the

19     Prosecution had 56 minutes for redirect.  At the end of the day, again,

20     you'll see that in that particular instance, total, the Defence had 10

21     hours; the Prosecution had 7 hours and 42 minutes.

22             Now, in terms of the longest redirect in the Defence case to

23     date, Mr. Perkovic, the direct and co-accused took 7 hours.  The

24     Prosecution cross-examination was 4 hours, 50 minutes, once again,

25     substantially less than the Defence time.  Redirect was 40 minutes.  So

Page 34502

 1     after 7 hours of Defence questioning, an additional 40 minutes of

 2     redirect in that particular case.  And again, you'll see the total time,

 3     the total defence time, 7 hours and 40 minutes; total Prosecution time, 4

 4     hours and 50 minutes, almost 3 hours, almost 3 hours less than the time

 5     given to the Defence.

 6             Now, Your Honour, these situations unfortunately do not take

 7     place in a vacuum; and as Mr. Karnavas always likes to say, if we put

 8     these matters in context, Prosecution has also from the time records kept

 9     by the registry looked at some more general time periods.  In the

10     Prosecution case, in the Prosecution case, the Prosecution had 30 per

11     cent of court time; Defence had 37 per cent of court time.  Substantially

12     more.  In the Prosecution's case - I emphasise - in the Prosecution's

13     case, the Defence got more time in the Prosecution case than the

14     Prosecution got.  Substantially more.  And in the Defence cases to date,

15     the Defence has used 37 per cent of the total court time, and the

16     Prosecution has received 27 per cent.  Substantially, very substantially,

17     less.

18             With great respect to the Chamber, the practices of the Chamber

19     and the times being allowed under all these various practices and rules

20     is systematically - and I underline the word "systematically" - working

21     at the disadvantage, the substantial disadvantage of the Prosecution.  We

22     are given with every witness, with virtually every witness, every aspect

23     of the case, substantially less time than the Defence is getting.

24     Systematically, consistently.

25             Now, Your Honour, we think that's fundamentally unfair for a

Page 34503

 1     number of reasons.  I won't go into all of them.  Some of the

 2     discussions, we've had before.  Prosecution in this case, in the Prlic

 3     trial, is being repeatedly, systematically and substantially given less

 4     time than the Defence.

 5             Now, if we're being asked to -- to cut our times repeatedly, I

 6     don't think that's fair, Your Honour.

 7             Now, let me -- let me put this in context again.  My issue is

 8     less to do with the amount of time given to Mr. Karnavas.  If the Chamber

 9     wants to give Mr. Karnavas five hours of redirect, that's within the

10     Trial Chamber's discretion.  Give him five hours, but there has to be

11     some proportionality, Your Honour, some fairness with the amount of time

12     given to the Prosecution to examine the same witness.

13             Now, just to make this a little bit more topical, something that

14     was raised earlier this week in response to, I think, some questions put

15     by Judge -- comments made by Judge Trechsel.  The issue of confederation,

16     of a possible confederation with Croatia came up, and it sounded -- what

17     the response -- what I took from the Chamber's reaction is, this is

18     something the Chamber has not -- or at least some of the Chamber has not

19     heard a lot about or has been presented.  That is an issue, that is an

20     issue that is in my outline to go into with the witness Tomic.  It's

21     there.  It's been there.  I will not get to it.  I will not be able to

22     cover that topic on the time that's presently allowed.

23             So, Your Honour, there has to be some fairness here.  We are

24     consistently being given less time.  Look -- and also, I gave you the

25     comparisons of the redirects concerning other cases.  Nothing has been

Page 34504

 1     granted approaching two hours, nothing.  It's never -- redirect has never

 2     exceeded an hour, has never, ever exceeded an hour.

 3             Now, again, though, give Mr. Karnavas however time -- much time

 4     you want, but give the Prosecution a fair amount of time as well.  What

 5     we specifically seek, Your Honours, is to have at least, to have at least

 6     one-half of the time taken by the other accused, which would -- Tomic was

 7     3 hours and 10 minutes.  Half of that, half of that - which leaves the

 8     Prosecution still at a significant disadvantage; we will still have had

 9     substantially less time with this witness than the Defence - would be

10     half of the additional co-accused questioning, half of that time would be

11     an hour and 35 minutes.  That is half the time that they took.

12             Your Honour, in terms of completing the cross-examination of

13     Mr. Tomic and so that we can prepare for next week, the Prosecution asks

14     the Chamber to grant it an additional one hour and 35 minutes to examine

15     this witness for all the reasons stated.  I would be greatly -- I would

16     greatly appreciate, Your Honour; with the greatest respect to all of

17     you -- all of the Judges, I would greatly respect -- appreciate, excuse

18     me, a ruling so that -- before next week so that we can prepare

19     accordingly.  And again, as I see Mr. Karnavas get to his feet, my

20     concern is less with the time -- give Mr. Karnavas as much time as you

21     want.  Give him as much time as you want, but give the Prosecution a fair

22     amount of time as well.  Thank you.

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  Well, I'm grateful for the generosity that

24     Mr. Scott is expressing.

25             Two points or maybe three or maybe more.  First, essentially, 80

Page 34505

 1     per cent of the -- the submission today had nothing to do with redirect

 2     but, rather, had to do with the request for additional time for

 3     cross-examination; and I think in that instance the Prosecution should,

 4     as we have done in the past, pitch his case, make his position known why

 5     they need the additional time in this instance, and give us some concrete

 6     basis upon which we can either take a position and, more importantly, the

 7     Trial Chamber can also make a decision.  So essentially, let's -- let's

 8     get down to brass tacks, as they say.  This is really a request for

 9     additional time.

10             As far as redirect examination, I think Mr. Scott may be wrong.

11     I believe Zoran Buntic was a little bit longer than 40 minutes.  That was

12     my recollection.  So my longest redirect probably was more than 40.  I

13     say that because I make no apologies for a redirect that may take more

14     than 40 or 50 minutes or an hour.

15             Redirect has a specific purpose.  Obviously, I cannot go outside

16     the scope of the direct examination.  I think if the Trial Chamber looks

17     over all of the witnesses that I've put forward thus far, I've been --

18     I've used redirect sparingly, and when I do it's rather targeted.

19             Some Judges may disagree.  Of course, my redirect is based on 25

20     years of experience in the courtroom.  So it's based on that.  So -- and

21     in the event in any of my redirect it is irrelevant, it is up for the

22     Prosecution to object and, of course, for the Judges to jump in as they

23     normally do to ask questions, why is this relevant, or this is going

24     beyond the cope of the cross-examination.  That has not happened.

25     Therefore, I see no problem with that.

Page 34506

 1             My biggest concern with -- with the submissions made by Mr. Scott

 2     is that he somehow seems to think that we are all holding hands here

 3     singing "Kumbaya" on this side, this aisle, this side of the courtroom;

 4     and I can assure you we have six different defences.  Now, in part, one

 5     of the reasons I need additional time is because of certain matters that

 6     were brought up by other Defence teams.  Now, I can either not address

 7     it, or I can address it.  Now, it's my duty to my client to address it.

 8     And I notice, Judge Trechsel that you're shaking your head a little bit,

 9     and I get the feeling that you must think that we are in some kind of a

10     joint enterprise here against the Prosecution.  And I can assure you,

11     that is not the case.  My enterprise is with my client.  To the extent

12     that it might -- I might share some issues with one of the other teams,

13     that's fine; but we don't get together.  We don't strategize.  We don't

14     plan out my direct examination and say, I won't cover this, you cover

15     that.  Anybody that wants to meet a witness, they're free to do so, and

16     that goes with experts as well.  We -- in fact, we don't even prevent the

17     Prosecution.  If they wanted to meet with any of our witnesses, they're

18     free to do so.

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  In fairness, Mr. Karnavas, shouldn't you also

20     remark when I nod?  Because you always make a comment when I shake my

21     head, which I have many reasons, not necessarily those which you imagine.

22     But I also often nod my head, and you never remark on that, which is not

23     equitable.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  That's true.  That's true.  If you could nod in

25     favour, is what I'm saying right now, I would most definitely go on

Page 34507

 1     record.

 2             But in any event, I think the numbers themselves really do not --

 3     cannot assist us that much.  I think the Prosecution should simply, you

 4     know, make their case that they need additional time for the variety of

 5     reasons.  The Trial Chamber can do so.  I said two hours because that's

 6     what I'm thinking at this time based on what I heard and what I'm

 7     expecting from the Prosecution.  It may take an hour and a half.  I do

 8     have -- because I have some luxury, in a sense, of more time to prepare

 9     my redirect, I will try to be as streamlined as possible; and I can

10     assure you what I will be doing is going from the transcript saying page

11     this, this was mentioned, and if the Trial Chamber wishes in advance for

12     me to present some kind of a -- topics, list of topics of which I'm going

13     to go into redirect with this particular witness because he's been such a

14     long witness, I'm prepared to do that.  Not now, because I'm not ready,

15     but I could do that.  But I don't -- I frankly think that the Prosecution

16     is -- is using these statistics to somehow show that they're not getting

17     their fair share of the pie, and I don't think that's correct.  And when

18     you look at these numbers, and it says 30 per cent Prosecution, 37

19     Defence.  Well, again, there's six different Defences over here, so

20     obviously there's going to be a little extra time.  But I don't think

21     that you should look at the numbers.

22             And I might add, there were many witnesses that the Prosecution

23     brought that I never cross-examined, not even a single question.  I

24     thanked them for coming here, giving their evidence.  So I don't think

25     that we should just go by the numbers.  I think the Prosecution should

Page 34508

 1     probably give some greater detail, maybe in writing, as to why they need

 2     the additional time.  The Defence can then make appropriate responses,

 3     and then, of course, the Trial Chamber will be in a much better position

 4     to assess whether in fact they need additional time.

 5             That's all I need to say, and I hope that I wasn't in any way

 6     suggesting that the Prosecution should not get additional time.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber will deliberate.

 8     The Chamber is fully au courant.  The Prosecution wants an hour and 35

 9     minutes' additional time.  Mr. Karnavas has told us that he would need

10     two hours, but I think that is the maximum possible.  So for the moment,

11     the other Defences are not involved.  Yes, Mr. Stewart or Mr. Khan.

12             MR. STEWART:  [Microphone not activated] Please go first,

13     Mr. Khan.

14             MR. KHAN:  Your Honours, it's quite correct that this principally

15     involves a Prlic witness.  However, the submission put forward by my

16     learned friend Mr. Scott is of -- perhaps of wider implication because it

17     deals with the issue of time.  Now, it is patently obvious to everybody

18     in this courtroom that neither the Prosecution nor the Defence are

19     completely satisfied with how time has been apportioned in this case.  I

20     make no comment on that.  Opportunities were there to appeal that, and

21     decisions have been rendered.  And without taking a position, of course,

22     it may be a sign of an independent and impartial Chamber that on such a

23     fundamental issue both sides are equally unhappy.  But I do take issue

24     with the greatest of respect for the actual basis of my learned friend's

25     application.

Page 34509

 1             The time detailed on the sheet handed over is contorted in

 2     reality because the time is very much a function of the Prosecution's

 3     decision to have a joint trial with six individuals.  And when one is

 4     looking simply at Tomic, the Prosecution have been given eight hours to

 5     cross-examine, whereas all the Defence, Mr. Prlic's counsel and all the

 6     accused, have been given 11 hours, so it's more than half.  But it's

 7     fundamentally in error to start raising -- to start saying that the

 8     Chamber is cutting, is cutting the time of the Prosecution, because I

 9     don't see what cut has been made by Your Honours to the time given to the

10     Prosecution in relation to this witness or any witnesses, because the

11     time, of course, in re-examination is -- the time has already been

12     allocated to a party.

13             Similarly, when one looks at Witness EA, which my learned friend

14     prays in aid, it's of hardly any utility because every counsel has

15     different approaches to cross-examination and re-examination.  The fact

16     that the Prosecution has chosen, has chosen, to spend 56 minutes in

17     re-examination or redirect, to use the American expression as detailed on

18     the sheet, could be -- could have been for a whole variety of reasons,

19     but it's a decision of the Prosecution.  If they wanted to spend more

20     time on re-examination out of their time that they were allotted in their

21     case in chief, well, that would have been a reasonable option.

22             Again, re-examination is not at large.  Re-examination is always

23     curtailed by the grounds of relevance, and it has to be focused on

24     matters that have arisen in cross-examination.  So, Your Honours, I don't

25     see, to be quite candid, any prejudice to the Prosecution on the grounds

Page 34510

 1     that they have detailed either that time has been cut by the Trial

 2     Chamber that was granted to the Prosecution or that re-examination is

 3     conducted for 30 minutes, 40 minutes, or even 2 hours.  It has to be

 4     relevant, and it has to be within the confines of matters that are raised

 5     in cross-examination.

 6             On numerous occasions, the Prosecution have said quite correctly

 7     very often when interjections have been made by the Defence, this is

 8     inappropriate, whatever the arguments of the principle of completeness.

 9     The Prosecution say, well, my learned friend can raise this in

10     re-examination.  Well, it can't be -- my learned friends can't have it

11     both ways; and in my submission, it would have been perhaps more

12     appropriate, it's a matter for the Prosecution, to simply focus on if

13     they want more time, cogent and compelling arguments can be put forward.

14     Those arguments, in my respectful submission, have not been presented in

15     this present application by the Prosecution.

16             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would

17     just like to say that I don't really understand why we are running around

18     in a circle.  What I am concerned about is that the Chamber made a very

19     specific decision about the time allotted to the Defence about the way in

20     which the time would be calculated for cross-examination; and within the

21     framework of that decision, it was stated that the time given to the

22     Defence for redirect would be detracted from their time, and Mr. Karnavas

23     was told that you can use as much time as you like for the redirect, but

24     later on you will have less time for the direct examination of another

25     witness if you use your time in that way.

Page 34511

 1             According to the calculation of time that we are given by the

 2     registrar, I see that Mr. Karnavas has still plenty of time that has been

 3     allotted to him for his defence.  I don't really see what the problem is.

 4     The Rules of Procedure and Evidence also specifies what the direct

 5     examination is about, what the redirect is about.  It has to be within

 6     the scope of the cross-examination.  So I don't understand what we're

 7     discussing.  We're spending a lot of time discussing something that has

 8     already been decided.  I think everything is quite clear, and there is no

 9     problems there.  Thank you, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will end with Mr. Stewart

11     now.

12             MR. STEWART:  Your Honours, we would just like to -- to stress

13     once again that -- that these are six separate Defences, and the

14     Prosecution presentation of their submission here, again, oversimplifies

15     the matter.  It's not just that there's the Prosecution and then there's

16     in this instance Mr. Karnavas's client, because we have our

17     cross-examination, as well, and it isn't just a continuation of direct

18     examination.  It is -- in almost every instance, it is a

19     cross-examination from our different standpoint because we are a

20     different Defence, so that the re-examination - this applies to

21     Mr. Karnavas at the moment because he's calling witnesses, but it will

22     apply to us when we call our witnesses - our re-examination has to deal

23     with the cross-examination by the Prosecution of our witness and also by

24     cross-examinations by it could be up to five.  It's not usually the whole

25     five, but it could be any number of the other Defences.

Page 34512

 1             The last point I wish to make is this, that the submission that

 2     -- [Microphone not activated]

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Will you please close your

 4     remarks as soon as possible.

 5             MR. STEWART:  It is my last point, Your Honour, simply to say

 6     that except as a guideline, we do question whether any sort of time limit

 7     other than as a guideline is really appropriate for a re-examination,

 8     because as Mr. Khan has already commented, it is far simpler for the

 9     Trial Chamber to ensure in case of re-examination that it is properly

10     linked, properly arises out of cross-examination.  It's a far simpler

11     exercise provided the matters are relevant, provided they do properly

12     arise out of cross-examination by any of the other defendants or the

13     Prosecution.  Your Honour should, with respect, not cut off

14     re-examination.

15             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in view of the fact

16     that the Prosecution's proposal regards all six Defence counsels, I think

17     we need to express an opinion.  First of all, I fully agree with what my

18     colleagues have said in the interests of saving time, but I wish to add

19     just one additional point.

20             From this summary table on the sheet distributed to us by the

21     Prosecution, and the table relates to the total amount of time spent in

22     the Prosecution case, and it is thereby implied that even in the

23     Prosecution case the Defence had more time than the Prosecution.  In the

24     opinion of the Prosecution, this is an indication of unfairness towards

25     him.  I would just like to say the following:  The first point is what my

Page 34513

 1     colleagues have already stressed.  We don't have one accused here but six

 2     accused.  Theoretically, we should have had six times more time than him.

 3     But as you have said on several occasions, that is not possible, so we --

 4     each of us had a sixth of the total time.

 5             A second point, the Prosecution, as you remember well, called

 6     more witnesses under 92 ter and expert witnesses, and as a rule on those

 7     occasions the Defence was given additional time.  The value expressed in

 8     time of the written statement was used to estimate roughly how much time

 9     the witness would have needed had he spoken viva voce; and in my opinion,

10     this, I think, would explain the 7 per cent that we had extra, plus when

11     we expressly required additional time, but for this we provided

12     arguments, and when those arguments were worthwhile, we were granted that

13     additional time by the Chamber.

14             Now, if the Prosecutor simply wishes additional time to

15     cross-examine the mentioned witness, let him provide the arguments.  But

16     to go back again, as my learned friend has mentioned, for us to go round

17     in a circle and to go back to certain fundamental premises of these

18     proceedings is absolutely inappropriate.  You have already ruled, and

19     such an approach is a kind of lack of respect for the Trial Chamber.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

21             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'll try to be brief, but

22     here, again, is an example.  I'm not -- I'm not being critical of the

23     time taken by the Defence in saying this at all.  I'm not being critical.

24     I'm just saying, this is a perfect example of -- in this set of

25     submissions, Defence has taken substantially more time to present their

Page 34514

 1     issue than the Prosecution has.

 2             Your Honour, the proper situation with -- the proper

 3     characterisation of the situation here is -- is that, indeed, there is a

 4     specific particular issue, the examination of Mr. Tomic, which, indeed,

 5     takes place in a -- as part of a larger issue.  Excuse me.  I don't -- I

 6     heard some comments from -- there's a problem or ...

 7             Your Honour, again, these are not the Prosecution's numbers.  You

 8     know, the Defence -- the Defence may not like what the numbers show.

 9     There may be various explanations for some of them, but these are the

10     registry's numbers, and they show what they show, and it is the

11     Prosecution case, with the greatest respect to the Chamber, that the

12     Chamber's practices consistently and systematically provide the

13     Prosecution with substantially less time.  Now, I'm sorry if that offends

14     either the Chamber or anyone else in the courtroom, but that's what the

15     numbers consistently show.

16             Now, as to -- as to the examinations and -- and the co-accused --

17     among the co-accused and the person conducting -- the party conducting

18     direct, I won't belabour it, Your Honour.  I know the Chamber's heard me

19     say this a number of times.  In my view to date, since the Defence cases

20     started in May, in my view there has been virtually or very -- well,

21     virtually none or extremely little of anything that I would consider to

22     be cross-examination or examination adverse -- of an adverse witness or

23     adverse testimony of a witness.  They -- Defence counsel may not meet and

24     plan out their six or however many examinations are conducted; but, Your

25     Honour, they have all been essentially -- these have all been treated

Page 34515

 1     essentially as common witnesses.  The Prosecution then has to respond to

 2     the co-accused questioning.  We can't simply let that go unaddressed.

 3     Ms. Alaburic gets up and raises issues not raised by Mr. Karnavas or

 4     expands on them substantially.  Ms. Nozica gets up.  Mr. Praljak gets up.

 5     The Prosecution can't simply have no time to respond to those issues, and

 6     we do have to allocate our time.  Now, the Defence says, well, there are

 7     six of us.  Well, we have to divide our time among the six, as well,

 8     however many issues that are raised.

 9             As termed -- in terms of the length of time of redirect taken for

10     Witness EA, something was said by one of the Defence submissions that,

11     well, the Prosecution should have been given or should have had as much

12     time as reasonable.  I think the record will show, Your Honour, that

13     since that was the longest redirect the Prosecution had ever conducted in

14     its own case, I think the record will show that we had to push and pretty

15     much beg to get that much time.  It wasn't that we just had an abundance

16     of time to burn.  It was a matter of --

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're going to stop now.  We

18     have understood you.

19             MR. SCOTT:  Let me finish my comments.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Conclude rapidly.

21             MR. SCOTT:  I will, Your Honours.  I just want to make an

22     important point back -- both in response to something said this morning

23     and something said earlier this week.  Mr. Karnavas reminded us earlier

24     this week that the Prosecution has the burden of proof, which is

25     absolutely true, and the Prosecution has never said to the contrary.  But

Page 34516

 1     I again observe to the Chamber that the party who has the burden of proof

 2     in the case, the party who has to prove its case, unlike the Defence, is,

 3     again, being given less time than the Defence.  We have the burden of

 4     proof, and we're being given less time to prove, to meet the burden that

 5     we have.

 6             Now, in terms of the 1 hour and 35 minutes, Your Honours, we

 7     think that that's probably not even enough, but it will certainly be

 8     better than what we have now.  There's the issue of confederation.

 9     There's the other issues of Mr. Prlic's involvement in running the

10     government.  There's a number of issues that we would like to address

11     that given the time that allows we will not be able to address in that

12     amount of time, and I can only represent -- as Mr. Karnavas says, I've

13     also been doing this for 30 years -- going on almost 30 years.  I have a

14     pretty good instinct as to what time allows, and I can only represent in

15     the greatest good faith to the Chamber that there's no way that I can

16     adequately cover these additional topics in the remaining time.

17             I thank the Court for its consideration.  Again, I'm sorry to

18     have taken the time this morning, but I think the record will show the

19     Prosecution's always been reluctant to take any time more than absolutely

20     necessary, and this -- and our view was necessary.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  The Chamber will

22     render a decision.  Let's have the witness in the courtroom.

23                           [The witness takes the stand]

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Batinic, you may sit down.

25     The Chamber apologises for having made you wait, but we had to deal with

Page 34517

 1     questions raised by the Prosecution and the Defence, and as a result you

 2     have been brought back into the courtroom about half an hour later than

 3     scheduled.

 4             Madam Prosecutor, I give you the floor.

 5             MS. MOE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6        Q.   I'd like, Mr. Batinic, to go back to another issue that you

 7     talked about yesterday - or was it Monday - and that refers to -- I think

 8     maybe both days.  That refers to the hanging of Croat flags in December

 9     or January, December 1992, January 1993.  And if I understand you

10     correctly, what you said was that the Croats of Gornji Vakuf raised some

11     flags for the celebration of Christmas and New Year's and that some

12     Muslims took down these flags.  Is that correctly understood?

13        A.   Yes.  The Croats in Gornji Vakuf put up their national symbols

14     just before Christmas on the 25th of December, 1992.  Those symbols are

15     the symbols of the Croatian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Unfortunately,

16     this irritated some Muslims who took these symbols down.

17        Q.   I take what you say on board, but I'd also like to ask you

18     whether there was a particular incident on the 4th of January, 1993 -

19     that was a Monday - involving the raising of a flag by Croats on that

20     particular day in the town of Gornji Vakuf.  Do you have any knowledge of

21     that?

22        A.   No, but I would like to hear from you which Croatian flag you

23     have in mind, the Croatian flag of the Croatian people in

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina or the flag of the Republic of Croatia?

25        Q.    I'll go to a document that I can show you because I wasn't there

Page 34518

 1     at the time, so I'll show you an exhibit that refers to this, and I'll

 2     ask you to go to the binder that you have in front you to P 01068.

 3     That's one of the exhibits in the binder.  Do you have the B/C/S version

 4     of P 01068 in front of you?  This is --

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  This is an exhibit that has already been dealt with

 7     here in court.  It's an information report from the BritBat contingent

 8     that I've referred to earlier that was stationed in Gornji Vakuf, and

 9     it's from the 6th of January, 1993, and you can see that the headline is

10     "Gornji Vakuf" on the first page there.  And just to make that clear, I

11     assume that you can't -- you don't recognise, you don't know this

12     document, do you?

13        A.   No, I don't.

14        Q.   I'll read out part of it, and I'll ask you to -- to tell me

15     whether that replies with what your knowledge at the time, and I do

16     recognise that the English copy is quite bad, but I know that this is an

17     exhibit that has been dealt with previously.

18             It's the second paragraph, Mr. Batinic, B/C/S the third

19     paragraph.  It starts with:  "At approximately 1500 hours on Monday

20     afternoon, the HVO raised a Ustasha flag in the town.  The Muslims

21     reacted, and a Bosnian army soldier attempted to remove the flag.  An HVO

22     policeman then fired at the Bosnian army soldier in question, resulting

23     in a" -- and I'm having trouble reading that word, but it refers to a

24     "rise in tensions in the town."  "A sharp rise in tension in the town."

25             This is a report, as I said, from some internationals that were

Page 34519

 1     in Gornji Vakuf at the time.

 2             MS. MOE:  And for Defence counsel, I know that the date on this

 3     was originally the 6th of January, but it was specified to being the 4th

 4     of January that it referred to in Ms. Alaburic's cross-examination of

 5     Mr. Andrew Williams, so I assume there won't be any dispute on that.

 6        Q.   Mr. Batinic, what the BritBats here say about the raising of an

 7     Ustasha flag in the town of Gornji Vakuf on the 4th of January and the

 8     shooting of a Muslim thereafter, did you have any knowledge of that at

 9     the time?

10        A.   Yes.  I knew about it at the time, after the 6th of January,

11     1993, after the Three Kings celebration was over.  I knew that one member

12     of the military police fired in the air as a warning or, to be more

13     precise, he wanted to scare a Muslim soldier who was taking down the flag

14     of the Croatian people.

15             As far as the term "Ustasha" is concerned, well, I'd like to

16     clarify something in a few sentences so that everyone can understand

17     this.  Unfortunately, at the time there were names used by Muslims for

18     Croats.  They would call them Ustashas, and the flag of the Croatian

19     people was treated by some as a Ustasha flag, which is absurd.

20        Q.   A few questions to clarify your answer.  Are you aware of a flag

21     being raised on the 4th of January, so being put up on that date, a Croat

22     flag?

23        A.   The Croatian flags of the Croatian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina

24     were put up before the 25th of December, 1992, and they remained up until

25     the holiday period was over -- or, rather, up until the 6th of January,

Page 34520

 1     1993.  And it wasn't just a matter of one flag.  Flags were frequently

 2     taken down by Muslims.  That's what we think.  That usually happened at

 3     night, and then in the morning a new flag would be put up where there

 4     were Croatian flags.  But for the 4th of January, I can't say for sure

 5     that one or two flags were taken down for sure, but after the Three

 6     Kings, on the first working day I found out about this shooting or,

 7     rather, this warning that the flags of the Croatian people should not be

 8     touched.

 9        Q.   My question was, however --

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I was listening to

11     you.  This matter of flags has been evoked on a number of occasions here,

12     so it's nothing new for the Judges.  However, there is something that I

13     have just discovered, and I need an answer from you.  You seem to be

14     linking this flag to a religious festival.  You say that it was put up

15     before the 25th of December, 1992, so you seem to be linking the raising

16     of this flag to a Catholic event because the Croats put it up.

17             In the previous years, 1980, 1985, 1990, were these flags raised

18     up systematically in Gornji Vakuf before the 25th of December?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yes, they were.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, does this mean that the

21     member of the international community who drafted his report perhaps made

22     two mistakes?  First of all, he referred to a Ustasha flag.  Perhaps he

23     should have obtained information; but secondly, he should have checked

24     with you or with the Catholic body whether this flag had a religious

25     connotation.  So now you are telling me that traditionally one would put

Page 34521

 1     these flags up; one would raise these flags during this period of time

 2     and had religious connotations, not political connotations.

 3             Have you understood the question?  There must have been an

 4     interpretation problem.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before the first

 6     multi-party elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina, it was not possible because

 7     of the Communist authorities to use national symbols for festivals,

 8     festivities.  It was only after the multi-party elections in

 9     Bosnia-Herzegovina on the 18th of November, 1991, that the newly elected

10     authorities allowed each people to celebrate their religious festivals by

11     displaying their national symbols.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  If I have

13     understood you correctly, in December 1991 this flag had been raised

14     without any problems.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.  In

16     1991 and in 1990, as well, and then naturally in 1992.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you.

18             MS. MOE:

19        Q.   To follow up on the President's questions, Mr. Batinic, the flags

20     that you say were raised for Christmas, New Year 1992, were they the

21     flags of the Bosnian -- the flag of the Bosnian Croats?

22        A.   Yes.  They were the flags of the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina

23     exclusively.

24        Q.   So that would be the flag that you were shown yesterday by

25     Mr. Karnavas during his examination, would it?

Page 34522

 1        A.   That's quite correct.

 2        Q.   And am I understanding you correctly that you were aware of flags

 3     being raised for Christmas and New Year's, but you're not aware of a

 4     particular raising of flags on the 4th of January?  Is that the correct

 5     understanding of your answer?

 6        A.   I knew about the 4th of January, 1993, too, but if you were

 7     following me, I said that the national symbols of the Croats put up

 8     before the religious holiday for Catholic Croats before Christmas in 1992

 9     remained where they were until the religious festivities were over, until

10     at least the 6th of January, 1993.

11             What happened on the 4th of January, 1993, one of the attempts to

12     take down the national symbol of the Croatian people in

13     Bosnia-Herzegovina resulted in this warning shot fired by a member of the

14     military police of the HVO because that wasn't the first such incident at

15     the time of these religious holidays.

16        Q.   Thank you.  I'll move on to a different subject unless there are

17     more questions from the -- Your Honours.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Yes, I have a question.  The intimation of the

19     indictment is that someone from the HVO fired at the soldier who was

20     taking down the flag.  You say the soldier fired into the air, not in any

21     way aiming at that soldier.  Can you tell the Chamber on what you base

22     this affirmation?  Has there been an investigation and you have seen the

23     result of it, or have you had a report on it?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if a member of the

25     military police of the HVO had fired at someone taking down the flag of

Page 34523

 1     the Croatian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina, well, if he had done that at

 2     the time he would have certainly killed him because he was only about ten

 3     metres away from him.  But he fired in the air to frighten him and to

 4     warn him.

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 6             MS. MOE:

 7        Q.   Just to conclude this, and then I will move on.  Were you present

 8     when this happened, this, you say, shooting in the air?

 9        A.   I wasn't present, but I was told about this in very precise

10     terms.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, I have a follow-up

12     question.  I understand in Gornji Vakuf during the religious festivities

13     one put up these flags; but as far as you know, was this done in

14     Herzegovina, in areas where the Catholic Croats were present?  Was this

15     done in general terms or more precisely just in your area?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this wasn't only

17     something that was done in Gornji Vakuf.  This was usually done to

18     celebrate the religious festivities of the Croats throughout Bosnia and

19     Herzegovina.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did this cost -- did this

21     custom have its roots in history, in the past?  You are not perhaps an

22     historian.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it did, Your Honours.  My

24     father would put up the flag of the Croatian people in Bosnia and

25     Herzegovina in his house because he couldn't do it outside at the time of

Page 34524

 1     the Communist regime, and everyone else acted in the same way.  That's a

 2     tradition of the Croatian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Coric.

 4             THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in order to

 5     clarify this problem, would you allow me to put a very brief question to

 6     the witness with regard to this matter?

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.  This is a

 8     problem.  I have to confer with my colleagues.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Coric, as a rule you

11     shouldn't; but as you rarely take the floor, go ahead.

12             THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

13             Witness, every week there are weddings for all the people in

14     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  The Muslims, the Croats, and the Serbs are

15     concerned.  Can you tell the Chamber, when you have columns of people

16     celebrating such weddings passing through the area, do they display

17     symbols of any kind?  What kind of symbols?  I'm referring to flags.

18     What kind of flags?  Is this common practice?  Was this common practice

19     in the former Yugoslavia, and is it practice or has it been common

20     practice since the 1990s up until the present day?  Thank you.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Coric, it was common practice

22     before 1990.  When you had wedding columns one would display flags, but I

23     should point out that before 1990 when the Croats had a wedding they

24     would inverse the position for the Croatian flag, although this wasn't

25     possible -- it wasn't allowed.  Why was it upside down?  Well, because

Page 34525

 1     our national flag, the national flag of the Croatian people, starts with

 2     a red square and the Yugoslav -- or, rather, has a red field whereas the

 3     Yugoslav one had a blue field, so you would turn it around.  So in spite

 4     of the fact that there was a star on it, it would look red, white, and

 5     blue.

 6             After the multi-party elections, it was allowed to display those

 7     national symbols; and then before religious festivities and when weddings

 8     were held and at every other festivals, the Croats would display their

 9     national symbols, the Croatian flag of the Croatian people in Bosnia and

10     Herzegovina.  The Muslims would display their own symbols.  They would

11     display them at their weddings, and the Serbs would do the same.  There

12     were no exceptions.

13             THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] I'm not happy with your

14     answer.  I was asking you what sort of flags they display now today, not

15     just then.  I said from then up until the present day.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From 1990, I said one could display

17     one's national symbols at weddings, festivals, birthdays, any kind of

18     festivity, religious festivities and other forms of festivities.  One

19     could display the symbols of one's nation.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No.  Mr. Praljak, please sit

21     down, because the Chamber allowed Mr. Coric to put his question

22     exceptionally.  We know that these flags were used during various

23     ceremonies.  The only specification - and Mr. Witness, you did not

24     respond it to quite - the question is, is that what is happening today?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, regularly.

Page 34526

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, you're on your

 2     feet for the question of flags or for some other reason?

 3             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] No, not directly.  I have

 4     nothing to ask the witness.  I would just like to address Your Honours

 5     with two sentences.  [In English] Yes, yes.  [Interpretation] I insist

 6     that I address the Court in this connection with two sentences.

 7     Judge Trechsel, please.

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Praljak, this court has rules, and everyone

 9     has to conform to them.  We have been normally quite lenient, but there

10     are limits, and it is not possible at this time for any party to address

11     the Court.  This is not provided for.  It's completely against the

12     ruling, and we cannot make an exception for you unless we -- we lose our

13     face by being completely inconsequential.  I'm sorry.  I ask you to

14     accept this.

15             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I can accept it, but on

16     Monday, Your Honours, you promised that you would set a time when we

17     would discuss these things.  The question of flags is a technical issue.

18     I wish to say that I sign every guild of the free man of Praljak an

19     independent autonomous person in Bosnia-Herzegovina to hang up his flag

20     whenever he wants.  We are spending months here riding a question that

21     has not been posed in France or Switzerland or America.  I have my own

22     flag, and I wish to sign any guild that ensues from this.

23             What is the question we are discussing here?  With the Croatian

24     people a sovereign nation in a state, will they hoist their flags two

25     days earlier or two days later, and then will anyone have the right to

Page 34527

 1     trample on it?  We have been wasting a lot of time.  There is no rule

 2     that would sanction such behaviour.  That is my response.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, the Prosecutor

 4     raised the question of flags according in line with the indictment.

 5     Apparently, the witness has given us certain element and explained to us

 6     that this was a religious custom.  There was no need for you to

 7     intervene, to add you personal opinion about the issue.  It is an

 8     additional waste of time.  There is the submission of the Prosecution,

 9     the witness responds, and you can have a witness brought in to testify

10     about this if you wish to do so.  There will be plenty of occasions to

11     come back to this.  And as my colleague has said, this is not the

12     opportunity.

13             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] This is a criminal court.

14     What crime prohibits this?  Somebody can say that I am walking, and you

15     will question me whether I have the right to walk.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, we have understood

17     what you said.  I'm telling you that this question of flags is now clear

18     to everyone, and we will now move on to another subject.

19             Madam Prosecutor.

20             MS. MOE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  As promised, I will move on.

21        Q.   I would like you to look at another document, Mr. Batinic.  It's

22     in the same binder.  It's number P 01351.  It's P 01351, and there should

23     be a B/C/S version.  Do you have it in front of you?

24        A.   Yes, I do.

25        Q.   You can see that it's from the operative zone of North-west

Page 34528

 1     Herzegovina, the Prozor forward command post, and that it's dated

 2     20-something January 1993.  And from the last page we can see that it's

 3     signed by Colonel Zeljko Siljeg, who was the commander of this operative

 4     zone.

 5             I take it you have not seen the document before, have you?

 6        A.   Yes, you're quite right.  I have not seen this document before.

 7        Q.   Again, however, I'd like to ask you a few questions as to what is

 8     contained in the document and see if that complies or doesn't comply with

 9     your knowledge at the time.  You can see that it is on the first page a

10     report on the situation in Gornji Vakuf on the 28th of January, 1993, and

11     that would have been the time when you were with the HVO.

12             If you go to page 2 in the B/C/S version, you will see that there

13     is a Roman number I, and it deals with Uzricje.  And I apologise for my

14     pronunciation.

15             Have you found the section on Uzricje, Mr. Batinic?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   What I want to ask you is in number 4 on that list of issues that

18     Siljeg brings up regarding Uzricje, and it says there that a total of 24

19     houses destroyed (22 torched, 2 shelled), and goes on to number 5:

20     "Looted two tractors and seven luxury cars."

21             Were you aware of the HVO burning of houses and looting in

22     Uzricje at the time?

23        A.   I was not aware of it.

24        Q.   Is this something that was -- or the question of whether there

25     were burning or looting, is this something that was discussed between the

Page 34529

 1     HVO soldiers where you were?

 2        A.   At the time referred to in this document, I was in the so-called

 3     industrial zone, that is, in the factories together with a group of home

 4     guards, and we did not have information about this kind of activity.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, I'm told -- excuse me, I'm told that

 6     on number 5 there may be a mistranslation.  Perhaps the gentleman can

 7     read on number 5 where in English it says:  "looted two tractors and

 8     seven luxury cars."  What does it say actually in Croatian?  And also, I

 9     haven't read the entire report, but on number 4 where it talks about the

10     24 houses having been destroyed, I don't see that this was actually done

11     intentionally by the HVO as the question would appear, as it was posed by

12     Madam Prosecutor.

13             MS. MOE:  I'm afraid I can't help much on the translation issue,

14     but maybe the interpreter could read out the B/C/S section on number 5 on

15     Uzricje, please.

16             MR. KARNAVAS:  The witness can read.  The interpreter or the

17     translator can translate.  That's why we have the witness here.

18             MS. MOE:

19        Q.   Witness, please, you see number 5 there.  Could you please read

20     that out in your language.

21        A.   Point 5 of this document says:  "Taken away:  Two tractors and

22     seven luxury cars."

23        Q.   Some of the same words are used for a different -- or regarding a

24     different village, and since this is now a language issue, I'd like you

25     to read out that, as well, and I'll direct you to it.

Page 34530

 1             Can you see under number 5, there's a Roman number II to Dusa.

 2        A.   I see that.

 3        Q.   And if you go down that list, you get finally to a number 4.

 4     That might very well be on your next page.  And the number 4 in my

 5     English version, it says:  "A total of 18 houses and sheds were

 6     destroyed," and it goes on.  Could you please start reading in number 4

 7     what it says.

 8        A.   Under number 4, under the heading Dusa, it says:  "Totally

 9     destroyed 18 houses and sheds, of which 16 were torched and 2 houses from

10     the consequences of shelling."

11        Q.   Can you go on please and read number 5 as well.  That comes after

12     the section that you just read.

13        A.   Under 5:  "Driven away:  Two tractors, two TAMs, and seven luxury

14     cars."

15        Q.   Thank you.  I'll try and phrase my questions more generally.

16             First, did I understand you correctly that you said at this

17     point, let's say the last part of January, you were in the industrial

18     zone with the Home Guard, which is close to the town?  Is that right?

19        A.   Yes, that's right.

20        Q.   And in general, you didn't then know what was going on in the

21     villages like Uzricje and Dusa.  Is that correctly understood?

22        A.   Correct.

23        Q.   A general question, then.  Were you aware of any intentional

24     burning of Muslim houses or -- and/or any looting of Muslim property

25     carried out by HVO members?

Page 34531

 1        A.   I didn't hear about that from anyone.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             MS. MOE:  Unless there are any questions from the Chamber, I will

 4     move on to a different subject.

 5        Q.   Mr. Batinic, this is quite a different subject, and I'm now

 6     moving away from Gornji Vakuf again.  You testified on direct examination

 7     by Mr. Karnavas regarding some meetings of the Central Board of the HDZ

 8     in February 1992, more specifically about Mr. Kljuic and his position at

 9     the time.  Can you remember that?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And do I understand you correctly that what you said was the

12     following:  "On the 2nd of February, 1992, during the meeting that was in

13     Siroki Brijeg, Kljuic felt that he no longer had the support of most of

14     the members of the Central Committee of the HDZ, and as a result, he

15     resigned."  Correct?

16        A.   Yes, that is correct, but the interpreter didn't say that to me.

17     If I hadn't heard it from you, I couldn't confirm it.

18        Q.   I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.  Could

19     you say again, please?

20        A.   Your question was not fully interpreted by the interpreter

21     service working for this Tribunal.  I heard you when you asked whether

22     that was correct, and I said, yes, it was.

23        Q.   So you heard me in English, in other words?

24        A.   I understand a little.

25        Q.   Thank you.  You were aware, though, when it comes to Kljuic that

Page 34532

 1     there had been discussions about his role in the leadership of the HDZ

 2     BiH prior to this 2nd of February meeting, weren't you?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And you knew, didn't you, that Tudjman and Susak and Boban, that

 5     they were unhappy with Kljuic and that they wanted him out of the

 6     leadership of the HDZ BiH, and because of that pressure, he resigned.

 7     Isn't that how it was?

 8        A.   No.  I didn't know what you were just saying, that Mr. Kljuic as

 9     president of the HDZ for Bosnia and Herzegovina was not desirable to

10     Mr. Tudjman, Susak, and Boban.  I really didn't know that.

11        Q.   Well, I'd like to show you yet another document and quote from

12     that and see if that -- if you can tell me and comment on that.  Let's

13     start with it.  And that would be a document that is, again, in your

14     binder, and it's number P 00134.

15             Have you found that, Mr. Batinic?

16        A.   I'm not sure.  Would you repeat the number, please?

17        Q.   Yes.  P 00134, and it starts with a page numbered 99.  Do you

18     have it there?

19        A.   Yes, I do.

20        Q.   For your information, that's a transcript from a meeting at the

21     office of President Franjo Tudjman of Croatia, and it's from the 3rd of

22     March, 1993.

23             MS. MOE:  For counsel, this has priorly been admitted before.

24     This is, then, from page 99.

25        Q.   And I'll read parts of it out to you, Mr. Batinic.  If you go

Page 34533

 1     down and you see the president, his second entry, it starts with:  "All

 2     right."  And then it goes on three paragraphs down to:  "Mate can inform

 3     us briefly."  Then it goes on:  "However" - this is President Tudjman

 4     speaking - "However, as you know events have unfolded in the BH HDZ in

 5     such a way that Stjepan Kljuic who, after the mistake with Perinovic, was

 6     excellent for that who managed the election campaign brilliantly, but

 7     afterwards, recently, partially" -- excuse me -- "practically disappeared

 8     under Alija Izetbegovic's fez and the HDZ practically stopped leading an

 9     independent Croatian policy, our policy.  This went so far, but just as

10     Alija said that the war in Croatia was not his war, so Stjepan Kljuic

11     told foreign newspapers - I do not know whether he did it here, too - but

12     people told me that he said that we had ourselves to blame for this

13     situation for the war.  In circumstances such as they were, with

14     representatives from Western Herzegovina and the Croatian Bosnian

15     Posavina coming to us over the last year and a half and us forming our

16     policies together with them, he was evermore distant from these policies.

17              "We, let me not repeat things, it is known what we said, what we

18     told these people of ours who even wanted to take a decision when the

19     Serbs practically separated, when Alija conducted such a policy, our

20     people, people came with the proposal that a declaration be adopted on

21     unification with Croatia.

22              "I was the one who held them back, and we said no, because of

23     the international situation, so that we would not be in an awkward

24     situation."

25             And I'll continue until the end of Mr. Tudjman's entry so you

Page 34534

 1     have it all.

 2             Tudjman continues:  "We also told Kljuic to talk both to the

 3     Muslims and Izetbegovic and to the Serbs.  However, he did not do this.

 4     He became increasingly distant from the part of the HDZ, which was ready

 5     to implement these policies, and he then practically came to his

 6     resignation.  Now, I would like to get back on stage as his own way.

 7     Therefore, the way things are is that we should hold a session of the

 8     Main Board there, and instead of him who has resigned, we should elect a

 9     new president while the convention elections, et cetera, they will be

10     held when the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina is over.  That is all from

11     me.  Thank you.  Mate, the floor is yours."

12             Mr. Batinic, what Tudjman basically says here is that Kljuic had

13     to go, isn't it, because he's not willing to adopt an independent

14     Croatian policy of the HDZ of Posavina and Herzegovina, isn't it?

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  Objection to the form of the question.  He can --

16     she can ask what Tudjman said.  Now she's paraphrasing and interpreting

17     what Tudjman supposedly had said.  I don't read it that way.  Now, if she

18     reads it that way, that's her -- that's her problem, but the question

19     should be posed:  "Can you give us an explanation?  Can you give us an

20     opinion on this?"  Keeping in mind the date, the date of when this

21     occurred.  Tudjman doesn't say anything about Kljuic being forced out.

22     Kljuic resigned on his own.  And in light of this question, perhaps the

23     gentleman should be allowed to refer to his notebook when he was there

24     during the meeting and took copious notes as to what exactly occurred.

25             MS. MOE:  Mr. President, if I may.  I'm asking a leading question

Page 34535

 1     as part of my cross-examination.  Mr. Karnavas has provided us with his

 2     interpretation of what was said --

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, Madam Prosecution

 4     is presenting her case, and she's entitled to present her arguments as

 5     she wishes.  Now, the witness may agree with her or not.  She puts her

 6     question in the way she wishes.  That is her job, and the witness can say

 7     I don't agree and explain why.

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  I totally agree with you except for the fact that

 9     if she's going to quote from a document, she then can't misstate the

10     facts of the document.  She could ask -- she can point to the particular

11     aspect of the document, the one sentence or two where Tudjman supposedly

12     says that they fired Kljuic, if that's what she wants to put, but that's

13     not the case.  It's quite obvious for me something different, so if she

14     wants to quote the particular passage and say, is this what Tudjman's

15     saying, that's fine.  But the way the question is being posed, she's

16     mischaracterising the facts, and that's what I object to.

17             MS. MOE:  I still believe I am entitled to ask the question, and

18     it's then up to the witness who is the one testifying here to say whether

19     he agrees or not or sees it differently.  But before we get to that and

20     since Mr. Karnavas raised the issue of the date, I am afraid I have

21     misread the date.  The right date, according to page 1 of the transcript

22     that has already been admitted, is 10th of March, 1992.  So it's 1992,

23     not 1993.  My mistake.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 10th of March, 1992, was 34

25     days following the resignation of the president of the HDZ for BiH,

Page 34536

 1     Mr. Kljuic as president.  So this is 34 days after his resignation.  So I

 2     cannot agree, Madam Prosecutor, for the simple reason that this document

 3     needs to be read out in its entirety, and in a part of this document it

 4     is stated that they had told Kljuic to talk to the Muslims and the Serbs

 5     and that he hadn't done that.  And as a result, he didn't implement the

 6     policies expected of him, and then, naturally, members of the Central

 7     Board realised this at a meeting in Siroki Brijeg, and when Mr. Kljuic

 8     realised that he no longer enjoyed the support of those same people, it

 9     was only logical for him to resign.

10             MS. MOE:  I'll move on unless the Trial Chamber has questions on

11     this issue.

12        Q.   Mr. Batinic, I'm still with the HDZ issue, so to speak, the HDZ

13     politics, and I'd like again to go back to something you said during

14     Mr. Karnavas's direct examination.  And when it came to the status of the

15     Croats in BiH, you said that it was important for the Croats to be a

16     constituent people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Am I right?

17        A.   It's not that it was important for us.  We are a constituent

18     people in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

19        Q.   And that's what you wanted to be also, say, back in 1991, 1992;

20     is that correct?

21        A.   But we are a constituent people, Madam Prosecutor.  It wasn't

22     necessary for us to want something.

23        Q.   I'll ask you a different question, then -- or, actually, I'll

24     refer back to a question asked by Mr. Karnavas.  He asked you whether

25     there is a distinction between being a constituent people and a minority.

Page 34537

 1     Can you remember that question?

 2             National minority.  Thank you, Mr. Karnavas.

 3        A.   There's an important distinction to be made between the term "a

 4     constituent people" and the term "a national minority," which you might

 5     have anywhere in the world.

 6        Q.   Excuse me, Mr. Batinic.  I'd like to go back to what you said

 7     during direct examination by Mr. Karnavas, and I'd like you to listen and

 8     see if that's the correct quote, and that's on line -- sorry, page 54

 9     from the first -- Monday transcript.

10        A.   Yes.  Yes.

11        Q.    "A constituent nation in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Well, the

12     constituent nations were the Croats, the Serbs, and the Muslims, and they

13     were in fact" -- and then there's a word missing, but it refers to that

14     "they are the statehood of BiH."

15             And am I understanding you correctly that that would be the

16     Croats, the Serbs, and the Muslims that were to be the constituent

17     peoples of BiH?  Is that correct?

18        A.   The Serbs, the Croats, and the Muslims -- well, it's not as if

19     they were supposed to be or had to be the constituent peoples.  From the

20     time that Bosnia-Herzegovina was founded as a state, they were the

21     constituent peoples in that state.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Back to the distinction between national minority --

23             MR. KOVACIC:  I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think it is very

24     important.  Otherwise, we will not go in not necessary question.  I think

25     -I'm not sure, I think - that I have heard that the witness said since

Page 34538

 1     foundation of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  So obviously, he's

 2     referring to the history, which is the case by the constitution before --

 3     yeah.  Now, the others are telling me that they also understand.  But if

 4     that is clear, then it would not -- then it would not be further

 5     questions unnecessarily.

 6             MS. MOE:  Well, my question referred to the status of a

 7     constituent people and the status of a national minority without any

 8     specific time references.  This issue might take a little while, though,

 9     so if the Chamber wants to -- wants to break, we can do that.  Otherwise,

10     I'll go on.  I'm in the Chamber's hands.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll have a break.  We'll have

12     our 20-minute break.

13             MR. KARNAVAS:  During the break, Your Honour, if I may suggest

14     that perhaps our colleague consult with Mr. Tomljanovich.  His mentor who

15     guided him at Yale to get his Ph.D., Ivo Banac, has written the probably

16     the seminal book, the seminal book, on national minorities in the area.

17     Perhaps that might assist my colleagues on that side in learning the

18     distinction between what is a constituent nation and what is a national

19     minority.  It's a critical issue.

20             MR. SCOTT:  Excuse me, Your Honour.  I won't belabour it, but

21     there's no reason for -- with great respect, I appreciate Mr. Karnavas's

22     desire to be helpful.  We know quite well.  We've read a lot of this

23     material.  But the questions are put for a particular reason, and you

24     have to give counsel a chance to conduct her examination, as Mr. Karnavas

25     often says, step-by-step.  It's not that we don't know.  I certainly -- I

Page 34539

 1     think I know.  I'm not a native of the former Yugoslavia, my apologies,

 2     but I've researched the situation quite extensively.  I don't think we

 3     need to be lectured on that.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We'll have a

 5     20-minute break now.

 6                           --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We'll now resume.

 9             MS. MOE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

10        Q.   I'd like to go back to a statement that you made on Monday,

11     Mr. Batinic, and I'm going to give a transcript reference to Mr. Karnavas

12     and counsel, but you won't have it in front of you, so I'm asking you to

13     listen to me.  It's page 34321, and the question is from line 1, and the

14     question you were asked, Mr. Batinic is:  "All right.  Now, is there a

15     distinction between being a constituent nation and a national minority

16     and, if so, could you please tell us what that distinction is?"

17             And your answer was:  "As the constituent nation in

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina, well, the constituent nations were the Croats, the

19     Serbs, and the Muslims, and they were, in fact, the bearers of the

20     statehood of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  And as a constituent people, any one of

21     those three peoples mentioned had the right to expect that they could

22     participate in government, that government would be shared between the

23     constituent peoples in an equal manner.  National minorities could not

24     expect or count on being included in this division of power, in sharing

25     in government, and that's the significant distinction that has to be

Page 34540

 1     made."

 2             Can you remember making that statement, Mr. Batinic?

 3        A.   Yes, I remember that very well.

 4        Q.   What do you mean by a constituent people having the right to

 5     expect that government would be shared between the constituent peoples in

 6     an equal manner?  And I'm interested in what you mean by "shared in an

 7     equal manner."

 8        A.   A constituent people has the right to expect to be represented in

 9     government, in a government of which they are a state-forming factor.

10     They will be on an equal footing with other constituent peoples.

11     National minorities have all civil rights and other forms of rights.

12     They can participate in government, but this is not necessary, whereas

13     representatives of constituent peoples do have to participate in

14     governmental bodies.

15        Q.   And what do you mean by saying "on equal footing with other

16     constituent peoples"?  Maybe you can give an example.

17        A.   Each of the constituent peoples has the right and rightly expects

18     to be represented in an equal manner at all levels of power in the state

19     in question, in the state referred to.  To have equal rights means that

20     this concerns the Serbs, the Croats, and the Muslims -- or, rather, in

21     this particular case, the Bosniaks as they're called today.

22        Q.   I'm still asking you what you mean by "equal manner," "equal

23     footing."  Does it mean, for example, for one Croat in government, one

24     Muslim in government?

25        A.   At the level of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is

Page 34541

 1     quite correct.  So it is an issue of parity.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  I'd like you to have a look at another document that

 3     was brought up during Mr. Karnavas's cross -- excuse me, direct

 4     examination, and that would be in the binder you have in front of you,

 5     and it's number 1D 02700.  That should be the Statute of the HDZ BiH from

 6     1993.  Oh, sorry, it was in the -- in the second binder.  Thank you.

 7             Do you have it, Mr. Batinic?

 8        A.   I do.

 9        Q.   I'd like you to look at one of the articles that were showed you

10     by Mr. Karnavas yesterday -- excuse me, the day before, and that's

11     Article 10, number 1, 10.1, and it should be on page 3 in your document

12     in B/C/S.  Have you found Article 10.1?

13        A.   Yes, I have.

14        Q.   In Article 10.1 and I'm going to read it out to you, it says the

15     following:  "To ensure the right of the Croatian people in Bosnia and

16     Herzegovina to self-determination and" -- excuse me:  "

17     self-determination and statehood, independence and sovereignty, in the

18     sovereign, independent and internationally recognised state of Bosnia and

19     Herzegovina consisting of three equal constitutive nations (Croats,

20     Muslims, and Serbs), and has the internal political structure of a state

21     consisting of three constitutive units."

22             Am I correct in understanding that this Article 10.1, it means

23     that there would be three nations in three different constitutive units,

24     so three units within BiH, one Croat, one Serb, and one Muslim unit?

25        A.   You're partially right.  In 10.1, the HDZ Bosnia-Herzegovina

Page 34542

 1     states its support for a Bosnia and Herzegovina, the internal structure

 2     of which would include constituent units representing three constituent

 3     peoples in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Each constituent unit would have its

 4     people in some kind of a majority, and within, let's say, the framework

 5     of the federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina or a union of the republics of

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina, relationships would be determined between these three

 7     peoples.

 8        Q.   Right.  So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that

 9     there are three -- or what it refers to in Article 10.1 is three

10     constitutive units, and in one of those units the Serbs would be in

11     minority -- excuse me, majority; in the second unit, the Croats would be

12     in majority; and in the third unit, the Muslims would be in majority?

13        A.   That's quite correct.

14        Q.   And in the Croat unit, then, would the Muslims then be a

15     constituent people with the right to participate in the government of

16     that unit on an equal footing with the Croats?

17        A.   In any constituent unit, anyone from one of the three constituent

18     peoples would have a constituent status.  So a Croat in a unit where the

19     Muslims were in a majority, a Croat in a unit where the Serbs were in a

20     majority, and vice versa, Serbs and Muslims in a constituent unit where

21     the Croats were in the majority.  You can't take away the right of being

22     a constituent people from any of the three constituent peoples in any

23     square metre of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

24        Q.   So are you, then, saying that in the constituent unit where the

25     Croats would be a majority, there would be one Muslim for one Croat in

Page 34543

 1     government, so one Muslim for one Croat in government in Herceg-Bosna?

 2        A.   The relationship would be agreed on on the basis of reciprocity

 3     between the federal units within Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 4        Q.   But are you -- does that mean that in the constituent unit where

 5     the Croats would be a majority there would be one Muslim for one Croat in

 6     government?  That was my question, and I don't think you've answered it

 7     specifically.

 8        A.   I can't briefly answer your question.  I said that this

 9     relationship within the federal units was -- well, if it had been

10     established in Bosnia-Herzegovina, it would have been established on the

11     basis of reciprocity between the three constituent peoples.  At the level

12     of the state, naturally, that relationship would be a relationship based

13     on parity.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, what you are saying is

15     interesting.  I'm trying to follow you because the subject is extremely

16     complicated.  If we take the Republic of Herceg-Bosna, if I have

17     understood what you have said correctly, in this case the Serbs, the

18     Croats, and the Muslims at the level of state would be on an equal

19     footing.  That is to say there would be, for example, a Presidency of the

20     Republic of Herceg-Bosna.  There would be a Serbian deputy, a Muslim

21     deputy, and a Croatian deputy, and these three would rotate, be president

22     of the Republic of Herceg-Bosna.  Is that in fact what you are actually

23     saying?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  When I mentioned

25     the state level, well, at the level of the state there would be a

Page 34544

 1     relationship of parity, and in that case I was thinking of the State of

 2     Bosnia-Herzegovina, of the bodies of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the governmental

 3     bodies, because only the state can carry out certain joint activities.

 4     Within constituent units where the Croats were in the majority, Serbs or

 5     Muslims, the government would be established on reciprocity agreed on by

 6     the parties, or if this had been the case, by representatives of federal

 7     units.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm making a hypothesis.  Let's

 9     imagine that the Republic of Herceg-Bosna has been recognised by

10     everyone.  What would have happened on the political level in your

11     opinion?  Would there have been this notion of constituent people?  Would

12     this notion have been maintained within the Republic of Herceg-Bosna and,

13     if so, does this mean that there would automatically be in all spheres of

14     authority a Serb, a Croat, and a Muslim, or is this -- would this be

15     another system?  It's a hypothesis that I'm putting forward.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can answer this in

17     the following way:  No one ever asked representatives of the HDZ for an

18     independent Republic of Herceg-Bosna.  As a political party which had the

19     full support of the Croatian people, we supported an internal structure

20     base on the federal model.  The Republic of Herceg-Bosna wouldn't be

21     internationally recognised, only the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina

22     would be recognised within a federation between three republics.  Let's

23     put it that way.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  At the federal

25     level, how would power have been shared in the Republic of Herceg-Bosna

Page 34545

 1     within the framework of this federal state of the Republic of

 2     Bosnia-Herzegovina?  How would power have been exercised at the level of

 3     the Republic of Herceg-Bosna?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One of the three federal units

 5     would have had to have its own constitution, its own government.  It

 6     couldn't have had its own currency or relationships with other states as

 7     a sovereign and independent state, so such activities would have to be

 8     transferred to state authorities in which Serbs, Croats, and Muslims

 9     would participate on an equal footing.  Within one constituent unit, one

10     assumed that power would be organised on the basis of reciprocity, as I

11     said, on the basis of reciprocity of federal units in Bosnia-Herzegovina

12     or, rather, there would be representation of people who weren't in the

13     majority, which was in proportion to the number of the inhabitants of the

14     second or third people in that constituent unit.

15             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I must confess, Mr. Batinic, that I'm not quite

16     clear yet what -- what your answer is; and second, I'm not clear on what

17     you base it.  If I -- if I take the essence, the unit, as in Croat, Serb,

18     would be a Croat, Serb, Muslim unit in the first place; and on the other

19     side, the other ethnicities within that unit would nevertheless have a

20     function of a constituent nation, but their representation in government

21     would be a matter of reciprocity.

22             Now, I could imagine that reciprocity means if you Muslims in

23     your unit put a portion of Croats in your government, we Croats in

24     Herceg-Bosna will put an adequate portion of Muslims in our government.

25     I'm not complicating it by including the Serbs, but of course, that's

Page 34546

 1     only for economy.  Is that what you mean by reciprocity?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Then I have this other question:  On what basis

 4     do you affirm this?  Which document contains a sketch of this -- of this

 5     solution or even maybe an elaborate -- an elaborate plan or concept or

 6     programme?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there was no such

 8     document.  This was just drafted as a proposal for policies that the HDZ

 9     in Bosnia-Herzegovina would support at a time that this statute was

10     created in 1993, on the 17th of December.  So these questions were

11     questions that had to be agreed on with the other two constituent

12     peoples.

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] And was this plan, this draft,

14     was this put on paper?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not as far as I know, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  So it is your point that we just take your word

17     for it, that this was discussed and that there was a general agreement on

18     this.  Is that finally the basis of what you're telling us?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These were the political tendencies

20     that the HDZ expressed with regard to the internal organisation of

21     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Following these proposals, the representatives of

22     the Croatian people accepted certain plans that were to come into force

23     in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the insistence of the international

24     community.  I have the Vance-Owen Plan in mind above all and everything

25     else that happened afterwards.

Page 34547

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I will leave it at that for the moment.  Thank

 2     you.

 3             MS. MOE:

 4        Q.   I'm afraid I have a few more questions on this, Mr. Batinic.  So

 5     if I understand you correctly, you say that representation in government

 6     within the Croat unit would be decided on reciprocity.  Is that correct?

 7        A.   With the remaining two federal units, yes.

 8        Q.   But I'm talking within the Croat unit, though.  Are you saying

 9     that representation by the Serbs and the Muslims in government within the

10     Croat unit would be decided on reciprocity with the two other units of

11     BiH?

12        A.   Quite so.

13        Q.   But what do you mean by reciprocity?  And that's within the unit

14     I'm still referring to.

15        A.   If we have at the level of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina a

16     parity government formed through which at every inch of

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina territory the equality and equal rights of all three

18     nations of Bosnia-Herzegovina are ensured, then when it comes to the

19     formation of government in the constituent units, the participation of

20     the nation that is not the majority in one of the three would be

21     reciprocal and in proportion to their numbers and agreed upon among the

22     three units.

23             I'm not a legal expert, especially not an expert on

24     constitutional law, but I know what we basically had in mind in the

25     statute and other documents of the HDZ and in our programme declarations.

Page 34548

 1        Q.   But did you within the Croat unit, again, did you have in mind

 2     that the Muslims would be a constituent people or a national minority?

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, I'm going to object at this point.

 4     This has been asked, and it's been answered repeatedly.  The gentleman

 5     has said that they would be constituent as they were throughout every

 6     single inch.  Now, I don't understand what part they don't get.  I would

 7     also ask the Trial Chamber to recall that we heard a lot of testimony

 8     about the Cutileiro Plan, which answered all the questions that were

 9     being posed by the Bench.  And also, we have another plan, which is the

10     Owen-Stoltenberg plan, which is exactly what the gentleman is saying even

11     though he's not being given an opportunity to look at those documents,

12     because it's -- it's exactly what he's saying.  But I don't understand.

13     Why is it that over and over again we're trying to suggest that the

14     Croats are trying to disenfranchise one of the nations when that is not

15     the case?

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Prosecutor, the witness

17     has already answered your question that you're asking regarding the

18     question of minorities and constituent peoples.  He was quite clear about

19     it.  So going back to it is immediately provoking an intervention by

20     Mr. Karnavas, as we have had other witnesses and high-level jurists

21     discussing these constitutional issues.  The witness has just told us

22     that he's not a legal expert, so it's better to move on to another

23     subject unless in view of the position that he had in this municipality

24     of Gornji Vakuf he might on the political level be able to answer certain

25     questions but not the legal issues of a minority and a constituent

Page 34549

 1     people.  We have spent maybe hundreds of hours discussing this issue.

 2             MS. MOE:  I'll take that on board, Your Honour, and I'll --

 3     Mr. President, and I'll move on.

 4        Q.   If I understood you correctly, Mr. Batinic, you said that from, I

 5     think, January 1993 there were basically two separate municipal

 6     administrations in Gornji Vakuf, a Muslim and a Croat one.  Is that the

 7     correct understanding of your testimony?

 8        A.   Not in January, but when the conflict ceased in January and

 9     February 1993.

10        Q.   Okay.  And to move forward a few words, there were municipal

11     elections in 1997; is that correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And after the 1997 elections, was there to be set up a joint

14     administration in Gornji Vakuf?

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, I object.  This is outside the scope

16     of the indictment.  I object on relevance.  If we could hear what the

17     relevance is, perhaps, then the Trial Chamber may be able to make a

18     ruling.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There may have some relevance.

20     Please explain, madam.  What is the relevance of this question, of

21     addressing the elections of 1997?

22             MS. MOE:  Well, firstly, if Mr. Karnavas's objection goes to me

23     getting into post-Dayton issues, I'd like to refer to Mr. Karnavas's

24     direct examination where he touched upon the 1997 statute of the Croatian

25     Community of Herceg-Bosna.  That was an exhibit that was tendered.  And

Page 34550

 1     Mr. Batinic, also, in his testimony touched upon the issue of the name of

 2     the municipality, Gornji Vakuf, Uskoplje.  That was, I think, brought up

 3     when Mr. Praljak did his cross-examination, but I might be mistaken

 4     there.

 5             The document that I'm about to go into does refer to the

 6     municipality of Gornji Vakuf, what happened there, and it deals with

 7     Mr. Batinic directly.

 8             Also, I'd like to point out that this, in the Prosecution's

 9     opinion, goes to the credibility of the witness.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  First and foremost, the 1997 document that was

11     shown was -- shows that the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna is still

12     in existence, and it's registered legally, and it showed the coat of

13     arms.  That's first of all.  It has nothing to do with any elections in

14     that particular municipality.  So that's a red herring to suggest that

15     somehow the door has been opened with that.

16             With respect to the name, I don't -- I don't see where in the

17     indictment there's anything making reference that the use of the Croatian

18     historical name of that area, Uskoplje, is somehow tied into the

19     indictment, so another that's red herring.

20             They're actually -- they're suggesting that it goes to the

21     gentleman's credibility.  Perhaps we need to hear a little bit more.  How

22     is it it goes -- these elections in 1997 go to the gentleman's

23     credibility as to what he saw, what he heard, you know, and what he did

24     during the relevant period of the indictment in that particular area, and

25     we're talking 1991, 1992, 1993.

Page 34551

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, regarding credibility,

 2     it's on the basis of the credibility of the witness that you wish to

 3     address the elections of 1997.

 4             MS. MOE:  Well, these are not exactly the elections in 1997.

 5     It's something that happened in Gornji Vakuf subsequent to the elections

 6     of 1997 that involves Mr. Batinic.  That's my first point.

 7             My second point is that I still --

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed, yes.

 9             MS. MOE:  My second point is that -- or did the President mean

10     for me to go ahead?  Thank you.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

12             MS. MOE:

13        Q.   So, Mr. Batinic, we had established, I believe, that there were

14     municipal elections in 1997 and that you were to set up a joint

15     administration in Gornji Vakuf.  Am I correct?

16        A.   Yes, you are correct.

17        Q.   And were you involved with the HDZ or with the municipality

18     authorities, the municipal authorities in Gornji Vakuf at this time?

19        A.   I was president of the Municipal Board of HDZ for the

20     municipality of Uskoplje at the time.

21        Q.   Did you have any position within the municipality authorities?

22     Were you head of department of finance?

23        A.   In 1997, I was head of the municipality of Uskoplje.

24        Q.   Could you be a little bit more specific?  Does that mean

25     president of the Executive Committee, something similar to what you were

Page 34552

 1     before the war, or is it something else you're referring to?

 2        A.   I'm referring to an administrative arrangement for the Croatian

 3     people.  I'm talking about the municipality of Uskoplje, and I was

 4     "nacelnik" or head of the Uskoplje municipality in 1997.

 5        Q.   And were you involved in these efforts to set up a joint

 6     administration in the municipality subsequent to the 1997 elections?

 7        A.   I was.

 8        Q.   Is it true that you were banned from municipal political

 9     activities in 1998 by the OSCE?

10        A.   True.

11        Q.   And is that, to put it in simple terms, and I'll go into the

12     document, but would that be because the local bodies of Gornji Vakuf

13     didn't manage to form a joint administration, which was required by the

14     OSCE?

15        A.   They were appointed, but they didn't start functioning jointly.

16        Q.   I'd like you to look at a document.  You might have it in front

17     of you already.  It's 1D 02789.  It's probably in the binder that you

18     have in front of you.  Do you have it, Mr. Batinic?

19        A.   I do.

20        Q.   We see it's from the election appeals subcommission from the OSCE

21     mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it's dated 20th of July, 1998.  Do

22     you recognise this document?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Is this the decision that bans you from political activities, to

25     put it simply, in 1998?

Page 34553

 1        A.   By this decision, political activity was not prohibited to me,

 2     but what I was not allowed to do was to take part in the bodies of

 3     authority in the municipality of Gornji Vakuf.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  I'd just like to read out very few sections of this

 5     document and see if they comply with your understanding.  And on the

 6     first page here, on page 1, it says:  "Decision of the Judges."  And it

 7     says:  "With regard to the appeal lodged by the head of the OSCE mission

 8     relating to non-observance of conditions laid down by the arbitration

 9     decision on results of the municipal elections in Gornji Vakuf

10     municipality in 1997."

11             So that was the basis, wasn't it, the non-compliance with an

12     arbitration decision?  You touched upon it already, but this is correct,

13     isn't it?

14        A.   That is what they wrote.

15        Q.   And I'd like you, then, to go to page 9 of the B/C/S version that

16     you have in front of you.  It should be on page 12 of the English

17     version.  Have you found it, Mr. Batinic?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Do you see the second whole paragraph?  It starts with "The

20     sanctions in this case."  On page 9.  Do you have that?  It's the last

21     full paragraph on page 9, I believe.  It should be on your screen as

22     well.  Do you have it?  Maybe it's -- it should be on your screen.  It

23     starts with "The sanctions."  Do you have it on your screen?

24        A.   I don't see it on the screen.

25             MS. MOE:  Could the usher please be of assistance?

Page 34554

 1        Q.   Do you have it, sir?

 2        A.   [In English] Yes.

 3        Q.   So what it -- what it says is the following:  "The sanctions in

 4     this case were imposed on the basis of the results of the Electoral

 5     Appeals Subcommission investigation.  The Electoral Appeals Subcommission

 6     finds that the HDZ is continuing to link the matter of changing the name

 7     of the municipality with the implementation of the electoral results in

 8     Gornji Vakuf municipality in contravention of the arbitration decision."

 9             That's correct, isn't it?

10        A.   What is written down corresponds to what was happening.

11        Q.   And when it refers to the matter of changing the name, that's the

12     question of changing the name from Gornji Vakuf to Uskoplje; is that

13     correct?

14        A.   No.  It is the request of the Croats of Uskoplje for the

15     municipality to be called Gornji Vakuf-Uskoplje.

16        Q.   This decision, is it correct that that referred to you personally

17     but also to an Abdulah Topcic representing the coalition, including the

18     SDA, as well as the HDZ as that political body?

19        A.   Correct.

20        Q.   Before we leave the document, I'll just like to look at the

21     decision itself so you can confirm that.  That should be on page 15 in

22     the English version and on page 12 in the B/C/S version.  Do you have it,

23     Mr. Batinic?

24        A.   I do.

25        Q.   So it says here "Decision," and it says:  "First - On the grounds

Page 34555

 1     of its powers to determine condign penalties, the Electoral Appeals

 2     Subcommission hereby orders that Zdravko Batinic, son of Lafko [phoen],

 3     be immediately relieved of the post of chief of the department of the

 4     economy and finance ..."

 5             I'll just stop there for a second.  Is that a position that you

 6     had at the time?

 7        A.   It is a position that I should have had in the joint

 8     administration.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  And I'll go on. " ... and be replaced by an

10     individual to be nominated by the HDZ in accordance with the procedure of

11     appointments to executive posts.  Furthermore, the Electoral Appeals

12     Subcommission orders that Batinic be prohibited from occupying any other

13     executive position in the municipal bodies of the authorities in Gornji

14     Vakuf, including an official or an unofficial position, and from

15     attending any meetings of the Municipal Council or other sessions in the

16     municipal government of Gornji Vakuf."

17             Is that correct?

18        A.   You're reading out what is written there.  That is correct.

19        Q.   If you go to the second -- what is marked "Second "right below

20     this, that's the dismissal of Topcic of the coalition, is it?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And then in the third one, it says:  "The Electoral Appeals

23     Subcommission reprimands the HDZ and the coalition for unprofessional

24     conduct, which prevents Gornji Vakuf Municipal Council from carrying out

25     its legislative duties."

Page 34556

 1             That's correct, as well, isn't it?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Just very quickly to another document on the same issue and

 4     then -- because I can see the clock ticking towards quarter to 2.00.

 5     Could you please look up the document that is very close to this one in

 6     your binder, I believe.  It's 1D 02792.

 7             Do you have that?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   We can see it's another document from the Election Appeals

10     Subcommission of the OSCE, and it's dated a little less than a month

11     later.  You can see up in the left-hand corner, it's dated 25th of

12     August, 1998.  Do you recognise this document, Mr. Batinic?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   At this time in August 1998, were you running for the -- or were

15     you going to run for the HDZ in the elections?

16        A.   I was on the list of candidates of the HDZ for the general

17     elections in 1998.

18        Q.   If we could go to -- I believe it's the last page or page 3 in

19     B/C/S.  It's page 4 in the English version, and it's a fairly long

20     paragraph.  It's the only full paragraph that you should have on your

21     page, and around the middle of that, it says the following:  "Had the

22     Election Appeals Subcommission known of Batinic's candidacy, it would

23     have removed him from the HDZ list of candidates.  However, the election

24     appeals subcommission now..." so this is August 1998, "... has new and

25     material evidence of his current candidacy.  The Election Appeals

Page 34557

 1     Subcommission finds that because of his previous actions, Batinic is

 2     barred from running in the 1998 elections, as his conduct violated the

 3     rules and regulations of the provisional appeals commission as described

 4     in detail in the first decision of 20th of July, 1998.  Consequently, the

 5     Election Appeals Subcommission finds that Batinic is not qualified to run

 6     as a candidate of the HDZ party in the cantonal Assembly elections in

 7     Canton 6 (the Central Bosnia canton)."

 8             And by this, you were barred from running -- or from being a

 9     candidate of the HDZ in these elections.  Is that correct, Mr. Batinic?

10        A.   Yes.  Me and some 20 or so of my colleagues on the HDZ lists were

11     also removed.

12        Q.   And these colleagues, had they been banned from certain

13     activities as well?

14        A.   By a similar decision, they were removed from the list of

15     candidates of the HDZ for the general elections in 1998.

16        Q.   And they were removed by the OSCE like you were?

17        A.   Unfortunately, contrary to the constitution of Bosnia and

18     Herzegovina, the constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and

19     Herzegovina, the constitution of the canton of Central Bosnia, yes.

20             MS. MOE:  I have --

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, we're going to stop

22     there now because it's time, and as there is a hearing later on, we

23     shouldn't create problems for the Judges who will come after us.

24             We will resume work tomorrow at 9.00, and the Chamber will render

25     its oral decision regarding the request for additional time.  The

Page 34558

 1     Prosecution has used 2 hours, 23 [as interpreted] minutes, so you have

 2     another 1 hour and 32 minutes left.  1 hour, 32 minutes.

 3             Witness, you will come back here tomorrow for the continuation of

 4     the cross-examination.

 5             There's an error in the transcript.  The Prosecution has used 2

 6     hours, 28 minutes, not 23, 28 minutes.  I usually don't make errors in

 7     subtracting numbers.  So you have 1 hour, 32 minutes left.

 8             Witness, I wish you and everyone else in the courtroom a good

 9     afternoon, and we'll meet again tomorrow.

10                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

11                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day

12                           of November, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.