1 Tuesday, 27 January 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, call the case,
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
9 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T,
10 the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.
11 Thank you, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 Today is Tuesday, 27th of January, 2009. Good afternoon to the
14 accused, first, to the Defence counsel, the witness, and the OTP
15 representatives, and good afternoon to all the people assisting us.
16 Before I give you the floor, Mr. Bos, for your last 15 minutes,
17 let me return to what Ms. Alaburic said yesterday.
18 I checked the transcript, the French transcript page 32003.
19 There's no doubt, ambiguity at all. When I put the question, I put it as
20 a question, with a question mark, saying this:
21 "Mr. Petkovic [as interpreted], is it Mr. Petkovic who decided
22 over ..." et cetera.
23 So I made sure that I put the question as a question, not at all
24 as a statement, as shown by the English translation.
25 So in the future, in order to avoid this kind of problem, if you
1 have any doubt as to what somebody said, wait until you have checked in
2 the three languages, what was said, to avoid any waste of time, to cast
3 doubts on people who have nothing to do with the problem at hand. You
4 can imagine that I was not going to make a mistake that a first-year law
5 student would make by drawing conclusions on the basis of a document
6 that, in itself, raises a lot of issues.
7 Furthermore, I noted at the end of the hearing that Ms. Alaburic
8 had withdrawn what she had said originally, and I did take note of that,
9 but I wanted to check what I had said exactly in the French transcript.
10 That seemed to be so -- such a blunder that I had to check. It was done.
11 I wanted to reassure you the question was indeed put as a question, with
12 a question mark. So maybe during redirect, Mr. Stojic's Defence might
13 return to the issue.
14 Yes, Mr. Alaburic.
15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, greetings to
16 everyone in the courtroom.
17 I wish to thank you once again for your effort to clear up this
18 sentence, which really sounded strange in the English language. I
19 accepted already, without any reservations yesterday, your explanation
20 that this was a hypothetical statement.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.
23 The legal officer said that it was page 35927, whilst I have on
24 my document "Page 32003." But we have already accumulated 35.000 pages,
25 which is quite a huge number.
1 Mr. Bos, you may proceed for 15 minutes.
2 WITNESS: DAVOR MARIJAN [Resumed]
3 [The witness answered through interpreter]
4 MR. BOS
5 Honours, and good afternoon to everyone in the courtroom.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Bos: [Continued]
7 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Marijan. In the remaining 15 minutes, I
8 would like to take you back to the conclusions of your report, and I'll
9 ask you to go to your report, to the section "Conclusions."
10 Now, sir, one of my impressions after having read your full
11 report, was that a number of your conclusions at the end of your report
12 didn't really follow logically from what actually was discussed in the
13 report, and let me give you an example of this and which is paragraph 129
14 of your report, one of the conclusions.
15 There, you state:
16 "During the entire period, whenever he was able to do it,
17 Bruno Stojic was cooperative towards international organisations that
18 were active at the territory of the HZ-HB."
19 Now, first of all, what does Bruno Stojic's attitude towards
20 international organisations have to do with the subject of your report,
21 which concerns the structure of the HVO Defence Department? And,
22 secondly, where in your report do you actually refer to this evidence
23 showing that Bruno Stojic was cooperative to international organisations?
24 A. Your Honours, good afternoon, first of all, to everyone.
25 I can't remember exactly the point in which I refer to
1 Mr. Stojic's efforts, but the topic of my expert report is the Defence
2 Department and Mr. Stojic; therefore, his position as head of the Defence
3 Department, and I felt that this was an important question. And in the
4 course of my studies, I saw a large number of documents. I didn't see
5 any document that would be contrary to this. I think that he was indeed
6 cooperative in his relations with international organisations.
7 Q. Well, sir, you say that you can't exactly point to the -- you
8 know, where in the report you refer to these efforts, but I put it to you
9 that you don't refer at all in your report to these efforts, except in
10 your conclusions.
11 A. Yes, that is correct, but I don't see what is being contested in
12 that respect.
13 Q. Well, what's being contested is that if you draft a report and
14 you come to the conclusions, normally the conclusions would conclude
15 what's been discussed in the reports, and clearly here, on this
16 particular issue, you don't draw a conclusion on what's based in the
17 report. You actually draw a conclusion and -- yeah, the conclusion, in
18 fact, comes out of the blue. It doesn't support anything which is
19 written in the report. Would you agree?
20 A. Your Honours, I couldn't agree with that, because in
21 paragraph 294, I listed -- in my footnote, I listed all the documents on
22 which I drew this conclusion. So it's not out of the blue. My entire
23 report is based on documents. I think there's not a single secondary
24 source, if my memory's correct.
25 Q. Correct, Mr. Marijan, you actually put it in the footnote, but
1 what I am stating is that if you draw a conclusion, it should be a
2 conclusion based on what you have written in the report and not just the
3 footnote to the conclusion. But, anyway, we'll leave that point aside.
4 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, my friend's moving on, but of course
5 questions should not be argumentative. They must be very specific
6 questions. Perhaps my friend could, if he wishes to pursue this --
7 MR. BOS
8 Q. Sir, let me ask you now to move to your first conclusion, which
9 is under paragraph 126, and let me read out this conclusion to you:
10 "The Croatian Community or Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
11 arose in the final phases of the collapse of Yugoslavia and the internal
12 crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The crisis of the system and the
13 continued warfare marked the activities of the HZ-HB, which was the local
14 response to the collapse of central authority and the impossibility of an
15 agreement with the other two peoples concerning the fate of
17 Sir, I have a couple of questions on this particular conclusion.
18 What sort of agreement were you referring to in that last
19 sentence of your conclusion, and what was the objective of the
20 Bosnian Croats as regard to the fate of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Could you
21 elaborate on this, please?
22 A. I'm originally -- misunderstood you. Oh, I see now, I see now
23 what you are asking me.
24 The fundamental issue, or at least my opinion, working on this,
25 was closer to my original finding seven years ago, and analysing the
1 documents that were available to me, that I managed to get hold of, my
2 opinion and conclusion is that representatives of the authorities of
3 Herceg-Bosna tried to come into agreement just before the war and during
4 the war, and that such an agreement was never achieved because of
5 different territorial aspirations of all three peoples. Each of the
6 peoples had their own views of the war, their own tactics, and which
7 actually led to the discord and the war.
8 Now, you have asked the question of the aims. I think the aims
9 of the Croats of Herceg-Bosna was an entity within Bosnia-Herzegovina.
10 After all, one must always bear in mind that there was also the
11 international aspect of this problem which favoured cantonalisation or
12 provinces, but in any event, a certain delineation within
14 Q. Sir, in your answer you referred to your findings seven years
15 ago. Were you actually referring to your evidence that you gave at that
16 time in the Naletilic/Martinovic case and the expert report that you
17 submitted in that particular case?
18 A. Yes, I am referring to those findings. I think at the time I
19 provided a clearer answer, because I went into Croatian-Muslim problems
20 and I focused on the relationship between the Croats and the Muslims, and
21 in that report the Serbs were given relatively little space.
22 Q. The last thing I would like to do now is put a couple of quotes
23 from your evidence from that case to you, and I have them here on a sheet
24 of paper which I would like to put on the ELMO. And I would ask you to
25 comment on the quotes, and these are quotes either from your reports that
1 you had written at the time or from your testimony in the
2 Naletilic/Martinovic case. The quotes are both in English and in B/C/S.
3 There's five of them, and you can either read them from the paper or --
4 but they will also appear on the screen.
5 Let me just read out the first quote which people can also follow
6 from the screen:
7 "Therefore the views on a war are in many respects similar, which
8 does not mean they are accurate. For Serbs, it was a preventive war with
9 the purpose to prevent their own experience of 1941, and a war with an
10 objective - an attempt to create an integral Serbian state. For Croats
11 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, it was a war for emancipation, with a wish to
12 integrate with the parent country."
13 Sir, do you recall this particular paragraph which was in your
14 final consideration of your expert's report?
15 A. To be quite frank, I don't remember, but it is quite possible
16 that I did write that. Do you have my report, itself?
17 Q. Yes, I do, but --
18 A. May I add something?
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. This report was prepared in 2001, and in those days, in preparing
21 that report, I stand by it 90 percent and more. But since then things
22 have changed, and especially new documents were found, and I was able to
23 look at the archives, the archives of President Tudjman. I had occasion
24 to read many transcripts. So if a conclusion -- this conclusion was
25 something I actually said at the time, today I don't think it is in
1 accord with what I found out later. After having seen 200 and more
2 transcripts and comparing that with what happened on the ground, I think
3 that the basic aim of the Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina was an entity
4 of their own.
5 MR. KHAN: One moment, please, Mr. Bos.
6 Your Honour, this question, of course, in my respectful
7 submission, was outside the examination-in-chief. I don't object on that
8 basis. I think, of course, Mr. Bos can proceed, as far as we're
9 concerned, and test the credibility of this witness. However, it is
10 somewhat difficult to recall an expert report written seven years
11 previously. The witness has intimated on one reading that he wishes to
12 have sight of the report, and if my friend wishes to pursue this, I think
13 it's only fair that the actual report of this witness be put to him and
14 the context of whatever is put can be properly understood. I think
15 that's the fair way of proceeding.
16 MR. BOS
17 actually have this report shown to him as well. It's in our bundle under
18 Exhibit 3D 00715. I'm afraid there's only an English version. The
19 report was only submitted in English in the Naletilic/Martinovic case,
20 and that's why I took out a couple of quotes which were then also
21 translated into Bosnian -- B/C/S.
22 And I think, in fact, that the Stojic Defence counsel included
23 this report also in their bundle of exhibits, if I understood --
24 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, if Mr. Bos doesn't object, my learned
25 friend, Ms. Nozica, has passed to me the same report, but in a language
1 that the witness understands. Perhaps he could be shown that.
2 MR. BOS
3 MR. KHAN: I'm most grateful, Mr. Bos.
4 MR. BOS
5 Q. Mr. Marijan, you will get the report in your own language, so you
6 can -- you don't need the binder.
7 So, Mr. Marijan, from what I understood from your answer, it
8 seems that your position has changed since you gave testimony in Tuta
9 Stela, so let me read out the quotes that are related to this point and
10 ask you, on all these quotes, whether you still agree with your position
11 or not. This is the second quote, and I'll read that out as well. It
12 says -- this is actually from your -- no, this is again from your expert
13 report, and it reads as follows:
14 "The politics of the Republic of Croatia
15 corrected that to read "the Croats of Bosnia-Herzegovina," so: "The
16 politics of Bosnia-Herzegovina towards Bosnia-Herzegovina as a state, in
17 which one of the constitutional nations are also the Croats, obviously
18 had a desire for unification into an integral Croatian state. That is
19 indisputable. The only disputable thing is the interpretation of the
20 manner in which it was sought to be achieved."
21 So here you say it was obviously there was a desire for
22 unification and that it was indisputable. Are you now saying that seven
23 years later, your view has completely changed on this point?
24 A. Your Honours, my personal opinion, when I was writing this, I
25 didn't refer to any documents, so this was my own personal conclusion. I
1 always had the impression, and even now I think that the average Croat in
2 Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially the area in which I live, that Croatia
3 for them had priority over Bosnia and Herzegovina, and this is due to
4 various circumstances, especially their status in the last 40 years, and
5 this is understandable to me, up to a point.
6 As for this particular point, I have written seven or eight
7 books. My eighth book is about to be published, and more than 30 papers.
8 I was never satisfied with them. I would always revise them and change
9 them. So this was my viewpoint at that point in time, and at the time I
10 didn't have access to many things, and some things appeared to me to be
11 simpler at the time, and probably also under the influence of a massive
12 campaign that is still being waged in Croatia today, and probably this
13 led me to reach that conclusion. And as I said in my previous answer,
14 having seen a large quantity of documents since then, have led me to
15 correct my views, and this is something that will happen constantly. And
16 history never ends, it's a process, and this is my view of that history.
17 Q. Let's see how -- on your next quote you talk about, you know, the
18 basis for making -- making these conclusions, and this is actually what
19 you said in your testimony: "This opinion of mine," and referring to the
20 paragraph above, "is based on my personal contacts. I did not meet more
21 than two Croats from Bosnia
22 not turn their eyes towards Zagreb
23 Do you recall this evidence, Mr. Marijan?
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, at this time I would object. Now
25 we're talking about Croats, the individuals there. I mean, I don't think
1 you could go to Greece
3 means that Greeks are going to be attacking Turkey to try to take over
4 Asia Minor
5 different than what the Croats might think about in -- from Bosnia
7 politics. It has to do with individual wishes and aspirations and their
8 understanding of history, so I would object to this line of questioning.
9 MR. BOS
10 himself, from his testimony. I'm just asking him to clarify what he
11 meant by saying this, and I don't see why he couldn't answer on --
12 MR. KARNAVAS: It's irrelevant, it's irrelevant, Your Honour. He
13 says he's talking about -- he didn't meet two Croats --
14 MR. BOS
15 MR. KARNAVAS: From Bosnia
16 entitled to have their aspirations and their entitled to have their
17 understanding of the history. That has nothing to do with policies and
18 politics. That's my point of view, and that's why I mention Greeks
19 looking at Const antinople.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you've just heard what
21 Mr. Karnavas has said, you've heard Mr. Bos' question.
22 In your report, from which I have before me, and what you said in
23 the Naletilic case, you spoke about the Croats. Now, was that a general
24 feeling or, as was said by Mr. Karnavas, were there individuals having
25 that point of view without that being a general for that matter? You are
1 the one who said and testified in that case and wrote that report. What
2 kind of additional information can you provide?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't recall this,
4 but I probably did say this. Maybe the words are not all there, but
5 the -- I don't think the gist of it has changed. This is my personal
6 feeling. It's difficult to say now, during the collapse of Yugoslavia
7 from 1990 until 2001, when this was prepared, it is difficult to say how
8 many Croats I met. Anyway, the majority of Croats I was in touch with,
9 there may have been 100.000 [as interpreted] or 2.000, certainly not more
10 than 5.000, but less, so this is a question taking us back to the past,
11 why the average Croat did not see Bosnia-Herzegovina as their homeland.
12 I think it would take a lot of time for me to explain this.
13 I can give you my example. I'm from Livno. It takes about an
14 hour and a half to two
15 it takes three to four hours. Why did my father build a house close to
17 this question touches upon mentality, and Livno has a majority of Croats,
18 and it was a personnel issue that the president of the municipality had
19 to be a Croat. All the other positions were held by other ethnicities.
20 So the environment within which I moved had a strong feeling of
21 inequality, and this went on until 1990, 1991, and this, in my view,
22 explains why I said this and why the majority of Croats, I don't think
23 they have changed their opinion. There are very few Croats from Bosnia
24 and Herzegovina
25 Nozica is one of them.
1 I am saying that the majority sees it this way. I don't see what
2 the problem is. It's a problem that goes back to the past, a problem of
3 enormous injustice, and this cannot be remedied overnight.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
5 continues]... say the counsel, but as there are several, I don't know who
6 you refer to. I think you referred to Ms. Nozica, perhaps.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yeah, you got it
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed. In the
10 transcript, it does say "Ms. Nozica."
11 My colleague has a question to put. Mr. Bos, the Registrar has
12 told me that you've used up your 15 minutes, so you'll have to put the
13 last question, I think. But first of all, my colleague would like to
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Marijan, my question is a more theoretical
16 nature. Mr. Karnavas has not without some reason, of course, said that
17 what you refer to here are opinions of individuals, and that, says
18 Mr. Karnavas, is not relevant, and in fact what we are dealing with, what
19 is important, is what the authorities, the official Herceg-Bosna, was
20 aiming at. Now, I would like you to explain whether, and how, if so, the
21 opinion of individuals is relevant in order to assess the aim of the
22 political entity, and even whether, in fact, you are saying that it is an
23 acceptable method of historical research to rely or at least to take into
24 account what the majority in a certain territory wants? I hope the
25 question is not too complicated. It's not too simple, I'm sure.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is a logical fact,
2 in my opinion, that a political leadership, any political leadership -
3 we're not discussing whether that will be Bosnian Croats political
4 leadership or any political leadership - in a certain way such leadership
5 must keep their ear to the ground and take into account the feelings of
6 an electorate, so to speak, but let me go back to the time when I was
7 preparing this first report. I completely ignored the existence of the
8 Republic of Croatia
10 in a certain way, public. They are made public, being uttered at public
11 meetings or closed meetings of higher political echelons.
12 To me, as a historian, and I did say this because it was my
13 opinion, solely my opinion, and it should be taken as such, there is a
14 possibility to find a Croat who will have a different opinion, because it
15 was formed by different people. I participated at the HVO three times in
16 three different time intervals. Not once as a soldier have I or my
17 contacts or the environment of the unit where I was clearly told what
18 were the political aims of Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina or Herceg-Bosna,
19 whether those aims were clearly stated, put on paper in a form of a
20 proclamation, enumerated, and that is an answer of sorts, in my opinion,
21 about those matters.
22 So as a soldier who was expected to fight, I was not told what I
23 was fighting about, except, and this is not to be sneezed at, defending
24 my own municipality. And the next-door community from the front-line was
25 my home village, so you do not need any epistles stating high moral
1 reasons to defend that turf.
2 Your Honour, your question was a complicated one, so I'm not sure
3 if my answer suffices. If necessary, I can elaborate upon it.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Well, we could go on at length, and I don't
5 think that's the purpose, to hold a historical methodological seminar
7 Just if I look at the transcript, on page 14, line 13 and 14, the
8 English reads: "Not once as a soldier have I or my contacts or the
9 environmental of the unit where I was clearly -- where I was clearly told
10 what were the political aims." I wonder whether you said that or whether
11 you meant to say, "We were never told what the political aims of the war
13 Could you make that clear, please?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't see the transcript, but it
15 certainly has not been put on record clearly.
16 As I said, me and my unit were never given black-on-white or
17 uttered from somebody coming from higher echelons stating what the
18 aims -- the goals of that were, and this is a matter of strategy which I
19 don't believe Herceg-Bosna had.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I believe that what
21 you've said is important. You were one of the few soldiers who has been
22 here to testify. We know that General Praljak will be testifying;
23 Petkovic as well. You are an expert and also a soldier, so your previous
24 answer that you gave to my colleague's question prompts me to add a
1 You were saying that you were a soldier in the Livno region and
2 that you did not leave it. I would like to know the brigade commander,
3 the deputies, in fact the entire military environment, when they brought
4 you together for a briefing, before you went into combat, or when you had
5 meetings, when there were communications between them and you, did they
6 say, "We are facing an attack, in which case we have to defend
7 ourselves," or did they say things along the lines of, "We want our
8 independence, we must recognise Herceg-Bosna," or did they say, "The
9 Republic is in jeopardy because there's a siege in Sarajevo, there are
10 the Serbs," and so on and so forth? In other words, did your
11 superiors -- did the commanders have a political discourse where they
12 explained to the soldiers what they were doing or did they tell you
13 nothing? Did they just say, "There is an enemy and we have to defend or
14 attack"? According to your recollection, what was the message you
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the first two
17 campaigns of the HVO concerned Livno, the first two. The third one, I
18 was a professional soldier and falls outside this purview, which was in
19 1994-1995, outside the area of Livno. Two or three times, I was in the
20 area of Gornji Vakuf. But as far as your question is concerned, I have a
21 good memory, but I cannot really recall anybody giving us a speech on
22 these matters. That is the problem. Starting with the battalion
23 commander and the brigade commander, I knew the brigade commander from
24 before the war, he was in the Territorial Defence, but I can't recall
25 ever seeing him during wartime, which speaks volumes about the situation.
1 We never received any political message.
2 Your question was specific as to my case. Maybe somebody else
3 appearing as a witness may tell you a different story, but my story is as
4 I've relayed it to you now.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Witness, as you tell us that you have not been
6 briefed by the superiors on the aims, I imagine -- I have difficulties in
7 imagining that it would have been otherwise, that you wanted -- you made
8 your own assessment of the situation and you had a feeling what you were
9 fighting for, and I suppose - I don't think this is far-fetched - that
10 you talked with others in your environment, your social environment,
11 military environment, about what you all were fighting for, what your
12 aims were. Could you tell us something about this? Have you got a
13 recollection as to whether there was a goal that was predominant in your
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's not easy to go
16 back in one's mind 17 or 18 years. I came to the HVO on the day when the
17 conflict in Kupres started, the 3rd of April. I used a regular bus line
18 from Zagreb
19 there because my family -- because of my father and mother, and I believe
20 I mentioned it on the first day of my testimony. That was my motive.
21 What was important for me then was to keep my -- intact that part of me
22 which was connected to that place, part of my history, and this was my
23 motive then. I -- there was no need for anybody to tell me or to boost
24 my morale about that. I believe that I had high morale.
25 At the time, I was a student. We were a student unit, and we
1 were specific in terms of our thinking. We know that current affairs or
2 current politicking was not our focus. Judge Antonetti asked me about
3 that, and I don't believe that we even reacted to the proclamation of
4 Herceg-Bosna in August of 1993. It would have stuck in my memory had we
5 had a particular reaction to it.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Your answer, Mr. Marijan, seems to cover the
7 beginning of your activity as a soldier. Then, after a certain time, the
8 Serb attack was stopped and the danger from the Serbs moved into the
9 background, and that the main opponent were the Muslims. At that time,
10 did you still feel that you had to defend your family in Livno against
11 the Muslims, even when you were sent to for Gornji Vakuf, or did you --
12 did you develop your ideas about what the war was about?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in Livno we were not
14 threatened by Muslims because of the conflagration, lay of the terrain,
15 compared to those at other places. What I remembered about the conflict
16 was that we were unclear as to the purpose of that conflict, of that war.
17 With regard to Gornji Vakuf, we held our lines in
18 Croatian-populated villages, and the predominant way of thinking was that
19 we were a bit upset because there were no locals of those villages there
20 at the time. I recall that we did not like it. We felt that we were
21 doing a job that we thought the local people should be doing.
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos, I told you that you
24 have used up your time. If you have one last question, please put it
1 MR. BOS
2 on that page, which follows from that other quote, and it sort of relates
3 to what you just said, that there were no higher echelons stating the
4 political aims.
5 Sir, if I can put that last quote to you as my last question,
6 this is what you stated in your expert report:
7 "Croatian politics towards Bosnia-Herzegovina obviously had a
8 starting point in the assumption that Bosnia-Herzegovina cannot survive.
9 One can agree with that or not agree. The views of Franjo Tudjman on
10 Bosnia and Herzegovina were not a secret. He did not believe in its
11 viability, which can be documented by his statements and, less reliably,
12 by the claims of various witnesses of the history."
13 Q. Sir, do you recall this evidence? And let me ask you a concrete
14 question: What are the statements that you are referring to made by
15 Mr. Tudjman?
16 A. Your Honours, this was uttered in 2001. At that time, in Croatia
17 certain transcripts started to emerge for current political purposes.
18 The first was the 27th of December, 2001, and then I believe that this is
19 public knowledge, and a series of transcripts were unearthed, and Tudjman
20 himself issued a number of statements. He was a person who spoke before
21 thinking, in political terms, if it could be put that way. I thought
22 that he was transgressing at the boundaries of politics and was talking
23 too much, but in none of the transcripts did it emerge that he had made
24 an agreement with Slobodan Milosevic on the division of
1 Fifteen years have passed since the Dayton Accords, and of all my
2 statements that I had issued then, this is the one that I would stick by.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, I see you're
5 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like
6 to know when the witness states a series of statements by President
7 Tudjman, at least those should be -- should be said when and where those
8 statements were issued, so that we can refer back to them down the road.
9 I'm going to provide testimony, so I will need to know when a president
10 of the state issued a statement, where they were recorded, and where we
11 can find them. Otherwise, we are just a discussion club.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you said that
13 President Tudjman made a number of statements, but you didn't give us the
14 dates of those statements, so we don't know precisely what you're
15 referring to. I presume that you have taken a look at the presidential
16 transcripts. I don't know whether you can give us a precise date. Can
17 you, can you not?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, maybe I was prompted
19 by poor interpretation. I said it could be corroborated by his
20 statements, I mean, President Tudjman's. There were a number of his
21 statements published in daily newspapers. I cannot recall specific
22 dates. I know that some of the them have been published in a
23 publication, a book, Croatian words to -- the external words. Some were
24 uttered at SFRY Presidency meetings, sessions, but I can't really
1 MR. BOS
2 Q. But you've been talking about this statement, but you haven't
3 said one thing about the content of the statement. What did Mr. Tudjman
4 actually say in these statements? I haven't heard anything about that.
5 A. I think -- well, first, Tudjman's politics should be researched
6 and studied in detail. Otherwise, one could draw conclusions misguided
7 on the basis of a number of his statements. My opinion is that Tudjman's
8 policy was geared towards the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina being given an
9 entity. I believe that he discussed this with Mr. Izetbegovic and
10 Mr. Milosevic. In my opinion, such matters were not unknown, and the
11 International Community shared this opinion. It constantly divided
12 Bosnia and Herzegovina into three entities, and this influence on
13 President Tudjman should not be ignored and should be further researched,
14 because there is a fourth dimension to the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos --
17 MR. BOS
18 your answers, Mr. Marijan.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I just wanted to point out that on
20 page 19, I believe it was line 13, there was a reference to a
21 presidential transcript, and the gentleman indicated it was 2001. It was
22 the 17 December, and we have here "2001." Perhaps he could give us the
23 correct date. I know the date of that particular transcript, but perhaps
24 the witness could tell us which one he was referring to.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, most probably I did not
1 state -- state it. This was 1991.
2 MR. BOS
3 The two pages of the quotes, if I could get an IC number for this
4 document, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, an IC number,
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The document shall be given
8 Exhibit IC 00905. Thank you, Your Honours.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may, are we introducing the
10 entire pages or just the quotes?
11 MR. BOS
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Because the quotes are in the transcript already.
13 I haven't -- I mean, I know that -- I haven't looked at the transcript,
14 and if I wanted to pull a fast one - I'm not suggesting that one is being
15 pulled on us - but if there's anything else in those pages that haven't
16 been put to the witness, then obviously they shouldn't come in. The
17 quotes are in the record. The record speaks for itself, and I see no
18 reason why we need those -- an IC number for those documents.
19 MR. BOS
20 leave it with the records and no IC number. It's not necessary,
21 Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine, so it's not necessary.
23 Registrar, we will not give it a number, particularly as the
24 number did not come up on the screen. So, Registrar, there is to be no
1 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The number -- Exhibit IC 00905
2 [Realtime transcript read in error "975"] is withdrawn from the record.
3 Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have one last
5 question that I'd like to put to you, which --
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] A correction to the transcript.
7 905 and not "975."
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, the IC number is 905
9 and not 975. That is the number to be withdrawn.
10 THE REGISTRAR: That is correct, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have one last
12 question to you, which concerns the conclusion of paragraph 126.
13 I presume that for you, it was important to read this in
14 paragraph 126, where you say that the Croat Community or the Herceg-Bosna
15 Republic came from the dismantling of former Yugoslavia, and there was a
16 crisis and so on. And you conclude by saying: "... because it was
17 impossible to find an agreement with the other peoples," the three; in
18 other words, Serbs, Croats and Muslims. And in reading that conclusion,
19 and bearing in mind what you said earlier on, concerning the Serb
20 Republic of the Krajina, I would like to put the following question to
22 On the basis of all of the documents you have seen, all of the
23 works that you have written, the testimony in the Naletilic case, I'd
24 like to know whether what happened in Herceg-Bosna, Herzegovina
25 particularly, is it the same type of event as those that occurred in
1 Krajina, in the Serb Krajina of Croatia
2 ex-Yugoslavia, was there not identical behaviour in regions -- in zones
3 that had a dominant ethnic group where a mode of behaviour was followed
4 which led to this type of entity? Is this a matter that has been the
5 subject of study, of reflection, and what is your personal opinion?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there was an attempt,
7 particularly in daily newspapers, to draw a sign of equality between the
8 Republic of Srpska Krajina in Croatia and Herceg-Bosna in
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina. The problem there is I don't believe that this
10 comparison is tenable. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Croats were a
11 constituent people. In the Republic of Croatia
12 ethnic minority. I don't know whether you know the background of these
13 events, the whole story in the context of the disintegration of
14 ex-Yugoslavia, and its fulcrum in the issue, when Serbia started denying
15 an ethnic minority their constitutional rights in Kosovo, and this of
16 course influenced other groups and resulted in a fear infiltrating the
17 relationship between a minority and a majority in a certain area.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for your answer.
19 Ms. Nozica, the Court has granted you one hour, but we would like
20 to remind you that in the questions you will be putting as part of your
21 redirect, these questions must be related to the questions put by the
22 Prosecutor. So for us to know precisely where we're going, it would be
23 much better if you were to say, for instance, "On page X, line Y, the
24 Prosecutor put such and such a question. Witness, you gave this answer,
25 and now I would like to put the following question to you," so that we
1 can establish a clear link between the cross-examination and your
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
4 Good afternoon to everyone in the courtroom. I just wish to
5 point out that my cross-examination will not relate exclusively to the
6 cross-examination of the Prosecutor, but that it will partly relate to
7 the cross-examinations of other Defence counsels, and I would appeal to
8 the Trial Chamber to allow me, in this first part, my questions be
9 directed to the questions put by the Prosecutor to the witness today.
10 For this, I don't need any documents. And then, if possible, I would ask
11 for us to have a break, once I complete the first part of my questions,
12 so that we might distribute my documents, so as to make the best of the
13 time available, because I will certainly be using my time and using it up
14 after the break.
15 I would like to ask Your Honours whether you agree with this
16 methodology. If not, give me a minute to distribute the documents
17 straight away.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me ask my colleagues.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may proceed as you
21 suggested. Put your questions on the basis of the Prosecutor's
22 questions, then we'll have a break and you will distribute some
23 documents, and you can continue.
24 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
25 Re-examination by Ms. Nozica:
1 Q. Mr. Marijan, in the report that you filed in the Naletilic case,
2 did you delve into the question of aid to the Croatian Community of
3 Herceg-Bosna in arming, training, and other facilities to the Army of
4 Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1991 onwards?
5 A. Your Honours, I don't think I did. I may have just mentioned it
6 without going into any detail.
7 Q. Mr. Marijan, I'm afraid that I may be more familiar with your
8 report than you are, so I would like you to look into that report during
9 the break. Yes, you did study those issues, and they have been
10 elaborated in your report.
11 There's an intervention on page 22 -- no, I'm sorry, page 25,
12 line 22, whether you delved into the question of aid of the Croatian
13 Community to the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
14 Mr. Marijan, you said today, and this follows from the quote from
15 your report, when you spoke about the position of Croats of Bosnia and
17 20, the Prosecutor quoted from that report and you said that you were
18 voicing your own opinion?
19 A. Yes, that is right.
20 Q. You then also said that after providing that report, you gained
21 possession of other presidential transcripts and other documents, due to
22 which you changed your view as expressed during the trial of the
23 Naletilic/Martinovic case; am I right?
24 A. Yes, but I would like to correct it. I didn't gain possession; I
25 just had occasion to read transcripts. It is only the Prosecution that
1 can gain possession of the documents, but I did have occasion to read
2 them, due to circumstances.
3 Q. Let me now turn back to the questions addressed in this report,
4 the documents and transcripts, and everything else that you had at your
5 disposal at the present time, because I acknowledge what you say, that as
6 an historian -- a historian, giving assessments of past events is a
7 process, and that it cannot be established with reliability at any
8 particular point in time. So I'm asking you, at this point in time, on
9 the basis of all the evidence that you have reviewed in this case, is
10 your opinion the same as you presented it today, and that is that the
11 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna did not have, as its aim, the
12 secession of parts of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
13 A. I think I expressed that opinion quite clearly earlier on, on the
14 basis of all the documents I've seen up to the present, that the aim of
15 the Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina was a constituent unit within
17 Q. Let me now go a little forward. In the course of 1992 and 1993,
18 did you have occasion to come across memorandums of the
19 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and whether it was quite clear in
20 those documents where the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna belongs?
21 A. What I saw, I don't remember a memorandum that was printed and
22 used. I think it was customary, in my brigade in 1993 and 1994, the
23 heading always started with: "Bosnia and Herzegovina," and then: "The
24 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna." Is that what you had in mind?
25 Q. For the benefit of the transcript, could you be more precise in
1 your answer? Did you see a single printed memorandum without
2 "Bosnia-Herzegovina" heading it?
3 A. All the memorandums I saw, and I saw many, always started with
4 "The Republic of Herceg-Bosna" at the top.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A quick follow-up question,
7 We heard a witness before who was a soldier, like you, and he
8 explained that in his unit, he had insignias on his uniform. On the one
9 hand, he had the sign of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; on the
10 other, the sign of the HVO.
11 With regard to your own uniforms, could you tell us what kind of
12 insignias you had?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my wartime uniform in
14 1992 and 1993 is at home. I keep it as memorabilia, and I don't think
15 there are any insignia on it. I didn't like to put insignia of the
16 brigade or anything else. I simply didn't feel like it. I didn't want
17 to attach insignia. I collect these things, and I did see many insignia.
18 I collect them. And I think I said on the first day that at least in
19 1992, in Livno, the battalion received orders to remove all insignia
20 which were contrary to the HVO. And if I delve into the issue more
21 deeply, I think it was mainly directed against the HOS and not against
22 the BH Army, because the HOS, in the territory where I was, was
23 considered a greater problem. So in 1992, the Muslims in Livno - maybe
24 not all of them, but most of them - did wear both insignia. Sometimes
25 there was the TO insignia rather than the BH Army insignia at the time.
1 MR. BOS
2 to make an objection to the last question that was put by Ms. Nozica,
3 which was an extremely leading question, and I -- in redirect I think she
4 should be not asking leading questions, but open-ended questions.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Nozica, do avoid
7 putting leading questions. You're a great professional. You must be
8 able to achieve the same result with open questions.
9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
11 Judge Trechsel wanted to say something.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes.
13 Mr. Marijan, you have said that you have never seen a document
14 without -- an official document of Herceg-Bosna which did not have
15 "Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina" on it. I suppose you have seen all the
16 documents that figure in your footnotes, haven't you?
17 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise,
18 Your Honour. My question was quite different and very precise. I asked
19 about memorandums, if a document had a memorandum. I didn't ask about
20 documents that did not have a memorandum, so I think that is why the
21 witness said what he did.
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You're absolutely right, I didn't use that, but
23 you are aware, Witness, that there are letterheads printed formal which
24 said "Hrvatska Sjednica Herceg-Bosna" [phoen] and "Hrvatsko Vijece
25 Obranje," [phoen] but no reference to Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that was very
2 rare. I think the vast majority had the words "Republic of
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina." They were printed. And this is a question of
4 archives or the general affairs of a unit.
5 A large number of documents were written on an ordinary
6 typewriter. In that case, the copy --
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just for the record, I'm referring to document
8 2D 01356. That was the example that I found now, after looking for it
9 for two or three minutes in a binder I picked at random.
10 Thank you. Please proceed, Ms. Nozica.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in continuation of my
12 re-examination, the witness will be shown several documents, and we will
13 see documents without this heading. Let me proceed.
14 Q. Mr. Marijan, in answer to a question by His Honour
15 Judge Antonetti, you said, and that is how Their Honours understood you
16 to say, that in 1992, you came to your home in Livno to defend your own
17 town and your parents. I think that is what you actually said. And you
18 said that this was an attack by the Serbian army. Is my understanding
20 A. Yes, it was an attack by the Serbian army. If something is not
21 clear, I can say that the area where we were, the neighbouring
22 municipalities, Glamoc, with a majority Serb population, our trenches and
23 defence lines were about 150 metres within our municipal boundaries, so
24 those lines were along the cadaster boundaries of the municipality.
25 Q. Mr. Marijan, when we're talking about 1993, your second tour of
1 duty, when Judge Trechsel asked you about this, did you go to
2 Gornji Vakuf to carry out an attack against the Muslims or for some other
3 reason? I do not wish to put a leading question and thus bring you back
4 to what you said on the first day of your testimony.
5 A. Your Honour, in Gornji Vakuf, we -- our positions were always in
6 a village that had a majority Croat population, which means defence. In
7 those days, the BH Army was exerting strong pressure on Gornji Vakuf, and
8 the front-line was very strange, I must say.
9 Q. And my final question --
10 MR. BOS
11 this case it would be helpful if we got the exact month in 1993 that
12 Mr. Marijan was in Gornji Vakuf in order to confuse -- not to get
13 confused. At the moment, it only says "1993."
14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Marijan has
15 indicated the time with precision, but I don't mind if he answer it
16 again, and let it be in the time of my dear colleague.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can't remember the
18 exact date, but it was in the late autumn. I think it was late autumn
19 and there was snowfall. And then the second area, I was at home for
20 Christmas, and the third was just before the Washington Agreement, if my
21 memory's correct.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, earlier on -- before
23 Ms. Nozica asked you the question, I wanted to ask it myself and now I do
24 have to ask it. Earlier on, in order to explain why you went to
25 Gornji Vakuf, you said that you went there to guard villages, and you
1 said "because the inhabitants were no longer there," that's what I
2 understood, and you were frustrated to see that they were gone. Is that
3 what you said?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think this was during the
5 evidence presented by the Prosecutor, and we were unhappy that in a fit
6 of panic, able-bodied people had fled, and there was the question as to
7 why we are going there when the local inhabitants are not ready to defend
8 themselves. That was our view at the time, but now, to be a soldier in
9 Gornji Vakuf was far more difficult a task than to be a soldier in Livno.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good, but this, your answer,
11 prompts me to think of something I hadn't thought of before.
12 In the concept of defence in Bosnia and Herzegovina, be it in
13 Livno or Gornji Vakuf, in terms of defence, is it first the inhabitants
14 that must defend the area; is that a general principle?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for a long time, maybe
16 up to the summer or the late -- late summer of 1993, that is how the HVO
17 functioned. Each unit, even though they were called brigades, according
18 to military rules, it is a unit that is not linked to a particular
19 territory but can go further afield. But most municipalities, virtually
20 all of them in Herzegovina
21 defences were mostly a local affair. In Gornji Vakuf, because of
22 difficulties and problems, the brigade lost some effectives, and I don't
23 know whether it even had two companies. What its real ability was could
24 be seen in 1994. After the war against the Muslims, it was reduced to a
25 battalion. So that was what it should have been, regardless of the name
1 that it had as a brigade.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, if defence was a local
3 affair, which is what you said; in Capljina it should be defended by
4 locals, in Prozor it should be locals, the same for Mostar, Livno,
5 Gornji Vakuf, always locals. Now, to put all this together, to organise
6 defence as was conceived by the Croats in Herzegovina, was that basically
7 a locally-based, municipality-based defence, and in this context the
8 military component of the HVO, with the head of staff, et cetera, what
9 did they do as part of this general principle or in relation to it?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The role of higher levels of
11 command in the operation zone and the Main Staff of Herceg-Bosna at the
12 time was to strengthen defence lines where they were threatened. If
13 somebody attacks you, they first assess your weak spots and then they
14 concentrate their forces there. Practically, one takes a look at
15 Main Staff documents in the latter part of 1993, one gains an impression
16 of a fire-fighter skipping with a bucket of water here and there, trying
17 to put out fires all over the place. Very small forces would be brought
18 to a place, manoeuvres with one or two artillery pieces, be it cannon or
19 mortars. It was very difficult to withdraw a brigade-size unit from one
20 place to shore up the defence of another place, and this is the gist of
21 what I was saying about the local type of defence in Herceg-Bosna. But
22 this was not particularly just to Herceg-Bosna. I perceived the same
23 thing in other armies.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For example, if the soldiers in
25 Prozor had been told, "You have to go to Livno or Mostar," would they
1 have been reluctant to do so? Would they have said, well, it was not
2 their problem, that their only goal was to defend Prozor and not to go
3 anywhere else? Was that the general state of mind of all soldiers, such
4 as you, who were there?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as per decree, each
6 soldier of the armed forces of the HZ-HB had the duty to serve at any
7 territory, but very often we had refusals by a whole unit to go
8 somewhere. So there was -- there were efforts to convince them higher
9 levels of command had to be involved, and very often the whole thing was
10 more for resembling begging than to go somewhere, rather than convincing
11 them that they should do so.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, we have five
13 minutes left before the break.
14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Only two
15 more questions concerning this topic.
16 Q. Mr. Marijan, please, I've just taken a look at your report.
17 That's 3D 715. I'm not going to recall it, but I'd like to refresh your
19 You said, in your report, that the Croatian state sent armaments
20 to the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina through the HVO, and as per your
21 then research, this continued until mid-March of 1993. Do you recall
22 discussing this? If so, say it; if not, I will go to another topic.
23 A. Yes, after this text, I prepared an addendum to this report, and
24 I never meant to go back to it, to revisit it. I found some documents
25 that corrected my opinion, and that was published in Mostar at a later
2 Q. And the final question about this: You discussed the structure
3 of Bosnia-Herzegovina. You spoke about today's circumstances, and you
4 spoke about the fourth conflict, and this is why my question is going to
5 be very specific. Did all Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina have a single
6 opinion as to the internal structure of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or whether
7 there was among Muslims or Bosniaks there were inter-Bosniak conflicts
8 arising from differing opinions about the internal structure of
10 A. This is a specific quality of Bosnia-Herzegovina --
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, Witness. I have difficulties linking
12 this question either to the report or to the cross-examination by the
13 Prosecutor. I think it's outside the scope of your redirect.
14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I beg to differ.
15 I think this is what the witness was discussing when he said, asked by
16 His Honour Antonetti, as far as I can remember, when he was asked about
17 his conclusion in his report about the peoples in Yugoslavia could not
18 reach an agreement, the witness discussed Bosnia-Herzegovina, different
19 views held by Serbs, Muslims, and Croats, and he mentioned the fourth
20 conflict or the fourth side. I do believe that this is what the witness
21 meant. And since, in his report, the witness stated that no agreement
22 could be reached on the structure of Yugoslavia, asked about that by the
23 Prosecutor on how the Croats saw the internal structure of
25 Now I, following from that, asked the witness whether all the
1 Muslims or Bosniaks had a single view of the internal structure of
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina or whether, during that conflict or war, there was a
3 fourth conflict which stemmed from such differing views, and which he,
4 himself, mentioned.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. Perhaps we should ask the witness.
6 Did you also study the opinion of the Muslims in
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina, generally?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I did not deal with
9 Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina in detail, but each document I had
10 possession of, I read. There's no doubt about that, and I mentioned that
11 in my previous report. The Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina were specific
12 in that there was an internal conflict among their ranks, unsurpassed by
13 a difference of opinion in any other side. I'm not sure whether I said a
14 fourth conflict. I mentioned that the International Community drew lines
15 on the map as well, and they cannot benefit from an amnesty of what they
16 were doing in the overall scheme of things.
17 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
18 Q. When you say -- what I'm specifically interested in, in the
19 inter-Bosniak conflict, what was the reason for it? I don't want to give
20 a leading question?
21 A. I did not find enough documents. What is the matter here is that
22 Cazin Krajina and Fikret Abdic, and the fact that that conflict did
23 erupt, means that Mr. Abdic's opinion differed from that of the -- that
24 held by Alija Izetbegovic, which was a unitary Bosnia-Herzegovina.
25 Mr. Abdic favoured a view of greater autonomy, and this entered the title
1 of that entity around Bihac and Cazin.
2 Q. Could you share with us the title or the name of that territory
3 controlled by Fikret Abdic?
4 A. The Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia, I think.
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] That's correct.
6 Thank you, Your Honours. I will continue after the break.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's have a 20-minute break.
8 --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 4.06 p.m.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The session resumes.
11 I believe, Ms. Alaburic, you wish to put a question; is that
13 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, I did not want to
14 ask any questions. And, procedurally, I'm in no position to ask
15 questions. I just wish to say that at the end of today's session, I will
16 have an oral submission to make, if there will be sufficient time for
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine, thank you. So that was
19 for the oral motion, the oral submission.
20 Please proceed.
21 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
22 Following your instructions, I will make a reference, before each
23 group of questions, to what I'm anchoring my questions on from the
25 The first question I'm going to ask of Mr. Marijan refers to his
1 answer recorded on page 35720, line 13 to 25. I would just like to note,
2 since Mr. Marijan does not have that part of the transcript, that it
3 refers to his explanation about the authorities of the HVO of the HZ-HB;
4 more precisely, his explanation about the difference between the position
5 of the president of the HVO HZ-HB and the Presidency of the then-state,
6 as he put it.
7 Q. Mr. Marijan, in your answers you made reference to a statutory
8 decision. I would like to ask you to take a look at the first document
9 in the binder, and that is P 00303, and I would like to ask you to
10 continue your answer in this vein, if you wish so, about the authorities
11 or competences within the HVO of HZ-HB.
12 Mr. Marijan, asked about my learned colleague Karnavas's, you
13 reconfirmed what you said on several occasions, that you were not a
14 lawyer, and for that reason I would like you to take a look at this
15 decision and to refer to the sections or articles that you thought
16 governed the issue of competencies and not to comment on it in any way.
17 Please take a look and read through the section or article that you
18 thought governed authorities or competencies.
19 A. Your Honours, I referred to Articles 14 and Article 9.
20 Q. Would you like to read those articles, please?
21 A. Article 14:
22 "Croatian Defence Council performs the supervision of its own
23 work and municipal HVO. HVO may rescind the acts of the bodies from the
24 previous article."
25 And Article 9:
1 "The presidents of the HVO manages the work of the HVO and is
2 responsible for its work. It secures a unity of political and security
3 of work of HVO, effects cooperation with other bodies of the HZ-HB, and
4 directs the work of HVO as a whole and its constituent parts. The
5 president of the HVO signs the documents of the HVO. The Presidency of
6 the HVO, in the case of absence or circumstances of them not being able
7 to, is replaced by a deputy."
8 Q. Mr. Marijan, this -- is this everything you wanted to say during
9 cross-examination as to the competencies of the president of the HVO and
10 the head of the department, because this was the gist of the question,
11 and the question was about the selection, election, appointment, and
12 authority to sign? Do you wish to add anything?
13 I have many questions to ask you and very limited time, so please
14 make your answers very short.
15 A. I can't recall everything I said, but when I referred to the
16 statutory decision, these are the articles that I meant, and this is all
17 I have to say about that.
18 Q. I would like to inform Their Honours that in the following group
19 of questions, and I will make it clear when this is going to finish, I
20 will refer to my learned colleague Alaburic's questions during her
21 cross-examination, which were followed upon by the Prosecutor, and these
22 refer to the relationship between the head of the department -- head of
23 Defence Department, in terms of the basis for the structure of the
24 Defence Department, and in this connection please take a look at the
25 following document, P 00806, and that refers also to the item 9 that you
1 were asked about.
2 Have you found the document?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. My learned colleague Alaburic asked you about the penultimate
5 paragraph. I would start with the penultimate paragraph, in terms of
6 principled and concrete competencies. I -- we have a different -- we
7 have a different document retrieved. I wanted to retrieve P 00586, and I
8 see the same mistake in the transcript. So it's P 00586.
9 So my colleague Alaburic asked you about the penultimate
10 paragraph of Article 9, which reads:
11 "Within the remit of principled and specific competencies from
12 the president of the HVO of Herceg-Bosna, the chief of General Staff is
13 superior to the Croatian Armed Forces Defence Council."
14 Would you please explain about those competencies and this
15 superior position? What did you mean by "command of the Croatian Defence
17 A. By this I meant only the municipal staffs. Nothing else comes to
18 my mind.
19 Q. Thank you. Since my colleague continued asking you questions
20 about the last paragraph of this article, which discusses which tasks
21 brigade commanders, whether they would be subordinated or responsible to
22 the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna as the
23 Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and in which aspects they were
24 subordinated to the head of the Defence Department and chief of the
25 Main Staff, and in -- and I quote:
1 "In accordance with the powers described above --"
2 Thank you, Your Honour.
3 So please read paragraph 3 of this article, in terms of those
4 competencies which elaborates upon them.
5 A. These -- well, it would be best for me to read it out:
6 "The chief of the Main Staff will be responsible to the head of
7 the department, proposing and implement measures for all administrative
8 tasks and issues relating to the budget and material supplies and
9 consumption and general organisation of civilian life as well as
10 organisation of the armed forces."
11 This is the remit of the head of the Defence Department.
12 Q. In which tasks commander -- chief of the General Staff is
13 responsible to the president of the HVO?
14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I object, because this question
15 misinterprets paragraph 9. Those words refer to the responsibilities of
16 the chief of the Main Staff and not to the remit of the head of the
17 Defence Department. The remit of the head of the Defence Department is
18 governed by all the other paragraphs up until paragraph 9, so what the
19 witness is reading out concerns the responsibilities of the chief of the
20 Main Staff.
21 Thank you.
22 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I maintain my
23 position, that interpretation of regulations, irrespective of how we,
24 she, or the witness may interpret them, will be subject to the assessment
25 of the Bench on what the regulations what and what actions they
2 I would like to continue. I'm reading out what is written. I
3 would like to ask the witness to continue reading why chief of the
4 Main Staff is directly responsible and accountable to the president of
5 the HVO.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "The chief of the Main Staff is
7 responsible directly to the president of the HVO, of the HZ-HB, in all
8 issues relating to supreme command, unit organisation, strategic and
9 operative plans, and the use of the armed forces in time of war or
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Marijan, on several occasions during your chief --
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Prlic.
14 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: For the third time in transcript --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the defendant. Microphone for
16 the accused, please.
17 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: It is for the third time in the same page,
18 when counsel said very clearly "president of Croatian Community of
19 Herceg-Bosna," in transcript we have wording "President of HVO." This is
20 the third time on the same page.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: And this is a big distinction, this is a very big
22 distinction, and I'm shocked that it is being allowed to be -- you know,
23 either counsel is not picking it up or the gentleman is doing it on
24 purpose, and I would ask that they slow down so the interpreters can get
25 it right. But there is a vast difference between president of the HVO
1 HZ-HB and the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, vast
2 difference. And it's not a surprise -- it is not a surprise that
3 Mr. Stojic is trying to blame -- trying to blame Jadranko Prlic, and
4 trying to put him -- put Jadranko Prlic on top of him. And so I would
5 appreciate that if we slow down and be precise, and if there is a
6 problem, to correct it. Counsel has an obligation to correct the
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It might perhaps not be entirely politically
9 correct, but it would make things easier if we said "Boban" and "Prlic"
10 instead of titles that bear some similarity and therefore are prone to be
11 mixed up.
12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Prlic, as he
13 understands both languages, he correctly conveyed what Defence counsel
14 said and what the witness said. I did not use the term "HVO" once, but
15 "the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna." So if my learned friend sees a
16 mistake in the transcript, not to blame me, and especially not
17 Mr. Stojic, that we are imputing anything to his client. I said clearly,
18 and this was confirmed by Mr. Prlic, I said "the Croatian Community of
19 Herceg-Bosna." There's no need to increase the tension, because we will
20 not achieve anything. Anyone who notices a mistake in the transcript
21 should react immediately. I have no problem in apologising if the
22 mistake is mine.
23 Mr. --
24 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes. I just wanted to intervene
25 in support of what Mr. Karnavas was saying.
1 We should not mix up the president of the HVO and the president
2 of the Croat Community of Herceg-Bosna. At the same time, I should also
3 like to support Ms. Nozica. In other words, there's no need to add to
4 the tension. Mr. Karnavas has said that Mr. Stojic was placing Mr. Prlic
5 above him, and that is a sort of interpretation I think we should avoid
6 at this stage.
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. There was
8 just an error in the translation. It has been corrected, and we can
10 Q. Witness, my learned friend Alaburic showed you some documents,
11 and some were shown by my learned friend the Prosecutor. I will cover
12 some documents now that you didn't have time to comment on. So let us
13 comment on them very briefly, and will you briefly answer my question:
14 Do they belong to the responsibilities of the head of the Defence
15 Department that we have read on the internal structure? And this relates
16 to communications with the brigades and other units of the HVO.
17 Let us first look at document P 00600. It is the next one on the
18 list, and will you, please, when you find it, tell us whether this
19 document in any way implies that Mr. Stojic did not act in any sense
20 contrary to his authority? This document doesn't have a memorandum, but
21 still we have typewritten the words "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
22 I have looked through all the documents in the binder, those with the
23 letterhead have these words, and even this one, which has been typed, has
24 these same words.
25 Your Honour --
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I recognise this, so it will not be necessary to
2 repeat it. I must have fallen on an exception. I give you that.
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, and the
4 exception confirms the rule; isn't it so? That's what we say.
5 Q. Mr. Witness, could you answer my question?
6 A. Your Honour, from these two sentences, it is difficult to say
7 what was the purpose of the meeting. We have listed previously the
8 competencies of Mr. Stojic, so he is entitled to communicate, and to be
9 able to provide a clear, unequivocal answer we would need to have the
10 result of this meeting. One could always ask ourselves whether the
11 meeting took place at all.
12 Q. Will you please look at the next document, please. If you wish
13 to give the same answer as for the previous one, say so. The document is
14 P 00799.
15 A. My answer is the same.
16 Q. Please look at the next document, P 00804. This is a transfer,
17 Bruno Busic is going from Posuski, and tell me, there's a date, and tell
18 me whether the communication is contrary to the competencies of
19 communication between Mr. Stojic and this person.
20 A. Your Honour, this is an order regulating the deployment of the
21 regiment or its accommodation and movement from Posuski Gradac, from the
22 school, to the Heliodrom barracks, which is within the terms of reference
23 of Mr. Stojic.
24 Q. Could you now look at the document shown to you by Ms. Alaburic
25 and the Prosecutor, P 01098. Have you found it?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Yesterday, you said you would have liked to see documents to show
3 which were the authority over the civilian police. We have discussed
4 this at some length. No, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, my mistake. I went too
5 fast. We are talking here about an order about all settlements, and
6 movement of persons in uniform bearing weapons are being prohibited.
7 Only official persons may bear weapons outside of the front-lines.
8 Tell me, does this order in any way go beyond the frameworks of
9 Mr. Bruno Stojic's competencies?
10 A. My opinion is Mr. Bruno Stojic is authorised to issue such an
12 Q. Let us look at the next document, P 03146. It's a document dated
13 the 3rd of July, 1993. It relates to the Kresimir Brigade from Livno,
14 and a military police unit is centred to be relocated to Mostar. Would
15 you say that in any way this letter -- yes, it is an order. Does it go
16 beyond the scope of the authority of Mr. Stojic in the way you have
17 described them in your report?
18 A. Let me just add this is the Petar Kresimir Brigade, which is just
19 a transmission. This relates to the 2nd Battalion of the Military
20 Police. Mr. Andabak was the commander of that battalion, so Mr. Stojic
21 is addressing directly the Military Police Battalion, which is not, by
22 formation, part of this brigade, and I think it is within his
24 So we now come to the next document, P 05232.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, Ms. Alaburic, if I look at the
1 transcript, it is you who give the answer, not the witness.
2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is both my mistake
3 and your mistake. I'm not Ms. Alaburic, I'm Ms. Nozica, and indeed the
4 witness's answer has not appeared on the transcript. Shall we ask him to
5 repeat it?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that this
7 order, 503146, that this order is in line with the authority of
8 Mr. Stojic.
9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Could we now look --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, could you shed some
11 light on this? You have just said that the 2nd Battalion of the Military
12 Police did not belong to the Kresimir Brigade, your brigade. I'm trying
13 to understand here. I believe that in a military organisation, any
14 brigade has attached to it a unit of military police, so how is it that
15 the 2nd Battalion is not part of the brigade? Did it come from Mostar
16 just temporarily? Was it resubordinated to the brigade, and then was it
17 decided to send it back to Mostar?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Petar Kresimir
19 Brigade had a platoon of military police. Here, in brackets, it says
20 "company," but in Livno we had the 2nd Battalion of the Military Police,
21 and as I said previously, I don't know whether it has entered in the
22 transcript. Clearly, this letter is being sent via the brigade, so
23 Mr. Andabak could not be given this order directly, and that is why the
24 brigade has been introduced as a kind of transmission. He's probably in
25 the territory of Livno
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. We'll have high-ranking
2 officers who are going to testify as Defence witnesses, we should have
3 General Petkovic and General Praljak, so we will be able to ask very
4 specific technical questions of them.
5 But as far as you know, when this company or the battalion of the
6 Livno military police is under the command of Andabak, normally when that
7 military police unit is subordinated to a brigade, is it not the brigade
8 commander that has authority over that unit? That's what I'm trying to
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if it is
11 resubordinated to the brigade commander, he has competencies over it.
12 But as far as I'm aware of the context, it was not subordinated to the
13 brigade commander.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay, all right. Then I
15 understand better.
16 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
17 Q. If we're talking about Livno, please tell us if you know. If
18 not, never mind. Do you know whether the military police in Livno, this
19 unit under the command of Mr. Andabak, did it have packet links and could
20 this letter have been addressed directly to them, or did some other way
21 have to be found? If you know, tell us; if not --
22 A. No, I was never in the Command of the 2nd Battalion.
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] For the benefit of the transcript,
24 let me say that in line -- page 46, line 9, the answer of the witness
25 appears under my name. The answer begins with the words: "Let me just
1 add ...." That is what prompted His Honour Judge Trechsel to intervene,
2 because it looked as if I was speaking, rather than the witness. But I'm
3 sure that the transcript will be corrected in due course.
4 Q. Let us look at the next document, P 05232. It is the situation
5 we discussed yesterday about the police forces and the competencies in
6 dealing with the police forces.
7 So let us move on to the next document, P 03123. It is of the
8 same date, which is explanatory for the previous document. I am
9 referring to document P 03123. Do you see it?
10 A. Yes, I see it.
11 Q. Tell me, please, does it explain the previous document?
12 A. It explains the one that follows, that comes after it. I think
13 there is a document dated the 20th of September from the Department of
14 Internal Affairs.
15 Q. Mr. Witness, I'm talking about the 2nd of July. Yes, there's a
16 document after it. Thank you.
17 Can we now look at document 56364 -- 06364.
18 Have you found it?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Will you please tell me whether these activities listed in this
21 document fall within the terms of reference of Mr. Stojic?
22 A. Yes. It is the procurement of material resources from the XY
24 Q. Very well, thank you. Can we now look at the next document,
25 P 02093. It's a document we looked at yesterday, which was shown to you
1 by the Prosecutor. It's an order of the 25th of April, signed both by
2 Mr. Stojic and Mr. Akrap for Mr. Milivoj Petkovic.
3 Shall we look at the document afterwards, P 02089. It is an
4 order sent by Mr. Siljeg, P 02089. Have you found it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Will you tell me, please, how does Mr. Siljeg see the previous
7 order, and whether this order of his actually relates to the previous
8 one, and what is stated in the heading, can we conclude from this that he
9 is treating the previous order as an order from the Main Staff?
10 A. As he has copied it, he obviously does think so.
11 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at the next document, P 1205 --
12 P 01205. Tell me when you find it.
13 A. It is from the 4th Corps?
14 Q. Yes.
15 Your Honours, in the course of yesterday's testimony, they asked
16 you some questions, specifically Judge Antonetti, "Did you see an order
17 that may have been signed afterwards?" Mr. Stojic, did he ever co-sign
18 an order of this kind?
19 Let us look at the next document, document P 01211. Please look
20 at it first. This previous document is dated the 19th of January, and
21 here we have an order from Mr. Boban, dated the 19th of January. Can you
22 remember, so as to gain some time, it relates to the agreement that
23 Mr. Pasalic referred to?
24 A. In view of the same date, probably so, and the context is the
25 same, yes.
1 Q. In this order, under item 5, it says that the Main Staff is
2 responsible for the implementation of this order.
3 Now will you look at the next document, P 1238. It is the last
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, let's go back to this
6 document, the 1211. I want to make sure I understand what is written.
7 Mr. Mate Boban is giving an order, and he has six items to this
8 order. I'm interested in the sixth item, a request that he received
9 daily reports at 2000 hours. Can we infer from that that he followed, on
10 an hourly basis, the military development in the field?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is a rather rare
12 document from which one could conclude that Mr. Boban is interested in
13 the situation on the ground.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's try to understand,
15 between Mr. Petkovic and Mr. Stojic. I mean, this is a very complex,
16 very difficult question.
17 Under paragraph 5, I can see that he, Mr. Boban, makes the chief
18 of the HVO Main Staff directly responsible for the implementation. How
19 do you analyse paragraph 5?
20 Let me check the translation into English to avoid an -- I'm
21 becoming extremely cautious, and I look at the transcript, which is
22 something I didn't used to do.
23 In this order, does Mr. Boban establish a direct link between
24 himself and the chief of the Main Staff? Does he seem to leave aside
25 Mr. Stojic? What is your opinion on this? Of course, we'll have other
1 witnesses. This is a topic we can revisit later on. But what is your
2 view on this? Because you told us that there are very few documents that
3 directly concern Mr. Boban, and we have one here. So what do you have to
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, under item 5,
6 Mr. Boban, as president of the HZ-HB and the supreme commander at the
7 same time, he makes the person responsible, when it comes to prohibition
8 of any offensive operations, and he will make responsible the person that
9 he vested his powers on. But I don't believe that this is a
10 re-establishment of a direct contact, irrespective of the fact that we
11 very rarely come upon such documents, and that is a matter of Mr. Boban's
12 personal affinity and interest in the armed forces. And I can tell you
13 personally I never could grasp how he could have functioned in this way,
14 because we practically do not have any evidence on the degree of his
15 interest into these matters. It is, however, part of his purview to do
16 so, and I don't doubt there was constant and -- contacts with the chief
17 of the Main Staff. And, of course, there are other matters which can
18 corroborate this opinion.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I noticed that this is
20 an order dated the 19th of January, which is issued in order to deal with
21 the situation in Gornji Vakuf because there's a conflict there. So this
22 date is this 19th of January, but I'm looking at the number of this
23 order. It's number 23, so that in 20 days, Mr. Boban perhaps issued an
24 order every day, which can show some reduced activity or not, because it
25 seems that his orders are registered. You can see a number, an order
2 Were you curious enough, when you did your archive research, to
3 try and see which were the other previous documents prior to the
4 number 23 document?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, more or less whenever
6 I could make a photocopy of Mr. Boban's document, I did so, and I have
7 them in a chronological order, but I did not perform an analysis of his
8 actions because that would fall outside the terms of reference for my
9 present report. But your remark is interesting, and in my future
10 research I will take a look at those matters. And that is an issue of
11 supreme command, which is an extremely important matter for an armed
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
14 Yes, Ms. Nozica, you have 25 minutes left.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.
16 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Q. Witness, please take a look at the document 1238. It is at the
18 end of your batch of documents. It is the last document in the batch.
19 It is an order dated the 20th of January, 1993, co-signed by
20 Mr. Milivoj Petkovic and Mr. Arif Pasalic.
21 Let's not complicate matters too much. I would like to ask you
22 whether this is an order co-signed by Mr. Petkovic and Mr. Pasalic and
23 not Mr. Stojic and Mr. Pasalic. And for that purpose, from document
24 P 1205, I would like to read the fifth paragraph, which says:
25 "We would establish and nominate a commission of three out of six
1 members coming from the HVO and the ABiH respectively, which would carry
2 out enablement of the separation order."
3 Could you take a look at this, and has this been regulated in
4 this manner in item 3?
5 A. Which one, I'm not sure.
6 Q. You have item 5 before you on the screen, and in hard copy you
7 have P 1238, item 3. Let us make sure that these are the same.
8 A. Yes, this is a document, in my opinion, which follows from the
9 document of the 4th Corps, dated 19th of January.
10 Q. I have 25 minutes left, so very briefly, please. The Prosecutor
11 showed you document P 01140, P 01140. This is an order signed by
12 Mr. Bruno Stojic, dated 15th of January, 1993. You were asked by the
13 Prosecutor whether it relies on an HVO order. You confirmed that, and
14 now, Mr. Marijan, I would like to ask you the following: Taking a look
15 at item 1 of this order signed by Mr. Stojic, could it be said, as it is
16 stated in the indictment and has been repeated in the courtroom, that
17 this goes for an ultimatum? Could you please take a look at paragraph 1?
18 A. In paragraph 1, it says that the Main Staff should immediately
19 establish direct contact with all operation zones and commands of the
20 Army of BiH for the purpose of implementing that order.
21 Q. I will continue. So, if it is said in paragraph 1, and you have
22 read it, that the Main Staff should establish direct contact with
23 headquarters and staffs of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and then
24 enumerates what should be done, would you characterize it as an ultimatum
25 issued to the Army of BiH if this paragraph stipulates that they should
1 establish direct contact? Briefly, and then we'll go on.
2 A. Well, this could be interpreted in different ways, but I do not
3 see it as an ultimatum.
4 MR. BOS
5 not only refer to paragraph 1, but also to paragraph 7.
6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] My learned colleague from the
7 Prosecution had enough time in his cross-examination, he referred to the
8 preamble exclusively. I did not make an objection, and he will, of
9 course, have other witnesses, and he may lead other paragraphs through
11 The next document, P 00933 --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. Witness, I'm going
13 to ask you a related question which may be sort of secondary, but still
14 seems relevant to me.
15 The date is 15th of January, 1993. This document refers to
16 Provinces 3, 10 -- 3, 8 and 10, because at the time there were
17 negotiations in Geneva
18 International Community, together with Mr. Tudjman, with Mr. Izetbegovic,
19 among other people, was trying to set up a political and military system
20 in order to deal with the situation? Were you informed of it all? You
21 see, this is a related question, but I'm seeking to get the feel of what
22 your experience was of how you understood all these events.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is the 15th of
24 January, 1993. I was at my studies at the time. It was sort of an
25 intermezzo. But at the time, of course, I did watch television, read
1 newspapers. Therefore, I received some basic information about that.
2 What was the situation on the ground and how they understood
3 those developments, that I do not know. I couldn't explain it to you.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we shall ask somebody
5 else, somebody who was active on the 15th of January, 1993.
6 Very well. Please proceed, Ms. Nozica.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.
8 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Briefly, could we take a look at document P 00933, please. This
10 is a document co-signed by Mr. Stojic, Praljak, and Petkovic. Have you
11 found it, Mr. Marijan?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I would like to -- apart from what you said so far about this
14 document, I would like to refer to item 5. This is also a Christmas
15 greeting to all members of the HVO, isn't it, among other things?
16 A. Obviously.
17 Q. In item 3, does this order include personnel of the Defence
18 Department? Because in conjunction with paragraph 1, 2, it states in
19 paragraph 3 that it also involves personnel of the Defence Department?
20 A. That is so.
21 Q. If it does include personnel of the Defence Department, wouldn't
22 it be logical for it to be co-signed by Mr. Stojic?
23 A. That's correct, it could be referred to the Defence Department.
24 Q. We continue. Madam Alaburic showed you a document P 04 --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please. I have a
1 question regarding this document.
2 Witness, I see that General Praljak and General Petkovic are
3 mentioned, but I also see that Slobodan Praljak is a higher-ranking
4 officer than General Petkovic, because he's a general-major, that is,
5 Praljak, and Petkovic is a brigadier, so of a lesser rank, so it seems.
6 Is that the way we should understand this document?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Croatian Army and the
8 HVO had this very strange rank, brigadier, when lieutenant-colonel was
9 eliminated, so it's colonel -- lieutenant-colonel, colonel, brigadier.
10 So in other armies -- colonels were brigadiers in the Croatian Army. I
11 know there are armies where brigadier is a general rank, but in the
12 Croatian Army and the HVO, it was a three-star colonel rank. I think
13 that the ABiH used this rank as for battalion commanders, which would be
14 equal to a major, so this I admit is misleading a bit.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But was Mr. Praljak of a higher
16 rank than Mr. Petkovic?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak is having a higher
18 rank. It's 18th of December.
19 I would like to point your attention to something which was
20 poorly realised, and I believe that Mr. Praljak will speak of it in
21 greater detail. There was an idea of a command -- a joint command of HVO
22 and Army of BiH. There are documents that referred to that, although it
23 was ignored. There was a specific coat of arms, a combination of HVO
24 insignia and Army of BiH. Mr. Jasmin Jaganjac was a co-commander, and
25 Mr. Praljak used to command it for a time, and this is why I believe
1 Mr. Praljak's signature is on this document.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So now you're telling us that
3 there was a coat of arms that was specific, where you had the HVO and the
4 BiH that were mixed together?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm sure that I saw
6 such a thing. It's strange that nobody discussed that here. It was
7 divided by a slanting line, and I'm not sure whether the Croatian coat of
8 arms was on the left-hand side or the right-hand side, and the
9 fleur-de-lys, but I do recall such stamps or documents verified by such a
10 stamp, bearing such a coat of arms.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, the Defence will have
12 time enough to find this and to show it to us.
13 Please continue, Ms. Nozica.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.
15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the joint command was
16 discussed, and I believe that we showed some of those coats of arms, but
17 we will do so again, if necessary.
18 Q. Mr. Marijan, have you found document P 04145? This has already
19 been shown to you.
20 A. It is before me.
21 Q. We see that Mr. Ivan Bagaric signs this document. I must say
22 that he will be a witness for the Defence of Mr. Stojic, and we will be
23 giving detailed explanation about this and other orders. He addresses
24 this to the Command of Heliodrom Swiz [phoen] and to the commander of
25 Health of the Operation Zone South-East Herzegovina. I refer to that
1 part of cross-examination of Madam Alaburic where she asks you about the
2 direct link between the commander of brigades and sectors within the
3 Defence Department; in other words, direct links with Mr. Stojic.
4 Could you take a look at the following document, please, P 06203.
5 That document explains what a commander of PZ Tomislavgrad about the
6 possibility of Mr. Bagaric having the authority to order him about.
7 First of all, I'm going to ask you whether you've seen this document, and
8 then we will go through it very briefly.
9 A. I'm not sure.
10 Q. Then I'm going to ask brief you.
11 This is a document authored by Mr. Siljeg to the deputy of the
12 head of Defence Department for the Health Sector. Can we confirm that
13 this was Mr. Bagaric in October?
14 A. Bagaric.
15 Q. Can you confirm or not?
16 A. I think that Mr. Bagaric was occupying that position throughout
17 that relevant time.
18 Q. He explains in this paragraph that he appreciates your efforts
19 regarding your order dated 28th of October, which was not even registered
20 with a protocol number, which concerns the inmates of detention centres,
21 and the previous order refers to inmates, if you recall; isn't it, sir?
22 Please take a look at what it says under item a, the document is
23 not valid, and under B, you do not have the right to command.
24 Mr. Marijan, would it follow very clearly from this document, concerning
25 the attitude of commander of the IZM Prozor, the District of
1 Tomislavgrad, about whether deputy head of department can command or not?
2 I have a host of documents about this.
3 A. I would like to add something. I believe that this confusion
4 stems from paragraph 9 about the -- of the decree on the structure of the
5 Defence Department. If it's interpreted without the decree on the armed
6 forces, paragraphs 31 and 32, which governs basic elements of command and
7 control, which say that there is a singularity of command and that
8 commanders are responsible to their superiors and nobody else, otherwise
9 there would be an intrusion of a different line of command, and that
10 would result in dual line of command in the HVO, it would be an absurd
11 situation, because after all, no army can function with two lines of
13 I believe that partly what we are looking at can be understood if
14 Article 9 can -- is construed in conjunction with the four paragraphs
15 regulating command and control. Otherwise, this would not make any
16 sense. Of course, commander in this case would be responsible to the
17 operation zone commander, and then the Main Staff, and then to Mr. Boban,
18 as the Commander-in-Chief, if he has delegated his competencies to the
19 chief of the Main Staff. Obviously, he has done so. I should have drawn
20 a diagram to make it clearer.
21 Q. We will be looking at the sectors and the commanders, and then
22 I'll show a document which might indicate the chain of command.
23 Now, we leave out a document, and that is 48 -- P 4877. It is
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I would like to return
1 to the document P 6203. Unless I'm mistaken, Colonel Siljeg - perhaps he
2 will be appearing here as a witness, I don't know - but, anyhow, it
3 states -- or it's written to the assistant to the head of the Defence
4 Department, so he's writing to the people surrounding Mr. Stojic, to say
5 or to question a given document. He says that the document that was sent
6 beforehand is not valid, that they have no command authority, et cetera.
7 The brigades have to report only through the Military District
8 headquarters. So it's from Colonel Siljeg. This document comes from
9 him. And in military terms, it would seem to be questioning the
10 competence of the Defence Department in certain areas, including, it
11 would seem, in the health area, and that is what is rather surprising.
12 Is the health not part of the remit of the Defence Department?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, health was within the
14 competence of the Defence Department, but each unit from the various
15 levels had their own health officials who were accountable to their
16 commander, and they had a professional link with the Health Sector. And
17 in this specific case with respect to the brigade, it would be logical or
18 normal for the chief of the Medical Corps should report to the assistant
19 commander of the operative zone regarding health problems, and then the
20 same report would be sent to the brigade commander so that he should be
21 aware of the communication made. Those were the principles, and perhaps
22 we should look at which document this is referred to. One might conclude
23 that Brigadier Bagaric has directly addressed the brigade commander with
24 something that looks like an order. If he did so, then he overstepped
25 his competencies. But I understand that he's coming so that he can
1 clarify this.
2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. That is
3 precisely what I wanted to ask, the communication between Mr. Bagaric and
4 Mr. Stojic with the unit commander, and here we see clearly that the
5 commander says, "You cannot give me orders."
6 Q. Is it clear -- is this clear from this order?
7 A. I think it is.
8 Q. Let us go on to the question of IPD, that is, the relationship
9 between the Health Sector, SIS, the Military Police Sector, and IPD. I
10 will cover the next documents very quickly.
11 Look at document 4D 1156. That is the next document. Tell me,
12 is this the unit commander communicating with the Defence Department or
13 the assistant commander for IPD? My colleague asked you whether the
14 Main Staff has IPD, that is, the Department for Morale.
15 We don't have the answer, your answer doesn't appear. What was
16 your previous answer? I see, please tell us.
17 A. Do I need to answer your question?
18 Q. Yes. Who is communicating with whom?
19 A. The assistant commander for Information and Psychological
20 Activity with the Defence Department.
21 Q. The assistant commander and not the commander?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Look at the next document, 2D 1353. I shall have to skip over
24 some documents, and look at item 3.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me. You stressed, with regard to the
1 document of the assistant commander, that it was the assistant commander,
2 not the commander. Mr. Marijan, who would be the commander?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm afraid I didn't understand you,
4 Your Honour.
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Who was the commander of the Rama Brigade, if you can remember?
7 A. The Rama Brigade changed commanders very quickly. There was
8 Zelenika, Pavlovic, but I think they came later. I can't remember who it
9 was at that point in time. They had the greatest turnover of brigade
10 commanders, I think.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
13 Q. So 2D 1353. I think you've covered it in your report. Look at
14 item 4: "Communication between the Main Staff." This a report of the
15 Defence Department, item 4, and item 7, what does it say?
16 A. Shall I read it?
17 Q. Yes, please read it so we can see how the communication
19 A. "On the 21st of September, 1992, Main Staff," and item seven
21 "With regard to providing information for the public, the
22 Main Staff will forward reports of subordinated command to the
23 Information and Propaganda Department so that it can prepare information
24 for the public."
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could there be a pause between question and
1 answer, please. The interpreter didn't hear the question. I'm sorry.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You must be a bit slower, and I think that the
3 time used for Judges warning you to be slower must be time to your
4 account, because you try to save time by speaking too fast, then we have
5 to intervene, and that, I think, must be your responsibility.
6 Thank you.
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. This is a purely
8 psychological problem. I'm trying to fit in to the time given to me.
9 It's like a 100-metre race and I'm trying to run 200 metres within the
10 same time.
11 So we can leave out the next document. It is also a command to
12 the military police. I don't think we'll go into that.
13 Now, regarding communication and a question that was discussed
14 here, whether the Main Staff had an official of the SIS or not, let us
15 look at document 2D 949.
16 Q. Tell me when you find it.
17 A. I found it.
18 Q. This is a report dated the 22nd of November, 1993, and it says:
19 "Pursuant to your order, we hereby submit the following."
20 We see at the end to whom this has been submitted, and under 1 it
22 "Names of employees of the SIS who have been appointed to
23 establishment posts, who are satisfactory workers and should be retained
24 in the service."
25 And under 2:
1 "Names of SIS employees who have not been appointed to
2 establishment posts, but who are satisfactory workers and should be
3 retained in the service. A decision must be issued to these workers for
4 the establishment posts they currently hold."
5 Will you please look at page 2, a list of employees in SIS who do
6 not have a letter of employment, and do we see the names of Ivan Bagaric?
7 No, I'm sorry, it's "Bandic" that is written here. Yes, I'm sorry, it
8 says "Bandic."
9 And under number 6: "Predrag Covic, SIS employee, attached to
10 the Main Staff"?
11 A. Yes, that is what it says here.
12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I just have an objection to this
14 The fundamental dispute was whether the Main Staff is competent
15 for certain activities in the area of security, but there was no dispute
16 that there was always an SIS employee who controlled the Military Police
17 Administration, the Chief of the Main Staff, and other offices, so
18 I think that was the dispute, and I think this discussion is misleading.
19 The question was not whether someone was under someone else's control,
20 but whether someone has the authority to engage in security affairs that
21 are within the Defence Department.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue. The position
23 expressed has been noted in the transcript.
24 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
25 at the transcript and see the discussion between Ms. Alaburic and
1 Mr. Praljak, but let me show one more document, whether the Main Staff
2 has any competencies over the SIS.
3 Let us look at document P 05614, and this would be the answer to
4 the question mentioned now by Mr. Alaburic. 5614.
5 Q. Have you found it?
6 A. Yes, I have.
7 Q. This is not an order. It's a letter to the Administration of
8 SIS, sent by Mr. Milivoj Petkovic on the 4th of October, 1993. Have you
9 had occasion to see this document?
10 A. I think I have.
11 Q. It says that it is necessary for SIS officers to take active
12 participation in resolving and dealing with the following cases of
13 criminal and other activities conducted by certain HVO members, and then
14 we have a list of raping, et cetera. And at the end, it says:
15 "It is your duty to inform us about all mentioned things, results
16 achieved, and measures taken."
17 Do we see, from this document, that there is direct communication
18 of the assistant commander of the Main Staff, Major
19 General Milivoj Petkovic, with the SIS Administration in Mostar?
20 A. In this concrete case, yes, we can see it.
21 Q. And I have three more documents.
22 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I would like to be told how much
23 time I have left.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, General Petkovic.
25 THE ACCUSED PETKOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may, a technical
1 observation, nothing more.
2 Isn't it logical, if the Main Staff does not have an -- SIS
3 employees for the needs of investigation, for him to address the head of
4 the SIS Administration and the assistant head? Isn't it logical for me
5 to seek assistant because I don't have an SIS official? So is such
6 communication prohibited, what is does this communication remind you of?
7 That's my observation.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, what is your
9 understanding as regards the problem that's just been raised?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly, this can be interpreted
11 in different ways. One way is the one referred to by Mr. Petkovic. What
12 he said is quite logical, though a third question may also be asked: Is
13 this a sign that the Security Service within the units are not doing
14 their work properly? And then the department itself is being addressed,
15 and there's always a problem with documents, as to how to interpret them.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If I may make a comment, I think there is no
17 issue of any blame to Mr. Petkovic in this at all. This is not something
18 that would evaluate whether you did right or wrong. It has nothing to do
19 with it.
20 THE ACCUSED PETKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honour,
21 Judge Trechsel, I do not accept that it is anybody's blame, but I'm
22 saying something else. If I don't have an SIS and somebody says I do
23 have it, but from this we see that I do not have an SIS, when Bandic or
24 someone else should have been with me. And I'm addressing the head of
25 the department, the highest level, saying, "I don't have an SIS. You
1 check it out. Somebody has raped somebody, somebody has killed somebody,
2 you check it out." So it's not a question of a communication, that's
3 okay, but the problem is, why should I write to Lucic if I had an SIS
4 employee. Then my own person would do this, Bandic would do this. He is
5 registered somewhere, but we don't know where. He's obviously not with
6 us. So there's no guilt at all that I am raising.
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, you have six
9 minutes left, but I have a question to put to your expert witness.
10 I listened closely to what General Petkovic has just said. He
11 says that if he does not have a SIS employee, then he has to address the
12 Defence Department. But if we come down to unit level, brigade level,
13 your brigade, for instance, in your brigade did the brigade have -- for
14 the crimes that were committed, did it have military police that could
15 intervene, that could make a report to the brigade commander and refer it
16 to the military prosecutor? Was there not, with the brigade, a security
17 service, the famous SIS, S-I-S, which could also make reports and also
18 refer the matter to the brigade commander? Was that the structure, such
19 as it operated within the brigades of the HVO, or was it not such a
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before answering your
22 question, I would like to add, with respect to General Petkovic, there's
23 nothing incriminating against him here. I'm sorry if this has been
24 construed in this way.
25 As for your question, each unit, battalion, brigade, had to have
1 assistant commander for security. I believe that even earlier we had a
2 problem in labelling them and in establishing lines of reporting, because
3 they grew out of local structures, and in terms of security
4 administration, this was an obstacle to their work that resulted in poor
5 performance in terms of their professionalism. But as per establishment,
6 each battalion and unit larger than a battalion, including brigades,
7 et cetera, could have 15 posts for security officers.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is where I fail to
9 understand what General Petkovic has just said. If, at brigade level,
10 we've got a deputy in charge of security, then I assume that if we come
11 higher up to the level of the operational zone - take Colonel Siljeg, for
12 instance, or Baskic [as interpreted] - then strictly speaking he should
13 have had a deputy in charge of security. And if we go higher up to the
14 staff level, then, in principle, there should be a deputy in charge of
15 security there. Now, I think that General Petkovic is saying, "I have no
16 deputy," and this is where I'm somewhat at a loss.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at the operations
18 level, the zone level, which is a high level, which would be an
19 equivalent to a corps, I must tell you that there were commanders for
20 security, and in the establishment of the Main Staff we used that on the
21 either first or third day. There was, per establishment, no SIS
22 personnel there. Mr. Petkovic has just explained why such a memo would
23 be sent, and this is a confirmation for him that there was no such
24 security service there. But in later documents, we have an SIS officer
25 with an unspecified or unclear position in the Main Staff or there's no
1 establishment order, but what we did have is up to the level of
2 operations zone, the HVO had a structure of officers in armed forces, and
3 the highest structure was this administration which was part of the
4 Defence Department.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you are going down the same
6 track at General Petkovic and saying that according to the documents
7 you've seen at the level of the Chief of Staff, there was nobody in
8 charge of security, but you are saying that nonetheless there was an
9 officer who did this; is that what you're getting at?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me make it clear.
11 Per establishment, establishment determines a single unity of
12 command and it enumerates the posts or personnel that a certain unit or a
13 command should have. I know only of the establishment dated 1992. I
14 have not seen any others, and I'm not sure whether they exist. And in
15 that establishment, there are no SIS personnel in the Main Staff.
16 We have two documents, one we saw recently dated 22nd of
17 November, 1993, which discusses the fact that there are two officers at
18 the Main Staff, and I believe that this is the issue which I think
19 Mr. Bandic is going to testify here, so -- as far as I could gather, so
20 he would be the person to clarify this situation.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll have the opportunity to
22 come back to this later. I don't think there's any point in using up
23 your remaining six minutes.
24 Let me just say that in the document 5614, I note that a soldier
25 of the HV -- of the HV has died in Um [phoen]. That's what it says.
1 Ms. Nozica.
2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
3 apologise to Mr. Petkovic, if he misconstrued what the witness was asked
4 about. I do believe we have the transcript, the cross-examination by
5 Madam Alaburic on Thursday. We have the transcript of the words of Madam
6 Alaburic, what is disputed, what is beyond dispute. We recall the
7 cross-examination, where the thesis was supported if there was no Medical
8 Corps at the Main Staff, then the brigade commander would directly
9 communicate with the Defence Department representatives. We drew maps
10 and diagrams. The same was valid and said about the IPD and about the
12 What I wanted to demonstrate is, on the basis of this document,
13 there were two bodies, and what I wanted to demonstrate, and which is
14 utterly logical and said by both Judge Trechsel and Mr. Petkovic, that it
15 would be only logical for him to communicate with SIS personnel and SIS
16 Administration, because for whom would they collect information if not
17 for the armed forces?
18 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I would like to intervene and to
19 put it on the record, I believe that this is mis-interpreted, my thesis.
20 My colleague, on the previous page, at lines 18 and 19, stated that
21 I think that because at the Main Staff there were no departments or
22 personnels for Medical Corps, IPD, et cetera, that there was direct
23 communication between the Defence Department with the armed forces. This
24 is not correct. My thesis is based on the structure of the Defence
25 Department, on the thesis of the expert witness between different
1 connections with heads of sectors within the department and on the decree
2 that we discussed already.
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, fortunately we have
4 the transcript at our disposal, in terms of IPD, asked about --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, if you want to make
6 another contribution, fine, Mr. Praljak, but if it's just to comment on
7 what has been said, that's of no use.
8 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do not wish
9 to make comments. I wish to assist.
10 Quoting the counsel, SIS is supposed to collect information and
11 help the Main Staff. This is testimony. SIS does not do so. Military
12 Intelligence Service is supposed to do so. SIS did something else, and
13 it should be left to the witness to explain that.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: I thoroughly agree, Your Honour. I think counsel
15 has to be careful not to be testifying. That is not the purpose.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Well, nor should other counsel and nor should
17 the accused, I would suggest.
18 I think I had no microphone. I was just suggesting that counsel
19 ought not -- other counsel ought not to testify, either, and the accused
20 also ought not to testify. Thank you.
21 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 There is really no need for me to be warned. The Bench is here,
23 and if other counsel have objections to my questions, so be it, but they
24 shouldn't lecture me on how I'm about to do my work. There's the Bench
25 to do so.
1 So I gather that I still have six minutes left for my questions.
2 I have an important question to raise. After this question, I'm going to
3 ask the final question concerning all the documents.
4 Q. First of all, please take a look at the document, and after that
5 we are going to skip four or five documents, and the document in question
6 is 5188, so P 5188. P 5188. Please notify me when you've found it.
7 A. I found it.
8 Q. Please tell me first whether you've ever seen this document.
9 A. I can't remember.
10 Q. Mr. Marijan, could you tell me about the line of command that you
11 discussed in your report? And I'll remind you that you said that head of
12 the Defence Department was outside of that chain of command and you've
13 never seen this document, but tell me, with regards to the preamble of
14 this order, who it was addressed to, and is this an example of a single
15 line of command at the HVO?
16 A. It is addressed to all operative zones. Obviously, it would be
17 then relayed to all the subordinated units, all the units subordinated to
18 the Main Staff, and the chief of the military police, most probably to
19 him because of combat activities of the units within the armed forces.
20 Q. Could you read out the preamble to see the basis for this order?
21 A. "Pursuant to the order from the president of the HZ-HB..."
22 Q. I did not understand.
23 A. It is drafted pursuant to the order from the president of the
24 HZ-HB, now HR, Republic of HB
25 explanation for its implementation.
1 Q. But it is not attached -- I don't want to testify, although that
2 order has been adduced as an exhibit, but what I wanted to ask you is
3 whether this order demonstrates the chain of command within the HVO the
4 way that you explained it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Mr. Marijan, finally, I would like to refer to another document
7 shown to you by the Prosecutor concerning -- a document by Mr. Stojic
8 concerning the funding of the HVO, and finally, basis of all those
9 documents that we've seen, I would like to ask you the following: On the
10 basis of these documents, some of which you saw for the first time, on
11 the basis of the documents shown to you during the cross-examination, on
12 the basis of the documents that you had insights into during preparing
13 your analysis, do you entirely stick by your conclusion that
14 Mr. Bruno Stojic, in his capacity as head of the Defence Department, was
15 outside the chain of command of the HVO?
16 A. Yes, I stick to my conclusion.
17 Q. Please take a look at document P 10674. This is a document shown
18 to you by the Prosecution. If possible, I would like to have them on the
19 e-court, ERN 0467-2167. 0467-2167. This is not the page.
20 The document is a compilation of different documents. It is very
21 difficult -- oh, yes, this is it.
22 You remember the second page, the order signed by Mr. Stojic.
23 Here, you referred to which amount from this order you made reference to,
24 so that I avoid giving you any leading statements? Which amount you
25 judged to be a very small amount?
1 A. Well, Your Honours, on the basis of my personal experience, the
2 brigade Petar Kresimir the 4th, while I was there, the municipality
3 funded the brigade, and I concluded that this was a paltry amount, the
4 one mentioned here, in comparison with the Bruno Busic Regiment, which is
5 a professional unit, where you could see how much money the companies
6 received, although the companies were very small. I remember saying what
7 was the establishment of the regiment, but at no point in time did it
8 have more than 400 or 500 people. So this amount is paltry, and I'm
9 unclear as to whether -- why it is being given. But as for the final
10 answer, if we take into account the exchange rate of the Deutschemark or
11 German mark, and if we were to convert that into Euro, then you would get
12 the amount.
13 Q. This is exactly what I wanted to do, Mr. Marijan. And I did not
14 refer to your comparison with other regiments or brigades, but I referred
15 to the question of the Prosecution. Didn't you say, asked by the
16 Prosecutor, that the municipality funded your brigade? Then you said,
17 This is a paltry insignificant amount, and the municipality did fund my
18 brigade during that period, so we will -- let us remember that this
19 amount is 3 million Croatian dinars.
20 And now let's take a look at the following document, P 9255,
21 P 09255, exchange rates, and this will bring my examination to a close.
22 So P 09255. Have you found it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So in January 1993, could you take a look --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, this will be your
1 last question, because you've used up the time you had.
2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. This is
3 exactly what I'm doing.
4 Q. So, Witness, take a look in the first list what is the value of
5 the Deutschemark in January. 495, as you said. Then let's hark back to
6 Mr. Stojic's memo from January, and if we divide 3 million Croatian
7 dinars with this exchange rate, could you tell us or shall I -- shall I
8 share with you?
9 A. One of the reasons why I studied history is because I was poor in
11 Q. It was just 6.000 Deutsche marks. Would you agree with me if I
12 were to tell you that?
13 A. There's no reason for me not to trust you.
14 Q. Right. Does this confirm what you said, that this was an
15 insignificant amount?
16 A. If this amount is correct, then this is really insignificant.
17 Q. Everybody in this courtroom could make the same calculation.
18 Thank you, Mr. Marijan. I know that you had some personal and
19 family problems, and you sacrificed yourself a great deal for sticking
20 with us for such a long time.
21 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I would like to bring my redirect to
22 a close. Thank you very much.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, on behalf of my fellow
24 Judges and on my own behalf, I thank you for testifying as a Stojic
25 Defence witness, with your expertise and your testimony related to events
1 that were mentioned over these several few days. Our apologies to your
2 family for keeping you here longer than you thought you would stay, but
3 there was no other way, and I hope that your wife will forgive us.
4 I wish you a good trip back home, and you have our very best
5 wishes for your further endeavours as a historian, digging in archives,
6 which must be very interesting for you. The usher is going to escort you
7 out of the courtroom.
8 We're going to have a 20-minute break. It is 20 to 6.00. We
9 shall resume at 6.00. We shall have a few oral rulings, and then
10 Ms. Alaburic will have the floor. She has something to tell us. And
11 Mr. Khan will then have something to say as well, and Mr. Scott will have
12 the floor by way of response, I suppose. So this is how things are going
13 to unfold in the following hour.
14 Thank you, Witness.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 --- Recess taken at 5.43 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 6.03 p.m.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As announced, the Trial Chamber
19 will now issue some oral rulings.
20 First oral ruling, in open session, it is as follows: A request
21 for observations by the Prosecution regarding keeping or withdrawing one
22 of the outstanding motions before the Trial Chamber.
23 On the 13th of October, 2008, the Prosecution filed a motion for
24 the Trial Chamber to postpone cross-examination of Witness Mirko Zelenika
25 because his name had been mentioned in the expert report by Milan Cvikl
1 for the purpose of cross-examination on the said report, awaiting
2 disclosure of possible interviews or communication between the two
3 witnesses concerned.
4 On the 14th of October, 2008, during the hearing of Mirko
5 Zelenika, the Trial Chamber issued an oral ruling by which it decided not
6 to postpone the cross-examination of Witness Zelenika, but to stay its
7 decision as to the request for additional cross-examination by the
8 Prosecution regarding communication between Zelenika and Cvikl for the
9 purpose of drafting the report.
10 Witness Cvikl appeared before the Trial Chamber from the 12th to
11 the 15th of January, 2009, and was cross-examined by the Prosecution,
12 including on possible interviews he may have had with several individuals
13 in order to draft his report.
14 Therefore, the Trial Chamber now requests the Prosecution --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Or asks, interpreter's correction.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- asks the Prosecution whether
17 to date it wishes to maintain its request for the possibility to
18 cross-examine Witness Zelenika on the interviews he might have had with
19 Witness Cvikl.
20 The Trial Chamber would like to hear the Prosecution's response
21 straight away.
22 MR. SCOTT: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your
23 Honours, and all those in the courtroom.
24 Your Honour, this has not been on any particular agenda, I have
25 to say. I do appreciate and thank the Chamber for recalling it to the
1 courtroom's attention, certainly to my attention. I'd be happy to
2 explore it with Mr. Stringer and the other witnesses most directly
3 involved -- excuse me, other counsel mostly directly involved with these
4 witnesses. If the Chamber will allow, we'll be happy to provide some
5 further response by tomorrow.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.
7 Mr. Registrar, please, let's move into private session.
8 [Private session]
11 Page 36077 redacted. Private session.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There may be another oral
7 ruling later on.
8 But Ms. Alaburic, you wished to take the floor?
9 MR. KHAN: Mr. President, with your leave, I think it was
10 discussed between us that with Your Honour's leave, Mr. President, I'll
11 address you on the issue that I raised last night, after my learned
12 friend Mr. Scott has been given an opportunity to respond, as well as any
13 interventions by counsel for the other co-accused. And that discreet
14 issue has been dealt with, then my learned friend will take the floor and
15 raise the issue that she alerted Your Honours to.
16 Your Honour, I wonder if that is agreeable to the Bench.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is agreeable. Please
19 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, I am going to take ten minutes or so
20 hopefully to knock on the head, once and for all, what I described
21 yesterday as the rather lamentable conduct of the Prosecution regarding
22 the issue of summaries. Your Honour, this issue has been litigated and
23 re-litigated seemingly ad nauseam.
24 I always go back to the, if I may say so, very wise and prescient
25 comments of His Honour Judge Prandler before the Defence case started,
1 when he referred to 20 percent of court time being eaten up by procedural
2 issues much. In my respectful submission, the conduct of the Prosecution
3 in relation to this issue stands as a startling example of how time is
5 Your Honours, the Prosecution have, for understandable reasons,
6 perhaps, tried to import into the Rules a requirement which is not there;
7 namely, a requirement of the Defence to take statements. Your Honour, I
8 have in the past touched upon some important differences between the
9 Prosecution and the Defence and that the Rules that the Judges in Plenary
10 have molded -- have been molded with the benefit of very considerable
11 judicial experience. There is, of course, a huge paucity of
12 investigative capacity between -- the Defence suffer from when compared
13 to the richness of resources from the Prosecution, and of course the
14 quality of statement-taking is, in many respects, a direct result of who
15 takes the statement.
16 The Defence, under a legal aid budget, do not have the benefit of
17 Scotland Yard, French-trained, United States expert police officers who
18 adorn the corridors of the Prosecution office. One could expect a great
19 degree of great accuracy from my learned friends from the Prosecution
20 than from a Defence team that are unable to afford such high-qualified
21 individuals to investigate.
22 Your Honours, the Rules, of course, are also a function of the
23 burden of proof. The Prosecution have to take statements under
24 Rule 66(a) and have to disclose statements, because they are making
25 allegations in this case against individuals, all of whom are of previous
1 good character. The burden is upon Mr. Scott and the Prosecutor to prove
2 the case that they bring.
3 Rule 66 and Rule 68 are clear and unequivocal. They are
4 consistently referencing the obligations of the Prosecutor to discharge
5 his burdens of prosecution -- his burden of proof, and they are
6 completely silent on the Defence. The only Rule, Your Honours, and we
7 must always try to be disciplined, in my respectful submission, and look
8 at the constituent agreements that form the basis of your jurisdiction,
9 the Statute and the Rules, as lawyers. The only rule that talks about
10 additional disclosure is Rule 67. It is titled, unsurprisingly for
11 Mr. Scott, "Additional Disclosure," and that makes it clear beyond
12 para-venture that the obligation upon the Defence to provide disclosure
13 is in relation to special defences and alibis.
14 I have said before, Your Honours, and in my submission it cannot
15 be glossed over, that Rule 65 ter is not -- is a case management tool.
16 It was imported, and it's very clear from the Rules, in 1999 as a device
17 to allow Your Honours to best apportion time and to speed matters up.
18 The Prosecution cannot say, with any legitimacy, in my respectful
19 submission, that the trials that took place in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
20 1998, suffered from any defect or unfairness because there was no
21 requirement of the Defence to submit the statements that they now assert
22 are indispensable to a fair hearing.
23 Rule 65 ter clearly, from the language, from the focus, is a case
24 management tool. In the course of that, the Defence are obligated to
25 provide a summary and a time estimate of witnesses to assist Your
2 Your Honours, let's put this particular instance of Mr. Bozic
3 under the microscope. Mr. Scott, my learned friend, stood up in court
4 last week, and I'll come to it, and very kindly he provided us with a
5 written motion five minutes before he took the floor, and I'm grateful
6 for that, and he made some additional submissions, most of which we have
7 heard before. But, Your Honours, let's look at the history.
8 In March of 2008, the Defence supplied its 65 ter list. If they
9 were as inadequate, as incomplete as my learned friend Mr. Scott would
10 now have Your Honours believe, one would have expected a diligent, very
11 able, and very experienced Prosecutor to alert the Defence that they had
12 been incomplete in the discharge of their responsibilities. Surprising
13 then, Your Honours, the Defence for Mr. Stojic say, surprising that the
14 response to that 65 ter list was complete and utter silence. Nothing in
15 April, in May, in June.
16 The first letter that could possibly be said to refer to this
17 allegation, this complaint of insufficiency, came from the Prosecution on
18 the 1st of October, 2008. But, Your Honour, that did not allege any
19 particular insufficiency, any particular inadequacy in the Defence
20 summaries. Nothing like it. That letter from my learned friend stated
21 that the Prosecution -- it reminded the Defence that it may make similar
22 requests to those that it made in the Prlic Defence case, and it will
23 assess, on a continuing basis, the Stojic Defence summaries and make
24 requests for more adequate summaries as it sees fit. So from October
25 2008, again, no allegation by the Prosecution that any specific summary
1 is incomplete or inadequate.
2 The 23rd of October of 2008, a letter from the Prosecution
3 discussing the witness calender. Again, a deafening silence from my
4 learned friend, who yawns in the corner, a deafening silence from my
5 learned friend regarding the inadequacy of the 65 ter summary.
6 The 5th of January, 2009, many months after the 65 ter list
7 summary was properly and timelessly filed by the Defence, and in a letter
8 that was sent only to lead counsel, although I was copied on the
9 letterhead but didn't receive, my learned friend stated that they wished
10 more adequate summaries from Slobodan Bozic and Stijepo Buljan [phoen].
11 Now, Your Honours, on the 19th of January we gave a supplementary
12 statement. We gave a second supplementary statement on the 23rd of
13 January. And when the Prosecution -- and then, of course, on the 24th of
14 January we gave a third and final summary.
15 Your Honours, my learned friend, before your order last week to
16 give a more detailed summary, accepted, and in my submission it was an
17 acceptance borne of good faith, not of obligation, that we would
18 endeavour to give a further summary to the Prosecution, and that we did.
19 But, Your Honour, when one looks at what we gave, in my submission, it
20 completely and utterly accords with the obligations that the Judges of
21 this Tribunal, not just Your Honours in this courtroom, have mandated on
22 the Defence. And, Your Honours, the case law that Mr. Scott continuously
23 asserts as being supportive of his proposition, leaving aside for the
24 moment my argument regarding the context and the Rules and the purpose,
25 simply does not support his proposition.
1 Your Honours will have read the Prosecution motion of the 13th of
2 January. I'm not going to re-litigate that, but continuously my learned
3 friend Mr. Scott refers to authority. Well, what is the authority?
4 Well, Your Honours, he cites, and we've heard in relation to
5 Mr. Karnavas, that an order has been made to make confidential that which
6 should not have been made public, but it could not have escaped the
7 attention of my learned friends for the Prosecution that the authorities
8 that they prainate [phoen] are confidential. They cite the Buzovski
9 [phoen] case, they cite the Mrksic case, and it's very clear in their
10 footnotes that these are confidential decisions.
11 I pause there. Of course, the Defence cannot possibly be
12 expected to comment on case law which is in the hands of the Prosecution
13 and which it is prohibited from seeing by order of this Tribunal. And I
14 digress again. I am, of course -- I am representing Ms. Hartmann, and
15 there is an amicus prosecutor prowling, as it were, the corridors of this
16 Tribunal, and according to that theory, this disclosure in a public
17 filing by the Prosecution of two documents which are confidential, and
18 the citing of the actual substance of the decision, according to the
19 theory of this amicus prosecutor and the Rule 33 complaint put forward by
20 the Registry, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for contempt. Of
21 course, I say that is balderdash in that case, and it would not, of
22 course, support the proposition in this. But, Your Honours, the Defence
23 cannot deal or address case law which it is prohibited from having access
24 to. What it does have access to is the case law that my learned friend
25 Mr. Scott put in of Dragomir Milosevic.
1 Now, Your Honours, it's very easy for parties to paint with a
2 very broad brush and make very grandiose submissions that are without
3 legal foundation and to say, very baldly, that these are the obligations,
4 but, Your Honour, I do invite Your Honours, when you are considering this
5 issue, to look at the case of Dragomir Milosevic that was cited by the
6 Prosecution, and it is completely and utterly off point.
7 In that case, the Judges were very clear that the Defence team
8 had not even filed a biography of the witness, not even a biography of
9 the witness, and the Trial Chamber in that case ordered that the Defence,
10 at a minimum, provide biographical details, such as name and date of
11 birth, and further detail, such as their occupation during the relevant
12 period and their rank.
13 Now, from any perspective, the Defence 65 ter list accorded with
14 that requirement. So, Your Honours, the one case law that we have access
15 to supports the sufficiency of the 65 ter summaries and does not support
16 the Prosecution's no doubt understandable wish to have more and more
18 Your Honours, when reviewing, very candidly, whether or not the
19 Prosecution are able to discharge their burden, I have referred
20 previously to the jurisdiction of my learned friend Mr. Scott, and the
21 fact that in many states of the United States, prosecutors like Mr. Scott
22 cross-examine witnesses without even knowing their name in advance and
23 certainly without knowing the precise contours of their
24 examination-in-chief. And I have said before, Your Honours, and with
25 respect and with your leave, I do say it again, it can hardly be
1 seriously argued that there is any diminution in the forensic abilities
2 of my learned friend, Mr. Scott, simply by crossing the Atlantic. But,
3 Your Honours, when one is looking at the ability of the Prosecution to
4 challenge the evidence that we put forward and that any Defence team puts
5 forward, I do ask you to be very much alive to the entire picture.
6 We have said repeatedly, and it is my consistent position on
7 behalf of Mr. Stojic, that one cannot pass the evidence, one cannot
8 dissect it. The Prosecution have the summaries, they have the exhibit
9 list, but that is not all they have, because in this particular case no
10 less a person than Mr. Scott spent five hours with this witness, and in
11 400 pages asked this witness numerous questions not about a completely
12 different topic, but including about Mr. Stojic. So, Your Honours, to
13 say in those circumstances that the Prosecution is coming in on the cold
14 and wants more and more information is lamentable, it is regrettable, and
15 it is completely and utterly devoid of merit.
16 Your Honours, my learned friend says, and has said in court and
17 has said in written submissions, that once again the Defence are blaming
18 the victims. Well, Your Honours, I'm not blaming any victim, I'm blaming
19 the Prosecution. I'm blaming them very squarely, because they're wanting
20 more and more.
21 Now, Your Honours, if they were in the position of Oliver Twist
22 and they would come and say, "We want more, please, sir," of course one
23 would try to accommodate them, but in this courtroom, Your Honours, they
24 play the part of Mr. Bumble, lavished with the resources and the
25 abilities that, as an organ of the Court, they are provided with. We, on
1 this side, play the sorry part of Oliver Twist, and so, Your Honours, it
2 really doesn't stand up to close scrutiny, what the Prosecution are
3 asking for of the.
4 Your Honours, the fact that the Prosecution had said nothing at
5 all in relation to the sufficiency of our summaries between March and
6 January, in my submission, is not without legal effect. We had, as a
7 Defence team, a legitimate expectation, given their silence between March
8 2008 and January 2009, that what we gave was sufficient. They complained
9 in relation to Mr. Prlic's statements. They complained in relation to
10 Mr. Praljak's statements, if I remember rightly. The fact that they were
11 silent in relation to Mr. Stojic's summaries has legal effect. It either
12 amounts to a waiver or it gave rise to a legitimate expectation on the
13 part of the Defence. But to now, with a very small team, in the midst of
14 a Defence case, without the resources that my friend has, to start
15 asking, on a witness-by-witness basis for more detail, has the effect,
16 and I'm sure it's not intended, but it has the affect to amount to an
17 ambush or an attempt to torpedo an overworked and perhaps too small
18 Defence team. They could have done things in proper time.
19 Your Honours, they refer also in their motion to the Krstic case,
20 and, Your Honours, firstly it's very clear that Judge Rodrigues, who is
21 cited there, and it's page 5924, was not making a legal finding. He was
22 simply discussing possibilities, but it's not a legal finding. Again,
23 Your Honours, when one hears a legal submission, it's very important,
24 it's very basic, to go to the constituent document. Judge Rodrigues was
25 not making a legal finding, he was giving an obiter comment.
1 But, Your Honours, when did the Prosecution raise it? They
2 raised it not on the eve of testimony. They did not raise it way after
3 they should have. They raised it at the pre-Defence conference. That
4 was the time the Prosecution should have raised this issue if there was
5 any merit in their submissions. They did not, in that conference, point
6 to particular deficiencies in relation to Mr. Stojic's summaries.
7 In those circumstances, Your Honour, it is our respectful
8 submission that Mr. Scott should not be allowed, as he has said in court,
9 to stand up again and again.
10 I don't need to go into the issues of the applicability or not of
11 issue estoppel or res judicata, but there is a time and place for
12 everything. And, Your Honours, I would ask that all parties, including
13 the Defence, of course, be told to be sufficiently constrained and not to
14 re-litigate issues ad nauseam. Your Honours, a time has come, in my
15 respectful submission, instead of raising the temperature in the
16 courtroom and adding to tensions, to put an end to it and to direct that
17 the Prosecution now should not be allowed to raise further issues on the
18 sufficiency of Defence summaries. That is not to say that we will not in
19 good faith, ourselves, voluntarily seek to supplement when we can. We
20 will. As more information comes to light, we will. But in relation to
21 the Prosecution's right to object and say, "Well, we're going to object
22 to this witness coming at all, we're going to ask this witness's
23 testimony to be put back," it amounts to unwarranted use of prosecutorial
24 discretion, and I would ask Your Honours not to allow it anymore.
25 Your Honour, that's my submission.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Khan.
2 Mr. Scott.
3 MR. SCOTT: At this late hour of the day, Your Honour, there's
4 really probably even a one-word response that would suffice, and that
5 word would be "poppycock." I've never heard such outlandish submissions,
6 or rarely have heard such outlandish submissions from such an experienced
7 counsel. In fact, I was hoping this afternoon that -- frankly, I was
8 hoping and indeed even praying, that Mr. Khan might reconsider his course
9 and not waste the Chamber's time with raising an issue which, as he says,
10 has been raised again and again by all Defence, and in fact, raised
11 exactly by Mr. Karnavas some months ago. Exactly. We can't afford to
12 comply with the rules, exactly that argument, which the Chamber, in
13 particular Judge Trechsel, completely rejected out of hand.
14 The Chamber may be familiar with the saying that imitation is the
15 highest form of flattery, and in this regard I suggest that Mr. Khan is
16 flattering Mr. Karnavas by imitating him and putting into practice the
17 notion that offence is the best defence.
18 The courtroom will recall that on the 4th of September, 2008
19 Honour Judge Trechsel had these words for Mr. Karnavas, when Mr. Karnavas
20 made exactly these same arguments concerning the adequacy of the Prlic
21 witness summaries: Your Honour Judge Trechsel stated:
22 "Mr. Karnavas, you're talking along the motto that attack is the
23 best defence."
24 So my congratulations to Mr. Karnavas for the compliment paid to
25 him by Mr. Khan in imitating Mr. Karnavas.
1 What is lamentable, Your Honours, what is lamentable, is that we
2 wasted the time this afternoon on an issue indeed that this Chamber has
3 been clear on and has ruled repeatedly on. And it is not the Prosecution
4 but the Defence who repeatedly raises the same question over and over and
5 over again, which this Chamber has repeatedly rejected.
6 Now, let me again briefly review the facts.
7 The Defence is clearly on notice by the Tribunal law and Rules,
8 which are clear. This has been dealt with by pleading after pleading,
9 order after order, which I don't think have been kept secret from
10 Mr. Khan. It's been -- if he's been in court, unless he's not been
11 listening, he will have seen the law, he will have heard the discussions.
12 As far as I can tell, he was here during most days of the Prlic
13 proceedings where all these issues were discussed repeatedly, and it's
14 unseemly for Mr. Khan just to get up and say, "We weren't aware of this
15 law, it's confidential." That's utter, utter nonsense, Your Honour. The
16 Defence have been clearly on notice of what the law requires. Each of
17 the counsel here are experienced, competent counsel. They can read the
18 Rules. Rule 65 ter, it's quite clear. The Trial Chamber's orders are
19 quite clear. The Trial Chamber's pre-Defence order was quite clear.
20 There is nothing -- nothing unclear about this, and I couldn't disagree
21 with Mr. Khan more on his statement of the Tribunal law on this topic.
22 As I said last week, indeed, and I think many of us would agree,
23 there are a number of topics in the Tribunal jurisprudence that are not
24 entirely clear and there's room for debate. This is not one of them.
25 The jurisprudence is absolutely consistent and clear, as this Trial
1 Chamber has ruled repeated -- ruled and applied repeatedly, including at
2 the 21st of April, one of the pre-Defence conferences, in which the
3 Prosecution did raise -- did raise and has raised ever since, at every
4 opportunity at every appropriate moment, the inadequacy of the summaries;
5 first, obviously, in the Prlic Defence case, which it was the first
6 Defence case, but also more generally. We've made the point over and
7 over again.
8 So, again, for Mr. Khan to suggest the Prosecution has somehow
9 sat silent on its hands, I think most in the courtroom would be shocked
10 to hear that, because we are rarely to -- rarely silent about much of
11 anything, Mr. President.
12 Your Honour, President Antonetti, you were very clear. You said
13 repeatedly and specifically on the 21st of April at a conference that the
14 Defence summary -- many of the Defence summaries across the board, all
15 six accused, many of the Defence summaries were inadequate, and
16 specifically citing by example the Praljak summaries. It's on the
17 record. Anyone can get the transcript. It was clearly put out. Now, is
18 it my fault if, in the intervening time, if the Praljak Defence, for
19 example, doesn't take your direction on board, Judge Antonetti, and
20 correct those problems, does it become it's my fault? It's the
21 Prosecution's fault, because we haven't raised it every day? Their
22 obligation is to the Rules and to the Judges to comply, and whether I
23 raise it every day or not, Your Honour Judge Antonetti, your direction,
24 your findings in April 2008, are still in effect and still apply. And
25 until the defence comply with your order, there is not compliance.
1 Judge Trechsel, on the 13th of October, 2008, engaged in a quite
2 clear tutorial, and the transcript goes on for some length at what's
3 required. Unless Mr. Khan wasn't present or didn't have access to the
4 transcript, he would have been clearly advised of what Rule 65 ter
5 requires. He may want to dust off that part of the transcript and review
6 it, the 13th of October, 2008.
7 Judge Prandler, not to be left out, Your Honour, has also raised
8 on numerous occasions what the law requires, and specifically on the 24th
9 of September, 2008, urged the Defence -- urged the Defence, saying this
10 was, quote, "a kind of lesson" for everyone to provide fully adequate
11 summaries "as punctually as possible." Each of Your Honours has clearly
12 repeatedly indicated what the law requires, and Mr. Khan couldn't be more
14 Now, we did specifically alert them in general, and if Mr. Khan,
15 again, was not asleep during the Prlic case, he knows the position that
16 the Prosecution took during the Prlic case on a number of summaries that
17 were complained about, and a number of times -- and there were a number
18 instances where the Trial Chamber ruled that there were indeed inadequate
19 summaries. I assume Mr. Khan was paying attention.
20 We sent letters on the 1st of October, 2008, and again on the
21 23rd of October, 2008, raising as a general matter, contrary to sitting
22 silent, saying, "We're still concerned about the summaries. We're going
23 to write just to put you on the notice, if the summaries aren't adequate,
24 we'll raise them as we go." Hardly a surprise, hardly a surprise.
25 I'm not going to go through, Your Honour, because of the hour,
1 I'm not going to go through all the exchange of correspondence from the
2 23rd of October to date. Let me just jump to the end of last week, when,
3 in fact and, indeed, to make the point, in this instance the Trial
4 Chamber granted the Prosecution motion and did find the summary
5 inadequate. That's not Ken Scott's finding. That's your finding,
6 Judges. You found it was inadequate, and so ruled. And then you
7 ordered -- then you ordered the Stojic Defence to provide a completely
8 adequate summary by the next day. Well, unfortunately, they didn't do
9 that. They provided a summary that, frankly, was no improvement at all,
10 unfortunately. We received on the summary -- and let me give you some
12 One of the topics that we complained about before was the
13 evidence about detention camps. The summary simply repeated exactly the
14 same words. Is that an improvement? Mr. Stojic's de jure and de facto
15 powers, the summary is slightly rephrased, using a few different words,
16 providing no additional information. Number 3, the events that Mr. Bozic
17 supposedly witnessed with regard to Stojic, no new information provided.
18 Number 4, document P 02056 added nothing beyond saying that the witness
19 "will testify to the veracity of documents provided by him and will
20 describe how these documents were created." Nothing more specific than
21 that, and I will come back to that particular item in a few moments.
22 I cannot see, Your Honour, how any of these objections were
23 unreasonable or unfair on behalf of the Prosecution in the wake of this
24 Trial Chamber's filing that the existing adequate summary was not
1 In response, the Stojic Defence, by way of a letter on Saturday
2 the 24th - and now let me remind you, this is the Saturday before the
3 witness is supposed to start on Monday - finally we get the fourth
4 summary, the fourth summary, and just then there is some improvement.
5 But what's troubling about the fourth summary and which kind tells the
6 tale, unfortunately, is it becomes clear that the withholding of
7 information has been tactical. Let me take one example. I'm going to
8 take one example, I'm going to walk the Chamber through it. That
9 concerns, in fact, this Exhibit P 02056.
10 Concerning that --
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Your Honours, I
12 apologise, colleague Scott, I object. The witness is supposed to come
13 into the courtroom tomorrow, and I really think that what has been said
14 about his testimony, especially as we are in open session, should not be
15 presented now. Let Mr. Scott try and -- I beg your pardon. We're
16 talking about summaries, and I think the witness is due to come, and I
17 have a lot of difficulty in understanding this whole story, because the
18 witness can -- regardless of what we put in the summary, he may say
19 something quite different here in the courtroom, once he takes his oath.
20 This hypothetically may occur, Judge Trechsel. I can tell you what he
21 told me in the proofing, but once he takes his oath, he may say something
22 quite different.
23 So I really think that what has been said in the summary and what
24 has been disclosed to the parties should not be went into now. If
25 Mr. Scott feels it's inadequate, though we haven't been told anything to
1 that effect since Saturday, then we will consider providing additional
2 information about -- including about the document he wishes to mention
4 Mr. Scott said that he received that information on Saturday. It
5 was clear that the witness could not begin his testimony on Monday,
6 because we had another witness, an expert witness, and it is quite clear
7 that he had quite sufficient time to prepare on the basis of additional
9 I must say that all of this is very tiring, and I must tell you,
10 with all sincerity, it's very difficult to work with the witness, to
11 proof him, to talk with him, and to work with him constantly under all
12 these pressures.
13 Yes, my colleague is suggesting to me that the colleague told us
14 that the information we provided was sufficient. Mr. Scott obviously
15 wishes to go further because he feels that even the information provided
16 on Saturday was not adequate. If a specific case is being referred to, I
17 feel we should refrain from mentioning them and from them going into the
18 transcript, which could be harmful for the proceedings.
19 MR. SCOTT: Your Honours, it's unseemly for counsel to object to
20 an argument that they have put in motion. They've raised the issue. I'm
21 responding to it. And I did not interrupt Mr. Khan as much as I might
22 have wanted to, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.
23 The point was not to ask for more information -- excuse me.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, just very quickly
25 two points.
1 The Trial Chamber was informed that you were satisfied with the
2 information provided to you by the Stojic Defence, so for us that settled
3 the matter.
4 Secondly, the witness is scheduled to testify tomorrow. I think
5 it might be better not to go to the merits of his testimony with
6 exhibits, you know, because this is an open session, and might you want
7 to us to move to private session to continue?
8 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, if it would assist, I'd be happy to go
9 into private session, but I don't think it's necessary. But if it will
10 assist the Chamber to move this more efficiently, I'll be happy to. I
11 see no reason to whatsoever.
12 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, of course it's for my learned friend
13 Mr. Scott to decide how he responds. I didn't once go into the substance
14 of the witness's testimony. My point was the procedural one, the
15 legitimacy of the Prosecution to keep asking for additional information.
16 Your Honour, my learned friend perhaps can be allowed to complete
17 his submissions. I will say, before I sit down, I did make a mistake.
18 In relation to this particular witness, he didn't speak to him for five
19 hours, he spoke to him for five days. So, I'm sorry, that's my mistake;
20 five days, 400 pages, Mr. Scott with this witness.
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes, Mr. Khan, and your lead counsel has just
22 told us that the witness may say something quite different now, and
23 that's exactly what the other side is entitled to know. It may be
24 something different than what he told sometime ago. But I think,
25 Mr. Khan, this Chamber rather recently has made a decision which is quite
1 clear and which basically accepts the points made by the Prosecution, and
2 you are, it seems, asking the Chamber now to turn back 180 degrees and
3 even kick in the other direction.
4 MR. KHAN: Your Honours, I will just -- with your leave -- in
5 fact, I think Your Honour, with the greatest respect, has not got the
6 point; not got the point, no.
7 The point of my learned friend, Ms. Nozica, is even if a full
8 statement has been taken, of course there is a possibility that a witness
9 in the dock, under oath, will say something different. That is
10 completely a different issue. Your Honours, that is completely, in my
11 submission -- Your Honour can say no, but in my submission that's a
12 completely different issue.
13 It is well known to anybody experienced in the courtroom that a
14 witness can go hostile. That happens. It happens to Prosecution
15 witnesses, it can happen to Defence witnesses. It's when they come and
16 say something that was not contemplated when they took the statement, and
17 in many cases if the party calling them had known they were going to go
18 hostile, that witness would not have been called.
19 So the point of Ms. Nozica, in my respectful submission, has not
20 been well understood by Your Honour Judge Trechsel, if it's being taken
21 as an acceptance that we know the witness will say something different,
22 not a bit of it, not a bit of it.
23 Your Honour --
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I didn't say that. It's not really something to
25 go further into. I understood Ms. Nozica's point, but I was pointing to
1 it that there is also another side to the same argument. That's all.
2 MR. KHAN: And, Your Honour, just one final point.
3 I'm not seeking to revisit all the issues. We have given
4 additional summaries for Mr. Bozic. It was before your order, before
5 Your Honours' order, we already expressed a willingness to provide that
6 which we were later on ordered to give. It was not for any wont of
7 willingness on the part of the Defence. We have given a statement in
8 relation to Mr. Buljon, a further supplement. But my point, Your
9 Honours, is that we did see it, in the Prlic case, a proclivity to keep,
10 on a witness-by-witness basis, when there's a thousand and one things for
11 a small Defence team to do, to ask for better particulars.
12 And, Your Honour, the point still remains: Why did the
13 Prosecution, between March 2008 and January 2009 -- and let my learned
14 friend refer to a transcript where he said that a particular Stojic
15 summary was deficient. I challenge him to do that.
16 In my respectful submission, and our junior -- my legal assistant
17 is at the back and has looked at all the correspondence. We couldn't
18 find any instance where any member, not just Mr. Scott, any member of the
19 very able Prosecution team said this statement, this summary is deficient
20 and inadequate and we want more information.
21 The Rules are there for a purpose; I agree. The Defence have to
22 comply; I agree. But there is a time and place for everything, and the
23 time was prior to the Defence case starting, and that has not been done.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott has to finish. You
25 have five more minutes to complete your arguments, because it's nearly
1 7.00 and we'll have to finish for the day.
3 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will only
4 take one minute.
5 I join everything that was said by Mr. Khan regarding summaries,
6 but I would say that what Colleague Scott said is not correct regarding
7 His Honour Judge Antonetti, that at the session of the 21st of April,
8 2008, he objected to the summaries of all the Defence counsels. I think
9 that His Honour, the President, remembers that, but judging by the
10 transcript, on pages 27376, 27377, and 27378, it can clearly be seen,
11 what His Honour Judge Antonetti said, addressing individually each of the
12 Defence counsels, and he had objections regarding the summaries of
13 Mr. Praljak's Defence.
14 I will not go into the correspondence between the Stojic Defence
15 counsel and Mr. Scott, but this is what the transcript shows.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll have to stop. I don't
18 understand why this procedural issue is taking -- is getting out of
19 proportion. We'll have to put an end to this discussion.
20 Tomorrow, we have a witness who's scheduled. I think there was a
21 minor problem because of his eyesight, but I think that's going to be
23 Ms. Nozica, whilst I was listening to you earlier on, I was
24 looking at the schedule. Initially, there were six days that were
25 scheduled. We're already lagging behind by two days, Monday and Tuesday.
1 Obviously, Mr. Bozic is going to continue on Wednesday, the 4th, and
2 Thursday, the 5th, so you might want not to call Stijepo Buljan, who was
3 scheduled for two hours too early, because if he arrives whilst Bozic is
4 not finished, you're going to run into difficulty. So it's up to you.
5 But if you really need the time, because for five hours, you really need
6 six days, you might have to postpone Buljan. I just wanted to flag that
7 out for you.
8 Yes, Ms. Alaburic.
9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your
10 permission, in view of the fact that we have another five minutes left
11 for our work this evening, may I have your permission to present an oral
13 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honours, just a minor technical intervention.
14 I think that the transcript should show that Mr. Scott left the
15 court. It must be recorded.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, do you need to
17 have Prosecution representatives in the courtroom for what you're going
18 to say? If not, you can speak. But if you need their presence, you'd
19 better say what you want to say another day.
20 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was just going to
21 suggest the same thing. Tomorrow, at the beginning of the hearing, I
22 would make this oral proposal, and I would certainly wish representatives
23 of the Prosecution to be present.
24 Thank you.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
1 It is 7.00 or nearly. I thought we would finish earlier. I wish
2 everybody a good evening. We shall reconvene tomorrow in the afternoon.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.55 p.m.
4 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 28th day of
5 January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.