Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 36342

 1                           Wednesday, 4 February 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The accused Petkovic not present]

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

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

 7     case.

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

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

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

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12     Today is Wednesday, I would like to wish a good morning to the accused,

13     to their Defence counsel, to all the representatives of the Office of the

14     Prosecutor, as well as to everybody assisting us.

15             We are about to begin the cross-examination by the other accused.

16     We were informed that Ms. Alaburic needed two hours, however, I'd like to

17     turn to the other Defence counsel.  I would like to know whether they

18     intend to cross-examine the witness.  I'll start with Mr. Kovacic and

19     then I'll go to Mr. Karnavas.  Mr. Kovacic.

20             MR. KOVACIC:  Good morning to everybody and Your Honours.  We

21     will have altogether, I guess, I estimate 20 minutes at the most.

22     Mr. Praljak with two, three questions and I have two or three questions.

23     Thank you.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Mr. Coric.

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

Page 36343

 1     Good morning to everyone in the courtroom, we will use up probably all of

 2     our time, and if it goes faster we'll finish earlier.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You mean 25 minutes?

 4     Mr. Pusic?

 5             MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] As things stand now, the Pusic

 6     Defence reserves the right to use their time.  We don't know how the

 7     examination will develop, if we don't use up time.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  Good morning, Mr. President.  Good morning,

10     Your Honours.  My apologies for coming in late.  Same answer as the Pusic

11     Defence team.  We will be going -- we're scheduled to go last, so as of

12     this moment we are uncertain, so we do reserve our time.  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Yes, Ms. Alaburic.

14             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honour, good morning to you,

15     to everyone in the courtroom.  I only wanted to say that the Petkovic

16     Defence will not have any questions to this witness regarding the

17     statement he had given to the Praljak Defence.  Therefore we would ask if

18     those few minutes of our time of cross-examination could be transferred

19     to this cross-examination.  And if you look at the topics I intend to

20     cover with this witness, the beginning of the binders I intended for you

21     I made an overview of the topics.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, let's be clear.

23     I don't know what the position of my colleagues is but my position is

24     well known to everybody.  I've expressed it many times.  For me, when

25     there are multiple accused, a cross-examination is to be carried out

Page 36344

 1     because what is being said by the witness is unfavourable to your own

 2     case and that's the purpose of the cross-examination.  As the Chamber of

 3     appeals reminded us, this is -- the cross-examination is not an absolute,

 4     not an unlimited power.  So in my opinion the cross-examination has to

 5     focus on items that are unfavourable to you, basically prior statements

 6     of the witness of the other Defence team.  Hence my interest listening to

 7     what you are about to say and the various topics that you want to

 8     address.

 9             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what I'm going to say

10     you can cover -- you -- you can follow at the beginning of my binder

11     which is an overview of the topics I'd like to discuss with this witness,

12     and with your leave, I will briefly present these subjects, these topics.

13     First of all, I would like the witness to clarify his answer regarding

14     document 2D 1460.  I'll wait for the Judges to receive my binders.

15             The Stojic Defence has spent relatively a great deal of time

16     trying to prove that the document is a forgery, which we do not dispute

17     as claim and we don't intend to deal with it, but the witness, at the end

18     of his evidence about that, said that the document had allegedly been

19     received at the Main Staff of the HVO.  And I consider it my duty to ask

20     for additional answers concerning this document that the witness tried

21     very hard to prove was a forgery and was received at the Main Staff.

22             The second subject will relate to the number of employees of the

23     Defence Department.  You have seen one figure about that which I believe

24     will be significant to when we compare it to the number of staff at the

25     Main Staff.  And then I would also like a couple of questions of the

Page 36345

 1     witness to provide a definitive reply to Judge Antonetti's question

 2     whether in the vicinity of Bruno Stojic there had been people in uniform,

 3     some generals, colonels, and other officers.

 4             The third topic relates to the publishing of documents related to

 5     the Defence.  You were probably able to notice that the documents

 6     concerning the internal organisation of the Defence Department and a

 7     series of other Defence related documents had been presented to this

 8     Court in the papers as they were written.  That is, documents that were

 9     not published in the Official Gazette.  I believe that this witness, in

10     view of his experience and knowledge, can explain how this happened and

11     that his answers to these questions will be very important for us to

12     conclude about the validity of claims that something does not exist

13     because it was not published in the Official Gazette.

14             The witness further spoke about Article 30 of the Decree on Armed

15     Forces speaking of the transfer of powers of the supreme command, so I

16     will deal with that subject briefly too.  I will also cover the subject

17     of change of powers of the chief of the Defence Department as opposed to

18     the Minister of Defence which are the same questions asked earlier by

19     Judge Trechsel.  I believe that this witness who participated in the

20     writing of legislation and regulations is able to answer this question

21     which is important to the case.

22             The fourth topic concerns military prisons.  The Petkovic Defence

23     otherwise does not intend to deal with the subject of military prisons

24     because we have not seen any Main Staff documents that would connect them

25     with the running of military prisons.  However, at the end of his

Page 36346

 1     evidence yesterday, the witness said about military prisons that

 2     Mr. Bruno Stojic recognised his powers over Ljubuski and Heliodrom

 3     prisons which is not a subject for the Petkovic Defence and we'll not go

 4     into that.  However, the witness also said the following sentence, and

 5     I'll quote in English:

 6             "[In English] It is known that there were other persons dealing

 7     with that field."

 8             [Interpretation] I believe it to be my duty to ask for additional

 9     clarification from this witness and to establish whether in any way,

10     directly or indirectly, he meant to say that these persons were from the

11     Main Staff.  Of course I'm interested primarily in the Chief of the

12     Main Staff.

13             The fifth subject relates to Mostar and the events of the

14     9th of May and the agreement between Petkovic and Halilovic made on the

15     12th of May, 1993.  From the evidence of this witness, in my view, it

16     transpires that Mr. Petkovic and Mr. Halilovic were deciding about war

17     and peace in Mostar.  That, however, is not true, because their agreement

18     was a consequence of an understanding between Boban and Izetbegovic, and

19     I believe it is my duty to prove so in these proceedings.

20             In view of the fact that this witness participated in the

21     preparation of regulations on defence, and that the previous witness told

22     us that these regulations had been prepared by copying Croatian laws, I

23     want to show the Court the difference between a Croatian law and a law of

24     Herceg-Bosna.  And I suppose that in all countries in interpreting a law

25     it is very important that when you copy a provision from a certain law

Page 36347

 1     without copying everything, we can conclude from what was left out what

 2     the intent of the legislator was.  In that context I would also show one

 3     statement of President Tudjman about the powers of the minister of

 4     defence, and I would ask the witness if similar rules applied to

 5     Herceg-Bosna.

 6             The seventh topic would relate to the Main Staff.  Since the

 7     witness participated in the preparation of these regulations and spoke

 8     about the Decree on Armed Forces, I would ask him to tell us what were

 9     the powers of the Main Staff under the Decree on the Armed Forces.  I

10     would show him the Croatian law on Defence to identify differences, and

11     then I would show him the current Croatian Law on Defence which the

12     Main Staff designed politically and legally in a quite different way.

13     And then I would ask him about the intent of the legislator to create a

14     strong or a weak Main Staff.

15             The eighth subject would be the Main Staff as an organisational

16     unit within the Ministry of Defence.  The witness spoke to us about the

17     college or collegium as an informal forum within the Ministry of Defence

18     whereas we've seen transcripts that include an agenda, conclusions,

19     decisions, so I would like to clarify exactly the nature of the work of

20     this college, to clarify who reported to whom, who issued assignments to

21     whom, and who was answerable to whom within the Defence Department.

22             Further on, in view of the witness's position, professional

23     knowledge and experience, I would discuss issues that were within the

24     purview of the chief of Defence Department and his place in the chain of

25     hierarchy.  And then if any time is left, I would ask a couple of

Page 36348

 1     questions regarding investigation of criminal acts committed by members

 2     of the military which follows on the questions of Judge Antonetti and the

 3     witness's answer which I believe to have been incomplete.

 4             This is it.  I believe all of these questions are very relevant

 5     and in the interest of my client to be asked, and if there is not

 6     sufficient time for them, I believe they could be prejudicial to my case.

 7     It is possible that the total duration of the cross-examination will fall

 8     short of two hours because if the witness answers "I don't know" to

 9     certain questions, I will not go on any further.  So the total time would

10     not succeed two and a half hours.  But if I suggest that if it goes on a

11     second longer, that it be deducted from the total time of Petkovic

12     Defence so that the duration of the trial does not exceed its allocated

13     time.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In any case, congratulations,

15     because the file is very good, the summary as well, and I hope the same

16     will go when you will prepare your summaries for your own witnesses.

17     Mr. Scott.

18             MR. SCOTT:  Good morning, Mr. President.  Good morning each of

19     Your Honours.  Judge Mindua, Judge Prandler, Judge Trechsel and all those

20     in and around the courtroom.  Just one moment if I could.  I appreciate

21     the preview that counsel has given us.  I mean that quite sincerely.

22     However, I think I would be remiss given ongoing issues that have been

23     sometimes been raised about the manner and methodology of examination if

24     I didn't take the opportunity to point out the following.

25             Several things, one of them is that it appears virtually this

Page 36349

 1     witness has been turned into -- or proposed to be turned into an expert

 2     on, among other things, on legislation including apparently modern

 3     current Croatian law.  And has also been listed through the summary given

 4     by counsel, I mean, on a host of matters that may or may not have been

 5     covered at all or very little on direct examination by Ms. Nozica.  The

 6     point of that is, as we've mentioned before, it's potentially raises

 7     substantially broader areas with no prior notice for the Prosecution to

 8     deal with.  It's a rather extensive agenda that Ms. Alaburic has laid out

 9     for us all of which could raise additional topics that the Prosecution

10     then has to address.  So I raise that as a general point in the matter

11     that we don't get summaries in advance from the co-accused, and I think

12     it does have -- does raise serious fairness issues, at least at times.

13             Secondly, and I'll just -- to be more specific on the issue that

14     I mentioned briefly, we'll just reserve, and I'll just note now questions

15     about the relevance of looking at modern current-day law of the Republic

16     of Croatia.  I'm not sure how that assists us or how this witness is

17     particularly in a position to talk about the legislative intent of the

18     Croatian parliament.  I just see us going further and further afield.

19     I'll leave my comments to that now but I did want to alert the Chamber to

20     those concerns.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica.

22             MS. NOZICA:  [Interpretation] Good morning, first of all to

23     everyone in the courtroom.

24             Your Honour, I fully understand the position of every co-accused

25     and Defence counsel who is trying to gain as much time as possible or to

Page 36350

 1     elaborate the case they want to make, regardless of whether they are

 2     going to get that time or not.  However, I want to make it clear to the

 3     Court that the Stojic Defence shall request an extension of time for

 4     redirect in each and every situation when an extension is granted for

 5     cross-examination beyond the decision of the Chamber allocating us time.

 6     In such cases, I will need more time for redirect, time that I don't have

 7     according to the current schedule, and I will submit a request for extra

 8     redirect time that will not be counted against the time of the

 9     Stojic Defence.  That's the only way to protect the interests of our

10     client.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I disagree completely,

12     Ms. Nozica.  In the time allocated to you, there was time for the

13     examination-in-chief, but also time for redirect.  This was in the

14     guide-lines.  If you need time for redirect, this time will be subtracted

15     from the total amount of time allocated to you.

16             MS. NOZICA:  [Interpretation] Your Honour, you did not understand

17     me, but I'm -- I'm sorry, but you did not understand me.  I envisaged

18     time for redirect within the time that other Defence teams and the

19     Prosecutor would have relative to my examination.  Now I'm talking about

20     extra cross-examination time and extra redirect time.  That is, if the

21     Court after my direct examination grants more time to the Prosecutor

22     other co-accused for cross-examination, then it's logical that I need

23     more time for redirect, and that's something I could not have planned

24     because I did not know that the Court may give extra time for

25     cross-examination.  I know that all my redirect goes against my total

Page 36351

 1     time.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judges have taken note of

 3     your intervention.  They will ponder over those many issues.

 4             We will have the witness brought in and we will give the floor

 5     without further adieu to Ms. Alaburic.

 6             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave,

 7     just to inform you that in accordance with an internal agreement,

 8     General Praljak's Defence will start with cross-examination because with

 9     every next witness we take turns to start first and now Mr. Kovacic is

10     first.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Coric.

12             THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would, by

13     your leave, seek a five-minute break for my lead counsel if we could

14     retreat somewhere in private to discuss certain new developments that we

15     heard about.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Go ahead.

17                           [The witness entered court]

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  Mr. President, with your leave, could I speak with

19     Mr. Prlic where he is, without going anywhere?

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please, why don't you take the

21     opportunity.

22             Mr. Kovacic, you said that Mr. Praljak would have a few questions

23     to ask.  In what area in particular, could you please explain?

24             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, General Praljak would

25     like to ask the question in connection with the book that the witness

Page 36352

 1     yesterday mentioned, he was asked about that, a book by Dr. Ismet

 2     Hadziosmanovic.  General Praljak would like to deal with one matter where

 3     the author in a chapter describes the situation in Mostar on the

 4     9th of May - this is a critical date for us - describes certain

 5     locations, streets in Mostar which General Praljak knows much better than

 6     I do.  Therefore, this meets the criteria that he has special knowledge,

 7     personal knowledge about the locations in question because they

 8     demonstrate whether the attack was prepared or unprepared.  I believe

 9     that he is qualified for asking such questions, and after him, I would

10     ask a couple of questions and that would be it.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Mr. Kovacic, my

12     colleague here on the Bench is wondering, I've taken a look at the page

13     of that book, I indeed saw that there were references to the BiH Brigade,

14     the military action, you intend to ask questions to the witness about all

15     the military aspects of the situation on the 9th of May; is that correct?

16             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  Mr. Praljak

17     intends to ask those things, starting with the description in the book,

18     3D 03101.  It's chapter 14, War in Mostar.  In the second paragraph of

19     that chapter, you see detailed descriptions of several location, and

20     Mr. Praljak hails from Mostar, he knows the streets and the significance

21     for the military developments.  If need be, Mr. Praljak will explain

22     that.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak.

24             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

25     I'm strictly adhering to the criteria allowing me to ask questions.  It

Page 36353

 1     concerns my direct involvement that would require me to speak for hours

 2     with my lead counsel without yielding the results.  This is the situation

 3     on the 9th of May, my talks with Perisic about his aspirations to get the

 4     left bank of the Neretva, in connection with the Graz agreement.  I would

 5     like to ask the witness about the government session that was mentioned

 6     yesterday, which I attended.  A specific fact and circumstances

 7     surrounding that and a previous event about the college at the ministry

 8     which concerns a very important topic, and that is the mobilisation,

 9     tremendous problems with mobilising particularly students which would

10     help establish the facts I am direct participant.  It concerns military

11     matters, and I would like to discuss also the 30th of April visit of the

12     European delegation.  I took part in organising that, together with

13     Mr. Stojic.

14             Simply, I think that these topics, these issues are what I have

15     original and best knowledge about, and there's no reason for me not to

16     ask them and they do not concern anything beyond what I just described.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, the Trial Chamber

19     after it has deliberated will allow you to ask questions, but only on

20     parts of the book that directly concern you.

21             The only problem is that Mr. Coric is not back yet, and his

22     lawyer hasn't come back either.  Could you please go and check if they

23     are ready?

24             MR. PLAVEC: [Interpretation] I think that there's no need,

25     Your Honours, because I'm co-counsel.  We can continue with the trial

Page 36354

 1     with your leave.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay.  Does it mean that

 3     Mr. Coric allows the continuation of this trial without him being

 4     present?  Oh, here he is.  Everybody is here.  Good.

 5             Mr. Praljak, please go ahead.

 6                           WITNESS:  SLOBODAN BOZIC [Resumed]

 7                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 8                           Cross-examination by Mr. Praljak:

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning to everybody in the courtroom.

10     Good morning, Mr. Bozic.

11        A.   Good morning to everyone in the courtroom.

12        Q.   You said yesterday that you knew Dr. Hadziosmanovic, that you

13     read the book, so I'm not going to dwell on that question.  In your

14     binder that's 3D 03101.

15        A.   I can see it.

16        Q.   Please open the page 57 in the Croatian.

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   It says here that on the 3rd of May, 1992, Momcilo Perisic,

19     General Perisic, established contact with the HVO of Mostar and that

20     he -- in talks with him proposed that each army comes to the banks of the

21     River Neretva, he to the left bank and we to the right side, and wait

22     calmly for the resolution of the political conflict in Yugoslavia, and he

23     says that I answered, "Okay, we will execute the balance in Nevesinje."

24     After that conversation Mostar suffered the biggest shelling and

25     destruction up to that moment.  Does it state so in the book?

Page 36355

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Does it corresponds to your experience of the time?

 3        A.   Yes, it does correspond to my knowledge of the time.  I knew that

 4     after the conversation that you had with him it was the most burning

 5     issue in the area of Herzegovina.  I personally took part in negotiations

 6     with Mr. Perisic who was at Mostar while I worked with the police at the

 7     beginning of 1992.  And while we are talking about Mr. Perisic, I can

 8     tell the Bench that the then police filed criminal charges against

 9     General Perisic for what he did as the commander in terms of the

10     destruction of Mostar.  Unfortunately, criminal charges were the only

11     thing that remained.  Mr. Perisic is answering before this court, but not

12     for charges connected with Mostar and what happened then.

13        Q.   Thank you.  My second question:  This conversation and everything

14     else, was this after what the Prosecution calls the Graz agreement on

15     non-prevention of hostilities?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Could you please open page 97.  Here, in the early morning hours

18     at around 5.00, one started a severe shooting and detonations of heavy

19     artillery.  Can you see that?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   He says in the third paragraph:

22             "I witnessed the war in Mostar from the spot where my apartment

23     was located.  I could see heavy machine-guns of HVO fired from the

24     locality of Hum hill towards Semovac, Bulevar," et cetera.


Page 36356

 1             And then he states:

 2             "Above the high school where combatants of the 4th Corps in an

 3     infantry attacked.  They entered Bulevar and the small localities around

 4     that.  The most intensive infantry attacks of the 4th Corps were in the

 5     Mosala [phoen], the former Korzo, then the streets of Cernica, across the

 6     boulevard towards the health centre and the surrounding gardens.  At the

 7     same time when 4th Corps infantry combatants were attacking, artillery

 8     fire of the HVO shelled the locations next to the road.  Heavy artillery

 9     weapons of HVO between 8 and 9.00," so attacks had started at around

10     5.00, "heavy artillery fired towards the temporary establishment of the

11     BH Army, the buildings of the hygienic institute, SDK and Konak.  At the

12     same time, artillery fire was heard on the localities, Bijeli Brijeg, Cim

13     and Rudnik."  Bijeli Brijeg, Cim and Rudnik are in the west of Mostar.

14        A.   Yes, it's extreme west of Mostar.

15        Q.   It came from the left bank and hitting the -- one was hitting

16     targets which were marked by previous orders of the 1st Mostar Brigade

17     commander dated the 20th of April, 1993?

18        A.   It says so.

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I have a problem here, you are putting this to

20     the witness, the witness has told us he was asleep on that day.  Now, I

21     wonder, Witness, how can you say anything about this or anything else,

22     then, perhaps later you have heard from other persons?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, General Praljak is

24     reading excerpts from a book that I personally read.  General Praljak is

25     asking me whether Bijeli Brijeg, Cim and Rudnik, whether they are located

Page 36357

 1     in the west of Mostar and I confirm, which has nothing to do with whether

 2     I was on the spot on the day or not.  I know these facts, I've known

 3     since before this conflict, and I know that these localities are deep in

 4     the extreme west of Mostar, and this is what I'm testifying about.

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you, Mr. Bozic.  We could have found that

 6     in the map too.  Mr. Praljak, could you ask questions that can heed

 7     something because this is not relevant.  This is not pertinent.  This

 8     witness has given no information of any interest so far.  I don't think

 9     this question was justified.

10             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I cannot understand while a

11     question of a prominent political worker, president of the SDA, the

12     Muslim party in Mostar, who was at that position a long time, who

13     wrote -- wrote this book and where he says, I was an eye-witness to the

14     ABiH army attack, and this book is public -- publicised, and after that

15     the witness --

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm very sorry, Mr. Praljak, you are not a

17     lawyer, you cannot perhaps be blamed for this, but that's absolutely not

18     what cross-examination is about.  You are just reading something of a

19     book as if that were an expert, but that's not the way facts are to be

20     presented to the Chamber.  It simply -- it doesn't work that way.  You

21     cannot read a book to us so that we then believe that what is in the book

22     is true.  That's what you are doing.  So I must ask you to revise your

23     plan and to ask questions that are proper.

24             MR. KOVACIC:  With all due respect, Your Honour, but I think that

25     you reacted prematurely.  Mr. Praljak was merely trying to inform the

Page 36358

 1     witness what he is reading about, and what is the situation according to

 2     the author, and then would of course follow with the question, whether

 3     the witness know or heard about that, what he learn about that in

 4     consequent days, et cetera, but you intervened clearly too early.

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I do not accept this but I will not insist now.

 6     Go on, Mr. Praljak.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI:  Yes, Mr. Praljak.

 8             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours,

 9     Your Honour Trechsel, I've presented a number of documents in this

10     courtroom to demonstrate who attacked whom on the 9th of May.  I showed

11     photographs, explained when each tank arrived.  This is part of a wider

12     picture.  I'm going to ask the witness whether in accordance with his

13     information whether this was true or not, and this is going to be my

14     concluding question.

15        Q.   Another matter, Witness, he says that around 11.00 one could hear

16     a concentrated infantry fire.  He refers to Lenjin's Bulevar Street [as

17     interpreted], Liska Park and Rondo.  Later on one could see that those

18     were camouflaged infantry breakthroughs of the 4th Corps.  They were

19     roughly kept on that broader locality.  After that, the author talks

20     about Vranica being attacked, et cetera.  Please tell me, isn't Rondo

21     deep to the west of Bulevar and whether at Rondo Mate Boban's office was.

22        A.   Rondo is deep in the west of Mostar and this is the site of

23     Mr. Boban's office.

24        Q.   On the 12th, when you came to Mostar, of course everybody was

25     interested to hear what had gone on before that, your information when

Page 36359

 1     asking about the problem, did they correspond to this very precise

 2     description of Mr. Hadziosmanovic?

 3        A.   Yes, they correspond to the description by Mr. Hadziosmanovic.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  You come from Siroki Brijeg.  Did JNA aviation shell

 5     or bomb, air-raid Siroki Brijeg?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Were there civilian casualties?

 8        A.   All the dead were civilians, all those killed were civilians.

 9        Q.   In spring 1992, did the JNA aviation bomb Siroki Brijeg?

10        A.   Siroki Brijeg was bombed.

11        Q.   Were there any dead civilians?

12        A.   All those killed were civilians.

13        Q.   Were there any killed children?

14        A.   I think so.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Witness, let's tackle another issue.  3D 01091.

16        A.   Yes, I can see it.

17        Q.   Do you know that the multiparty delegation of the Republic of

18     Croatia visited in end April the town of Mostar?

19        A.   Yes, I know that.

20        Q.   Do you know the names of Mr. Terzic, Vera Stanic,

21     Branimir Pasecky?

22        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with all the names.  I don't know these people

23     personally, but I know their names from media reports.  I know they are

24     MPs in the parliament of Croatia.

25        Q.   On the instructions or orders of Mr. Stojic, did you participate

Page 36360

 1     in organising their talks with the UNPROFOR in Medjurgorje?

 2        A.   Yes, I did have contacts with representatives of the

 3     Spanish Battalion to organise their visit at that time.

 4        Q.   From the documents you have seen here, did you see that the

 5     government of the Republic of Croatia addressed the commander of the

 6     UNPROFOR as well as the embassy of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to

 7     organise that visit.  That is, a sovereign state was approaching another

 8     sovereign state in order to organise all that?

 9        A.   Yes, I can see that.

10        Q.   Do you know that this delegation was not able to travel to Konjic

11     in central Bosnia as they had intended to?

12        A.   Yes, I know.

13        Q.   Do you know that that delegation had huge problems in East Mostar

14     when trying to return?

15        A.   I don't know the details.  I know there were certain problems.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Yesterday there was mention of P --

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, I don't want to

18     take too much time, but this document may be of some importance.  I have

19     just seen this document, have discovered it, and the report made by the

20     delegation of the Croatian parliament, they give conclusions and

21     everybody will see the conclusions and everybody will be able to draw

22     from these conclusions what they want to draw from them, but I realise

23     one thing.  In point 4 of the last conclusion it is mentioned that there

24     were people on both sides trying to create a global conflict between the

25     Muslims and Croatian people.  Can you see what is mentioned there

Page 36361

 1     regarding these agitators?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Which page, Your Honour?

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is the last page in the

 4     English version, so it must be the last page of your -- well, of your

 5     document.  It's point small d in point 4.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see that, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So I guess you can see I was

 8     told that this is a document that we had already accepted.  It has

 9     been -- it is in the binder so you can see point 4(d), where it is

10     mentioned that there are agitators on both sides, on the Croatian and the

11     Muslim side.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see that that is the opinion of

13     this commission they expressed after visiting the area.  Obviously they

14     had certain indications that led them to such a conclusion.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And on your -- from your point

16     of view, the provocateurs, agitators on the Croatian side, who were they?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can't speak about that.

18     It's their opinion that they formed from the context they had while they

19     toured places on the grounds.  It's the opinion of a body that went on a

20     field mission, and I don't know who they spoke to at the time.  I would

21     be speculating if I said anything whether anything of the kind existed.

22     Obviously they must have had some information that led them to believe

23     this.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay.

25             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK:  [Interpretation]

Page 36362

 1        Q.   In this document, P 04756, dated 2nd September 1993, you don't

 2     need to look at it in the binder, I'll just ask you this, we can call up

 3     this document, actually.  At that meeting there was a problem concerning

 4     students.  Do you remember, Mr. Bozic?

 5        A.   Yes, I remember.  It was one of the frequently discussed topics

 6     at our meetings.

 7        Q.   On page 4, let me read.  General Matic, who was present, said he

 8     believed that all students should be included in military units because

 9     if the country is at war then schools and universities stop to work.  And

10     it says that you, Mr. Lucic and Mr. Bagaric, chief of health and SIS,

11     said that you believed students should be allowed to go on with their

12     studies because there is a shortage of qualified personnel and if they

13     need to get involved they can get involved later.  However, Chief Stojic

14     says that he believes the opinion of the Main Staff of the HVO should

15     prevail, and he says that all students should be included in HVO military

16     units.  Do you remember this?

17        A.   Yes, I remember that Mr. Lucic, Mr. Bagaric and I held that view,

18     and I appreciate that perhaps our assessment was not adequate.  I'm not a

19     soldier.  I have no military training, no military knowledge.  I was

20     thinking purely as a civilian.

21        Q.   Mr. Bozic, we don't need that.  Let us move on to the government.

22     Our time is limited.  So the document is P 05799.  It's a government

23     session that we looked at yesterday, and in paragraph 4, the government

24     adopts the conclusion that all students are conscripts regardless of the

25     place where they pursue their studies.  Do you remember the very vehement

Page 36363

 1     debate I had with one member of the cabinet, Mr. Ivan Saric, late Ivan

 2     Saric.  Do you remember this clash?

 3        A.   Look, I can't remember the details, but I remember there were

 4     fiery debates on the issue.

 5        Q.   We are not hiding anything.  Do you remember that I actually

 6     seized Mr. Saric by the neck at one point?

 7        A.   Yes, actually that was impressive.

 8        Q.   I want to ask you this so that the Judges get the picture.  This

 9     was not a walk along the Champs-Elysees.  Debates went so far in acrimony

10     that I had a physical set-to with one member of the government who was

11     advocating that students should be left out of the war and their lives

12     spared?

13        A.   Yes, that's true.

14        Q.   That's all.  Thank you, Mr. Bozic.

15             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  I

16     don't think I broke any rules.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Mr. Kovacic.

18             MR. KOVACIC:  [Interpretation] Just a few short questions.

19                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kovacic:

20        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, regarding this book by Dr. Ismet

21     Hadziosmanovic, you said you have read the book?

22        A.   Yes, I have.

23        Q.   Did you have occasion to speak with the author after the book was

24     published?

25        A.   Yes, I still have a pretty good relationship to date with

Page 36364

 1     Mr. Hadziosmanovic.

 2        Q.   Would I then be right in thinking that you believe the book was

 3     fair and objective?

 4        A.   I think it's one of the best written books about the events in

 5     Herzegovina, and what surprised me personally I saw many documents

 6     included in the book which I must admit until reading the book I never

 7     knew existed.

 8        Q.   Thank you very much.  Just one more question.  Could you please

 9     look up one document, 1D 01987.  From page 1 you will see it's a report,

10     a diary, in fact, of Ilija Filipovic.

11             MR. KOVACIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, some of the pages

12     are already in evidence.  I'll ask about only one of them.

13        Q.   Could you please turn to page 10, Witness.  There's an entry for

14     2nd May 1992.  There are four items.  I'm interested in this one.  EC and

15     UN at 1230 send a message that General Perisic is ready to talk with the

16     command of the HVO and General Praljak and seek direct contact with our

17     general.  The Main Staff is informed.  Is this a note about the

18     invitation made by Perisic, the same invitation that Dr. Hadziosmanovic

19     wrote about?

20        A.   Yes, this is a confirmation of what was written in the book of

21     Dr. Hadziosmanovic about the wish of General Perisic to have contact with

22     General Praljak.

23        Q.   Just another entry, 3rd May 1992.  It says, "I conveyed to the

24     UNPROFOR the conditions set by General Praljak for talks with

25     General Perisic."  Do you conclude from this that this meeting between

Page 36365

 1     Perisic and Praljak occurred precisely as Dr. Hadziosmanovic wrote in his

 2     book?

 3        A.   Yes, it's a confirmation.

 4             MR. KOVACIC:  [Interpretation] Thank you I don't have any further

 5     questions.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mrs. Alaburic.

 7             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours.  Thank you very

 8     much.

 9                           Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Bozic, good morning.

11        A.   Good morning.

12        Q.   I have a few questions for you.  To begin with, I want to say the

13     following.  None of my questions will be trick questions.  They will be

14     based on documents that you are mostly familiar with.  I will ask you to

15     clarify some of your previous answers and I will ask you to provide

16     explanations to the Court, because you have a law degree, you occupied

17     the position of assistant chief of Defence Department, and you

18     participated in the drafting of certain regulations concerning defence.

19             It is in the interest of the Petkovic Defence to have every

20     detail clarified as much as possible because since you all wore military

21     uniforms, and this is a constant charge made against the accused, every

22     time a crime was committed by someone in uniform the Main Staff is

23     somehow responsible.  That's why we want to make everything perfectly

24     clear.  Every fact de jure and de facto.

25             You have a set of documents in the sequence in which I will be

Page 36366

 1     asking questions.

 2        A.   Can I ask something?  Tell me, is this a separate batch for the

 3     end or for the beginning?

 4        Q.   I'll let you know when we finish with the main binder.  It may

 5     not be necessary at all.

 6             My first question will be about document 2D 01460.  You spoke

 7     about it in extenso yesterday and you said it was a forgery.  I'm

 8     interested only in one segment of your answer that is on record yesterday

 9     on page 91 of yesterday's transcript.  In view of this incoming stamp of

10     the Main Staff of the HVO on the document, you said the document was

11     received at the Main Staff of the HVO.  I therefore wish to have it

12     perfectly clear, where do documents come in if they are addressed to you

13     or sent to you by packet radio?

14        A.   First of all, not a single document was ever sent to me by packet

15     radio, including this one, which I said yesterday.  And in all that time,

16     as far as I know, this packet communication and these packet documents

17     were delivered through a service at the Main Staff.  I don't think the

18     Main Staff received them as such.  But I wish to repeat, not a single

19     document including this one was ever received by me.  And I explained the

20     reasons yesterday.

21        Q.   Mr. Bozic, I'm not trying to prove that you received this

22     document.  I'm not interested in that at all.  That's not the point of my

23     question.  All I want to clarify is this incoming stamp of the

24     Main Staff.  Did I understand your answer correctly that anything sent by

25     packet radio to Mostar would be received at a certain service at the

Page 36367

 1     Main Staff, would bear the stamp of the Main Staff and then would be

 2     distributed to the addressees?  Is that how it operated?

 3        A.   Yes, for the most part until later some changes were made.

 4        Q.   All right.  I had four documents ready to prove this, but since

 5     you've already confirmed, I'll move on to the next subject.

 6             Yesterday Mr. President, Judge Antonetti asked you a question

 7     about the number of staff at the Defence Department and you could not

 8     remember.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, it seems that the

10     Defence of General Petkovic indicated that the documents received by the

11     Main Staff are forged documents.  This is the thesis.  We can understand

12     their position because when we look at the document we see that after the

13     end of the hostilities, Muslim houses were burned, and mosques were

14     destroyed, applying orders coming from commanders.  Well, of course this

15     document can be -- is very clear.  But if this document is forged, the

16     stamp can also be forged.  What do you think?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree with you, Your Honour.  In

18     the statement that the both the document is forged and the stamp may be

19     forged.  Yesterday, Your Honours, I explained the details and you needn't

20     be a special expert to get that.  By comparing this version with that

21     published in the newspapers, you can spot important differences in the

22     number, the contents and everything else.  But I'm not the proper person

23     to determine whether this is a forgery or not.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, this document had

25     been signed by Marko Rozic.  If Marko Rozic is till alive maybe the

Page 36368

 1     Defence could have asked him, "These are documents that seem to have been

 2     signed by you, did you send them," and maybe he could have told you, "No,

 3     this is a forged document, I never sent it."  If he is alive.  Maybe he

 4     is dead, I don't know.

 5             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think I was not

 6     precise enough in my question and this is why it was not understood as it

 7     should have been.  Bruno Stojic's Defence yesterday spent half an hour to

 8     prove that this document is a forgery.  The witness said that the

 9     document was never received by him and he also testified that Mr. Rozic

10     told him personally that he never sent that document.  If you ask me for

11     my opinion, I believe that the witness was quite trustworthy in that and

12     that the Stojic Defence managed to prove that this is a forgery.  We will

13     deal with it, the rubber stamp of the Main Staff, but Mr. Witness would

14     like to say something.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bozic, do you confirm that

16     Mr. Rozic told you that he never sent this document?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I said yesterday that

18     when this document was published in the newspapers, soon afterwards I

19     spoke to Mr. Rozic who said, I know why you are calling me and I'm

20     telling you that both documents, not just this one, but the other one

21     that were published are forgeries.  I never signed this.  Marko Rozic is

22     alive and let me explain an important detail to you, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.  Yes.  Go ahead,

24     please.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Marko Rozic is alive.  I spoke to

Page 36369

 1     him a month ago maybe.  He confirmed the whole thing and he told me

 2     another detail unbeknownst to me prior to that date, and he said that in

 3     the Naletilic-Martinovic case he verified his signature at the municipal

 4     court at Siroki Brijeg, and that his signature was presented in the

 5     Naletilic-Martinovic case, and a witness testified about his signature

 6     and testified that that was not his signature.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I'd like to have

 8     recorded in the transcript that it seems that these documents were in the

 9     possession of the Office of the Prosecutor because they were archived in

10     Zagreb, because this document comes from the Croatian archives, which

11     means that if it is a forgery, somebody set up a whole operation so that

12     those documents be archived for the Prosecution to find them at some

13     stage.  That's all we can say about this document.  I'm not the

14     Prosecutor.  It is up to the Prosecutor to determine what to do to

15     clarify things further.

16             Ms. Alaburic.

17             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, for your

18     additional clarifications.

19        Q.   Mr. Bozic, His Honour Judge Antonetti asked you about the number

20     of employees at the Department of Defence, and since we saw yesterday a

21     document registering this number, could you please in the second set of

22     the documents take a look at 2D 150.  This is an overview of the ethnic

23     structure of HVO members.

24        A.   I can see it.

25        Q.   It says here that in June 1993, in the Department of Defence

Page 36370

 1     there were 247 employees.  Does this correspond to your memory?

 2        A.   I cannot tell you about figures because I don't have a mind, a

 3     memory for figures, but this is an official document, so ...

 4        Q.   Thank you.  What about the figure of 65 for the Main Staff?

 5        A.   If it's recorded in the document, then this is so.

 6        Q.   His Honour Judge Antonetti also asked you whether close to

 7     Bruno Stojic there were military officers, whether he maintained contacts

 8     with him, et cetera.  Now, please tell us in the building housing the

 9     Department of Defence towards the end of 1992 and mid-July 1993, what

10     other departments or services were using the same building?

11        A.   Well, in that -- answer [as interpreted] -- on the ground floor

12     there was the Main Staff.  On the first floor we had the department with

13     its sectors and services, several sectors.  Logistics from the

14     manufacturing and procurement sector was mainly housed in the Grude, but

15     this was how it looked like.

16        Q.   I would like to correct the transcript.  In line 4 instead of the

17     word "answer" the word "building" should be written.

18             How many floors were there?

19        A.   Ground floor and two floors.

20        Q.   On the ground floor we had the Main Staff.  On the first --

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   On the first floor we had Mr. Stojic with his closest associates?

23        A.   Not just closest associates.  Personnel administration was there.

24     IPD and some other clerks were also on the first floor.  I can't remember

25     all the details.

Page 36371

 1        Q.   On the second floor, SIS and military police administration were

 2     there?

 3        A.   I think so and a part of the health or medical corps sector was

 4     also there.

 5        Q.   His Honour Judge Antonetti asked you a question about the

 6     existence of a direct telephone line which Mr. Stojic could use to speak

 7     to General Petkovic.  The Bench know this building because we visited it

 8     in Mostar.  Could you tell us whether it was possible for Mr. Stojic to

 9     shout for Mr. Petkovic and for General Petkovic to hear on the ground

10     floor that Mr. Stojic was calling for him?

11        A.   I'd like to repeat my answer to His Honour Judge Antonetti's

12     question.  The idea I had was of having red telephones and you press just

13     one button and you have direct access.  Your question about whether one

14     could shout for another person, well, yes, if you are in the same

15     building shouting for somebody who is 25 or 40 steps downstairs, then you

16     can communicate by shouting, depending on the situation.

17        Q.   Could you tell us from your memory whether communications between

18     leading people in that building, whether they were daily, whether they

19     drank coffee together every morning, whether they had their lunch at the

20     same place at a canteen in the same building?

21        A.   Whether we had coffee every morning, I couldn't say.  Yes, there

22     was daily communication, it was possible.  We did not have a canteen in

23     our building.  After awhile we used a part of one room, and I said that

24     periodically we would have college meetings attended by all assistants of

25     Mr. Stojic, then representatives of the Main Staff, Chief of the

Page 36372

 1     Main Staff, or somebody to stand in for him.  These were informal but

 2     regular ways of communicating.

 3        Q.   When you speak of possibility of daily communication, it seems to

 4     me that in Croatian I understood you to say that there was daily

 5     communication?

 6        A.   It was possible for maintain daily communication, thank god.  If

 7     you are in one building you could communicate with another person who was

 8     also in that building.

 9        Q.   And the possibility of communication was used, you did

10     communicate every day?

11        A.   Yes, thank god, depending on the situation.  From situation to

12     situation.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Now, Mr. Bozic, please explain to us a curiosity for

14     some people.  When Mr. Prlic's Defence produced certain documents, those

15     documents, as a rule, published in an official journal in the

16     Narodni List or the municipal Official Gazette, and the Defence

17     documents, particularly the decisions on internal structure, were not

18     shown here as published in the Official Gazette.  Could you explain the

19     difference between the so-called civilian documents and the documents

20     which pertain to the Defence Department?

21        A.   I just said that I was not a military person.  I'm not a military

22     lawyer or a military expert, but it would seem logical to me that if

23     certain documents bore indications of certain level of confidentiality,

24     as such, they could not have been published in any official journals.  I

25     know from my lawyer's practice that in the former Yugoslavia such

Page 36373

 1     documents were usually not published in Official Gazettes, and in the --

 2     if they bore that level of confidentiality.

 3        Q.   Thank you very much for this answer.  Now, as a person who took

 4     part in drafting defence regulations, could you please tell us whether in

 5     1993 regulations were changed or amended, those governing the powers of

 6     the head of Defence Department in defence work area?

 7        A.   What do you specifically mean?

 8        Q.   Well, the Decree on Armed Forces, as far as we know in this

 9     courtroom, the last amendment was in October 1992.  It is not known to us

10     whether that regulation or decree was changed or amended in 1993, and it

11     seems that re-organisations and the determination of new powers or

12     authorities started with the new team in the Defence Department which

13     took over towards the end of 1993.  This is what I wanted to discuss with

14     you.

15        A.   Yes, you are right.  That you for your explanation.  The changes

16     that we could deem to be fundamental and determined in another way the

17     powers of the minister and re-organisation of the not -- the then

18     ministry, no longer Defence Department, was -- this all took place in

19     October 1993 when the government of the Croatian Republic of

20     Herceg-Bosnia was established.

21        Q.   Let's not engender confusion.  It is not contentious, I presume,

22     that from August 1993 when the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna was

23     proclaimed that the HVO functioned at a government and departments worked

24     as ministries, and this is how they started labelling themselves.  But in

25     essence, their powers or competencies were not changed compared to the

Page 36374

 1     powers that they had as temporary bodies for certain activities?

 2        A.   Yes, I agree with you, but the change itself in the formal

 3     labelling stayed the same, but the government functioned pursuant to the

 4     statutory decision on the structure of temporary authorities.  What I'm

 5     now discussing is completely different system in the way it's

 6     functioning, but you are right in stating that this relates to a period

 7     where formally the HVO HZ-HB started to be labelled as government, but

 8     what I'm discussing is the way things were functioning.

 9        Q.   Fine.  The fourth topic I wanted us to discuss concerns your

10     answer about military prisons.  I don't want to dwell on this with you

11     except in a case that your answer could prompt me to continue with that.

12             On the basis of the minutes of the college of Department of

13     Defence, dated 2nd of September, this is a document shown by Mr. Praljak

14     recently.  In the minutes it says that Mr. Stojic conceded that he had

15     authority over Heliodrom and Ljubuski.  You remember your answer now?

16        A.   Yes, I remember.  But it's not as you put it, Mr. Stojic did not

17     say that they conceded authority over those two prisons, but saying that

18     the department recognised only two of those, Heliodrom and Ljubuski.

19        Q.   Thank you very much for your clarification.  I apologise for

20     misinterpreting your answer.  There was no intention.

21        A.   Please, given that this is my third day of testifying, it would

22     be -- it is easy for you to communicate with me and you to me because we

23     are lawyer.  Please do not really force me to go to what my words of two

24     or three days ago.  Thank you.

25        Q.   Unfortunately, I will have to ask you.  This sentence prompted me

Page 36375

 1     to deal with military prisons in the first place.  Talking about Dretelj,

 2     Gabela and other war prisoners' detention centre, you issued a statement

 3     on page 47, lines 20 to 22, I will quote in the English language:

 4             "[In English] It was known that there were other persons dealing

 5     with that field."

 6             [Interpretation] And unfortunately, Mr. Bozic, the presumption is

 7     valid that if it is not determined that a certain organ is competent for

 8     something then the blame is apportioned to the military.  So generally it

 9     is presumed that if a certain issue is within the remit of a certain

10     body, then the military will be responsible for it, and following that

11     logic, in terms of traditional chain of command, the Main Staff will be

12     responsible ultimately.  My question is, when uttering this sentence

13     whether did you directly or indirectly mean the Main Staff of the HVO?

14        A.   No.  Neither directly nor indirectly.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Then I will skip the rest of my questions concerning

16     prisoners -- prisons.

17             My next topic talks about the 9th of May, 1993, and the situation

18     and the war in Mostar.  You spoke about the Petkovic-Halilovic agreement

19     which was concluded on the 12th of May, 1993.  If I understood you

20     correctly, you were present during the negotiations.  Is that so?

21        A.   That's correct.

22             MR. SCOTT:  Excuse me, Mr. Bozic, I apologise for interrupting

23     you.  But I wanted to get up, Your Honour, while we were changing topics.

24     Counsel just indicated that she was going on to another topic so I was

25     waiting for that time.  I just have to generally comment and object to

Page 36376

 1     several -- a number of times this morning already, and I've not objected

 2     up until now, that Ms. Alaburic, who I have great respect and friendship

 3     for, nonetheless leads her questions with a number of -- essentially

 4     stating a position leading into it and she just did it at page 33:

 5             "Unfortunately, Mr. Bozic, the presumption is valid that it is

 6     not determined that a certain organ is Defence competent, that the blame

 7     is apportioned to the military," blah, blah, blah.

 8             Those are not questions and the proper method of examination is

 9     to put questions to the witness, and I would object to having a

10     presentation of position preceding each question before the question is

11     put to the witness.  Thank you.

12             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to ask

13     my learned friend Mr. Scott, when quoting my words not to use the words

14     "blah, blah, blah," because I'm making efforts to pronounce my words

15     correctly.  If I stand corrected for misinterpreting somebody's words

16     then I'll apologise, just as I did to Mr. Bozic.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not ask for your apologies, I

18     just wanted to be cooperative.

19             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Yes, of course.  I apologise readily whenever I'm in the wrong.

21             So if I understood you correctly, you were there while the

22     negotiations Petkovic, Halilovic, were ongoing which resulted in the

23     agreement dated 12th of May.

24        A.   Yes, I was there together with General Petkovic.

25        Q.   Fine.  And since the question now is whether Petkovic and

Page 36377

 1     Halilovic -- on the current page I would like to correct in line 17, it's

 2     not 20th of May, but 12th of May.  May this be corrected.

 3             The question arises whether Petkovic and Halilovic decided on war

 4     and peace in Mostar.  I'd like you to look at the fifth chapter of the

 5     documents before you and look at 4D 456, and 4D 457.

 6        A.   Can you help me.  You said fifth section?

 7        Q.   Yes, they are divided by cardboard dividers.  You will see

 8     number 5 on one divider.

 9        A.   Can you repeat the number?

10        Q.   4D 456, and 4D 457.  These are orders by Mate Boban and

11     Alija Izetbegovic dated 10th May 1993.

12        A.   Thank you, I've found them.

13        Q.   Look at these documents, please, Mr. Bozic.  Tell me, did you

14     know that Mr. Mate Boban and Mr. Izetbegovic had ordered a cessation of

15     fire to their own units, to their own respective units, and that they had

16     authorised General Petkovic and Mr. Halilovic to make an agreement and

17     specify the details of the agreement between Boban and Izetbegovic?

18        A.   We can see from the order that Mr. Boban is issuing this order to

19     HVO units to stop all military activities against the BH Army, and the

20     same order was given by Izetbegovic, whereas the chief of the HVO Main

21     Staff Major-General Milivoj Petkovic and chief of the BH Army Main Staff

22     General Halilovic, it says shall meet immediately in order to determine

23     details connected with the implementation.

24        Q.   Mr. Bozic, did you know about these orders then, on the 10th of

25     May, or perhaps a few days later?

Page 36378

 1        A.   To be perfectly honest, I was not aware of them then.  I learned

 2     about them later.  I hadn't been invited to that meeting but it was clear

 3     to me that General Petkovic could not have signed that order without a

 4     proper instruction to that effect, without an order basically.

 5        Q.   For the record, I have to ask you this for the record, do you

 6     mean that General Petkovic had to have been authorised to make that

 7     agreement with General Halilovic?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   In this courtroom we analysed a number of agreements and orders

10     and we could see that every time there existed political decisions on

11     cease-fire, on how to start or continue cooperation, and after that

12     military commanders materialised in their own agreements the political

13     understanding.

14             Now, this sequence of events in which a political decision

15     precedes specific military agreements, is it -- that consistent with what

16     you remember from the years when you worked?

17        A.   Yes, I agree absolutely.  And after the war I read many books and

18     got hold of many documents that confirmed to me precisely what you just

19     said.

20        Q.   You told us yesterday, Mr. Bozic, if I understood that correctly,

21     that the Croatian side was cooperative in negotiations with warring

22     sides, that you were cooperative in your communications with the

23     international community.  Now, this quality of cooperativeness, can it

24     also be ascribed to General Petkovic in those occasions when you

25     personally attended his talks with Halilovic or anyone else?

Page 36379

 1        A.   Yes, I can absolutely confirm that.  In the talks in which I

 2     participated, you could see that high-ranking officers of the UNPROFOR

 3     had great appreciation and respect for General Petkovic.

 4        Q.   Now, I'll ask you one question that Judge Antonetti had asked you

 5     before.  I'm really sorry I am repeating questions, but I believe they

 6     are relevant and you can give us an answer.

 7             Judge Antonetti asked a previous witness how come that the HVO

 8     had not disarmed the Muslims after the conflict of the 9th of May, 1993.

 9     I'll ask you a couple of further questions to get to an answer.  Now,

10     regardless of who started the conflict of the 9th of May, can you tell

11     us, Mr. Bozic, did Muslims who were in the HVO fight against the HVO in

12     that conflict?

13        A.   You mean the 9th of May?

14        Q.   Yes.

15        A.   No.  At that time I believe Muslim members of the HVO were

16     present, and as we could see in the documents we looked at in the course

17     of the previous days, it happened after the 30th of June when Muslim

18     members of the HVO betrayed their comrades and crossed to the HBA [as

19     interpreted] side, and we saw that document dated 16 April 1993.  Many

20     things become clear from that document, and this event we can see had

21     been planned.

22        Q.   I don't think your answer was recorded precisely.  Can you just

23     clarify one part of the question.  Did Muslim soldiers in the HVO

24     participate then, on the 9th of May, in combat against the HVO on the

25     BH side?

Page 36380

 1        A.   You mean those who were then in the HVO?  There were Muslim

 2     members in the HVO.

 3        Q.   Did they participate in the fighting?

 4        A.   And they participated in fighting the ABH and that's why I said

 5     all this changed on the 30th of June.  That's what I know.

 6        Q.   So they participated in the fighting against the army of BH?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   In the documents we could see here, after this conflict in Mostar

 9     a relatively large number of Muslims left the ranks of the HVO; correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Did you, high-ranking officials in the Main Staff and elsewhere,

12     consider that the remaining Muslims in the HVO were loyal to their army?

13        A.   I don't want to pretend that I was standing aside from all that

14     or that I made any decisions myself, but I know it was a general position

15     commonly held that all the remaining Muslims were loyal members of the

16     HVO.

17             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  I think it's

18     time for the break.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll have a 20-minute break.

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

21                           --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before giving the floor to

23     Ms. Alaburic, you had asked for two hours and the Chamber had taken no

24     decision, waiting to see how the beginning of cross-examination would go.

25     The Chamber has decided that you have been efficient and rather quick and

Page 36381

 1     therefore you have made quite a lot of progress as compared to your

 2     work-plan.  And the Chamber has also noted that the cross-examination's

 3     purpose should be to highlight, if need be, contradictory points as

 4     compared to the examination-in-chief, and the Chamber, therefore,

 5     believes that given the time you have asked for in -- according to

 6     Article 10 of the regulation, we can give you 1 hour and 30 minutes.

 7     Since you already almost used 30 minutes, you have one hour left.  So we

 8     can decide that because we have noticed that the witness, having legal

 9     background, understands the question very quickly and can answer very

10     quickly and this helps us move forward faster, so you have one hour for

11     remaining documents.  So the floor is yours now.

12             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wish to thank you

13     for this time in the following way.  Yesterday in this courtroom

14     Judge Trechsel and our learned friend Nozica told us about their

15     frustrations and the reasons for them, and I wish to say that by this

16     decision you cured my frustration regarding the time I had at my disposal

17     for cross-examination, and I thank you very much for that.

18             Since we are proceeding at a very good pace, I don't think I'll

19     even use all the time you have given me, but we'll see.

20        Q.   Mr. Bozic, I want to ask you a few questions now regarding the

21     Decree on the Armed Forces from October 1992, which is document P 588.

22     In the sixth section of my document --

23        A.   Yes, I can see it.

24        Q.   Until now, we, at least the Petkovic Defence, dealt mostly with

25     Article 30, which deals with the transfer of powers from the

Page 36382

 1     supreme commander and I will ask you a few questions about that.  After

 2     my questions, take some time to think, if you need to.  We have enough

 3     time, we needn't hurry.  Turn that page, please.  This Article 30 has

 4     four paragraphs; is that correct, Mr. Bozic?

 5        A.   Yes, correct.

 6        Q.   Now, tell me under the rules of legal interpretation that applied

 7     in Herzegovina, where you were, and in Croatia, where we were, does that

 8     mean that all the four paragraphs in this article apply to the same

 9     subject, that is, the transfer of powers from the supreme commander of

10     the armed forces?

11        A.   Can I just read it first.  As a lawyer, in principle I would

12     interpret this in the following way:  The first paragraph says --

13        Q.   Mr. Bozic, I'm sorry, but I don't want you to retell me the

14     paragraphs.  Just tell me if the -- if all the four paragraphs deal with

15     the same subject.  If you say no, then we'll deal with what each of them

16     deals with.

17        A.   Then I have to say not all the four paragraphs deal with the same

18     subject.

19        Q.   Then tell me which paragraph does not apply to the transfer of

20     powers?

21        A.   The first paragraph which says that these are the powers of the

22     supreme commander.  The rest, the other three refer to the transfer of

23     powers.

24        Q.   All right.  Let's clarify.  Paragraph 3, that I'm most interested

25     in, refers to the transfer of powers?

Page 36383

 1        A.   Yes, it does.

 2        Q.   Last week, Mr. Bozic, we had an expert here from the

 3     Stojic Defence who said that the regulations on Defence of Herceg-Bosna

 4     were mostly copied from the Republic of Croatia.  Tell me, did you ever

 5     have occasion to compare the Law on Defence of the Republic of Croatia

 6     and the Law on the Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosna?

 7        A.   No, I never had occasion to make such comparisons.

 8        Q.   Tell me before I put my specific question, how do you understand

 9     when one legislator copies a law of another country and does not copy a

10     provision in its entirety but leaves out a certain part of it.  In your

11     understanding of the law, is that a relevant fact in interpreting the

12     provision?

13        A.   First of all, I can't say whether it was copied or not because

14     yesterday in my evidence I said that I did not participate at all in the

15     adoption of the Decree on the Armed Forces that was passed in July, and

16     that I only participated in the adoption of the revision of this text

17     which was passed in October 1992.

18        Q.   All right.  But you did participate in that adoption of the

19     revision, you know the rules of nomotechnics?

20        A.   Yes, but you have to bear in mind that there were some amendments

21     and reformulations compared to the text from July 1992.

22        Q.   Let us now compare, Mr. Bozic, the Croatian law, which is

23     4D 1276, compare Article 47 dealing with the powers of the supreme

24     commander, and I will be interested in item 3 of that article.  Article 3

25     reads:

Page 36384

 1             "The supreme commander of the armed forces may delegate to the

 2     minister of defence a number of duties of control and command of the

 3     armed forces, except those concerning the use of the armed forces."

 4        A.   Yes, I see it.

 5        Q.   Now, please, compare that provision with the provision of

 6     Article 3, paragraph 2 in the decree of the armed forces of Herceg-Bosna

 7     and tell us where the difference lies?

 8        A.   It will take some time.  The Court will appreciate that I'm

 9     seeing these documents for the first time and you are asking me to

10     analyse.  I would not like to speak as an expert because I'm just a

11     witness with some knowledge of the law, but I will do my best to compare.

12             You said Article 47, paragraph 3 of the law of the Republic of

13     Croatia to compare with Article 3 [as interpreted], paragraph 2 of the

14     decree --

15        Q.   Of the decree of the armed forces of Herceg-Bosna.

16             Correction of the record, line 4 of this page, we are comparing

17     it with Article 30, paragraph 2 of the decree of Herceg-Bosna.  Did you

18     manage?

19        A.   Yes, I did.  I don't want to waste more of your time because I

20     know time is more important.

21        Q.   Tell me, what is the difference, briefly?

22        A.   The difference is that the word "minister" is mentioned straight

23     after the words "commander".  It says here that the supreme commander may

24     delegate certain tasks of leading and commanding the armed forces to the

25     chief of Defence Department, and in that this section there is no

Page 36385

 1     reservation present in the Croatian law except those concerning the use

 2     of the armed forces.  In the decree of the armed forces of Herceg-Bosna

 3     this proviso is not included.

 4        Q.   Okay, you will tell us the rest later.  Now, let us clarify for

 5     the Chamber, if that's necessary, under the law of the Republic of

 6     Croatia, the president - you may look at the article - the head of state,

 7     as supreme commander, was not able to delegate to the defence minister

 8     the use of the armed forces; correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And pursuant to the Decree on Armed Forces of the Herceg-Bosnia,

11     the supreme commander could transfer to the head of the Defence

12     Department powers to use the armed forces?

13        A.   Since that you recently told me that this Decree on the Armed

14     Forces of the community of Herceg-Bosnia was copied from the Law on the

15     Defence of the Republic of Croatia, as a lawyer I can interpret this as

16     if somebody was copying, they didn't copy it well or that they had some

17     other intentions, but this is not to me to speculate.

18        Q.   But please be specific and precise in answering your question.

19     We've read the Croatian legal law.  Can you tell us whether pursuant to

20     the Herceg-Bosnia Decree on the Armed Forces, is there a possibility for

21     the supreme commander to transfer the powers concerning the use of the

22     armed forces to the head of the Defence Department.  We are talking about

23     the possibility, we are analysing this legal provision.

24        A.   As a lawyer I can expound on my answer.

25        Q.   No, please tell me about this, whether he can or cannot?

Page 36386

 1        A.   As lawyers, we are not supposed to read just one provision but

 2     the context and I invoke the part of the chapter which says control and

 3     command of the armed forces which is governed by Article 29 of the Decree

 4     on the Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosna.

 5        Q.   Mr. Bozic, I'll have to interrupt you.  I believe that you are

 6     trying to avoid answering my question.  You are -- you may answer with

 7     one simple yes or no.  My question is, whether pursuant to the Decree on

 8     the Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosnia is there a possibility for the supreme

 9     commander to transfer his powers with respect to the use of the armed

10     forces, to delegate them to the head of the Defence Department; yes or

11     no?

12        A.   Yes, there is a possibility, but not only the use of the armed

13     forces but everything which is stated in Article 29 of the same decree.

14     I want to be precise.  If you want me as lawyer to give you my

15     interpretation, can you cannot corner me and force me to say yes or no.

16     If I'm a lawyer who is supposed to do so when it's convenient to you, and

17     on the other hand, you want me to be a lawyer analysing a text, then let

18     me answer as a lawyer.  Yes, it is true what you said, but also want to

19     specify that this delegation of powers is -- refers also to all the

20     powers in Article 29.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, the Chamber and

22     the Judges will assess the legal problem that has been raised, but to

23     make sure that this is on -- in the transcript and so that everybody

24     understands, in Article 47 of the decree of the Republic of Croatia which

25     was adopted, it was mentioned that the supreme commander of the armed

Page 36387

 1     forces can delegate to the minister of defence a certain number of

 2     functions, controls and commands of the armed forces, but it is added

 3     except for -- except those regarding the use of armed forces.

 4             So in the Croatian text if, for instance, Mr. Tudjman wanted the

 5     Croatian army to attack Austria, for instance, this is not something he

 6     can delegate.  He is the one who is responsible.  But in Article 30 of

 7     the Herceg-Bosna text, it is stipulated that the supreme commander of the

 8     armed forces can delegate a certain number of powers or tasks to the head

 9     of the Defence Department.  Should this decree read -- be read on the

10     basis of the article of the Republic of Croatia, maybe yes, maybe no, the

11     Judge will have to assess that.  This is all we can say for the time

12     being.  Please go on.

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for counsel, please.

14             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Mr. Bozic, you say that you do not know anything about the Law on

16     Defence of the Republic of Croatia dated 1991.  Did I understand you

17     correctly?

18        A.   Yes, you asked me and I'm telling you that this is the first time

19     I see it and read it.

20        Q.   It will be most probably easy for you to take a look at

21     Article 22, Article 23, I presume?

22        A.   Madam Alaburic, Croatian law or --

23        Q.   That's correct.  These articles govern the powers of the

24     government and you can compare them to the authorities of the HVO, the

25     Ministry of Defence's powers.  Would it take you a long time to go

Page 36388

 1     through all these?

 2        A.   It would take me some time.  I wish during my proofing you had

 3     spoken about this with me.  It would be farfetched for me to give you

 4     opinions out of hand.

 5        Q.   Out of what you just said, the Trial Chamber may conclude that I

 6     took part in the proofing for your testimony, but I would like you to

 7     tell everybody in the courtroom whether I took part in the proofing or

 8     not?

 9        A.   No, no.  You did not take part in the proofing, but I said had

10     you wished to do so, I would have been glad to talk to you about my

11     testimony.

12        Q.   We will have occasion to compare those two pieces of legislation

13     and we will see that the decree from Herceg-Bosna is a copied text of

14     this Croatian law.  I wanted to --

15             MR. KHAN:  I've tried not to interject and disturb my learned

16     friend's flow but there is a discernible proclivity, in my respectful

17     submission, in questions to infect them by statements of evidence.  The

18     same issue has been raised very properly by my learned friend from the

19     Prosecution, and I would ask that my learned friend desist.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Alaburic, what do you

21     think about that?

22             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, given that I worked

23     on those regulations and I think that I know them quite well, I think

24     that I stated something which is known to everybody and that anybody who

25     would take a look at these two documents could find for themselves.  If

Page 36389

 1     anybody in this courtroom thinks that I add a statement that needs

 2     proving, I apologise, this was not my intention.  Your Honours, you will

 3     have both those documents, you will be able to compare them, to highlight

 4     the differences, et cetera.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Alaburic, could you not

 6     ask the witness a question and say that from your point of view, i.e.,

 7     the Petkovic Defence, you could have said, Well, the interpretation

 8     General Petkovic made of these documents is the following.  What do you

 9     think, and the witness would say, I agree or I do not agree.  And that's

10     it.  Otherwise we could go on for hours on this issue.

11             I've tried to guide you by saying, well, we have this text, we

12     have the other text, and regarding the legal problems the Judges will

13     have to make a decision.  You nevertheless went on.  Your witness, which

14     you are cross-examining, is someone who knows law as well as you do, so

15     you can move on to a main question and say, Well, if I give you this

16     interpretation of the text, would you agree with me or not, and you will

17     see what the witness says.

18             And like that we will be able to save time.  Right, Mr. Khan?

19             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to

20     refresh everybody's memory in this courtroom that in the preceding weeks

21     we had an expert witness for the Defence team of Bruno Stojic.  In

22     paragraph 131 of the expert report, Bruno Stojic's Defence expert witness

23     said that Herceg-Bosnia regulations were copied Croatian legislation and

24     regulations.  Therefore, I believe that this is an argument which has

25     been presented by the Defence team of Mr. Stojic to the Trial Chamber.

Page 36390

 1     Now I wanted to demonstrate that this was really so, and this is why I'm

 2     showing you this Croatian piece of legislation, and I believe that it is

 3     very important for interpreting a piece of legislation if you are copying

 4     a provision and you do not copy it in its entirety, this demonstrates the

 5     legislators intent.  And this is all I wanted to say in connection with

 6     this.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Nozica.

 8             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to remind

 9     you of another thing concerning the Decree on the Armed Forces

10     Mr. Marijan said and elaborated at length, the Article 178 of the Decree

11     on the Armed Forces.

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry.  I think there has been perhaps a

13     misunderstanding.  Mr. Khan's objection is not as to whether it is

14     correct what Ms. Alaburic states or not, but the fact that she discusses

15     the issue rather than asking questions.  Now Ms. Nozica also starts

16     discussing the issue and this is not what we should be doing.  We should

17     put questions to the witness and hear his answers with as little personal

18     comment of counsel as possible.

19             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Fine.  Your Honours, as far as the

20     claim of what Mr. Marijan said, I would like to remind the Bench because

21     the debate continues.  It did not cease and desist after my learned

22     friend Khan's intervention.  Mr. Marijan said this was a compilation of

23     two Yugoslav laws speaking about the Decree on the Armed Forces.  He

24     specifically explained that and he invoked Article 178 of this decree,

25     Decree on the Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosna, this is what we are referring

Page 36391

 1     to.  And let me remind you that what Mr. Marijan wrote in his report

 2     cannot be applied to all pieces of legislation.

 3             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will no longer

 4     dwell on this issue.  I'd just like to respond to my learned friend, lead

 5     counsel of Mr. Stojic, that she misinterpreted the statement of the

 6     expert witness Marijan.  But let us stop there.

 7        Q.   Mr. Bozic, pursuant to the Decree on the Armed Forces of

 8     Herceg-Bosnia, what were the powers and the competencies of the

 9     Main Staff of the HVO?

10        A.   Am I supposed to take a look at that part of the decree?

11        Q.   Yes.

12        A.   Well, could you tell me which article, I never remembered the

13     numbers?

14        Q.   I'm going to mention the numbers of articles dealing with the

15     Main Staff, but I don't believe they will be of help.  Article 11 and 18.

16     You may take a look at all the other articles, and please tell me what

17     were the tasks of the General Staff pursuant to the Decree on the Armed

18     Forces?

19             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honours.  I would

20     like to hear from my learned friends to cite which part of

21     examination-in-chief this question is dealing with, and as far as I can

22     remember, I never asked the witness about matters of the authority of the

23     General Staff.

24             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Simply the Decree on the Armed

25     Forces was subject matter of your examination-in-chief.  This witness was

Page 36392

 1     introduced to us as an expert who took part in drafting this regulation.

 2     He explained the nomotechnical problems encountered with Article 34.  He

 3     explained the provision of Article 30 asked by the Defence counsel for

 4     Mr. Bozic which governs Supreme Command and powers of the General Staff

 5     are in direct connection with that, and this is why I believe my

 6     questions refer to those questions in examination-in-chief.  If the Trial

 7     Chamber should decide otherwise, I will not object for the time for these

 8     questions to be deducted from my total time credit for the Defence of

 9     General Petkovic.  Pursuant to your guide-lines.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I say a couple of things,

11     Your Honours?

12             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Let the transcript finish.

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Witness, I think you should limit yourself to

14     answering questions because otherwise we get too far.  I'm sorry, I can

15     understand that you have the feeling that you would like to say this and

16     that, but you are completely dependent on the questions that are put to

17     you.  Please continue, Ms. Alaburic.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was about to answer a statement,

19     Your Honours.

20             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Mr. Bozic, please answer my questions.

22             What are the powers of the Main Staff pursuant to the Decree on

23     the Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosnia?

24        A.   Before I answer I must say that you misquoted me.  I said I did

25     not work on drafting this decree.  I will tell you, in Article 11 the

Page 36393

 1     task described under Article 10, paragraph 2 of this decree.  The General

 2     Staff shall be founded within the Defence Department.  Second paragraph,

 3     the structure of the General Staff shall be prescribed by the supreme

 4     commander of the armed forces who shall appoint the General Staff

 5     leadership.

 6        Q.   Mr. Bozic, we all know how to read the law.  But tell us, please,

 7     what are the powers of the General Staff pursuant to this decree?  What

 8     are the powers?  What is it that the General Staff may do pursuant to the

 9     provisions of this decree?

10        A.   If it is so regulated, my opinion is that the General Staff is

11     connected with the supreme commander of the armed forces of the HZ-HB in

12     terms of structuring and the use of the armed forces of the Croatian

13     community Herceg-Bosnia.

14        Q.   Mr. Bozic, please tell us pursuant to the decree.  My question is

15     specific.

16        A.   I read out from the decree.

17        Q.   You did not read the powers.  You said that General Staff is

18     being established, but this is not contentious, but I'm asking you about

19     the tasks of the Main Staff.

20        A.   I don't know what you mean by asking that question.

21        Q.   Let's see.  In Article 9 it is said what are the tasks of the

22     HVO, isn't it so?  In Article 10, paragraph 1, it is stated what are the

23     administrative and technical work in the field of defence and protection

24     of the Defence Department.  Now I'm going to ask you what are the tasks

25     pursuant to this decree of the General Staff?

Page 36394

 1        A.   Following your question, it would seem that the decree does not

 2     regulate or govern or specify the tasks of the General Staff, and this is

 3     an omission and I just explained to you the way that we cannot read what

 4     are the tasks of the Main Staff in the decree, but I see that through the

 5     provisions of Article 11 and the decisions on the internal structure of

 6     the General Staff adopted by Mr. Boban, and in that decision, the tasks

 7     and the functions and the functioning of the Main Staff of the HVO were

 8     regulated.

 9        Q.   So can we presume, following what you said, that the decree does

10     not regulate the powers of the Main Staff; is that so?

11        A.   It could be so, but I just provided a supplementary opinion on

12     the -- with respect to the decision on the internal structure of the

13     Defence Department which follows from the decree of the armed forces.

14        Q.   No, no.  We will come to that document but please limit your

15     answers to the decree.  Is it true the decree does not govern the

16     authorities of the Main Staff?

17        A.   No, it doesn't, just in the same way that it regulates for the

18     other bodies.

19        Q.   If it doesn't, how are these regulated?

20        A.   I said the decision on the internal structure.

21        Q.   I'm asking you about the decree of the armed forces?

22        A.   I don't know which articles you mean.

23        Q.   Mr. Bozic, find any article in the decree that defines the

24     purview of the Main Staff, its powers.

25        A.   I said that this section, the administration and the affairs of

Page 36395

 1     the defence, the Main Staff is mentioned only in Article 11 and it's not

 2     mentioned among the powers and authorisations.

 3        Q.   What about some other section?

 4        A.   Well, you help me.

 5        Q.   Well, you certainly read this decree in your proofing.  If you

 6     don't remember, tell me you don't remember and we'll go on.

 7        A.   I don't remember.  We can move on.

 8        Q.   Mr. Bozic, since you worked at the Defence Department have you

 9     ever come across the following legal issue, namely that regulations may

10     stipulate wide or narrow powers of the Main Staff, or rather, that the

11     political will may be to establish a strong Main Staff or alternatively a

12     weak Main Staff?  Have you ever given this any thought?

13        A.   No, I have not, not in that way, but you have given me food for

14     thought now.  At any rate, this connection exists in this decree between

15     the Main Staff and the supreme commander.  If he is that political will,

16     then we can talk about political will.

17        Q.   Mr. Bozic, we are now exclusively at the level of regulations.

18     I'm asking you only about de jure and the political will that can be

19     discerned from a regulation?

20        A.   I can't answer because I don't know which regulation you mean.

21        Q.   Any regulation in the field of defence that would stipulate

22     issues important to the Main Staff, can we agree -- sorry.  What did you

23     want to say?

24        A.   You go on, I'll answer later.

25        Q.   Can we say that as far as regulations adopted by the legislator

Page 36396

 1     in Herceg-Bosna, that was the Decree on the Armed Forces, and that all

 2     the other decisions were decisions of the president as an individual,

 3     Mr. Mate Boban and Mr. Bruno Stojic as head of the Department of Defence?

 4        A.   You are right when you say that these were the documents, the

 5     enactments, the Decree on the Armed Forces; and on the other hand, we

 6     have decrees adopted by Mate Boban speaking of the Main Staff.  And

 7     speaking of Mr. Stojic, I believe the relationship between Mr. Stojic and

 8     the Main Staff is precisely defined by those "bylaws," although they are

 9     not really bylaws.  Let me finish.

10        Q.   You could have answered with a yes or no.  Your answer is

11     perfectly understandable.  Let's move on.  What I want to say now is can

12     you answer the question about the political will to establish a strong

13     versus a weak Main Staff.  Let's assume that the Croatian law on Defence

14     from 1991, as far as powers of the Main Staff are concerned, was

15     identical to the Decree on the Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosna, as we can

16     see, by comparing the relevant articles and all the other articles in

17     these two enactments.  Now please look at the Law on Defence of the

18     Republic of Croatia of 2002.  Just as an illustration.  It's 4D 1287.

19             It's a document passed at the time when social democrats and

20     liberals were in power.  Would you please look at Article 11.  In that

21     Article 11 the powers of the Main Staff are identified in 31 items.

22             Mr. Bozic, I won't ask you anything specific about this, I'm just

23     using this as an illustration.  Can you tell us, as a lawyer and an

24     assistant chief of the Defence Department, that indeed from a regulation

25     we can discern the intent of the legislator to establish a strong or a

Page 36397

 1     weak Main Staff?

 2        A.   I can say that the intent of the legislator in all instances in

 3     establishing any organ including the Main Staff, and I'm speaking about

 4     the period 1992, 1993, in Herceg-Bosna when there was a provisional

 5     authority and provisional organs, and we have to bear in mind that this

 6     was an executive power and a commander of the same nature, so it's hard

 7     to compare with well-regulated environments, but I agree with you that

 8     all these organs are an expression of the political will expressed

 9     through executive authorities.

10             And we have to look at the specific period when this was

11     happening in the community of Herceg-Bosna in the context of the

12     provisional, I repeat, provisional executive power in that area.

13        Q.   Thank you for that clarification.  We have all that in mind.

14             You said a moment ago, Mr. Bozic, that the position of the

15     Main Staff was actually defined by these decisions about the internal

16     organisation of the Defence Department; correct?

17        A.   Yes.  It's defined by the decision on fundamental organisation,

18     and later developed through the decision on internal organisation and the

19     Main Staff is regulated in a special way.

20        Q.   It's not in dispute that the Main Staff is one organisational

21     units of the Defence Department?

22        A.   I wouldn't call it an organisational unit because when we lawyers

23     speak, we have to be very precise.  When we say that the Defence

24     Department consists of these sectors and within the Defence Department

25     there is the Main Staff, I agree with you, Main Staff, the Main Staff is

Page 36398

 1     within the Defence Department.  That's what I would agree with.

 2        Q.   But the Main Staff is in part of its powers directly connected to

 3     the supreme commander; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And in that sense, the position of the Main Staff was two-pronged

 6     in a certain way?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   It has a relationship to the chief of the Defence Department and

 9     another relationship towards the supreme commander?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Tell me, the Chief of the Main Staff was a member of the college

12     of the Defence Department?

13        A.   I told you it was not a formal body with formal membership.  It's

14     a body that met ad hoc, but somebody from the Main Staff participated and

15     represented the Main Staff at certain sessions of the college of the

16     Defence Department.

17        Q.   The college of the head of the Defence Department was not

18     prescribed by any particular law or regulation?

19        A.   You are correct, there was no particular enactment.

20        Q.   Would it be correct to conclude, maybe I'm wrong, that the chief

21     of the Defence Department wanted to cooperate with the top people in

22     certain sectors and the Chief of the Main Staff so that they could

23     discuss together defence-related issues and try to find the best

24     solutions to certain problems topical at a certain time?

25        A.   Yes, I explained that yesterday.  I don't know how successful or

Page 36399

 1     how clear I was, but those were meetings held from time to time to

 2     discuss topics on which the opinion of the Chief of the Main Staff or

 3     representatives of the Main Staff was sought.  If those were specific

 4     issues of interest to them, especially in preparation of documents that

 5     we prepared towards the president of Herceg-Bosna and the president of

 6     the HVO.

 7        Q.   From the documents, from the records of the college meetings, we

 8     can see that you had very strict rules of work.  There was an established

 9     agenda, records were kept, you discussed certain topics of the agenda,

10     you adopted decisions; is that right?

11        A.   You are right in part.  There was an attempt to create such an

12     organisation, such a possibility to communicate, but there were meetings,

13     on the other hand, that were not really convened.  Records were not kept,

14     there was no established agenda because situations sometimes required

15     some topics to be discussed ad hoc.  But there were other sessions more

16     organised with records kept, with background material provided,

17     et cetera.

18        Q.   Mr. Bozic, when progress reports needed to be made from, let's

19     say, a session of the HVO, was the report of the Main Staff part of the

20     report from the Defence Department?

21        A.   As far as I remember, we informed all sectors of the

22     Defence Department and that part was part of the report to the Defence

23     Department, but it had special status because it was delivered to the

24     president of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna as the supreme

25     commander and the president of the HVO HZ-HB and it was not part of the

Page 36400

 1     written report delivered to the sessions of the HVO HZ-HB, and it was not

 2     discussed at such, but all members of the HVO HZ-HB had access to that

 3     report of the Main Staff.

 4        Q.   When you needed to make programme of work, was the programme of

 5     work of the Main Staff somehow included in the work programme of the

 6     Defence Department?

 7        A.   The same applies, I believe, to the work programme of the

 8     Main Staff, for the same reasons I already listed.

 9        Q.   In matters that are governed by the decisions on fundamental

10     internal organisation, was the Chief of the Main Staff answerable to the

11     chief of the Defence Department?

12        A.   Yes, he was, but for a certain part of his powers and very

13     specifically defined issues in that field.

14        Q.   All right.  Mr. Bozic, now tell us, was there any issue where the

15     chief of the Defence Department was answerable to the Chief of the

16     Main Staff?

17        A.   Well, in view of your previous question when I talked about that

18     relationship between the Chief of the Main Staff and the head of the

19     Defence Department referred to certain technical or professional issues,

20     and there was no document that stipulated that the head of the Defence

21     Department would be answerable to the Chief of the Main Staff.

22        Q.   All right.  We've dealt with the issue of documents.

23             In practice now, was there any situation where the Chief of the

24     Main Staff would call the head of the Defence Department to report to

25     him?

Page 36401

 1        A.   Not that I know of.

 2        Q.   You said, Mr. Bozic, that the Chief of the Main Staff was

 3     answerable to the head of the Defence Department in very specifically

 4     defined issues?

 5        A.   Right.

 6        Q.   Let's try to define these issues because precise and exact

 7     definition of these issues is of exceptional importance for a correct

 8     understanding of the entire situation in Herceg-Bosna for the

 9     Trial Chamber and for all of us in the courtroom.

10             Now, tell me, the establishment of military units, in section 8

11     of my binder, Mr. Bozic, you have documents for some of these issues.  I

12     hope we won't have to open them, but just open section 8 to be ready.

13        A.   Which number?

14        Q.   Eight.

15        A.   I can't see an 8.

16        Q.   It's a batch of documents marked 8, the one but last section.

17        A.   Where it says, "Basic organisation of the Defence Department"?

18        Q.   It starts with document 586, correct.  But perhaps there won't be

19     any need to look at it.  Tell me, was the establishment of military units

20     within the purview of the head of the Defence Department?

21        A.   We have to bear in mind one fact that you all know, Judges,

22     namely, that the military units were set up even before the Defence

23     Department.

24        Q.   Mr. Bozic, I'm not asking for an historical overview of the

25     establishment of the HVO.  I just want you to tell me whether the

Page 36402

 1     establishment of military units, brigades, and other units was in the

 2     purview, within the field of competence of the head of the Defence

 3     Department?

 4        A.   Do I need to look at a document?

 5        Q.   First tell me if you remember.

 6        A.   I don't remember.

 7        Q.   Look at P 491.  These are randomly chosen documents.

 8        A.   I found it.

 9        Q.   P 491, order by Bruno Stojic, dated 16 September 1992, relating

10     to the establishment of brigades.  Now look at the next document, P 517,

11     an order by Bruno Stojic, also September 1992.

12        A.   Which number?

13        Q.   P 517.  Establishment of brigades and the Mostar sector.  Next

14     document, P 3149, an order by Bruno Stojic and Milivoje Petkovic, dated

15     3rd July 1993, to establish the Knez Domagoj Brigade.  Believe me, we

16     have dozens of these documents.  If your memory is refreshed, was the

17     establishment of brigades and other military units within the field of

18     competence of the head of the Defence Department?

19        A.   I can't tell you exactly.  You probably have in mind some

20     specific provision I can't remember, but I see here various orders signed

21     jointly by the Chief of the Main Staff and head of the Defence Department

22     so obviously in practice these things happened.

23        Q.   Can I then conclude that you, in fact, don't know whether the

24     establishment of military units was within the purview of the head of the

25     Defence Department?

Page 36403

 1        A.   I can't tell you precisely because if you referred me to a

 2     particular provision, it would be easier; but as I said, practice shows

 3     that it happened.

 4        Q.   Mr. Bozic, I'm not going to show you individual provisions of the

 5     decree so that you may confirm that this has been governed so by the

 6     decree.  We will read the decree ourselves.  What we want you, as a

 7     witness, deputy head of the Defence Department, to tell us whether

 8     certain things were within the purview of the head of the Defence

 9     Department or not.

10             Next question concerns the issues of public law and order.  Was

11     maintaining public law and order part of the purview of the head of the

12     Defence Department?

13        A.   Formally and legally I would say no, but having in mind the

14     realistic situation on the ground and given that there were many people

15     out in the streets wearing military uniforms, sometimes it was necessary

16     for the minister or, rather, head of the department for the interior,

17     together with the head of the Defence Department to resolve such issues

18     as may have cropped up.

19        Q.   Could you tell me, if maintaining law and order that may be

20     disrupted by military personnel and the Defence Department was not in

21     charge of that, which other organ would have competence in this case?

22        A.   Well, for military personnel, the Defence Department would be

23     supposed to be in charge of them, but I'm explaining you a situation

24     where civilians wore military uniforms, and as lawyers, we must say that

25     somebody is not a military personnel if they are wearing a uniform.  They

Page 36404

 1     are civilians in military clothes.  But taking stock of the situation on

 2     the ground at the time, I believe it was helpful for the department of

 3     the interior and the Department of Defence to jointly tackle such issues.

 4        Q.   Fine.  Could you take a look at the document corroborating what

 5     you said, the fourth in this section, P 2578.  This is an exhibit in

 6     these proceedings.  This is a joint order of the head of the Defence

 7     Department, and the head of the department of the interior, dated

 8     31st of May, 1993, concerning controls on exits from Mostar in connection

 9     with looting of property and transfer of such property outside of Mostar.

10             Is this order an example of what you just described to us,

11     Mr. Bozic?

12        A.   This is an example of what I just said and given that I had

13     worked in the police before, assuming my position in the Defence

14     Department, and since I yesterday said to the Chamber that I, although a

15     civilian, also wore a military uniform.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Do you recall whether the control over combat of

17     readiness over certain military units was part of the purview of the

18     Defence Department?

19        A.   I do not understand your question.  I'm sorry.  What do you mean

20     by control over combat readiness?

21        Q.   I will quote Article 17 on the decree of the armed forces:

22             "The combat readiness of the headquarter staff's institutions and

23     units of the armed forces is controlled and assessed by the Department of

24     Defence and the authorised commands and staffs of the armed forces."

25             So I'm asking you whether the control over the combat readiness

Page 36405

 1     of certain units was within the purview of the Defence Department?

 2        A.   Commenting such a provision as read out loud here, the answer is

 3     clear but practice shows how this was operationalised.  I agree with you

 4     that this provision governs the matter in this way.  I have to apologise,

 5     I'm not a military expert.  I did my military service at a time and that

 6     was it.  But when discussing combat readiness and what it entails, I

 7     would like to say to Their Honours that I cannot assess combat readiness,

 8     whether it is equipment, materiel or whatever.

 9        Q.   Let's take a look at the next document, P 1418.  This is a report

10     on the control of combat readiness, dated 4th of February, 1993,

11     submitted to the head of the Defence Department, chief of the

12     General Staff and the commander of the operational zone, concerning the

13     line of defence at Konjic.

14        A.   I can see it.

15        Q.   Take a look at the beginning of paragraph 1(a).  It is stated

16     there that Defence line of the Herceg Stjepan Brigade and the

17     7th Suad Alic Brigade of the BH Army were visited.  This is February

18     1993.  Does this -- does it follow from this that together the HVO and

19     the BH Army are together manning the line of defence?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Does it follow from this document that this was an example of

22     controlling whether the defence line has been secured pursuant to the

23     professional regulations?

24        A.   Yes, but let's take a look at the preamble of this report, which

25     says pursuant to the order of the Chief of the Main Staff, so and so

Page 36406

 1     number, this control is being carried out.

 2        Q.   Yes, absolutely.  I will hark back to Article 17 which say that

 3     the Defence Department in cooperation with commands and staffs will do

 4     so, so of course the Defence Department did form such tasks in

 5     cooperation with other bodies.

 6             The next question concerns the relocation and accommodation of

 7     military units.  Would this fall within the purview of the head of the

 8     Defence Department, in your opinion?

 9        A.   In my opinion, yes, these would be matters of logistics

10     administration, supplies, et cetera.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Control of traffic, checkpoints, such issues, would

12     those follow within the purview of the Defence Department?

13        A.   I'm going back to the situation and the time when this unfolded

14     and I must tell you that we should be mindful that most of the people

15     that walked around in military uniforms and that the Defence Department

16     had to tackle, together with the civilian police and civilian

17     authorities, such issues.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Security matters dealt with by the SIS, were they

19     also matters falling within the purview of the Defence Department?

20        A.   Well, the sector for security is one of the sectors within the

21     Defence Department.

22        Q.   Does it mean that SIS work was part of the purview of the Defence

23     Department?

24        A.   I can't tell you what this entails.  I never analysed the

25     structure and the scope of work of other sectors apart from the sector

Page 36407

 1     that I dealt with and that was the civilian affairs sector.  If I were to

 2     say anything else, it would be speculation.

 3        Q.   Let's follow a logic, Mr. Bozic.  Did SIS perform the task within

 4     its purview?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Was the SIS a sector within the Defence Department?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   I'd like to correct the transcript in line 20, my question should

 9     be deleted because in line 21, my question was registered and recorded

10     there.

11             On the current page, line 20, I don't know how it ended up on

12     this page.

13             Mr. Bozic, you said that the SIS was a sector within the Defence

14     Department.  Would it be logical that work of the SIS which is performed

15     by the -- within the Defence Department would fall within the purview of

16     the Defence Department?

17        A.   Well, I said that there was an assistant head for security and

18     information and the SIS was a sector within the department of the

19     defence.  This is an administration within a sector which is very

20     important to point out.  If you wish to discuss this with me and your

21     goal is for me to frank, if I had known what the structure was and how it

22     was elaborated, I would have been very glad to answer those questions,

23     but I maintain that I did not know anything about the structures and the

24     relationship within the structures of other sectors.  I cannot comment on

25     those.  Whatever I may offer as an opinion would be speculation and I do

Page 36408

 1     not wish to speculate in front of this Bench.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, for your

 3     information, you have four minutes left.

 4             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 5        Q.   Let's move on.  Tell us, please, did military police affairs

 6     within -- fall within the purview of the Defence Department?

 7        A.   Military police affairs were within the purview of the military

 8     police administration, and I don't want to comment on what were the

 9     relationship and the structure.

10        Q.   I'm not asking you in terms of organisational chart.  We all know

11     all of that.  I'm asking you about the functioning, the functional

12     connections.  I am asking you whether military police tasks were within

13     the purview of the Defence Department or some other organ of the

14     Herceg-Bosnia?

15        A.   When I say yes, I mean that military police will regulate

16     traffic, that they would apprehend a soldier who is acting

17     inappropriately, that they would apprehend perpetrators of criminal

18     offences, and as a lawyer, I interpret their tasks to be as such.

19        Q.   Fine.  Were the tasks within the moral education department, were

20     they within the purview of the Defence Department?

21        A.   Within the Department of Defence, there was a sector for moral

22     upbringing as a sector within the structure of the Defence Department.

23        Q.   Yes, we know that, but please answer the question, whether those

24     tasks were part of the purview of the Defence Department?

25             MS. NOZICA:  [Interpretation] I apologise, I have to intervene.

Page 36409

 1     The witness said, "I cannot comment on what was elsewhere in the other

 2     sectors, I do not want to speculate," and he's uttered those words twice.

 3     "I can comment on what I was in charge."  Further questions are a waste

 4     of time because the witness is obviously going to answer in the same

 5     vein.

 6             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I'm very glad to hear that

 7     Madam Nozica knows what is the witness is going to answer to my

 8     questions, but I would like to say, however, that I'm not asking the

 9     witness about anything within the administration of SIS and the

10     administration of military police.  I'm talking to him about the issues

11     falling within the purview of the Defence Department which he, as the

12     deputy head of the Defence Department, should know; and if he does not

13     know anything, then the Judges will evaluate his testimony in the way

14     that they see fit.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will answer any question that you

16     may ask.  You, nor Madam Nozica, neither I can say how I'm going to

17     answer until asked.  I would like to say I am witness to justice as

18     Judge Antonetti said, and whatever I say I say because I knew about those

19     things because I witnessed them, because I worked on them.  I do not wish

20     to speculate.  Please do not bring me into a situation where although I

21     underwent proofing with Madam Nozica that she would know how I'm going to

22     answer.  Ultimately, I will wish to be the witness to justice and I want

23     to maintain my identical relationship towards all the six co-accused here

24     in the courtroom.

25             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

Page 36410

 1        Q.   I do not doubt it Mr. Bozic.  Had I doubted it, I would not have

 2     spent so much time discussing these matters with you.

 3             My last question, the health sector, health care for the wounded

 4     and other issues of health, were they also part of the Defence

 5     Department?

 6        A.   Health sector is part of the Defence Department.  I confirm that

 7     it was a sector within the Defence Department.  I do not know how the

 8     system within that sector was organised.  Since this is your last

 9     question, I must tell that you I was deputy head of the Defence

10     Department who had very specific duties and authorities which concerned

11     exclusively the civilian sector.  Had I had other authorities and

12     knowledge, I would have answered differently.

13             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours,

14     for the time you've given me.

15        Q.   Thank you very much, Mr. Bozic, for your answers.  I read your

16     statement to the Prosecution.  I accept that you were in charge of the

17     civilian sector and this is why I did not ask any questions concerning

18     other sectors within the Defence Department?

19        A.   Thank you very much, Madam Alaburic.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mrs. Alaburic.

21     Mr. Khan?

22             MR. KHAN:  Just one clarification, with your leave.  At page 67,

23     line 20, my learned friend Ms. Alaburic appears to have misunderstand the

24     nature of my leader's intervention.  It was not anticipatory or seeking

25     to predict what the witness would say.  My learned friend's objection was

Page 36411

 1     referenced on what the witness had said in the past.  It was on that

 2     basis that she said that the further questions given the witness's

 3     testimony that he was not confident on what was the organisation of other

 4     structures was based.  So I think that clarification perhaps should be

 5     recorded.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.  This is in the

 7     transcript.  Mr. Karnavas, anything?  Or we were dealing with D4, we can

 8     do D5, D6, D1, just as you want.  Well, for Mr. Coric.

 9             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC:  [Interpretation] Good morning,

10     Your Honours.  Good morning, everybody in the courtroom.

11                           Cross-examination by Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic:

12        Q.   [Interpretation] Before I start my cross, I would like to ask the

13     witness to be as slow as possible during the break.  They asked me from

14     the interpreter's booth to make a pause after my question.  You will see

15     on the screen the question entering the transcript, and I will of course,

16     after your answer, make a pause so that everything is reflected in the

17     transcript.  Have you understood?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   First of all, I would like to follow-up on what Madam Alaburic

20     said towards the end of her cross-examination.  I'd like to ask whether I

21     understood you correctly when you said in examination-in-chief and in

22     cross-examination today saying that your knowledge from the relevant time

23     concern work in the civilian sector of the Defence Department; is that

24     correct?

25        A.   You are correct.

Page 36412

 1        Q.   Any extra knowledge that you may recall concern exclusively the

 2     meetings that you attended; is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   When you said to my learned friend Alaburic about what were the

 5     tasks of the military police, as far as I could understand, you concluded

 6     that on the basis of your own knowledge and following a certain logic,

 7     following a lawyer's logic, without being privy to the documents of the

 8     time or orders of the time concerning how the military police is

 9     organised, how it's structured, the way of command of a military police.

10     Did I understand you correctly?

11        A.   You understood me correctly.

12        Q.   Given that there was talk today about certain documents whose

13     authenticity is being contested, and as far as I can see you had some

14     knowledge about that, I would like to show you a document, the middle

15     document, P 3220, a document in the middle of my binder, and before it's

16     going called up, I would like to ask you whether you know Mr. Coric and

17     Mr. Radovan Lavric's signatures; do you know?

18        A.   I know what the signature of Mr. Coric looked like since his

19     documents reached the Defence Department when college meetings were being

20     prepared.  I know Mr. Lavric because while I was chief of police in

21     Mostar, Mr. Lavric was head of the police station in Ljuboski and towards

22     the end of 1993 when the Office for Cooperation with UNPROFOR,

23     EC Monitoring Mission and other international organisations was being set

24     up, Mr. Lavric and I worked together.  He was my deputy.  We are still

25     friends, we meet frequently, both because of professional obligations and

Page 36413

 1     privately, and I know how his signature looked like from the time that

 2     you are referring to.

 3        Q.   Now, look at the document in front of you are or on the monitor.

 4     Have you seen it before?  Do you know anything about it and is it

 5     Lavric's signature at the bottom?

 6        A.   I did not see this document before but I heard a comment about it

 7     because I meet with Mr. Lavric who's a good friend of mine at least once

 8     a month and for business even more frequently, because we both work in

 9     our own companies, and I think -- in fact, I remember clearly it was in

10     the first quarter around Easter, perhaps, 2007.  We found -- we met

11     somewhere in Medjurgorje at a luncheon and he told me, "You are not the

12     only one who has forgeries, there are forgeries with my own signature,"

13     and he was talking about those two days when he -- when documents

14     appeared related to the defence office in Jablanica because at that time

15     we worked together at the office in Mostar.  And he told me that in talks

16     with you somebody from the Coric team mentioned a document allegedly sent

17     to Colonel Obradovic relating to prisons, and he said he had not signed

18     that document and some other details which he repeated to me recently

19     when we met, and he knew I was coming here; and he said they had no

20     communication, they from the military police, they had no communications

21     from the prisons in Gabela and Dretelj and the only connection between

22     the military in Dretelj was through the barracks, which is physically

23     separate from the prison compound, something that I wouldn't know because

24     I haven't been there myself.  And I'm stating here before the Court what

25     Mr. Lavric told me.  And he also told me that that was not his signature

Page 36414

 1     and that a certain document that your team has presented bears his forged

 2     signature.

 3             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic, I may again be

 4     disoriented or stupid or something, but I hear speaking of the signature

 5     of Mr. Lavric, and I think the document is P 03220, and I don't find that

 6     signature on these.  There are two photocopies of B/C/S documents, and

 7     perhaps you could help me find this signature.

 8             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC:  [Interpretation] I'll explain,

 9     Your Honour.  We see typewritten words Valentin Coric; however, in this

10     case, some documents have been admitted in evidence and what is

11     handwritten looks like Lavric's signature, that's why we contacted

12     Mr. Lavric because on the face of it, this looks like some of his,

13     indisputably, his signatures.  However, he says -- I mean, I don't know

14     what he will testify, but these signatures are very much alike, and the

15     witness has information from Mr. Lavric directly, and he told you what it

16     was because this is certainly not the signature of Mr. Coric.  It looks

17     most like Lavric's signature.  And Mr. Lavric was a deputy of Mr. Coric

18     at that time.

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  It does not look like it was signed

20     by someone else for Mr. Coric.  Normally there is then mention for

21     "rodja" [phoen] something like that, and this I do not see.  That is had

22     he why I thought it purported actually to be the signature of Mr. Coric,

23     whereas Mr. Lavric is never mentioned even by name in either of these

24     documents.

25             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you look

Page 36415

 1     at the stamp more carefully, I have a better copy here if you want it, to

 2     the left of letter V in Coric's name, we see that there is an illegibly

 3     written Z and A.  But we can see that something it written on this stamp

 4     on top of the letters O S in the word Mostar.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let us try to understand.  If I

 6     understand correctly, the document we have here is a forged document.

 7             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC:  [Interpretation] Yes.  And since I

 8     received this information from Mr. Lavric, I got up every time in the

 9     courtroom and repeated the same thing.  This is perhaps not the time to

10     say this, this is something I should discuss with my witnesses later; but

11     there are other indications that what I'm saying is right.  Namely, the

12     log-book of Heliodrom which has been admitted into evidence and this

13     document was never received there.  But I repeat, I will have a witness

14     who is directly linked to that.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I understand that more clearly

16     now.  This document P 3220 has probably been admitted.  Okay.  We'll take

17     note of that.

18             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC:  [Interpretation]

19        Q.   I'd like to move on to a different subject now.

20             Mr. Bozic, how often were college meetings held at the Defence

21     Department, those informal meetings you spoke about.

22        A.   That depends.  I said sometimes they would be held a couple of

23     times a month, sometimes they were well prepared with the agenda and

24     background material, as I told Mrs. Alaburic; sometimes that there was no

25     agenda, depending on what the situation called for.

Page 36416

 1        Q.   At some of those college meetings, Mr. Coric attending; right?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   At these college meetings, was it possible, and it would seem

 4     natural to me, to ask questions of any member of the college, ask for a

 5     report, put an objection to his work if there were any problems or if

 6     something needed to be discussed from the area of work of each sector.

 7        A.   The purpose of those meetings was to exchange information and to

 8     pass certain documents that would go through further procedure to see who

 9     needs to do what, to distribute obligations, and under the heading

10     current issues, you could discuss any matter at all, even if there was a

11     set agenda.

12        Q.   Apart from these college meetings, were there even more informal

13     or less formal meetings?  Because you were in the same buildings, was it

14     possible to go at any time to anyone's office to ask a question, to talk?

15        A.   Certainly.  I said that to Mrs. Alaburic to her question about

16     possibilities for communication, and I can answer the same to you.

17        Q.   Do you know if the department of military police issued daily,

18     weekly, monthly reports or bulletins?

19        A.   I know they did issue bulletins.  I don't know whether they were

20     weakly or monthly but bulletins were certainly issued.

21        Q.   Do you know who are the recipients or who had access to them?

22        A.   I would really be guessing if told that you.  I know that I saw

23     some of them, I read some of them, but who were the recipients, I

24     couldn't say.  I don't remember that.  If you showed me a bulletin,

25     perhaps I would tell you something more precise.

Page 36417

 1        Q.   Was this bulletin available to anyone within the Security Sector

 2     and the Defence Department?

 3        A.   I told you, I saw some of them, and I had occasion to read some

 4     of them.  I suppose others did too.  I can't be sure, but I suppose so.

 5        Q.   You also told us that there were semi-annual and annual reports

 6     that would later be included in the similar reports of the

 7     Defence Department; the military police department wrote semi-annual and

 8     annual reports?

 9        A.   Yes.  These reports were part of the summary report made by the

10     Defence Department and delivered to the HVO HZ-HB for further procedure.

11        Q.   Tell me, while you were working at the Defence Department, did

12     you ever see an order or an instruction addressed either to the military

13     police department or Mr. Coric personally concerning taking specific

14     action in prisons in HZ-HB?

15        A.   No, no, I don't remember seeing any such order.

16        Q.   Did you ever hear a verbal order of that kind?

17        A.   No.

18             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, this

19     concludes my cross-examination.  Thank you, Mr. Bozic, I have no further

20     questions.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Well, before the

22     break, let us see what you have to say, Mr. Ibrisimovic, will you have

23     any questions.

24             MR. IBRISIMOVIC:  [Interpretation] Mr. President, perhaps during

25     the break we can consult and then give you an answer after the break.

Page 36418

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay.

 2             Mr. Karnavas.

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  We would welcome a break as well for that purpose

 4     of consulting with our client.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fair enough.  So let's have a

 6     20-minute break.  We'll meet in 20 minutes.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Ibrisimovic.

10             MR. IBRISIMOVIC:  [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

11     Speaking of the position of the Pusic Defence and the examination of the

12     other Defence teams our position is as you stated at the beginning of the

13     session, so we have no questions of this witness.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Ibrisimovic.

15     Mr. Karnavas.

16             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Thank you, Your

17     Honours.  For the sake of brevity, I won't repeat what Mr. Ibrisimovic

18     just said, but we take the same position.  There will be no

19     cross-examination of this witness.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Karnavas.

21             Very well.  The Office of the Prosecutor has the floor.

22             MR. SCOTT:  Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours, all

23     those in and around the courtroom.

24             Your Honour, I'm going to start off by asking the Court's

25     indulgence on a number of grounds.  By all indications, we appear to be

Page 36419

 1     based on past experience and on the schedule that we've been given, ahead

 2     of schedule a bit.  I also note that today just in the course of this

 3     morning, the Prosecution has been handed several hundreds of pages of

 4     documents that we've just received for the first time.

 5             Second, further, Your Honour, I can tell that you based on the

 6     examinations conducted by Ms. Alaburic and to so some extent by the Coric

 7     Defence there's substantial overlap with some of the outlines of that

 8     that we have prepared or anticipated, and we are still also in the

 9     process of adding a few documents, although I have to -- Ms. Winner and

10     her team were so efficient that we could get most of the binders together

11     and distributed during the break.  But all that leads me to the past,

12     Your Honour, Prosecution would ask the Chamber's indulgence to begin

13     cross-examination tomorrow morning rather than starting today for all

14     those reasons.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, no, I can't agree.  I can't

16     agree, Mr. Scott.  This is my personal opinion, but I can't agree.  We

17     have time constraints.  Significant ones.  You have five hours at your

18     disposal.  After you, Ms. Nozica will probably have some questions to ask

19     to the witness during the redirect process, then Mr. Praljak will take

20     the floor, and the witness too, he also has time constraints.  As the

21     Prosecutor in this case, I'm not going to tell you what you should be

22     doing, but you should be in a position at least to start the

23     cross-examination on a certain number of issues.  You have one hour left

24     today, that shouldn't be any problem with you, and then you could

25     continue tomorrow to do the rest of the cross-examination.  I'm sure

Page 36420

 1     there are things that you are ready to address now.

 2             MR. SCOTT:  Well, Your Honour, obviously I'm in the Chamber's

 3     hands, that goes without saying.  Cross-examination is not a matter of

 4     taking certain questions randomly.  There is a certain order that makes

 5     sense and a certain order.  The order in which it was prepared is the

 6     part that directly --

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As you wish.  Hold on, hold on.

 9     We are going to confer and then we will hand over a decision.  And then I

10     will let you know what the decision of the Trial Chamber is.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber has

13     deliberated.  It was complicated, but the Trial Chamber decides that the

14     cross-examination will start tomorrow from 9.00 a.m., and the Prosecution

15     will be invited to use as best as it could the time allotted to it.

16     We'll meet again tomorrow morning at 9.00.

17                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.00 p.m.,

18                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day of

19                           February, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.